The False and Dangerous Coccopalmerio Gambit

The False and Dangerous Coccopalmerio Gambit

[This cardinal is a real “Copacabana Lola” ]

Fr. Gerald E. Murray sees casuistry in interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, when a cardinal says it’s “impossible” for some couples NOT to live in sin
SATURDAY, MARCH 18, 2017

Ready for some casuistry? Should the Catholic Church allow a man and a woman to receive the sacraments in the following case? A woman living with a married but divorced man tells him that she no longer wants to live in sin; the man threatens to kill himself, and she, following her confessor’s advice, stays with him?

In an interview with Edward Pentin, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio offers this example and says: yes. He refers to his recent book on Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia in which he speaks of this case:

Think of a woman who lives with a married man. She has three little children. She has already been with this man for ten years. Now the children think of her as a mother. He, the partner, is very much anchored to this woman, as a lover, as a woman. If this woman were to say: “I am leaving this mistaken union because I want to correct my life, but if I did this, I would harm the children and the partner,” then she might say: “I would like to, but I cannot.” In precisely these cases, based on one’s intention to change and the impossibility of changing, I can give that person the sacraments, in the expectation that the situation is definitively clarified.
What’s the harm to the partner in her departure? “But how can she leave the union? He [her civilly married spouse] will kill himself. The children, who will take care of them? They will be without a mother. Therefore, she has to stay there.”

He even states that the woman who desires to end the adulterous relationship would be guilty of killing her partner by leaving: “But if someone says: ‘I want to change, but in this moment I cannot, because if I do it, I will kill people,’ I can say to them, ‘Stop there. When you can, I will give you absolution and Communion.’”

The argument posed here is a quintessential “hard case” being used to establish a premise in favor of treating publicly known adultery as no longer an obstacle to the lawful reception of Holy Communion. But this premise sanctions emotionally manipulative coercion and victimizes the woman further by treating her desire to live a virtuous life as the cause of harm to another.

Read more at www.thecatholicthing.org/2017/03/18/the-false-and-dangerous-coccopalmerio-gambit/

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2017/03/18/the-false-and-dangerous-coccopalmerio-gambit/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

3 comments on “The False and Dangerous Coccopalmerio Gambit

  1. Cool! And when faggots threaten to kill folks at the Boston St. Patrick Parade unless they get their way, it would be a sin to refuse their requests, right?

  2. Since the modernist prelate in question appears to be a homosexual his casuistry and modernist moral theology should be understood in that context.

  3. They’re quite good at making excuses to approve of continuing in their vices rather than actually making the sacrifices necessary to please God.

Leave a Reply