[Grem] Négy bíboros HIVATALOS ÚTON kéri F.pápát, h. hit és erkölcs kérdéseiben egyértelmű válaszokat adjon

[Emoke Greschik]

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia

Full Text and Explanatory Notes of Cardinals’ Questions on ‘Amoris Laetitia’
The full documentation relating to the cardinals’ initiative, entitled
‘Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in *Amoris Laetitia*.’
Edward Pentin

Four cardinals have turned to what they call an “age-old” process of posing
a series of questions to Pope Francis in the hope that his clarification
will help clear up “grave disorientation and great confusion” caused by key
parts of his summary document on the synod on the family, *Amoris Laetitia.*

The cardinals — Carlo Caffarra, archbishop emeritus of Bologna; Raymond
Burke, patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta; Walter BrandmĂźller,
president emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences; and
Joachim Meisner, archbishop emeritus of Cologne — sent five questions,
called *dubia* (Latin for “doubts”), to the Holy Father and Cardinal
Gerhard MĂźller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
on Sept. 19, along with an accompanying letter.

Each of the *dubia *is aimed at eliciting from the Apostolic See
clarification on key parts of the document, most notably whether it is
admissable to allow any remarried divorcees without an annulment holy
Communion.

Due to varying interpretations of this and other parts of the apostlic
exhortation *Amoris Laetitia
<https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf>*
(The
Joy of Love), some of which appear to contradict previous papal
teachings (those of Pope St. John Paul II in particular), the cardinals
said they chose to highlight those points in “charity and justice,” for the
sake of Church unity.

Consistent with his tendency of so far not responding to concerns about the
apostolic exhortation, the Holy Father also did not reply to their request,
although sources confirm that he did receive it.

The cardinals therefore said they “have interpreted his sovereign decision
as an invitation to continue the reflection and the discussion, calmly and
with respect” and “are informing the entire people of God about our
initiative, offering all of the documentation.”

Here below is the complete documentation comprising “a
necessary foreword,” the *dubia, *the accompanying letter sent to the
Pope and the cardinals’ explanatory notes.
------------------------------
*Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in Amoris Laetitia*



*1. A Necessary Foreword*



The sending of the letter to His Holiness Pope Francis by four cardinals
derives from a deep pastoral concern.

We have noted a grave disorientation and great confusion of many faithful
regarding extremely important matters for the life of the Church. We have
noted that even within the episcopal college there are contrasting
interpretations of Chapter 8 of *Amoris Laetitia*.

The great Tradition of the Church teaches us that the way out of situations
like this is recourse to the Holy Father, asking the Apostolic See to
resolve those doubts, which are the cause of disorientation and confusion.

Ours is, therefore, an act of justice and charity.

Of justice: With our initiative, we profess that the Petrine ministry is
the ministry of unity, and that to Peter, to the Pope, belongs the service
of confirming in the faith.

Of charity: We want to help the Pope to prevent divisions and conflicts in
the Church, asking him to dispel all ambiguity.

We have also carried out a specific duty. According to the Code of Canon
Law (349) the cardinals, even taken individually, are entrusted with the
task of helping the Pope to care for the universal Church.

The Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his
sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection and the
discussion, calmly and with respect.

And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative,
offering all of the documentation.

We hope that no one will choose to interpret the matter according to a
“progressive/conservative” paradigm. That would be completely off the mark.
We are deeply concerned about the true good of souls, the supreme law of
the Church, and not about promoting any form of politics in the Church.

We hope that no one will judge us unjustly, as adversaries of the Holy
Father and people devoid of mercy. What we have done and are doing derives
from the deep collegial affection that unites us to the Pope, and from an
impassioned concern for the good of the faithful.



Cardinal Walter BrandmĂźller

Cardinal Raymond L. Burke

Cardinal Carlo Caffarra

Cardinal Joachim Meisner



*2. The Letter of the Four Cardinals to the Pope*



To His Holiness Pope Francis

and for the attention of His Eminence Cardinal Gerhard L. MĂźller



Most Holy Father,

Following the publication of your apostolic exhortation *Amoris Laetitia*,
theologians and scholars have proposed interpretations that are not only
divergent, but also conflicting, above all in regard to Chapter VIII.
Moreover, the media have emphasized this dispute, thereby provoking
uncertainty, confusion and disorientation among many of the faithful.

Because of this, we the undersigned, but also many bishops and priests,
have received numerous requests from the faithful of various social strata
on the correct interpretation to give to Chapter VIII of the exhortation.

Now, compelled in conscience by our pastoral responsibility and desiring to
implement ever more that synodality to which Your Holiness urges us, with
profound respect, we permit ourselves to ask you, Holy Father, as supreme
teacher of the faith, called by the Risen One to confirm his brothers in
the faith, to resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity, benevolently
giving a response to the *dubia* that we attach the present letter.

May Your Holiness wish to bless us, as we promise constantly to remember
you in prayer.



Cardinal Walter BrandmĂźller

Cardinal Raymond L. Burke

Cardinal Carlo Caffarra

Cardinal Joachim Meisner



Rome, September 19, 2016



*3. The Dubia*

   1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of *Amoris Laetitia*
   (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament
   of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by
   a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person *more
   uxorio* without fulfilling the conditions provided for by *Familiaris
   Consortio, *84, and subsequently reaffirmed by *Reconciliatio et
   Paenitentia, *34, and *Sacramentum Caritatis,* 29. Can the expression
   “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation *Amoris
   Laetitia* be applied to *divorced persons who are in a new union and who
   continue to live more uxorio?*

   2. After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation *Amoris
   Laetitia* (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of
   St. John Paul II’s encyclical *Veritatis Splendor, *79, based on sacred
   Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of *absolute
   moral norms* that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding
   without exceptions?

   3. After *Amoris Laetitia *(301) is it still possible to affirm that a
   person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law,
   as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him
   or herself in an *objective situation of grave habitual sin* (Pontifical
   Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?

   4. After the affirmations of *Amoris Laetitia* (302) on “*circumstances
   which mitigate* moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as
   valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical *Veritatis
Splendor,* 81,
   based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to
   which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically
   evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible
   as a choice”?

   5. After *Amoris Laetitia *(303) does one still need to regard as valid
   the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical *Veritatis Splendor, *56,
   based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes
   a creative interpretation of the *role of conscience *and that
   emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions
   to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of
   their object?



*4. Explanatory Note of the Four Cardinals*



*CONTEXT*



*Dubia* (from the Latin: “doubts”) are formal questions brought before the
Pope and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking for
clarifications on particular issues concerning doctrine or practice.

What is peculiar about these inquiries is that they are worded in a way
that requires a “Yes” or “No” answer, without theological argumentation.
This way of addressing the Apostolic See is not an invention of our own; it
is an age-old practice.

Let’s get to what is concretely at stake.

Upon the publication of the post-synodal apostolic exhortation *Amoris
Laetitia* on love in the family, a debate has arisen particularly around
its eighth chapter. Here specifically, Paragraphs 300-305 have been the
object of divergent interpretations.

For many — bishops, priests, faithful — these paragraphs allude to or even
explicitly teach a change in the discipline of the Church with respect to
the divorced who are living in a new union, while others, admitting the
lack of clarity or even the ambiguity of the passages in question,
nonetheless argue that these same pages can be read in continuity with the
previous magisterium and do not contain a modification in the Church’s
practice and teaching.

Motivated by a pastoral concern for the faithful, four cardinals have sent
a letter to the Holy Father under the form of *dubia*, hoping to receive
clarity, given that doubt and uncertainty are always highly detrimental to
pastoral care.

The fact that interpreters come to different conclusions is also due to
divergent ways of understanding the Christian moral life. In this sense,
what is at stake in *Amoris Laetitia* is not only the question of whether
or not the divorced who have entered into a new union can — under certain
circumstances — be readmitted to the sacraments.

Rather, the interpretation of the document also implies different,
contrasting approaches to the Christian way of life.

Thus, while the first question of the *dubia* concerns a practical question
regarding the divorced and civilly remarried, the other four questions
touch on fundamental issues of the Christian life.





*THE QUESTIONS*



*Doubt No. 1:*

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of *Amoris Laetitia*
(300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament
of penance, and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound
by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person *more
uxorio* without fulfilling the conditions provided for by *Familiaris
Consortio,* 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by *Reconciliatio et
Paenitentia,* 34, and *Sacramentum Caritatis, *29. Can the expression “in
certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation *Amoris Laetitia*
be applied to *divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to
live more uxorio?*

Question 1 makes particular reference to *Amoris Laetitia, *305, and to
Footnote 351. While Note 351 specifically speaks of the sacraments of
penance and Communion, it does not mention the divorced and civilly
remarried in this context, nor does the main text.

Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation *Familiaris Consortio*, 84,
already contemplated the possibility of admitting the divorced and civilly
remarried to the sacraments. It mentions three conditions:



   - The persons concerned cannot separate without committing new
   injustices (for instance, they may be responsible for the upbringing of
   their children);
   - They take upon themselves the commitment to live according to the
   truth of their situation, that is, to cease living together as if they were
   husband and wife (*more uxorio*), abstaining from those acts that are
   proper to spouses;
   - They avoid giving scandal (that is, they avoid giving the appearance
   of sin so as to avoid the danger of leading others into sin).



The conditions mentioned by *Familiaris Consortio,* 84, and by the
subsequent documents recalled will immediately appear reasonable once we
remember that the marital union is not just based on mutual affection and
that sexual acts are not just one activity among others that couples engage
in.

Sexual relations are for marital love. They are something so important, so
good and so precious that they require a particular context, the context of
marital love. Hence, not only the divorced living in a new union need to
abstain, but also everyone who is not married. For the Church, the Sixth
Commandment — “Do not commit adultery” — has always covered any exercise of
human sexuality that is not marital, i.e., any kind of sexual relations
other than those engaged in with one’s rightful spouse.

It would seem that admitting to Communion those of the faithful who are
separated or divorced from their rightful spouse and who have entered a new
union in which they live with someone else as if they were husband and wife
would mean for the Church to *teach by her practice* one of the following
affirmations about marriage, human sexuality and the nature of the
sacraments:



   - A divorce does not dissolve the marriage bond, and the partners to the
   new union are not married. However, *people who are not married can
   under certain circumstances legitimately engage in acts of sexual intimacy.*
   -  *A divorce dissolves the marriage bond.* People who are not married
   cannot legitimately engage in sexual acts. The divorced and remarried are
   legitimate spouses and their sexual acts are lawful marital acts.
   - A divorce does not dissolve the marriage bond, and the partners to the
   new union are not married. People who are not married cannot legitimately
   engage in sexual acts, so that the divorced and civilly remarried live in a
   situation of habitual, public, objective and grave sin. However, admitting
   persons to the Eucharist does not mean for the Church to approve their
   public state of life; the faithful can approach the Eucharistic table even
   with consciousness of grave sin, and receiving absolution in the sacrament
   of penance does not always require the purpose of amending one’s life.*
   The sacraments, therefore, are detached from life: Christian rites and
   worship are on a completely different sphere than the Christian moral life.
    *



*Doubt No. 2:*

After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation *Amoris Laetitia*
(304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul
II’s encyclical *Veritatis Splendor, *79, based on sacred Scripture and on
the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of *absolute moral norms*
that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without
exceptions?

The second question regards the existence of so-called intrinsically evil
acts. John Paul II’s encyclical *Veritatis Splendor, *79, claims that one
can “qualify as morally evil according to its species … the deliberate
choice of certain kinds of behavior or specific acts, apart from a
consideration of the intention for which the choice is made or the totality
of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.”

Thus, the encyclical teaches that there are acts that are always evil,
which are forbidden by moral norms that bind without exception (“moral
absolutes”). These moral absolutes are always negative, that is, they tell
us what we should *not* do. “Do not kill.” “Do not commit adultery.” Only
negative norms can bind without exception.

According to *Veritatis Splendor, *with intrinsically evil acts no
discernment of circumstances or intentions is necessary. Uniting oneself to
a woman who is married to another is and remains an act of adultery, that
as such is never to be done, even if by doing so an agent could possibly
extract precious secrets from a villain’s wife so as to save the kingdom
(what sounds like an example from a James Bond movie has already been
contemplated by St. Thomas Aquinas, *De Malo, *q. 15, a. 1). John Paul II
argues that the intention (say, “saving the kingdom”) does not change the
species of the act (here: “committing adultery”), and that it is enough to
know the species of the act (“adultery”) to know that one must not do it.



*Doubt No. 3:*

After *Amoris Laetitia *(301) is it still possible to affirm that a person
who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for
instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew19:3-9), finds him or
herself in an *objective situation of grave habitual sin* (Pontifical
Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?

In Paragraph 301, *Amoris Laetitia* recalls that: “The Church possesses a
solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations.” And
it concludes that “hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in
any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are
deprived of sanctifying grace.”

In its “Declaration,” of June 24, 2000, the Pontifical Council for
Legislative Texts seeks to clarify Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law,
which states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are
not to be admitted to holy Communion.” The Pontifical Council’s
“Declaration” argues that this canon is applicable also to faithful who are
divorced and civilly remarried. It spells out that “grave sin” has to be
understood objectively, given that the minister of the Eucharist has no
means of judging another person’s subjective imputability.

Thus, for the “Declaration,” the question of the admission to the
sacraments is about judging a person’s objective life situation and not
about judging that this person is in a state of mortal sin. Indeed,
subjectively he or she may not be fully imputable or not be imputable at
all.

Along the same lines, in his encyclical *Ecclesia de Eucharistia, *37,
St. John Paul II recalls that “the judgment of one’s state of grace
obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of
examining one’s conscience.” Hence, the distinction referred to by *Amoris
Laetitia* between the subjective situation of *mortal* sin and the
objective situation of *grave* sin is indeed well established in the
Church’s teaching.

John Paul II, however, continues by insisting that “in cases of outward
conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral
norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the
community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel
directly involved.” He then reiterates the teaching of Canon 915 mentioned
above.

Question 3 of the *Dubia,* hence, would like to clarify whether, even
after *Amoris
Laetitia, *it is still possible to say that persons who habitually live in
contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, such as the commandment
against adultery, theft, murder or perjury, live in objective situations of
grave habitual sin, even if, for whatever reasons, it is not certain that
they are subjectively imputable for their habitual transgressions.



*Doubt No. 4:*

After the affirmations of *Amoris Laetitia* (302) on “*circumstances which
mitigate* moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the
teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical *Veritatis Splendor, *81, based
on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which
“circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil
by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a
choice”?

In Paragraph 302, *Amoris Laetitia *stresses that on account of mitigating
circumstances “a negative judgment about an objective situation does not
imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person
involved.” The *Dubia* point to the Church’s teaching as expressed in John
Paul II’s *Veritatis Splendor, *according to which circumstances or good
intentions can never turn an intrinsically evil act into one that is
excusable or even good.

The question arises whether *Amoris Laetitia, *too, is agreed that any act
that transgresses against God’s commandments, such as adultery, murder,
theft or perjury, can never, on account of circumstances that mitigate
personal responsibility, become excusable or even good.

Do these acts, which the Church’s Tradition has called bad in themselves
and grave sins, continue to be destructive and harmful for anyone
committing them in whatever subjective state of moral responsibility he may
be?

Or could these acts, depending on a person’s subjective state and depending
on the circumstances and intentions, cease to be injurious and become
commendable or at least excusable?



*Doubt No. 5:*

After *Amoris Laetitia *(303) does one still need to regard as valid the
teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical *Veritatis Splendor, *56, based
on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a
creative interpretation of the *role of conscience* and that emphasizes
that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to
absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of
their object?

*Amoris Laetitia, *303, states that “conscience can do more than recognize
that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall
demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty
what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God.” The
*Dubia* ask for a clarification of these affirmations, given that they are
susceptible to divergent interpretations.

For those proposing the creative idea of conscience, the precepts of God’s
law and the norm of the individual conscience can be in tension or even in
opposition, while the final word should always go to conscience that
ultimately decides about good and evil. According to *Veritatis Splendor, *56,
“on this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’
solutions contrary to the teaching of the magisterium, and to justify a
‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way
obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept.”

In this perspective, it will never be enough for moral conscience to know
“this is adultery,” or “this is murder,” in order to know that this is
something one cannot and must not do.

Rather, one would also need to look at the circumstances or the intentions
to know if this act could not, after all, be excusable or even obligatory
(Question 4 of the *Dubia*). For these theories, conscience could indeed
rightfully decide that, in a given case, God’s will for me consists in an
act by which I transgress one of his commandments. “Do not commit adultery”
is seen as just a general norm. In the here and now, and given my good
intentions, committing adultery is what God really requires of me.  Under
these terms, cases of virtuous adultery, lawful murder and obligatory
perjury are at least conceivable.

This would mean to conceive of conscience as a faculty for autonomously
deciding about good and evil and of God’s law as a burden that is
arbitrarily imposed and that could at times be opposed to our true
happiness.

However, conscience does not *decide* about good and evil. The whole idea
of a “decision of conscience” is misleading. The proper act of conscience
is to judge and not to decide. It says, “This is good.” “This is bad.” This
goodness or badness does not depend on it. It acknowledges and recognizes
the goodness or badness of an action, and for doing so, that is, for
judging, conscience needs criteria; it is inherently dependent on truth.

God’s commandments are a most welcome help for conscience to get to know
the truth and hence to judge verily. God’s commandments are the expression
of the truth about our good, about our very being, disclosing something
crucial about how to live life well. Pope Francis, too, expresses himself
in these terms, when, in *Amoris Laetitia, *295: “The law is itself a gift
of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception.”

*Translation provided by the cardinal signatories.*

*Edward Pentin <http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/>is the
Register's Rome correspondent.*

2016-11-17 17:21 GMT+01:00 KEA <kea at turul.banki.hu>:

> Ha a bevezető többi mondata igaz, akkor az utolsó mondat is a helyén
> van. Számomra ennél fontosabbnak tűnik, hogy milyen hiteles(nek tűnő)
> forrĂĄsaink vannak. MinimĂĄlis guglizĂĄs alapjĂĄn a magyar szĂśvegre:
>
> http://www.eucharisztikuskongresszus.hu/hit_154.html
>
> ĂĄltala hivatkozott angol forrĂĄs:
>
> http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/cardinal-burke-if-
> pope-persists-in.html#more
>
> SzĂłval megnyugtatĂł lenne mĂĄs egyĂŠb, ismertebb forrĂĄs fellelĂŠse.
>
> KĂśszĂśnĂśm:
> KEA.
>
> On 11/17/2016 05:06 PM, Emoke Greschik wrote:
> > HelyesbĂ­tĂŠs:
> > Szerintem, a továbbított bevezetőben szereplő utolsó mondat
> > igazságtartalma megkérdőjelezhető. Tehát, a levél elment F. pápának, és
> > remélhetőleg válaszolni fog.
> > Nagyon bánt, hogy nem voltam megfontoltabb és nem töröltem a bevezető
> > rĂŠsz utolsĂł mondatĂĄt. SajĂĄt tudatotokban, kĂŠrlek tĂśrĂśljĂŠtek.
> >
> > 2016-11-17 16:50 GMT+01:00 Emoke Greschik <greschem at gmail.com
> > <mailto:greschem at gmail.com>>:
> >
> >     *Négy bíboros HIVATALOS ÚTON azzal a kéréssel fordult
> >
> >     Ferenc pĂĄpĂĄhoz, hogy tisztĂĄzza az Amoris Laetitia
> >
> >     félreérthető pontjait *
> >
> >
> >     /*PĂĄpĂĄhoz *az ellenreformĂĄciĂł Ăłta mĂŠg sohasem *fordultak sajĂĄt
> >     bĂ­borosai nyilvĂĄnosan olyan *kĂŠnyes Ăźgyben kĂŠrdĂŠssel, *hogy
> >     tisztĂĄzzon egy ĂĄltala kibocsĂĄtott dokumentumot.* *A levĂŠl Ăśt
> >     tisztĂĄzandĂł kĂŠrdĂŠst ("dubia" -t) tartalmaz ĂŠs nĂŠgy bĂ­boros Ă­rta alĂĄ
> >     szeptember 18-ĂĄn: az olasz CarlĂł Caffarra, Bologna nyugalmazott
> >     ĂŠrseke, az amerikai Raymond Burke, az Apostoli Signatura jelenlegi
> >     elnĂśke, a nĂŠmet Walter BrandmĂźller ĂŠs Joachim Meisner, KĂśln
> >     nyugalmazott ĂŠrseke*. Ez az igazi - erkĂślcsi termĂŠszetĹą -
> >     fĂśldrengĂŠs. A pĂĄpai szenĂĄtus nĂŠgy tagja (akik velĂźk egyetĂŠrtenek, de
> >     nem vĂĄllaljĂĄk a nyilvĂĄnossĂĄgot, sokkal tĂśbben vannak) *a hitet ĂŠs
> >     erkölcsöt érintő kérdéssel, dubia-val fordult Ferenc pápához,
> >     amelyre az egyhĂĄzi tĂśrvĂŠnyek ĂŠrtelmĂŠben a pĂĄpa kĂśteles lett volna
> >     vĂĄlaszt adni: vagy pozitĂ­v igen-t, vagy negatĂ­v nem-et, akĂĄr
> >     magyarázattal is, de köteles lett volna választ adni.* *És a pápa
> >     tudtul adta a négy bíborosnak, hogy NEM FOG NEKIK VÁLASZT ADNI. És
> >     ez a csĂśnd az, ami megrengeti a fĂśldet.* /
> >
> >
> >     A levĂŠl:
> >
> >     *Ferenc påpa ŐszentsÊgÊnek
> >     ĂŠs Gerhard L. MĂźller bĂ­boros eminenciĂĄs Ăşr figyelmĂŠbe
> >
> >     Szentatya,
> >
> >     Az Amoris Laetitia apostoli buzdĂ­tĂĄst, kĂźlĂśnĂśsen a VIII. fejezetĂŠt,
> >     a nyilvánosságra hozatalát követően teológusok és hittudósok
> >     különböző, sőt, ellentmondásos értelemben magyarázták. A média
> >     rĂĄadĂĄsul mĂŠg jobban kiĂŠlezte ezt a vitĂĄt, ezzel a hĂ­vek kĂśzĂśtt
> >     bizonytalansĂĄgot, zavart ĂŠs irĂĄnyvesztĂŠst okozott.
> >
> >     Emiatt alulírottak, de még sok már püspök és pap is, a hívektől
> >     szĂĄmtalan kĂŠrdĂŠst kapott az Amoris Laetitia VIII. fejezetĂŠnek
> >     magyarĂĄzatĂĄra vonatkozĂłan.
> >
> >     Ezért most, lelkipásztori felelősségünk tudatában és a Szentséged
> >     ĂĄltal szorgalmazott szinoditĂĄs gyakorlatba ĂźltetĂŠsĂŠnek a vĂĄgyĂĄval,
> >     mĂŠly tisztelettel bĂĄtorkodunk megkĂŠrni SzentsĂŠgedet, mint a hit
> >     legfőbb tanítóját, akit a Feltámadott arra szólított fel, hogy
> >     erősítse meg testvéreit a hitben, hogy oszlassa el a
> >     bizonytalansĂĄgokat ĂŠs hozzon vilĂĄgossĂĄgot, hogy a jelen levelĂźnkhĂśz
> >     mellĂŠkelt Dubia-ra szĂ­veskedjen vĂĄlaszt adni .
> >
> >     KĂŠrjĂźk SzentsĂŠged ĂĄldĂĄsĂĄt ĂŠs Ă­gĂŠrjĂźk, mi is imĂĄinkba foglaljuk
> >     SzentsĂŠgedet.
> >
> >     Walter BrandmĂźller bĂ­boros
> >
> >     Raymond L. Burke bĂ­boros
> >
> >     Carlo Caffarra bĂ­boros
> >
> >     Joachim Meisner bĂ­boros
> >
> >     RĂłma, 2016, szeptember 9.
> >
> >     ***
> >
> >     A KÉRDÉSEK
> >
> >     1. sz. tisztĂĄzandĂł kĂŠrdĂŠs:
> >
> >     Azt kĂŠrdezzĂźk, hogy az Amoris Laetitia ĂĄllĂ­tĂĄsĂĄt (nn. 300-305)
> >     követően, lehetséges-e most egy olyan személynek feloldozást adni és
> >     a bĹąnbĂĄnat szentsĂŠgĂŠt kiszolgĂĄltatni ĂŠs szentĂĄldozĂĄshoz jĂĄrulni
> >     engedni, aki, bĂĄr ĂŠrvĂŠnyes hĂĄzassĂĄga van, de egy mĂĄsik szemĂŠllyel ĂŠl
> >     egyĂźtt Ăşgy, mint fĂŠrj ĂŠs felesĂŠg anĂŠlkĂźl, hogy teljesĂ­tenĂŠk a
> >     Familiaris Consortio n. 84 feltĂŠteleit, amelyeket a Reconciliatio et
> >     Paenitentia n. 34 és a Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29 is megerősített.
> >     A "bizonyos esetekben" kifejezĂŠs, amely az Amoris Laetitia 351.
> >     lĂĄbjegyzetĂŠben (n. 305) talĂĄlhatĂł, alkalmazhatĂł-e azokra az elvĂĄlt
> >     szemĂŠlyekre, akik Ăşj kapcsolatot lĂŠtesĂ­tettek ĂŠs fĂŠrj-felesĂŠgkĂŠnt
> ĂŠlnek?
> >     (...)
> >
> >     2. sz. tisztĂĄzandĂł kĂŠrdĂŠs:
> >
> >     Az Amoris Laetitia (cf. n. 304), szinĂłdus utĂĄni apostoli buzdĂ­tĂĄs
> >     után, még mindig érvényesnek tekinthető-e Szent II. János Pál II.
> >     enciklikĂĄja, a Veritatis Splendor n. 79, amely a SzentĂ­rĂĄs ĂŠs az
> >     Egyház hagyományára épül az abszolút erkölcsi normákat illetően,
> >     amely eredendően megtilt minden rossz cselekedetet, és amely
> >     kötelező érvényű bármiféle kivétel nélkül?
> >     (...)
> >
> >     3. sz. tisztĂĄzandĂł kĂŠrdĂŠs:
> >
> >     Az Amoris Laetitia (n. 301) utĂĄn lehetsĂŠges-e azt ĂĄllĂ­tani, hogy az
> >     a szemĂŠly, aki az Isten egyik, nevezetesen a hĂĄzassĂĄgtĂśrĂŠst tiltĂł
> >     tĂśrvĂŠnyĂŠnek ellentmondĂłan ĂŠl ĂŠletvitelszerĹąen(cf. Mt 19:3-9), a
> >     sĂşlyos bĹąn objektĂ­v ĂĄllapotĂĄban van?
> >     (...)
> >
> >     4. sz. tisztĂĄzandĂł kĂŠrdĂŠs:
> >
> >     Az Amoris Laetitia (n. 302) "kĂśrĂźlmĂŠnyek, amelyek enyhĂ­tik az
> >     erkölcsi felelősséget" állítása után még mindig érvényesnek
> >     tekinthető-e Szent II. János Pál pápa Veritatis Splendor n. 81
> >     enciklikĂĄja, amely a SzentĂ­rĂĄson ĂŠs az EgyhĂĄz hagyomĂĄnyĂĄn alapul,
> >     amely szerint: " Ezért egy tárgya miatt bensőleg rossz cselekedetet
> >     a kĂśrĂźlmĂŠnyek vagy a szĂĄndĂŠk soha nem tudna ĂĄtalakĂ­tani
> >     „szubjektíve” jó vagy megvédhető választássá."?
> >     (...)
> >
> >     5. sz. tisztĂĄzandĂł kĂŠrdĂŠs:
> >
> >     Az Amoris Laetitia (n. 303) után még mindig érvényesnek tekinthető-e
> >     Szent II. JĂĄnos PĂĄl pĂĄpa Veritatis Splendor n. 56 enciklikĂĄja, amely
> >     a SzentĂ­rĂĄson ĂŠs az EgyhĂĄz hagyomĂĄnyĂĄn alapul, amely kizĂĄrja a
> >     lelkiismeret szerepĂŠnek kreatĂ­v ĂŠrtelmezĂŠsĂŠt, ĂŠs amely hangsĂşlyozza,
> >     hogy a lelkiismeret sohasem lehet jogosult kivĂŠteleket tenni az
> >     abszolút erkölcsi normákat illetően és amely megtiltja azt, 'ami az
> >     elvont erkölcsi törvény szerint bensőleg rossz'?
> >     (...)*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Grem mailing list
> > Grem at turul.kgk.uni-obuda.hu
> > http://turul.kgk.uni-obuda.hu/mailman/listinfo/grem
> >
>
> --
>
> Üdvrivalgással:
> KEA.
> _______________________________________________
> Grem mailing list
> Grem at turul.kgk.uni-obuda.hu
> http://turul.kgk.uni-obuda.hu/mailman/listinfo/grem
>
--------- következő rész ---------
Egy csatolt HTML ĂĄllomĂĄny ĂĄt lett konvertĂĄlva...
URL: http://turul.kgk.uni-obuda.hu/pipermail/grem/attachments/20161117/fdc1155c/attachment.html