(Gen. 9, 6) [b:Gen. 9, 6] : “Wie het bloed van een mens vergiet, diens bloed wordt door mensen vergoten, want als zijn beeld heeft God de mens gemaakt.” (Lev. 20, 1; Mt. 15, 4; Mc. 7, 10; Joh. 19, 11; Rom. 13, 4; Heb. 10, 28) [[b:Lev. 20, 1; Mt. 15, 4; Mc. 7, 10; Joh. 19, 11; Rom. 13, 4; Heb. 10, 28]]
Innocent I, Letter to Exsuperius [6477], PL 20: 499A-B; Innocent III, (4707|6) Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians, DH 795; H. Paus Pius V, Catechismus Romanus Concilii Tridentini [830], commentary on the 5 th commandment; Paus Pius XII, Ce premier congres - Over onderzoek en nieuwe mogelijkheden in de geneeskunde [1455|33] AAS 44 (1952): 787; H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, Catechismus van de Katholieke Kerk [1|2267]
2). AL 156 [6271|156]; 'Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected.’
If understood not simply as denying that a wife owes servile obedience to her husband or that the husband has authority over his wife that is the same as parental authority, but as also denying that the husband has any form of authority over his wife, or as denying that the wife has any duty to obey the legitimate commands of her husband in virtue of his authority as husband:
(Ef. 5, 24; “As the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things.”) [b:Ef. 5, 24] (1 Kor. 11, 3; Kol. 3, 18; Tit. 2, 3-5; 1 Pt. 3, 1-5) [[b:1 Kor. 11, 3; Kol. 3, 18; Tit. 2, 3-5; 1 Pt. 3, 1-5]] Pius V, Catechismus Romanus Concilii Tridentini [830], commentary on the sacrament of matrimony; Leo XIII, Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae [820] ASS 12 (1879): 389 Pius XI, Casti Connubii [526|32-36] AAS 22 (1930): 549 (DH 3708-09) John XXIII, AAS 51 (1959): 509-10 [1629].
3). AL 159 [6271|159]; 'Saint Paul recommended virginity because he expected Jesus’ imminent return and he wanted everyone to concentrate only on spreading the Gospel: “the appointed time has grown very short” (1 Cor 7:29). . . . Rather than speak absolutely of the superiority of virginity, it should be enough to point out that the different states of life complement one another, and consequently that some can be more perfect in one way and others in another.'
Understood as denying that a virginal state of life consecrated to Christ is superior considered in itself to the state of Christian marriage:
Council of Trent, (734|14|Session 24, canon 10): “If anyone says that the married state surpasses that of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be united in matrimony, let him be anathema” (DH 1810).
Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites, DH 1353 [899|23]; Pius X, (4530|2|Response of the Biblical Commission, DH 3629); Pius XII Sacra virginitas [1939], AAS 46 (1954): 174; 2nd Vatican Council, Decree Optatam Totius Ecclesiae [675|10]
4). AL 295 [6271|295]: ‘Saint H. Paus Johannes Paulus II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”. This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law.’ AL 301 [6271|301]: ‘It is (sic) 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. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’
Understood as meaning that a justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin:
Council of Trent, session 6, canon 18 [668|48]: “If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace, let him be anathema” (DH 1568).
Zosimus, 15th (or 16th) (1889|4|Synod of Carthage, canon 3 on grace, DH 225); Felix III, 2nd Synod of Orange, DH 397 [3319|(28)]; Council of Trent, Sessio V - Decretum super peccato originali [667|5] Session 5, canon 5; Sessio VI - Decretum de iustificatione [668|48-50.52.57.59] Session 6, canons 18-20, 22, 27 and 29; Pius V, Bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus, On the errors of Michael du Bay, 54, (DH 1954) [6072|(54)]; Innocent X, Constitution Cum occasione, On the errors of Cornelius Jansen, 1 (DH 2001) [3695|(1)]; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus Dei Filius [3829|(71)], On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia [759|17]: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis Splendor [83|65-70]: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).
5). AL 297 [6271|297]; ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!’
If understood as meaning that no human being can or will be condemned to eternal punishment in hell:
16th Synod of Toledo Credo [1004|(35)] (DH 574); 4th Lateran Council, Caput 1: De fide catholica [796|2] DH 801; Benedict XII, Constitution Benedictus Deus, DH 1002 [1710|(3)]; Council of Florence, decree Laetentur caeli, DH 1306 [895|6]; H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Recentiores episcoporum [1581|7], AAS 71 (1979): 941; Catechismus van de Katholieke Kerk [1|1033-1037]
6). AL 299 [6271|299]: ‘I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed that “the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal. The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral care, a care which would allow them not only to realize that they belong to the Church as the body of Christ, but also to know that they can have a joyful and fruitful experience in it. They are baptized; they are brothers and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into their hearts gifts and talents for the good of all. … Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church and experience her as a mother who welcomes them always, who takes care of them with affection and encourages them along the path of life and the Gospel”.’
If understood as meaning that the divorced and civilly remarried who choose their situation with full knowledge and full consent of the will are not in a state of serious sin, and that they can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity:
(Mc. 10, 11-12) [b:Mc. 10, 11-12]: “Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery”.
Session 6, Sessio VI - Decretum de iustificatione [668|49-51.57] canons 19-21, 27 (DH 1569-71, 1577);
Session 24, (734|5.7) canons 5 and 7 (DH 1805, 1807);
Innocent XI, Errores varii de rebus moralibus [1436|(62-63)] 62-63 (DH 2162-63); Alexander VIII, Dwalingen over het zedelijke goede en over de filosofische zonde [5444|(2)] DH 2291; H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, Veritatis Splendor [83|65-70]: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).
7). AL 301 [6271|301]: ‘It is (sic) 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. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’
Understood as meaning that a Catholic believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action:
Council of Trent, Sessio VI - Decretum de iustificatione [668|50] session 6, canon 20: “If anyone says that a justified man, however perfect he 7 may be, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church but is bound only to believe, as if the Gospel were merely an absolute promise of eternal life without the condition that the commandments be observed, let him be anathema” (DH 1570).
Council of Trent, Sessio VI - Decretum de iustificatione [668|49.57] session 6, canons 19 and 27; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471) [3829|(71)]; H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia [759|17]: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis Splendor [83|65-70]: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).
8). AL 301 [6271|301]: ‘It is (sic) 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. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent values, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’
Understood as saying that a person with full knowledge of a divine law can sin by choosing to obey that law:
(Ps. 18, 8) [b:Ps. 18, 8]: “The law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls.”
See also: (Sir. 15, 21) [b:Sir. 15, 21];
Council of Trent, Sessio VI - Decretum de iustificatione [668|50] session 6, canon 20; Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471) [3829|(71)]; Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum [705|22-24], ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, Veritatis Splendor [83|40]: AAS 85 (1993): 1165 (DH 4953).
9). AL 303 [6271|303]: ‘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, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.’
Understood as meaning that conscience can truly judge that actions condemned by the Gospel, and in particular, sexual acts between Catholics who have civilly remarried following divorce, can sometimes be morally right or requested or commanded by God:
Council of Trent, Sessio VI - Decretum de iustificatione [668|51] session 6, canon 21: “If anyone says that Jesus Christ was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom they are to trust but not also as a lawgiver whom they are bound to obey, let him be anathema” (DH 1571). Council of Trent, (734|6) session 24, canon 2: “If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not forbidden by any divine law, let him be anathema” (DH 1802). Council of Trent, (734|9) session 24, canon 5: “If anyone says that the marriage bond can be dissolved because of heresy or difficulties in cohabitation or because of the wilful absence of one of the spouses, let him be anathema” (DH 1805) Council of Trent, (734|11) session 24, canon 7: “If anyone says that the Church is in error for having taught and for still teaching that in accordance with the evangelical and apostolic doctrine, the marriage bond cannot be dissolved because of adultery on the part of one of the spouses and that neither of the two, not even the innocent one who has given no cause for infidelity, can contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that the husband who dismisses an adulterous wife and marries again and the wife who dismisses and adulterous husband and married again are both guilty of adultery, let him be anathema” (DH 1807).
Innocent XI, Errores varii de rebus moralibus [1436|(62-63)], 62-63 (DH 2162-63); Clement XI, Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471) [3829|(71)]; Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum [705|22-24], ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); Pius XII, Contra doctrinam [3827|1], DH 3918; 2nd Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes [575|16]; H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, Veritatis Splendor [83|54]: AAS 85 (1993): 1177; Catechismus van de Katholieke Kerk [1|1786-1787].
10). AL 304 [6271|304]: ‘I earnestly ask that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all… The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”. It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations.’
Understood as meaning that moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action under any and all circumstances:
H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, Veritatis Splendor [83|15]: “Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents the central theme of this Encyclical and which is today being restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the whole of society, with the reaffirmation of the universality and immutability of the moral commandments, particularly those which prohibit always and without exception intrinsically evil acts” (DH 4971).
4th Lateran Council, chapter 22 [802] (DH 815); Council of Constance, Bull Inter Cunctas [2598|14] (DH 1254); Paul VI, Humanae Vitae [34|14]: AAS 60 (1968) 490-91. H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, Veritatis Splendor [83|83]: AAS 85 (1993): 1199 (DH 4970).
11). AL 308 [6271|308]: ‘I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street”.’
If understood as meaning that Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it:
(1 Kor. 11, 27) [b:1 Kor. 11, 27]: “Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”
Familiaris Consortio [267|84]: “Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’.” 2nd Lateran Council, canon 22 [5935|22]: “Because there is one thing that conspicuously causes great disturbance to holy Church, namely false penance, we warn our brothers in the episcopate, and priests, not to allow the souls of the laity to be deceived or dragged off to hell by false penances. It is certain that a penance is false when many sins are disregarded and a penance is performed for one only, or when it is done for one sin in such a way that the penitent does not renounce another” (DH 717).
Council of Trent, session 14, Decree on Penance, cap. 4 [683|10-12] (DH 1676-1678); Council of Trent, session 13, Decree on the most holy Eucharist [679|12-13] (DH 1646- 47)); Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 60-63 [1451|(60-63)] (DH 2160-63); Catechismus van de Katholieke Kerk [1|1385.1451.1490]
B. Propositions falling under lesser censures
12). AL 295 [6271|295]: ‘Saint H. Paus Johannes Paulus II proposed the so-called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”. This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law.’
If understood as meaning that free acts that do not fully carry out the objective demands of divine law can be morally good:
i). Erronea in fide. ii). Scandalosa, prava.
(1 Joh. 3, 4) [b:1 Joh. 3, 4]: “Whosoever committeth sin, committeth also iniquity; and sin is iniquity.”
See also: Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum [705|22-24], ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, Veritatis Splendor [83|40]: AAS 85 (1993): 1165 (DH 4953). 10
13). AL 296 [6271|296]; “There are two ways of thinking which recur throughout the Church’s history: casting off and reinstating. The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of Jerusalem, has always been the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement. The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever.” AL 297 [6271|297]; ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!’
Understood as meaning that in circumstances where an offender does not cease to commit an offence the Church does not have the power or the right to inflict punishments or condemnations without later remitting them or lifting them, or that the Church does not have the power or the right to condemn and anathematise individuals after their death:
i). Erronea in fide. ii). Scandalosa, perniciosa, derogans praxi sive usui et disciplinae Ecclesiae.
Codex Iuris Canonici [30|1358]: “The remission of a censure cannot be granted except to an offender whose contempt has been purged”. 3rd Council of Constantinople, Condemnation of the Monothelites and of Pope Honorius I [6568|(1)]: “As to these self-same men whose impious teachings we have rejected, we have also judged it necessary to banish their names from the holy Church of God, that is, the name of Sergius, who began to write about this impious doctrine, of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, of Paul and of Peter and of those who have presided on the throne of this God-protected city, and the same for those who have been like-minded. Then also (the name) of Theodore who was bishop of Pharan. All these aforenamed persons were mentioned by Agatho, the most holy and thriceblessed pope of elder Rome, in his letter to the . . . emperor, and rejected by him as having thought in a way contrary to our orthodox faith; and we determine that they are also subject to anathema. Along with these we have seen fit to banish from the holy Church of God and to anathematize also Honorius, the former pope of the elder Rome” (DH 550).
See also: 2nd Council of Constantinople, canons 11-12 [902|(13-15)]; Lateran Synod, canon 18 [1003|(18-220)] (DH 518-20); Leo II, letter Regi regum, DH 563 [6648|(3)]; 4th Council of Constantinople, canon 11 [1858|11]; Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites DH 1339-1346 [899|9-16]; Benedict XV, Codex Iuris Canonici (1917) [2620|(855.2214.2241.2257)]; H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, Codex Iuris Canonici [30|915.1311]; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium [574|(1424)] 1424:1.
14). AL 298 [6271|298]: ‘The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins.’
If understood as meaning that persons who are civilly married to someone other than their true spouse can show Christian virtue by being sexually faithful to their civil partner:
i). Erronea in fide. ii). Scandalosa.
(1 Kor. 7, 10-11) [b:1 Kor. 7, 10-11]: “To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband; and if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.” 11
Letter Quam laudabiliter [898|(1)] of Leo I, DH 283; Letter Regressus ad Nos [6649|(1-5)] of Leo I, DH 311-14; Letter Gaudemus in Domino [1467] of Innocent III, DH 777-79; 2nd Council of Lyons, Sessio IV - Professio fidei Michaelis Palaeologi [783|10] (DH 860); Council of Trent, (734|9.11|Session 24 canons 5, 7); Pius Vl, Rescript. ad Episc. Agriens., 11th July 1789; Arcanum, ASS 12 (1879-80): 388-94; Pius XI, Casti Connubii [526|24-25.28-29.32-36.38] AAS 22 (1930): 546-50 (cf. Dz 3706-10); H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio [267|19.80-81.84]: AAS 74 (1982) 92-149; Catechismus van de Katholieke Kerk [1|1643-1649].
15). AL 298 [6271|298]: ‘The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”. (footnote 329) In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers”.’ {N.B. The last clause in double quotation marks misleadingly applies to divorced and civilly married couples a statement of Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes [575|51], that refers only to validly married couples.}
Understood as endorsing claims that divorced and civilly remarried couples have an obligation of sexual faithfulness to each other rather than to their true spouses, or that their living 'as brother and sister' could be either a culpable occasion of sin against that supposed obligation, or a culpable cause of harm to their children:
i) Erronea in fide. ii) Scandalosa, prava, perversa.
(Eccl. 15, 21) [b:Eccl. 15, 21]: “He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, and he hath given no man licence to sin.” See also: (Rom. 3, 8; Rom. 8, 28; 1 Tess. 4, 7; Jak. 1, 13-14) [b:Rom. 3, 8; Rom. 8, 28; 1 Tess. 4, 7; Jak. 1, 13-14]; H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, Veritatis Splendor [83|79-83]: AAS 85 (1993): 1197-99 (cf. DH 4969-70).
16). AL 300 [6271|300]: ‘Since “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases”, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same. (footnote 336) This is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists.’ AL 305 [6271|305]: ‘Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. (footnote 351) In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy”. I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak”’.’
Understood as saying that absence of grave fault due to diminished responsibility can permit admission to the Eucharist in the cases of divorced and civilly remarried persons who do not separate, nor undertake to live in perfect continence, but remain in an objective state of adultery and bigamy:
i). Erronea in fide, falsa. ii). Scandalosa.
Familiaris Consortio [267|84]: “The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’.”
(1 Joh. 2, 20) [b:1 Joh. 2, 20]: “You have the unction from the Holy One, and know all things”. See also (Ez. 3, 17; Mt. 28, 20; 1 Kor. 11, 27-29; Ef. 5, 30-32) [b:Ez. 3, 17; Mt. 28, 20; 1 Kor. 11, 27-29; Ef. 5, 30-32];
2nd Lateran Council, DH 717 [5935|22]; Paul V, Rituale Romanum, 49; Benedict XIV, Confirmation of the Synod of the Maronites; Encyclical letter Ex omnibus; Benedict XV, Codex Iuris Canonici (1917) [2620|(855)]; Codex Iuris Canonici [30|915]; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the reception of Eucharistic communion by those faithful who after a divorce have entered a new marriage, AAS 86 (1994): 974-79; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium [574|(712)]; Catechismus van de Katholieke Kerk [1|1650.2390]; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Concerning Some Objections to the Church’s Teaching on the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful, in “Documenti e Studi”, On the Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried, Vatican City 1998, pp. 20-29; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (PCLT), “Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful who are Divorced and Remarried”, on-line at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrpt xt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis 29: AAS 99 (2007), 128-29.
17). AL 298 [6271|298]: ‘The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins.’
If understood as meaning that the divorced and remarried can either sin or culpably expose themselves to the occasion of sin by abstaining from sexual relations in accordance with the perennial teaching and discipline of the Church:
i). Temeraria, falsa. ii). Scandalosa, prava, derogans praxi et disciplinae Ecclesiae.
(Eccl. 15, 16) [b:Eccl. 15, 16]: “If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee.” 13 See also: (1 Kor. 7, 11; 1 Kor. 10, 13) [b:1 Kor. 7, 11; 1 Kor. 10, 13]; H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, Veritatis Splendor [83|102-103]: AAS 85 (1993): 1213-14; Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio [267|84], AAS 74 (1982) 92-149; Catechismus van de Katholieke Kerk [1|1650]; Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis 99 (2007), 128-29.
18). AL 298 [6271|298]: ‘There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”.’
If understood as meaning that subjective certainty in conscience about the invalidity of a previous marriage is sufficient on its own to excuse from guilt or legal penalty those who contract a new marriage when their previous marriage is recognised as valid by the Church:
i). Temeraria, falsa. ii). Scandalosa.
Council of Trent, Session 24, canon 12: “If anyone says that matrimonial cases do not belong to ecclesiastical judges, let him be anathema” (DH 1812). See also: Leo XIII, Arcanum, ASS 12 (1879), 393; H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, 1983 Code of Canon Law, canons 1059-60, 1085.
19). AL 311 [6271|311]: ‘The teaching of moral theology should not fail to incorporate these considerations.’
Understood as meaning that the teaching of moral theology in the Catholic Church should present as probable or true any of the propositions censured above:
(Mt. 5, 19) [b:Mt. 5, 19]: “He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” See also: (Jes. 5, 20; Mt. 28, 20; 1 Tim. 6, 20; Jak. 3, 1) [b:Jes. 5, 20; Mt. 28, 20; 1 Tim. 6, 20; Jak. 3, 1]; Pius IX, Bull Ineffabilis Deus, DH 2802; Pius X, Motu Proprio Sacrorum antistitum [3706|7], DH 3541; 1st Vatican Council, Constitution Dei Filius, cap. 4 [115|22] (DH 3020); Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iusiurandum fidelitatis in suscipiendo officio nomine ecclesiae exercendo, AAS 81 (1989): 106; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Veritatis [1091], On the ecclesial vocation of the theologian, AAS 82 (1990): 1559; H. Paus Johannes Paulus II, Veritatis Splendor [83|115-116]: AAS 85 (1993): 1223-24; Benedict XVI, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Works of Father Jon Sobrino SJ, 2 (DH 5107) [7275].
The propositions censured above have been condemned in many previous magisterial documents. It is urgently necessary that their condemnation be repeated by the Supreme Pontiff in a definitive and final manner and that it be authoritatively stated that Amoris laetitia does not require any of them to be believed or considered as possibly true.
Zie ook het vervolg van 30 april 2019: Opnieuw een Open Brief aan Bisschoppen over stellingnames van paus Franciscus [n:4498]
Om RK Documenten te kunnen verbeteren is uw reactie zeer waardevol. Heeft u aanmerkingen of suggesties voor verbeteringen of bent u een fout tegen gekomen? Laat het ons weten.
Naar de oude site