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

[Emoke Greschik]

és egy cikk alább PH. Lawler-től
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=1185

Phil Lawler <http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=1185>
comments on Cardinal Burke, Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia.
On request for clarification of Amoris Laetitia, the Pope’s silence speaks
volumes

*By Phil Lawler* (bio
<http://www.catholicculture.org/about/leadership/bio_phil_lawler.cfm> -
articles <http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/authors.cfm?authorid=3>
- email
<http://www.catholicculture.org/contact/index.cfm?aid=3&purpose=highlights&Subject=%20On%20The%20News%3A%20On%20request%20for%20clarification%20of%20Amoris%20Laetitia%2C%20the%20Pope%26rsquo%3Bs%20silence%20speaks%20volumes>)
| Nov 16, 2016

We should not be surprised that the Pope has declined a request for
clarification of *Amoris Laetitia*. Are faithful Catholics confused by that
document? Absolutely. That is the Holy Father’s intent. The confusion is
not a bug; it’s a feature.

The defenders of the papal document (and those defenders are becoming
downright belligerent; see below) insist that the notorious 8th chapter is
clear enough, and that the four cardinals who have raised questions about
its meaning are merely being argumentative. But if that were the case, the
Pontiff could have avoided this public embarrassment by answering the
cardinals’ questions. He chose not to do so.

There are only two possible ways to interpret the Pope’s silence. Either he
is being remarkably rude to the men who are his closest counselors, flatly
refusing to answer their honest request, or he does not want to give a
straight answer. Or both.

The one possibility that can be quickly excluded from our discussion is
that the Pope believes the interpretation of *Amoris Laetitia* is already
clear to the faithful. It is not. After two years of intense debate on the
most controversial question involved—whether divorced and remarried
Catholics may be admitted to Communion—intelligent and informed Catholics
are still unsure as to what, exactly, Pope Francis has taught us.

If the papal teaching is clear, how can it mean one thing in Poland, and
another in Germany? If the final answer to that vexed question is No in
Philadelphia and Portland, how can it be Yes in Chicago and San Diego? If
some bishops are interpreting the papal document incorrectly, why have they
not been corrected?

Since the revelation that this massive confusion prompted four
conscientious cardinals to press the Pope for clarification, several people
have asked me how long it ordinarily takes for a Pope to respond to *dubia*
of this sort. There is no good answer to that question, because there is no
precedent for this query. Ordinarily, papal documents are clear. If any
confusion arises from papal statements, a clarification usually follows
quickly—long before any formal *dubium* could be raised—because the very
*point* of papal teaching is to provide clarity. Usually. But this is a
different case.

In any case, nearly two months have passed since the cardinals raised their
questions. During that span the Pope has found time for at least two
lengthy conversations with his friend Eugenio Scalfari, the leftist
journalist. Is it unreasonable to suggest that he should have also found
time to speak with four troubled members of the College of Cardinals?

Actually the Pontiff *did* meet with one of those prelates, Cardinal
Raymond Burke, in a private audience on November 10: just a few days before
the cardinals made their query public. I have no special knowledge about
what took place during that audience, but it is inconceivable to me that
Cardinal Burke, who is punctilious in his observance of ecclesiastical
propriety, would have failed to raise the matter directly.

(The next day, the Pope met in another private audience with Cardinal
Gerhard MĂźller, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith (CDF), who had also received the cardinals’ letter with its list of
*dubia*. Was the topic raised again, I wonder? If so, what instructions did
the Pontiff give Cardinal MĂźller? All we know is that the four cardinals
did not receive a response to their questions.)

Cardinal Burke and his three confreres have interpreted the Pope’s silence
as an invitation to further discussion of the questions
<http://www.catholicaction.org/interview_with_cardinal_burke_about_the_dubia>
among the faithful. That is, frankly, a charitable reading—especially since
the topic has already been discussed so exhaustively for so many months.

John Allen of Crux has a different reading of the Pope’s intentions
<https://cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/11/14/francis-rd-strategy-divorcedremarried/>:
“Maybe this is his version of Catholic R&D, letting things play out for a
while on the ground before he says anything irreversible.” In other words,
maybe the Pope is deliberately creating room for pastoral experimentation,
to see what works. Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane, Australia seems
comfortable with that approach. “Pastoral care moves within ambiguity,” he
wrote on his Twitter account. In a bit of a slap at the four cardinals, he
added: “We now need a pastoral patience not the quick-fix anxiety voiced
here.”

(Speaking of quick-fix anxiety, could I digress for a moment, to ask why
the leadership of the Catholic Church has been fixated on this question for
the past two years? Where—outside of Germany—is the enormous demand for a
change in Church discipline on this matter? Where are the outcries from the
faithful? At a time when families are imploding, children are abandoned,
and a steadily decreasing number of Catholics even bother with sacramental
marriage, how can any rational cleric believe that *this* is the question
most urgently in need of attention?)

However, if John Allen and Archbishop Coleridge believe that the Pope is
encouraging experimentation by leaving matters unsettled, another
observer—one much closer to the Pope—insists that the meaning of *Amoris
Laetitia* *has* been settled. Father Antonio Spadaro, the editor of *La
Civilta Cattolica*, reacted to the four cardinals’ public letter with a
multi-lingual Tweet-storm of harsh statements.

“The Pope has ‘clarified.’ Those who don’t like what they hear pretend not
to hear it!” Father Spadaro wrote. He attached a link to an informal letter
the Pope wrote to bishops in Argentina, approving of their interpretation
of the document. But of course a leaked letter, even from the Roman
Pontiff, is not a magisterial document. And the Argentine bishops’ reading
of *Amoris Laetitia* left plenty of questions unanswered; it did not, for
instance, address the *dubia* raised by the four cardinals.

Later Father Spadaro tweeted again: “Amoris Laetitia is an act of the
Magisterium (card. Schönborn) so don’t keep asking the same question until
you get the answer *you* want...” Now, obviously, he was taunting the
beleaguered cardinals. He was certainly not answering their questions about
how this “act of the magisterium” should be understood; he was telling them
to stop asking pesky questions.

Father Spadaro plays a special role here—indeed he might be accused of
conflicts of interest when he responds to critics of the papal document.
The Jesuit priest is widely acknowledged as one of the closest advisers to
Pope Francis, and often credited with a major role in drafting *Amoris
Laetitia*. So if he wants cardinals to stop asking difficult questions, it
is not unreasonable to suspect that the Pope himself wants to bury those
questions. And the Pope’s silence conveys the same message.

Why would the Pope avoid answering questions? Why would he allow the
confusion to persist? Perhaps because he wants to allow something that goes
beyond experimentation: a *de facto* change in Church discipline, which
will entail a *de facto* change in Church teaching. Perhaps because he
realizes that if he makes his intentions clear, loyal Catholics will not
accept them.

Thank God for four stalwart princes of the Church who, without accusing the
Pope of an attempt to change Catholic doctrine, have made it clear that if
that *is* his intention, they will resist.

Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has
edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of
Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at
CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.
<http://www.catholicculture.org/about/leadership/bio_phil_lawler.cfm>


On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Emoke Greschik <greschem at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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-p
>> ope-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/dcd9278e/attachment.html