<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail-article-title"><a href="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia">http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia</a><br><br>Full Text and Explanatory Notes of Cardinals’ Questions on ‘Amoris Laetitia’</div>
<div class="gmail-article-subhead">The full documentation relating to the cardinals’ initiative, entitled ‘Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in <i>Amoris Laetitia</i>.’ </div>
<div class="gmail-article-author">Edward Pentin</div>
<div class="gmail-article-body"><p>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, <em>Amoris Laetitia.</em></p>
<p>The cardinals — Carlo Caffarra, archbishop emeritus of
Bologna; Raymond Burke, patron of the Sovereign Military Order of
Malta; Walter Brandmüller, president emeritus of
the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences; and Joachim Meisner,
archbishop emeritus of Cologne — sent five questions, called <em>dubia</em>
(Latin for “doubts”), to the Holy Father and Cardinal Gerhard Müller,
prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on Sept. 19,
along with an accompanying letter.</p>
<p>Each of the <em>dubia </em>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.</p>
<p>Due to varying interpretations of this and other parts of the apostlic exhortation <em><a href="https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf" target="_blank">Amoris Laetitia</a></em> (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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.”</p>
<p>Here below is the complete documentation comprising “a necessary foreword,” the <em>dubia, </em>the<em> </em>accompanying letter sent to the Pope and the cardinals’ explanatory notes. </p>
<hr>
<h2 style="text-align:center"><strong>Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in <em>Amoris Laetitia</em></strong></h2>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>1. A Necessary Foreword</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The sending of the letter to His Holiness Pope Francis by four cardinals derives from a deep pastoral concern.</p>
<p>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 <em>Amoris Laetitia</em>.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Ours is, therefore, an act of justice and charity.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Of charity: We want to help the Pope to prevent divisions and conflicts in the Church, asking him to dispel all ambiguity.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Cardinal Walter Brandmüller</p>
<p>Cardinal Raymond L. Burke</p>
<p>Cardinal Carlo Caffarra</p>
<p>Cardinal Joachim Meisner</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>2. The Letter of the Four Cardinals to the Pope</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>To His Holiness Pope Francis</p>
<p>and for the attention of His Eminence Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Most Holy Father,</p>
<p>Following the publication of your apostolic exhortation <em>Amoris Laetitia</em>,
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <em>dubia</em> that we attach the present letter.</p>
<p>May Your Holiness wish to bless us, as we promise constantly to remember you in prayer.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Cardinal Walter Brandmüller</p>
<p>Cardinal Raymond L. Burke</p>
<p>Cardinal Carlo Caffarra</p>
<p>Cardinal Joachim Meisner</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rome, September 19, 2016</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>3. The <em>Dubia</em></strong></p>
<ol><li>It is asked whether, following the affirmations of <em>Amoris Laetitia</em>
(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 <em>more uxorio</em> without fulfilling the conditions provided for by <em>Familiaris Consortio, </em>84, and subsequently reaffirmed by <em>Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, </em>34, and <em>Sacramentum Caritatis,</em> 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation <em>Amoris Laetitia</em> be applied to <strong>divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live <em>more uxorio</em>?</strong><br>
</li><li>After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation <em>Amoris Laetitia</em> (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical <em>Veritatis Splendor, </em>79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of <strong>absolute moral norms</strong> that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?<br>
</li><li>After <em>Amoris Laetitia </em>(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 <strong>objective situation of grave habitual sin</strong> (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?<br>
</li><li>After the affirmations of <em>Amoris Laetitia</em> (302) on “<strong>circumstances which mitigate</strong> moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical <em>Veritatis Splendor,</em> 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”?<br>
</li><li>After <em>Amoris Laetitia </em>(303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical <em>Veritatis Splendor, </em>56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the <strong>role of conscience </strong>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?</li></ol>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>4. Explanatory Note of the Four Cardinals</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>CONTEXT</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Dubia</em> (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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Let’s get to what is concretely at stake.</p>
<p>Upon the publication of the post-synodal apostolic exhortation <em>Amoris Laetitia</em>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Motivated by a pastoral concern for the faithful, four cardinals have sent a letter to the Holy Father under the form of <em>dubia</em>, hoping to receive clarity, given that doubt and uncertainty are always highly detrimental to pastoral care.</p>
<p>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 <em>Amoris Laetitia</em> 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.</p>
<p>Rather, the interpretation of the document also implies different, contrasting approaches to the Christian way of life.</p>
<p>Thus, while the first question of the <em>dubia</em> concerns a
practical question regarding the divorced and civilly remarried, the
other four questions touch on fundamental issues of the Christian life.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>THE QUESTIONS</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Doubt No. 1:</strong></p>
<p>It is asked whether, following the affirmations of <em>Amoris Laetitia</em>
(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 <em>more uxorio</em> without fulfilling the conditions provided for by <em>Familiaris Consortio,</em> 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by <em>Reconciliatio et Paenitentia,</em> 34, and <em>Sacramentum Caritatis, </em>29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation <em>Amoris Laetitia</em> be applied to <strong>divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live <em>more uxorio</em>?</strong></p>
<p>Question 1 makes particular reference to <em>Amoris Laetitia, </em>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.</p>
<p>Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation <em>Familiaris Consortio</em>,
84, already contemplated the possibility of admitting the divorced and
civilly remarried to the sacraments. It mentions three conditions:</p>
<p> </p>
<ul><li>The persons concerned cannot separate without committing new
injustices (for instance, they may be responsible for the upbringing of
their children);</li><li>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 (<em>more uxorio</em>), abstaining from those acts that are proper to spouses;</li><li>They avoid giving scandal (that is, they avoid giving the
appearance of sin so as to avoid the danger of leading others into sin).</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p>The conditions mentioned by <em>Familiaris Consortio,</em> 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <em>teach by her practice</em> one of the following affirmations about marriage, human sexuality and the nature of the sacraments:</p>
<p> </p>
<ul><li>A divorce does not dissolve the marriage bond, and the partners to the new union are not married. However, <em>people who are not married can under certain circumstances legitimately engage in acts of sexual intimacy.</em></li><li> <em>A divorce dissolves the marriage bond.</em> 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.</li><li>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.<em> The sacraments, therefore, are
detached from life: Christian rites and worship are on a completely
different sphere than the Christian moral life. </em></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Doubt No. 2:</strong></p>
<p>After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation <em>Amoris Laetitia</em> (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical <em>Veritatis Splendor, </em>79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of <strong>absolute moral norms</strong> that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?</p>
<p>The second question regards the existence of so-called intrinsically evil acts. John Paul II’s encyclical <em>Veritatis Splendor, </em>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.”</p>
<p>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 <em>not</em> do. “Do not kill.” “Do not commit adultery.” Only negative norms can bind without exception.</p>
<p>According to <em>Veritatis Splendor, </em>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, <em>De Malo, </em>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Doubt No. 3:</strong></p>
<p>After <em>Amoris Laetitia </em>(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 <strong>objective situation of grave habitual sin</strong> (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?</p>
<p>In Paragraph 301, <em>Amoris Laetitia</em> 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.”</p>
<p>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”<em> </em>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Along the same lines, in his encyclical <em>Ecclesia de Eucharistia, </em>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 <em>Amoris Laetitia</em> between the subjective situation of <em>mortal</em> sin and the objective situation of <em>grave</em> sin is indeed well established in the Church’s teaching.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Question 3 of the <em>Dubia,</em> hence, would like to clarify whether, even after <em>Amoris Laetitia, </em>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Doubt No. 4:</strong></p>
<p>After the affirmations of <em>Amoris Laetitia</em> (302) on “<strong>circumstances which mitigate</strong> moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical <em>Veritatis Splendor, </em>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”?</p>
<p>In Paragraph 302, <em>Amoris Laetitia </em>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 <em>Dubia</em> point to the Church’s teaching as expressed in John Paul II’s <em>Veritatis Splendor, </em>according
to which circumstances or good intentions can never turn an
intrinsically evil act into one that is excusable or even good.</p>
<p>The question arises whether <em>Amoris Laetitia, </em>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Doubt No. 5:</strong></p>
<p>After <em>Amoris Laetitia </em>(303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical <em>Veritatis Splendor, </em>56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the <strong>role of conscience</strong>
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?</p>
<p><em>Amoris Laetitia, </em>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 <em>Dubia</em> ask for a clarification of these affirmations, given that they are susceptible to divergent interpretations.</p>
<p>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 <em>Veritatis Splendor, </em>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.”</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <em>Dubia</em>). 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>However, conscience does not <em>decide</em> 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.</p>
<p>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 <em>Amoris Laetitia, </em>295: “The law is itself a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception.”</p>
<p style="text-align:right"><em>Translation provided by the cardinal signatories.</em></p>
<p style="text-align:right"><em><a href="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/" target="_blank">Edward Pentin </a>is the Register's Rome correspondent.</em></p></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-11-17 17:21 GMT+01:00 KEA <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kea@turul.banki.hu" target="_blank">kea@turul.banki.hu</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Ha a bevezető többi mondata igaz, akkor az utolsó mondat is a helyén<br>
van. Számomra ennél fontosabbnak tűnik, hogy milyen hiteles(nek tűnő)<br>
forrásaink vannak. Minimális guglizás alapján a magyar szövegre:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.eucharisztikuskongresszus.hu/hit_154.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.<wbr>eucharisztikuskongresszus.hu/<wbr>hit_154.html</a><br>
<br>
általa hivatkozott angol forrás:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/cardinal-burke-if-pope-persists-in.html#more" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.<wbr>com/2016/11/cardinal-burke-if-<wbr>pope-persists-in.html#more</a><br>
<br>
Szóval megnyugtató lenne más egyéb, ismertebb forrás fellelése.<br>
<br>
Köszönöm:<br>
KEA.<br>
<br>
On 11/17/2016 05:06 PM, Emoke Greschik wrote:<br>
> Helyesbítés:<br>
> Szerintem, a továbbított bevezetőben szereplő utolsó mondat<br>
> igazságtartalma megkérdőjelezhető. Tehát, a levél elment F. pápának, és<br>
> remélhetőleg válaszolni fog.<br>
> Nagyon bánt, hogy nem voltam megfontoltabb és nem töröltem a bevezető<br>
> rész utolsó mondatát. Saját tudatotokban, kérlek töröljétek.<br>
><br>
> 2016-11-17 16:50 GMT+01:00 Emoke Greschik <<a href="mailto:greschem@gmail.com">greschem@gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:greschem@gmail.com">greschem@gmail.com</a>>>:<br>
><br>
> *Négy bíboros HIVATALOS ÚTON azzal a kéréssel fordult<br>
><br>
> Ferenc pápához, hogy tisztázza az Amoris Laetitia<br>
><br>
> félreérthető pontjait *<br>
><br>
><br>
> /*Pápához *az ellenreformáció óta még sohasem *fordultak saját<br>
> bíborosai nyilvánosan olyan *kényes ügyben kérdéssel, *hogy<br>
> tisztázzon egy általa kibocsátott dokumentumot.* *A levél öt<br>
> tisztázandó kérdést ("dubia" -t) tartalmaz és négy bíboros írta alá<br>
> szeptember 18-án: az olasz Carló Caffarra, Bologna nyugalmazott<br>
> érseke, az amerikai Raymond Burke, az Apostoli Signatura jelenlegi<br>
> elnöke, a német Walter Brandmüller és Joachim Meisner, Köln<br>
> nyugalmazott érseke*. Ez az igazi - erkölcsi természetű -<br>
> földrengés. A pápai szenátus négy tagja (akik velük egyetértenek, de<br>
> nem vállalják a nyilvánosságot, sokkal többen vannak) *a hitet és<br>
> erkölcsöt érintő kérdéssel, dubia-val fordult Ferenc pápához,<br>
> amelyre az egyházi törvények értelmében a pápa köteles lett volna<br>
> választ adni: vagy pozitív igen-t, vagy negatív nem-et, akár<br>
> magyarázattal is, de köteles lett volna választ adni.* *És a pápa<br>
> tudtul adta a négy bíborosnak, hogy NEM FOG NEKIK VÁLASZT ADNI. És<br>
> ez a csönd az, ami megrengeti a földet.* /<br>
><br>
><br>
> A levél:<br>
><br>
> *Ferenc pápa Őszentségének<br>
> és Gerhard L. Müller bíboros eminenciás úr figyelmébe<br>
><br>
> Szentatya,<br>
><br>
> Az Amoris Laetitia apostoli buzdítást, különösen a VIII. fejezetét,<br>
> a nyilvánosságra hozatalát követően teológusok és hittudósok<br>
> különböző, sőt, ellentmondásos értelemben magyarázták. A média<br>
> ráadásul még jobban kiélezte ezt a vitát, ezzel a hívek között<br>
> bizonytalanságot, zavart és irányvesztést okozott.<br>
><br>
> Emiatt alulírottak, de még sok már püspök és pap is, a hívektől<br>
> számtalan kérdést kapott az Amoris Laetitia VIII. fejezetének<br>
> magyarázatára vonatkozóan.<br>
><br>
> Ezért most, lelkipásztori felelősségünk tudatában és a Szentséged<br>
> által szorgalmazott szinoditás gyakorlatba ültetésének a vágyával,<br>
> mély tisztelettel bátorkodunk megkérni Szentségedet, mint a hit<br>
> legfőbb tanítóját, akit a Feltámadott arra szólított fel, hogy<br>
> erősítse meg testvéreit a hitben, hogy oszlassa el a<br>
> bizonytalanságokat és hozzon világosságot, hogy a jelen levelünkhöz<br>
> mellékelt Dubia-ra szíveskedjen választ adni .<br>
><br>
> Kérjük Szentséged áldását és ígérjük, mi is imáinkba foglaljuk<br>
> Szentségedet.<br>
><br>
> Walter Brandmüller bíboros<br>
><br>
> Raymond L. Burke bíboros<br>
><br>
> Carlo Caffarra bíboros<br>
><br>
> Joachim Meisner bíboros<br>
><br>
> Róma, 2016, szeptember 9.<br>
><br>
> ***<br>
><br>
> A KÉRDÉSEK<br>
><br>
> 1. sz. tisztázandó kérdés:<br>
><br>
> Azt kérdezzük, hogy az Amoris Laetitia állítását (nn. 300-305)<br>
> követően, lehetséges-e most egy olyan személynek feloldozást adni és<br>
> a bűnbánat szentségét kiszolgáltatni és szentáldozáshoz járulni<br>
> engedni, aki, bár érvényes házassága van, de egy másik személlyel él<br>
> együtt úgy, mint férj és feleség anélkül, hogy teljesítenék a<br>
> Familiaris Consortio n. 84 feltételeit, amelyeket a Reconciliatio et<br>
> Paenitentia n. 34 és a Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29 is megerősített.<br>
> A "bizonyos esetekben" kifejezés, amely az Amoris Laetitia 351.<br>
> lábjegyzetében (n. 305) található, alkalmazható-e azokra az elvált<br>
> személyekre, akik új kapcsolatot létesítettek és férj-feleségként élnek?<br>
> (...)<br>
><br>
> 2. sz. tisztázandó kérdés:<br>
><br>
> Az Amoris Laetitia (cf. n. 304), szinódus utáni apostoli buzdítás<br>
> után, még mindig érvényesnek tekinthető-e Szent II. János Pál II.<br>
> enciklikája, a Veritatis Splendor n. 79, amely a Szentírás és az<br>
> Egyház hagyományára épül az abszolút erkölcsi normákat illetően,<br>
> amely eredendően megtilt minden rossz cselekedetet, és amely<br>
> kötelező érvényű bármiféle kivétel nélkül?<br>
> (...)<br>
><br>
> 3. sz. tisztázandó kérdés:<br>
><br>
> Az Amoris Laetitia (n. 301) után lehetséges-e azt állítani, hogy az<br>
> a személy, aki az Isten egyik, nevezetesen a házasságtörést tiltó<br>
> törvényének ellentmondóan él életvitelszerűen(cf. Mt 19:3-9), a<br>
> súlyos bűn objektív állapotában van?<br>
> (...)<br>
><br>
> 4. sz. tisztázandó kérdés:<br>
><br>
> Az Amoris Laetitia (n. 302) "körülmények, amelyek enyhítik az<br>
> erkölcsi felelősséget" állítása után még mindig érvényesnek<br>
> tekinthető-e Szent II. János Pál pápa Veritatis Splendor n. 81<br>
> enciklikája, amely a Szentíráson és az Egyház hagyományán alapul,<br>
> amely szerint: " Ezért egy tárgya miatt bensőleg rossz cselekedetet<br>
> a körülmények vagy a szándék soha nem tudna átalakítani<br>
> „szubjektíve” jó vagy megvédhető választássá."?<br>
> (...)<br>
><br>
> 5. sz. tisztázandó kérdés:<br>
><br>
> Az Amoris Laetitia (n. 303) után még mindig érvényesnek tekinthető-e<br>
> Szent II. János Pál pápa Veritatis Splendor n. 56 enciklikája, amely<br>
> a Szentíráson és az Egyház hagyományán alapul, amely kizárja a<br>
> lelkiismeret szerepének kreatív értelmezését, és amely hangsúlyozza,<br>
> hogy a lelkiismeret sohasem lehet jogosult kivételeket tenni az<br>
> abszolút erkölcsi normákat illetően és amely megtiltja azt, 'ami az<br>
> elvont erkölcsi törvény szerint bensőleg rossz'?<br>
> (...)*<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Grem mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Grem@turul.kgk.uni-obuda.hu">Grem@turul.kgk.uni-obuda.hu</a><br>
> <a href="http://turul.kgk.uni-obuda.hu/mailman/listinfo/grem" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://turul.kgk.uni-obuda.hu/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/grem</a><br>
><br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
<br>
Üdvrivalgással:<br>
KEA.<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Grem mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Grem@turul.kgk.uni-obuda.hu">Grem@turul.kgk.uni-obuda.hu</a><br>
<a href="http://turul.kgk.uni-obuda.hu/mailman/listinfo/grem" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://turul.kgk.uni-obuda.hu/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/grem</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>