Post by Professor Q on Apr 19, 2017 5:31:03 GMT
Since none of us have been living under rocks, I'm sure all of us are aware of the "Amoris Laetitia" controversy and the different resolutions of the same that have been proposed.
One text that is often cited as contradicting "AL" is Pope St. John Paul II's Post-Synodal Exhortation (tricky things, those post-synodal exhortations!) "Familiaris Consortio", in particular section 84 which states:
"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.'"
(The whole document is available here.)
Now, here's a "dubium" from someone who isn't a theologian:
Isn't FC 84 itself a rather minimalistic (or at least paradoxical) view of the indissolubility of marriage?
If we consider that the second marriage is not Sacramental and therefore invalid, why require only "complete continence" from the "remarried" (the quotes indicate the Church's presumption of invalidity) couple? Why not go further?
After all, there is more to marriage than sex, as anyone who's worked out a family budget or done a spot of parenting will tell you.
Why is it all right to permit the invalidly "married" couple to live a common life in terms of finance, cohabitation, child-rearing, and so forth, but only require continence? Aren't those other duties also pertinent to the married state? Does FC 84 amount to a "dispensation" for a remarried couple to live together for "serious reasons" as any validly (except for the requirement of continence) married couple would? What are the "serious reasons" (besides the upbringing of children clearly spelled out by St. JP II) that would permit such an arrangement?
It seems to me that the authors of the "dubia" (and their more wild-eyed supporters) would do well to consider this question in its totality, because in effect, FC 84 is telling remarried couples: "If your reasons are serious enough, you can have all the goods of marriage except conjugal relations".
One text that is often cited as contradicting "AL" is Pope St. John Paul II's Post-Synodal Exhortation (tricky things, those post-synodal exhortations!) "Familiaris Consortio", in particular section 84 which states:
"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.'"
(The whole document is available here.)
Now, here's a "dubium" from someone who isn't a theologian:
Isn't FC 84 itself a rather minimalistic (or at least paradoxical) view of the indissolubility of marriage?
If we consider that the second marriage is not Sacramental and therefore invalid, why require only "complete continence" from the "remarried" (the quotes indicate the Church's presumption of invalidity) couple? Why not go further?
After all, there is more to marriage than sex, as anyone who's worked out a family budget or done a spot of parenting will tell you.
Why is it all right to permit the invalidly "married" couple to live a common life in terms of finance, cohabitation, child-rearing, and so forth, but only require continence? Aren't those other duties also pertinent to the married state? Does FC 84 amount to a "dispensation" for a remarried couple to live together for "serious reasons" as any validly (except for the requirement of continence) married couple would? What are the "serious reasons" (besides the upbringing of children clearly spelled out by St. JP II) that would permit such an arrangement?
It seems to me that the authors of the "dubia" (and their more wild-eyed supporters) would do well to consider this question in its totality, because in effect, FC 84 is telling remarried couples: "If your reasons are serious enough, you can have all the goods of marriage except conjugal relations".
