Ah, the usual American liberal rhetoric “how does it affect you” line. Heard that with just about every sexual sin, and now people are being forced to use made-up words and participate in invalid weddings which in some cases last less than 2 years.
None of the commentary surrounding this is surprising in the least. People just don’t take the Faith seriously enough and that’s exactly why the Church bleeds out members and money everyday.
The following factors:
Censorship. This technique is used by radical left-wing SJWs.
Lack of knowledge about basic human incentive. This is the primary reason for all of the appeal to authority. For those who don’t understand, it’s “because Vatican said so” and that’s how the Protestants “lost” the culture war.
This is a particular perspective of all those who prefer to wear political glasses through which to see people.
That would be your problem to deal with,not the Pope’s.
The political and the labels is so entrenched that is seems very hard if not impossible to watch life without them for very many.
Many barely cannot speak without saying liberal,conservative,right,left,and the list gets to the unbearable…
Take them off and perhaps you can see nobody is trying to fool you.
If you want…
Sin is sin because it is damaging to us. Ignorance of sin MAY reduce sin from Mortal to Venial, but it does not change the fact that sin is damaging to humans and creates distance between man and God.
I believe it is a huge error to suggest that keeping folks ignorant of their sin in ANY situation is what a confessor/pastor/priest should do.
I also do not see AL as suggesting that pastoral care involves keeping people ignorant of their sins.
AL claims that some folks in irregular relationships may lack sufficient “deliberate consent” such that their adultery is a mortal sin and in those situation partaking of the Eucharist is not prohibited. This position may be problematic, but it is not as problematic IMO as the intentional darkness (ignorance) advocated in the passages quoted.
What is your job?
Sorry, but I’m going to have to continue this conversation by PM ONLY…for obvious reasons.
That’s why I wouldn’t rush to make a judgement on an article.
Except when it’s not. Ignorance of grave matter may constitute no sin (culpable sin is not the same as grave matter) at all.
Granted, grave matter is still damaging. But there are also imprudent responses that would only compound the damage.
Right, but if it’s not sin but rather merely matter there may be complex circumstances in which it’s more prudent to temporarily leave someone in their “material sin”, so to speak.
Again, you are not distinguishing between sin and merely grave matter.
That makes no sense. They’re the same thing. If you’re giving Communion to the non-culpable adulterer, you are also intentionally keeping them in “darkness”.
People who turn away from the Church over a comment, especially by the Pope, were never turned much toward the Church to begin with.
It is not up for you to give the Holy Father his job evaluation. Do you not think he believes he is doing his job? So who should be his judge? The blogosphere? Judgement by internet?
It is not only lack of charity, but hubris to presume to judge others here based on the comments and how much they line up with one opinion or another. Goodness gracious, since when has avoiding rash judgment of the Holy Father been a signal that one is not serious about one’s faith?
You could not be more wrong. The reason Catholics appeal to the authority, when the authority is an actual authority, is that is how authority works, how the Catholic Church works. Democracy works otherwise, but that is democracy.
Hopefully I don’t get in trouble for answering this and this will be my last comment on here but people are leaving because they feel the Church is not herself any longer if that makes sense.
Four things can happen.
One people leave regular parishes and join smaller traditional Churches and missions.
Two people follow the same path except they become schismatic becoming Old Catholic, Sedevacantist or SSPX or… SSPX Resistance.
The third option is they join the Orthodox Churches.
The fourth is they leave religion or apostolic Christianity all together.
Many on here have taken option one but some days it’s so troubling how secular things have become in the Church option three doesn’t look half bad either.
Many times people take option one and find other things troubling besides things that pushed them towards that decision i.e the Synod of the family 2014 and Amoris Lattitia.
I don’t think it’s always that they are not aligning themselves with the Church but that they find something’s are becoming contradictory by very strong voices in the church so they move deeper into traditional Catholicism or leave all together.
Sometimes but some become Atheist.
I don’t think the SSPX are Protestant though Sedevacantist sure but the SSPX are just in schism like the Orthodox.
And it is natural,PNewton .That is what is difficult to convey…
It is portraid as if there were islands with no contact with each other. But there is a sense of belonging,of family, that though we know that this person is a Bishop,that person is a priest,this person is Monsignor so and so, there is a bond,there is appreciation,there is dialogue when there can be…
There is this natural familiarity within given respect because we grew up thanks to their gift of life too.With them…
The same Bishop who gives the Mass,with all his vestment,leaves the place with his poncho on his shoulder because it is cold,and mingles humbly in the multitude. I have this image of my last Bishop some months ago. …Through eyes of tenderness,the same eyes that look at us tenderly.
Now he will preside CEA.
It is a life experience . And it isn t independent of mutual love and respect. It isn t cold and distant. Even if there is a distance and we never get to speak to each other.
Considering the topic of this thread, and it’s various turns so far
Excerpt from Fr Weinandy, theologian, & his letter to pope Francis Re: AL and Ch 8 (emphasis mine)
“…… only where there is truth can there be authentic love, for truth is the light that sets women and men free from the blindness of sin, a darkness that kills the life of the soul. Yet you seem to censor and even mock those who interpret Chapter 8 of “Amoris Laetitia” in accord with Church tradition as Pharisaic stone-throwers who embody a merciless rigorism. This kind of calumny is alien to the nature of the Petrine ministry. Some of your advisors regrettably seem to engage in similar actions. Such behavior gives the impression that your views cannot survive theological scrutiny, and so must be sustained by “ad hominem” arguments.
Second, … Again and again you portray doctrine as dead and bookish, and far from the pastoral concerns of everyday life. Your critics have been accused, in your own words, of making doctrine an ideology. But it is precisely Christian doctrine – including the fine distinctions made with regard to central beliefs like the Trinitarian nature of God; the nature and purpose of the Church; the Incarnation; the Redemption; and the sacraments – that frees people from worldly ideologies and assures that they are actually preaching and teaching the authentic, life-giving Gospel. Those who devalue the doctrines of the Church separate themselves from Jesus, the author of truth. What they then possess, and can only possess, is an ideology – one that conforms to the world of sin and death.
Third, faithful Catholics can only be disconcerted by your choice of some bishops, men who seem not merely open to those who hold views counter to Christian belief but who support and even defend them. What scandalizes believers, and even some fellow bishops, is not only your having appointed such men to be shepherds of the Church, but that you also seem silent in the face of their teaching and pastoral practice. This weakens the zeal of the many women and men who have championed authentic Catholic teaching over long periods of time, often at the risk of their own reputations and well-being. As a result, many of the faithful, who embody the “sensus fidelium,” are losing confidence in their supreme shepherd… "
Exerpt From https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/11/02/open-letter-father-weinandy-his-predecessor-amoris-laetitia-and-pope-francis. This was a letter from Msgr John J. Strynkowski to Father Weinandy’s Re: his letter to Pope Francis Re: AL http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/11/01/a-theologian-writes-to-the-pope-there-is-chaos-in-the-church-and-you-are-a-cause/?refresh_ce
Not everything is coming from bloggers
Hmmm. A guy with a wig v a guy with a tiara. Hmmm.
“My Lord Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead ALL souls to heaven, ESPECIALLY those MOST in need of thy mercy…”
The Mother of the Lord can ask us to pray this as part of the Rosary.
Aren’t the people we are discussing “most in need”?
I defer to Pope Francis…but that’s just me.
Will this AL interpretation bring more people back to the faith, or drive more away?
You’re not being “forced” to use a word or sell a cake or do anything here.
Nor do these “invalid marriages” affect you and if you don’t think the marriage is valid then you should rejoice when it “ends after 2 years” so the person has a chance to reform.
This communion hangup that people have who are not even the priests making the decision is just minding other peoples’ business for them. If you’re not a priest, you get zero say in this issue anyway. It’s pointless to get wound up about it unless you just enjoy getting wound up.
Sounds like Martin Luther to me.
Most people leave the church nowadays because they just can’t be bothered going to Mass every week, maybe they have some doubts about God, and they may also want to just go commit sins and not worry about it. People who would leave because a divorced person went to Communion are a tiny minority who are hung up on their own, probably fictional and misguided, perception of what “The Church” should be.
So the secular tenet of “live and let live” has now become Church doctrine?
I suppose the early Church martyrs who died for their faith were just “getting wound up” about it? They should have resolutely minded their own business and burned the incense or made it “easy” on themselves by agreeing that just saying a few words doesn’t really mean you believe those words in your heart. Would have spared a lot of blood and tears, I suppose.
Watered down blood and tears, but still spared.
Was there a doctrine that said we get a vote or should go marching around the Vatican with placards when we object to something the Pope does?
Do we get to impeach him?
People just like to get wound up so they can sit around clucking and gasping over The World Today.