The “Scandal” of Amoris Laetita in a nutshell – +see footnote

              In paragraph #305 of AL, Pope Francis wrote:  “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.[1] Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God. Let  us remember that ‘a small step, in the midst of great  human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without  confronting great difficulties. The practical pastoral care of ministers and of communities must not fail to embrace this reality.”

Blogger: The pope is saying that a person may be in an objective state of sin – he/she may be divorced from a valid marriage/remarried, no annulment, not living as brother and sister with children by the second woman/man – and, having repented of the divorce but giving self to the second union and the formation of the children responsibly, cannot leave the second objectively sinful union without violating justice toward the children – the person can subjectively be in grace and growing in holiness, and hence capable of the sacraments of the living.

What is essential to understand this is the development of moral theology in John Paul II’s “Vertatis Splendor”  of 1993 where he explains that the criterion of moral goodness is the person making the gift of self, that is “the subject” going out of himself. The meaning of moral goodness is prototypically the Person of Christ who is total Self-gift to the Father in obedience to death. We have been created in His image and likeness and baptized into His passion and His death. We become good to the extent that we attempt to give ourselves to God and others even in the most objectively disordered immoral circumstances. In this regard, recall the words of Benedict XVI: “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals as perhaps when a male prostitute uses  a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants;” Benedict XVI “Light of the World, Ignatius (2010) 119.

Hence, moral goodness is not reducible to an objective state of conduct in accordance with law or theoretical principle but in acts of practical self-transcendence. I believe this to be the metaphysical, epistemological and moral nub of the question: subject-growth in  moral goodness while being trapped in an objectively immoral state of affairs.

 

[1] [The following is footnote 351 in AL] 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 (Evangelii Gaudium #44… I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak…”

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “The “Scandal” of Amoris Laetita in a nutshell – +see footnote

  1. I’m curious as to the identity of the author of the above piece. Is it a layperson, or the Opus Dei priest named in the About Us section? I’m presuming he is the author, but would like confirmation,and I can’t see any “contact us” details. Thank you!

    Like

    1. Dear Editor, I, the priest and blogger, amthe author of the above piece. I am not privy to the existence of “contact us” details. However, I am curious as to why you are curious. Sorry about the delay in the response, but I rarely ring the bell to get to this page. I always forget to “categorize” the post (and so cannot find past ones for my own use) and know of no comments to my posts save your own that I just noticed. P,s, if you know anything of my blog, you will know that “subjective” for me (following JPII) has ontological density and cannot be read merely as “consciousness” as in subjectivism and relativism (no truth).

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s