Is "Amoris Laetitia" as dangerous to Church teaching as some claim?


When robbing a bank, it may be a wise precaution to kill witnesses. I have not come across this “wise precaution” defence in court, or anywhere else.


Whatever be a Pharisee all you want.


We are not called to be of this world nor is Christ kingdom of this world.

Essentially if we live by the flesh and give into every desire and impulse especially in excess we are doomed to an eternity in chains.

If being chaste causes you to suffer then suffer for Christ sake.

I’m not judging you I was you 7 years ago.


I do not think that means what you think it means.

The Pharisees were men that dished out hard decrees of God’s Commandments and some made up by men who did not live by those laws themselves.

In essence they were Hypocrites and took advantage of the people.

This is probably the part where you bring up priest molestations, gay priests and affairs and all sorts of other perversities.

The church is not without its Judas’s.

Most priests are good men who do follow the Commandments of God and of the Holy Church and you’re more likely to get molested by a teacher or a politician than you are a priest.

No one here is trying to judge you or be hypocritical we are simply telling you the truth of what the church teaches.


The Church is teaching to deaf ears in that case. Seriously how many people just don’t have sex


A LOT! Many, many!


A lot of people Christians from both Catholic, Orthodox, or even Protestant groups who are single and obey God’s word do not engage in sexual activity even with themselves.

Natural Family Planning is not about not having sex it’s about spacing the amount of children and taking natural precautions when your hands are more than full.

Not to be crass but I was a sex addict I had a huge problem with pornography and even when I got over that I was still a sex addict.

That’s what our society teaches is normal and everything is good in excess but if you have moderation then it’s considered deficiency.

What the church teaches about marriage is that the purpose of marriage is to love God with one another and for the purpose of having a family.

The church teaches that sex is morally good in a marriage, open to life, out of love and not lust and in moderation.

Some people go weeks, months or even years without sexual activity in a marriage because they choose to and not because there’s anything wrong with them or their marriage.

You’re not going to die if you don’t have coitus.


The Church doesn’t know what it teaches when you have a Pope saying people living in adultery can have the Eucharist .
As far as I’m concerned until it knows what it teaches I can do whatever I want.


Well the Pope is only infallible when he speaks dogmatically.

That hasn’t happened in a very long time.

The Pope can write and say all sorts of strange things that are ambiguous and don’t make sense and it still doesn’t change the faith.

I’m not sure what your exactly against the teaching against sex outside marriage or the forbiddance of contraceptives?

If it’s the first that’s a basic Christian tenant same with masturbation and pornography.

If you go to pastor Billy Bob Doe down the street at the non-denominational Evangelical Church in your local shopping center he’s going to tell you the same thing.

The teachings about sex and contraceptives can be very difficult for many people in today’s world with such a contraceptive society where it’s very difficult to raise more than two children.

However some of this fear and distrust of the Church and of God come from our very own societies disordered teachings on sex and marriage.

I understand where you’re coming from and why you have the position you do.


That’s my opinion also. If Cardinal Burke is misinterpreting it, then it should be easy for our Holy Father to heal all of this by correctly interpreting it in responding to the dubia. It would not only help those like Cardinal Burke, but would also clarify for those using it as a license for blatant heresy and sacrilege.

I’ll just keep praying for them and the Church.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading.


Through all of this debate over AL, i have clung to Gerhard Müller’s responses most heavily. And because i like the way he speaks.

Here, he has taken the turn from what he was concerned with. So i understand why you are shaken some.

But i have expressed that until Francis directly and formally addresses it, i will be most open to Müller’s responses. Though my only reservation is because i truly do believe Pope Francis should be addressing it directly and formerly. It doesnt matter if he has “the right” to be silent. And its not wrong to acknowledge that the laity is rightly concerned about the moral grounds to the Exhortation. We should be concerned to find the moral grounds about it.


How can the gap between those who are true to the Church and those who are false be visible, save to God alone who alone knows the hearts of men? No one can know. And as always, those that attempt this will hold as their standard their own opinion, in this case, of Amoris Laetitia. I do not deny that opinions are valid, and often well-formed, but they must not be the standard whereby we judge our brothers and sisters as “false.”

Thousands of denominations exist because people who choose to elevate their interpretation of Scripture to a point they judge others. We must fracture the Church by doing the same thing with our interpretation of Scripture.


I do not see how this would help these people. The problem is people will always find a way to justify sin if they try hard enough. On the other side, those that believe to know better than the Pope (the might, but they also may not), still will set their own opinion as a standard.

I do not see these two problems changing. More to the point, they are the only real problems we here can actually fix.


There is a 54 day Rosary novena currently happening on the web for Pope Francis. It would be great if those who feel he needs help would join in. It’s at in the blog.


“I can do whatever I want” is pretty much the first step to Hell. I’d be careful with that if I were you. Remember Crowley was the big advocate of “do what thou wilt”.


You’d be surprised. People who actually don’t have sex tend to not go around announcing it because others ridicule them and in addition it’s nobody else’s darn business whether a couple is having sex or not.


The visible gap I’m mentioning is the gap between their beliefs:

For example, Pope Francis suddenly decide to officially allow communion for those in a state of deadly sin. Many faithful Catholics would then come to accept this as the new official “view” of the Catholic Church. Other Catholics would see that this new “tolerance” is heretic: It contradicts what God AND the Catholic Church always stood for. You’d then have two sorts of Catholics:

Catholics faithful to the Catholic Church’s core teachings (vs) Catholics faithful to Pope Francis’s new ideology

You are right when you say that no one but God can know what is in a person’s heart.
But how is this relevant? We’re not talking about who goes to heaven or hell here.

(end of example)

Pope Benedict said it himself: "The Church is on the verge of capsizing."
Of course, nothing is certain yet, but if the pope SEES what his ambiguity creates among the faithful, he WILL answer the Correctio Filialis. If he doesn’t, it could mean two things: He either can’t see the crisis he created, or he wanted to create this crisis. As a Catholic, I truly hope he didn’t see the crisis… but then who’s hiding it from him? Keep in mind that political groups formed in the Vatican: Liberals and Traditionalists.

Pope Francis favours Liberals for key positions. I guess it explains the uncorrected ambiguity.


Poor Pope Emertitus…such a kind heart would not even dream of referring to his own Pope …
But here again, this is underestimating not only one but two Popes.
And also note the difference between filial and fraternal.
Anyway, your post was for Mr Newton ,just that it is hard to let this pass about both persons …


I still think there was something shady about how he resigned . He was a conservative. He seemed a Pope who would stay in office until death. Not resign as only one other Pope in history did. Pope Francis I could see but not Benedict XVl. Something was off about that whole thing.


Do not take my word,read his.
I know it sounds as if I had "shares "on the sale of this book…I keep recommending it…but I liked it a lot: Last Testament, Peter Seewald and Pope Benedict XVI ,interview style in his own words.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit