This is one of the best commentaries on the Pope’s of exhortation I have read. AL represents a development of doctrine and the associated praxis. Here I think we see the Pope’s intentions very clearly.
Praise God for the gift of the Pope! May he be blessed by the Spirit with continued strength and courage!
Thanks. I understand that he was referencing canon law. I do not, however, understand how his claim that the Archbishop does not understand those canons when he clearly referenced a development and change to those laws. Ab Fernandez also references similar past changes to canon law. Hence my question.
His defense is a summary of many previous defenses, as far as I can tell (I don’t have the original article). The ubiquitous myth that c. 915 is directly about the state of one’s soul seems to be present, just as most of the other typical canards… “Development of doctrine,” “gradualism of the law” (as opposed to the law of gradualism), the conscience as an autonomous agent of justice (viz. judging one’s own public case), the mitigation of culpability due to temptation, the false analogy with coercion, the consequentialist principle of protecting children, the supposed internal forum solution, the hijacking of St. Thomas on general principles and particular situations… Many, many problems, most of which appear in the summary on Crux and all of which are likely present in the article itself and are inadequately dealt with.
What I am saying is that AL does not propose an authentic development of doctrine.
All the pieces of the “D and R puzzle” have been there a long time. It takes great care, courage, and detachment to put them together, which plenty of clergy have done for centuries. What we have currently is something else.
The thought that temptation reduces culpability is a particularly pernicious error and could be the root of the whole thing… Most likely along with the rubber stamping of real decisions in pastoral ministry that have already been made.
Thanks for this, its an excellent insight into AL and answers many of the confusions some laity and even Cardinals have had.
Whether they agree of course remains to be seen :rolleyes:.
It is of course about a change of discipline not of doctrine.
His basic principle is that if someone is reasonably judged to be living a life of grace then access to Communion is not intrinsically wrong.
It is also about the more mature way we need to understand and apply moral norms.
No formulation is perfect enough to justly cover all cases.
Thus the 5th C does not mean ohr soldiers are rightly called “killers”.
Hence not all irregulars are rightly pejorated as adulterers or fornicators.
The thing is, he hasn’t and it’s not. The Pope deliberately left AL vague. He talks about the possibility of divorced and remarried receiving sacraments, but he doesn’t go into detail. The Holy Father has since made his position clear in, for example, his letter to the Argentine bishops, but he has not bound the Church to any particular interpretation. As it stands, each bishop or conference of bishops is deciding for themselves. In my archdiocese, “the rule” for communion has not changed. Should I disobey my Archbishop?
I don’t think the Pope has settled anything definitively. That’s why the implementation of AL varies considerably from diocese to diocese. In my archdiocese, it has been clearly reiterated that couples in irregular unions must live as brother and sister if they are to receive. The provisions now in place in Argentina, Malta and Germany, or in certain US dioceses such as Chicago, do not exist here… I do not believe my bishop is in open rebellion against the Pope.