Arguments Against AMORIS LÆTITIA
There are two arguments against paragraph 305 in AMORIS LÆTITIA when read in conjunction with the footnote 351.
The problem text in paragraph 305 is (the claim that) “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.351” Footnote 351 says, “[i]n certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments…Eucharist.”
Those arguments are (a) from Church law https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/01/08/conscience-cant-final-arbiter-gets-communion/ and (b) to safeguard the integrity of the Eucharist, those in an irregular state are unable to be admitted because their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and his Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist http://www.johnthebaptistmoora.com/346443107/4381804/posting/sufferings-of-those-faithful-in-irregular-marriage
There are arguments against the premise of paragraph 305 (that in an objective situation of sin, such a person can be living in God’s grace). The last blog presented a Natural Law argument – conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object http://www.johnthebaptistmoora.com/346443107/4403798/posting/in-short-is-francis-authorizing-departures-from-the-natural-law
Now, let’s look at the metaphysical argument against the premise contained in paragraph 305 that would also negate footnote 351 (recourse to the Eucharist). This argument underpins the natural law argument.
O Amoris, Amoris, wherefore I #dubia thee #AmorisLaetitia? Show me your metaphysical arguments and I will be satisfied!
The metaphysical argument is surprisingly super simple! It goes: The law of the excluded middle states there is no middle ground between being and non-being (Alvira, Clavell, & Melendo, 1991).
It is surprisingly super significant! Either a person is in a state-of-grace, or not – no middle ground. Of course, perfect contrition can change one's state of grace (i.e., from a state of mortal sin to the state of grace). But the fact is “there are concrete acts that are always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” (Catechism, 1761). This means that some acts are not only against natural law, but if committed there are no mitigating circumstances. If commited, these acts place a person unequivocally in a state of sin. For example, a person cannot be simul iustus et peccator (people are at the same time both justified and a sinner) as Luther suggests.
Curiously, we also find a justifying statement in paragraph 301 forming the basis for arguments found in paragraph 305. Conclusions drawn from the law of the excluded middle contradict paragraph 301. If you realise this, then you can understand the extent of the problem posed by AMORIS LÆTITIA and that it is a threat to the Gospels. I think paragraph 301 is not correct and is riddled with ideas from dissenters/revisionists such as Curren, Curren,McCormick, Fuchs et al. It reads:
“For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is 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” (paragraph 301).
Unfortunately There Exist True and False Disciples
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” Matthew 7:21,28
THE BOTTOM LINE: TWO DUBIA?
Can the five dubia—(a) can people in irregular marriage who are sexually active receive absolution and Eucharist without a change of life (b) do absolute moral norms exist (c) does objective grave sin exist (d) can factors and situations mitigate intrinsically evil acts, making them subjectively good acts and (e) can an appeal to conscience overcome absolute moral norms—be reduced to two?
The catechism teaches that the “object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil” (1755). So, the first dubia is (a) can the will be gravely disordered whilst, at the same time, the person can remain in a state of grace and (b) is there middle ground between being and non-being? These represent the natural law argument and the metaphysical argument.
Alvira, T., Clavell, L., & Melendo, T. 1991. Metaphysics. Manila: Sinag-Tala.