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


You’re welcome to discuss my points regardless of your beliefs. I don’t doubt you care for real people. But sometimes love involves not allowing people something they want.

I’m not sure what you mean by “reach” people. If they are doing what they want, falling in and out of love naturally, where is their need to be “reached”, per se?

I’m not sure what you mean by text book. Do you mean the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Wouldn’t the free lovers also be able to write and read books to which they align? At the very least, they certainly produce movies. I guess that counts. What is wrong with living according to the Bible for instance? As a Christian, you probably try to align with that book?


If you are Christian, then you must have a certain level of Catholic belief.

What do you wish to reach everyone with? Is it contrary to Catholic faith? Is it compatible with Catholic faith?

We are not a religion of a text book alone, but a Person and His revelation. Although the Bible does have a prominent place in our knowledge of God. To deny Scripture as the Word of God which is the Father of Jesus fellowshipping with us, offering hope, beckoning our hearts, affirming the faithful, revealing His plan and Son, etc. would be very un-Catholic.

I chose to believe you are quite Catholic, if you believe, are Baptized or desire it, strive to know God and do what is right, desire Communion of His body and blood, love others, keep His laws, and turn from your temptations and failures.


He says jump off a cliff, you will do that as well?


That would be a cult leader.


He said

if he says do something, I will do it.

He did not provide exception to his flat statement.


I agree. I would not make that statement.


Neither would I.


I might. I like a little hyperbole now an then. But Amoris Laetitia presents on danger of cliff jumping. If one is in an irregular situation that cannot currently be reconciled, one is still totally free to refrain from communion. No one is forcing anyone into pastoral consultation.


Your wording is a little confusing to understand what you r trying to convey here. Could you clarify?


It’s more like encouraging shepherds to guide and accompany sheep over a cliff who are already heading there. It kind of defeats the purpose of a shepherd…

(if we take one of the common interpretations of AL, which the Pope has not ruled out, unfortunately)


I meant to say it presents no danger. One is free to act in accord to one’s conscience and refrain from communion. The problem lies when a person wants other to act in accord to his conscience.

Whether it is a cliff or a path to safe begs the question. That has been done to death, and why there is disagreement here.


The issue is whether priests can discern whether couples in an adulterous relationship (already bound by God to another person other than who they are sleeping with) can continue in that relationship because their special circumstances, and therefore receive Communion in a worthy manner.

You are right that no one is forced to receive Communion against their conscience. Who would argue that?


Interestingly, Priests in the form of a tribunal discern the truth about past events and circumstances in a bid to determine the bond’s validity.

I am unclear what it is exactly that the accompanying priest is to discern.


Yep, and i dont believe priests always make the accurate judgment, and we arent expected to believe they are infallible.

But that wont cause me to judge another persons process of following the tribunal either.

Like i said, most cases probably dont depend on discerning the heart and mind of couples. That is my personal rub with AL’s proposition. And that the two previous popes taught that special situations cannot change the principle.


It is an interesting point. Is it actual mortal sin, objective mortal sin, or perceived mortal sin that makes one unworthy for communion, as a matter of doctrine, not practice?


Apparently, it depends if you ask JPII, Benedict, or Francis…


Saint John Paul, when he said they were not to receive communion called it a practice. Actually, I think he said something about being an unbroken practice. That does not mean it cannot also be doctrine, but I wonder, since He was such a precise theologian.

I am thinking about whether communion worthiness hinges on the relationship with the Church, or with God, or with both, as a matter doctrine, not just a practical matter. As people can find themselves in this situation with no fault of their own (sin), much less mortal sin, it is a sticky question.

I see this “danger” as an opportunity for theological understanding and exploration, which is what Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit would do. We do not know it all yet. So maybe it is a very dangerous document, as dangerous as the Gospel. Danger is not always to be avoided.


You see, that if we base its justification on saying “its just a practice” then, by that principle, what is preventing complete admission to the Eucharist for all situations of unrepented sins? And by unrepented, i mean “not turned from”.

And as i was saying before, what one pastor might believe is an unjustified situation to receive, another might feel justified.

How can it be a matter of fallible priests to discern? I think Pope Francis is trusting that our priests are wiser than they actually are.

Ive been told by priests, that i should use condoms (under my situation). I wrote the diocese to know if a priest was able to advise people that. They gave an emphatic “no”. Ive been told i should mutually masturbate with my wife. Both times i questioned them and they responded quite authoritative.

Priests regularly opt to relax the law rather than admonish the faithful according to the Teachings of the Catholic faith. Its no wonder we have such ignorrant Catholics and those of us falling into temptation and Catholics practicing masturbation, contraception, divorce, remarriage, and a host of other things contrary to the faith. Our priests are trying to be “buddies” over representing Jesus.

Sometimes our conscience might be telling us our pastor is not correct.


You are right I was too flat. I suppose I must recant to some degree. But does that mean the cardinals and the pope are curtently all in the wrong reguarding their silence on the forementioned teaching? (Pope for writing it without explanation and the cardinals for little or no contesting). Is that possible?


I really can’t comment on a book I have not read. How many on this thread have actually read it?

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