Monday, February 20, 2017

Concerning Amoris Laetitia, Its Authority and Import on the Faithful of the Catholic Church

Summary:

Question 1: Are the papally approved documents of Ecumenical Councils in general, and Vatican II in particular, Infallible? Yes.
Question 2: Do papal Pastoral Letters demand the assent of the laity? Yes. Through the lens of Existing Infallible Teaching and the interpretation of the Bishops.
Question 3: Does Amoris Laetitia teach definitively that there exist cases where person A with a valid marriage to person B can civilly divorce person B, and while person B yet lives, civilly marry person C, and be having sex with person C, and be determined in his own mind to continue having sex with person C, yet receive Holy Communion licitly at the hands of a priest who knows the situation? No. Rather, we can know (1) from the perennial teaching of the Church and (2) the particular clarification of those Bishops teaching in continuity with that tradition, that there can be no such cases.
Conclusion: The laity can say that the sacraments have been denied uniformly to those living consciously in objective mortal sin. This is the teaching of Pope St. John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio, and the Deposit of Faith.

Body:
Question 1: Are the papally approved documents of Ecumenical Councils in general, and Vatican II in particular, Infallible?

Yes. There are some who say that the explicitly dogmatic documents of Vatican II are not infallible. But this is not in keeping with the teaching of the Church's Infallibility in General. For how else can the Church exercise her infallibility but by the explicit dogmatic teaching of Ecumenical Councils? And how could Christ's promises to the disciples be fulfilled that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all the truth (John 14), and the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16) if the bishops of the world assembled and approved by the Pope, declaring dogma to the Church, could err? Any other way lies madness and schism.

 The infallibility of dogma proposed by any ecumenical council (1) summoned by a reigning Pope, (2) presided over by a reigning Pope, and (3) approved by a reigning pope, must be admitted by anyone who believes in the Church's infallible teaching authority in any sense.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia says,
An ecumenical or general, as distinguished from a particular or provincial council, is an assembly of bishops which juridically represents the universal Church as hierarchically constituted by Christ; and, since the primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church, it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope. No body can perform a strictly corporate function validly without the consent and co-operation of its head. Hence:
  • the right to summon an ecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum, the summons may be issued, as in the case of most of the early councils, in the name of the civil authority. For ecumenicity in the adequate sense all the bishops of the world in communion with the Holy See should be summoned, but it is not required that all or even a majority should be present.
  • As regards the conduct of the deliberations, the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative; while as regards the decisions arrived at unanimity is not required.
2
That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself, unless indeed through the pope? If Christ promised to be present with even two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name (Matthew 18:20), a fortiori He will be present efficaciously in a representative assembly of His authorized teachers; and the Paraclete whom He promised will be present, so that whatever the council defines may be prefaced with the Apostolic formula, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." And this is the view which the councils held regarding their own authority and upon which the defender of orthodoxy insisted. The councils insisted on their definitions being accepted under pain of anathema, while St. Athanasius, for example, says that "the word of the Lord pronounced by the ecumenical synod of Nicaea stands for ever" (Ep. ad Afros, n. 2) and St. Leo the Great proves the unchangeable character of definitive conciliar teaching on the ground that God has irrevocably confirmed its truth "universae fraternitatis irretractabili firmavit assensu" (Ep. 120, 1).
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II
Question 2: Do papal exhortations, letters, encyclicals and other documents addressed to the laity demand the assent of the laity?

Yes. Having established its unquestionable infallibility, we may now appeal with sureness to The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium Chapter III, paragraph 25, drafted at the Second Vatican Council, and promulgated by Pope Paul VI:
Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated. 
Source: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v3.html (Emphasis mine, not in original.)
Clearly then, as a Post-Synodal Exhortation addressed explicitly to the lay faithful (as well as the bishops, priests, deacons and consecrated) on love in the family, Amoris Laetitia must be given "sincere assent" by them all, unless it is contradicted by an infallible teaching, or until it is contradicted by a succeeding Pope while reigning, even though it is not itself infallible. It must also be read through the lens of the interpretation of Bishops, as described in the first sentence of paragraph 25 above.

 Source: https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf (See Page 1.)

Question 3: Does Amoris Laetitia teach definitively that there exist cases where person A with a valid marriage to person B can civilly divorce person B, and while person B yet lives, civilly marry person C, and be having sex with person C, and be determined to continue having sex with person C, yet receive Holy Communion licitly?

No. The language of Amoris Laetitia is too vague to admit of this degree of certainty although its text might seem to be conformable to this meaning. While it speaks amorphously of people in '"irregular" situations' and "objective situations of sin" without specifying whether such sin is original, venial or mortal. Rather, what is required is reading the document in the context of the Deposit of Faith. The constant and well-known teaching of the Church is that those who persist in mortal sin without repenting, turning from their way of sin and having validly received sacramental confession, cannot receive the sacrament of Eucharist licitly.

Furthermore, for those under the authority of Bishop Lopes, he has (in keeping with the authority defined in Lumen Gentium recorded above, "to teach the faithful, who are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind.") explained this potentially difficult passage so as to exclude the situation described in Question 3 above:

The Church accompanies as Teacher and Mother, confident that with the grace and assistance of God, conscience can “remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized” (Amoris Laetitia, 303).
The formation of conscience “can include the help of the sacraments,” including reconciliation and, under certain conditions, the Eucharist (351). As the Church teaches, and has always and firmly maintained, because reception of the Eucharist is the reception of Christ himself, “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of reconciliation before coming to Communion” (Catechism, 1385). St. Paul cautioned that “anyone who eats and drinks unworthily, without discerning the Body of the Lord, eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Corinthians 11:29), as Pope St. John Paul II reaffirmed: “In the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul’s stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, ‘one must first confess one’s sins, when one is aware of mortal sin’” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 36).
Under the guidance of their pastor, avoiding occasions of confusion or scandal, divorced-and-civilly-remarried persons may receive the Eucharist, on the condition that when, “for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’” (Familiaris Consortio, 84). A civilly-remarried couple, if committed to complete continence, could have the Eucharist available to them, after proper discernment with their pastor and making recourse to the sacrament of reconciliation. Such a couple may experience continence as difficult, and they may sometimes fail, in which case they are, like any Christian, to repent, confess their sins, and begin anew.
Source: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/56718322/1701-ocsp-pastoral-letter/1





Source: https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

Link to the quoted portion of the Summa above.

The document clearly refers to those living in "irregular" situations and says in connection with them that moral laws cannot blindly be applied to them and that the sacraments can in certain cases due to forms of conditioning and mitigating factors be given to them.

Conclusion:
The laity can say that the sacraments have been denied uniformly to those living consciously and willingly in objective grave sin (the definition of sin that is mortal); This is the teaching of Pope Francis as it was the teaching of Pope St. John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio (most relevant passage bolded below by me):

84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that like the others is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The synod fathers studied it expressly. The church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.Pastors must know that for the sake of truth they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is, in fact, a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned and those who, through their own grave fault, have destroyed a canonically valid marriage.Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children's upbringing and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.Together with the synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the church, for as baptized persons they can and indeed must share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace. Let the church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother and thus sustain them in faith and hope.However, the church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon sacred scripture, of not admitting to eucharistic communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the church which is signified and effected by the eucharist. Besides this there is another special pastoral reason: If these people were admitted to the eucharist the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.Reconciliation in the sacrament of penance, which would open the way to the eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the convenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons such as, for example, the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."[180] 
Source: https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2famil.htm (must scroll down to section 84)