So is the article authentic or is it just causing a disruption for no reason?
You will need to speak to and correct Catherine of Siena about “objecting to something the Pope does.” That would be “Saint” Catherine of Siena.
But characterizing ALL concern as “clucking and gasping” or just “getting wound up” seems a bit nonchalant, blasé and dismissive about the genuine concerns that people do have.
What was it that Pope Francis said about truly listening to what others have to say? Shouldn’t he also be seriously listening to those who are deeply concerned? Are you?
I don’t care if you object, I object to stuff all the time.
Just pointing out that from a practical standpoint, we can’t do anything about it (I can’t change the things the Church does that I object to either) and if one is not living in sin then this particular issue has no impact on you.
Also, most of the people wanting to challenge the Pope over AL are the same ones who like to cite old catechisms on the subjects of heretics and Protestants and such and then when someone points out those are old and superseded, start making speeches about deference to Holy Father Eugene or Pius whatever and how the Church is unchanging. Can’t have it both ways.
Just out of curiosity, have you read the Buenos Airos bishops’ guidelines? The document comes across much more measured than you might expect. It’s not just the “OMG! The sky is falling!” that some make it out to be…
No, they are not the same.
AL advocates that pastors council with folks in irregular situations. It never occurred to me that this counseling should involve lying to them (overtly or via omission). If that is the point of AL it is even worse than I thought (I have no doubt some pastors will choose your path, but I think that is embracing darkness and should be avoided. And I do not think we have enough data to claim the pope is advocating this dishonesty).
Instead, AL advocates that it is possible that those already in irregular situations may continue to sin and partake of the Eucharist. The ignorance will be dispelled, but the pastor and the individual may determine that the “deliberate consent” (7c in the below is lacking) thus their continued sin is venial not mortal.
7C is called "deliberate consent in Catholic thought.
I hope you can see how “knowledge” is 7B and “deliberate consent” is 7C.
The thing is, “deliberate consent” means more than “choosing the sinful act”. They must do so on its own, for its own sake, desiring the sin.
In the case of an irregular marriage, some cannot choose continence (i.e., complete cessation of marital relations). If continence would create a strain on the new (irregular) marriage such that children of that new marriage would suffer (e.g., if the couple should split because of the attempt at continence), then the choice to commit the sin wouldn’t be from “full consent”, but in a spouse’s or spouses’ grave fear for the consequences of not allowing marital relations to continue.
In that case, the pastoral approach might counsel prudence, over time, allowing the couple to come to an understanding of how such a solution would be the best approach for them. Gradually, over time, having been told of the objective sinfulness of their actions, a pastor would hope to bring them to a lived understanding (rather than just an intellectual understanding) of the situation. In such a way, the hope would be to transform them into avoiding that sin.
I trust in Christ, that he will not let evil prevail. I believe in his Word when He said:
“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”
The holiness of the Rock does not depend on the Rock’s clarity, holiness, or his own ability. Therefore if he is totally vague, evil and inept, the Church will still prevail.
The lack of culpability depends on ignorance. The Church should be stamping out ignorance. But frankly ignorance on this matter is hard for me to believe. When I was a Protestant even I knew the Catholic Church didn’t permit remarriages. I knew there were annulments.
God is of course the judge of the individual but I find it hard to fathom how a Catholic could be ignorant of this. However, as soon as a wrote that I thought of the awful lack of catechisis. So maybe it is not as hard to be ignorant of this as I first thought.
I believe that you have now described Pope Francis’ position if Pope Francis is not teaching heresy. Pope JPII taught us about “gradualism.” JPII’s message is that gradualism describes the movement towards the law of an individual, but DOES NOT mean that the law is different for individuals at different places. Pope Francis is somewhat ambiguous, but he claims to embrace JPII’s teaching.
It may be possible that Pope Francis rejects “gradualism of the law” instead he recognizes that 7C means that the mortal sin (no gradualism of the law) is just as grave a matter for all involved in it. But for some the “deliberate consent” is so absent it is a venial sin. As they move towards the law (aided by their partaking of the Eucharist) their strength to choose (the possession of “deliberate consent”) can be enhanced.
That being said, I think the practice embraced by many who embrace AL is “gradualism of the law.” This is opposed to JPII’s teaching on the matter and MAY be opposed to Catholic Traditions.
So regardless of the Pope’s position, I think the the pastoral acts associated with AL will regularly be opposed to Catholic Tradition (of course many of the pastors who will do this left behind Catholic Tradition long ago).
Also I think it would be true to say that “deliberate consent” is not only choosing the sin so one can rebel against God. Very few teenagers choose premarital sex for the purpose of flaunting the laws of God. They do it because sex is a powerful lure and the culture tells them to do it (and I fear AL is another step in the cultural slide). Still, the teenager who “fell” must go to confession before partaking of the sacrament. “Deliberate consent” is free choice absent compulsion, not desire to sin for the purpose of flaunting God’s law. All men are capable of making sinless choices, we just do not succeed all the time.
I have not. Thanks for the link
Do you think the Pope is above criticism?
- In other, more complex cases, and when a declaration of nullity has not been obtained, the above mentioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, a path of discernment is still possible. If it comes to be recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351). These sacraments, in turn, dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the power of grace.
I believe this is the controversial part of the Buenos Aires understanding.
But the words
"in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability"
implies that they are not in mortal sin.
It’s not right to cherry-pick point 6, as many of you are, and ignore it’s context of 5 and 7:
it is possible to propose that they make the effort of living in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulties of this option (cf. note 329) and leaves open the possibility of receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation when one fails in this intention
However, it is necessary to avoid understanding this possibility as an unrestricted access to the sacraments, or as though any situation might justify it.
Nor is it right to take for granted the complexity of “complex circumstances”.
This works for the Catholic, but knowing what the Catholic Church teaches, when one does not believe the Catholic Church is the teacher, but that one should rely on the Bible alone, often leaves one invincibly ignorant. Just knowing about something is not know it.
I am unconcerned with criticism. I am more concerned with charity. If we are going to criticize the Pope, or any bishop, it should be done with the same love, deference and humility with which the bishops or priest question each other.
I did not mean to cherry pick point 6 but merely highlighted it as a point of contention, as the other points are not controversial so much.
I tend to agree that AL is problematic. In my heart I am trying to justify ways of how to support it as it comes from the Pope.
I have been a Catholic all my life and a faithful one too. But the Pope touches on the Communion, a subject that has no imbaguity to us. It is sacred and untouchable. It’s doctrine and discipline are ones that should not be subjected to change at the personal opinion of the clergy, even the Pope.
But now AL comes about that departs from all the old understandings of those who cannot receive Communion, that now they can.
This kind of ruling will make many Catholics uncomfortable. Please do not tell us just to accept it because we too have the right to stand up for our faith.
Having said all that, my present position is to pray for the Pope for right wisdom and to be faithful to the Church that he has so given responsibility with. I pray that the Church would stand by her deposit of faith even against the tide of the world, that she will not roll over and that she continues to be the unmoveable beacon of the light of Christ to the world, at times a sign of contradiction.
Our deposit of faith is what it is. Truth unchanging. Our pontiff is to represent that - and to lead us in teaching and doctrine and dogma as the Holy Ghost reveals.
The way I view it is that it is mainly saying that after personal discussion with the clergy, if it is found that the couples have reduced culpability/responsibility and are not in mortal sin due to this, then they may receive Communion, which I don’t think is tooooooooooo out there imo.
Has anyone directly quoted the document and explained how it contradicts doctrine? No.