‘Enough debating!’ Vatican archbishop says it’s time to accept Amoris Laetitia

  • Thread starter Thread starter KMG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
By regularly reporting non neutrally spun news that is always at odds with a fair reading of the text in its context.

I am surprised you have never noticed the bias.
 
Wow, I just had a great idea: let’s talk about what the archbishop said instead of rehashing what we think of LSN!

I’ll start. I just read an article last night about the results of the young people’s meeting the Vatican had called for. I thought the article was to o vague to post here ( Young Catholics call for an authentic, empowering church ), but it said that YP wanted a sense of community and welcome.

That kind of sounds like what the D&R want, and what Pope Francis thinks we should give them.

It is also a complaint we hear from many other geoups of people: older single people, young married people, (potential) converts, etc.

So maybe what is happening here is that lay people are all asking for the same thing: a church which has a sense of human community.

I have long thought that since the Church developed for so long in a situation in which there was one church in the town or neighborhood, that the parishioners would already be in a community and so could “afford” to concentrate on worshiping God when they came together for Mass, but that in our changed world, Catholics are not in solely Catholic communities so there is no longer a sense of a community coming together.

We have friends at church, and maybe even develop stronger friendships, but in a lot of parishes, parishioners just don’t run into each enough away from church to become friends. We have lots of fragmented “communities”: the school and activites communities for the children, and work communities for the adults, and, tbh, not much else, especially for those without a lot of spare money.

We live in a world where even those we call our families are composed of friends rather than relatives.

Teens so desperate for community and a sense of belonging that they join murderous gangs to get that sense of inclusion!
Maybe we are all looking at what the Pope is saying backwards (and ai definitely include myself in that “we”!): maybe he is not saying: break the rules for people, but instead saying that we need to pull ourselves together and form true communities which revolve around the parish? Communities in which one can find people with whom to share deeply, not just superficially, people from whom to learn to become more holy, people with whom to just hang out and relax.

Abd maybe some few D&R people will be able to receive Communion under this new situation, but the community will be close enough that this will not cause a problem, which is why this part was put into a footnote.

Yes, I think there can be criticism of this or that aspect of what is happening, but which is more important: to critique or to learn and perhaps even do something?
 
Last edited:
I’m no fan of LifeSite “News,” but this article actually illustrated some very interesting points. The first is that it’s painfully obvious they don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to AL and the cautious opening to the Sacraments for those in irregular situations. Nowhere in the document is that possibility mentioned (no, not even in the infamous footnote). The supposed ambiguity of the document itself I find to be a red herring in that a proper reading of Church documents always implies reading in continuity with what the Church has always said when a topic raised is addressed in a vague and ambiguous way.

That being said, the article does pick up on what is probably the main question/problem raised by AL in re. those in irregular situations - How doe we welcome them and incorporate them into the life of the Church. Pope Francis points out that those in irregular situations (and I’ve even seen this among folks who have been divorced, had their marriage annulled, but have not remarried) are often treated as though they are excommunicated. When you read the document it’s obviously that he’s not just (or even primarily) referring to being cut off from the reception of the Sacraments, but they are treated like they’re cut off from the community as a whole. The question that he raises is: How do we incorporate them back into the community?

LifeSite seems to imply that we don’t. We leave them in the “outer darkness” to wallow in their sin until they can get themselves together. Once they’ve straightened out their lives, then we’ll welcome them back.

That’s the impression I got from my initial reading of the article. Would love to hear what everyone else who has read the article and AL thinks.
 
It seems.like the excommunication process happens everywhere, not just at church. Divorce unsettled all the social arrangements: people who have known Joe and Sallyy as a couple fear taking one side over another, fear having a (now) single person around, etc.

And divorced people themselves are very unsettling. They are often consumed and distracted by the divorce, and their lives turned upside-down as moving, new jobs, etc. Occur.

I don’t think there’s some sort of effort to ostracizZe divorced or D&M people.

ETA: maybe it’s like when someone leaves for another job. You’re happy to see them again, but there’s less to talk about, and the relationship is just different. Which probably shows the superficiality of our relationships.
 
Last edited:
The possibility that some couples in irregular unions may receive communion is explicitly endorsed by Pope Francis in his letter to the Argentine bishops…which has since been published in the official Acts of the Holy See. No, AL does not explicitly say that those living in irregular unions may commune, but that is the Holy Father’s own interpretation…and now the practice in Rome itself as per the revised guidelines issued by the Cardinal Vicar a while back.
 
The controversial parts of Amoris were not proposed by the Pope in a definitive way or even in a manner requiring obedience at all. One thing Pope Francis is good at in his documents is laying out his intention (his “manifest mind and will”) right at the beginning. The controversial parts were put forth merely in the form of an “invitation” to consider.
 
The “full discernment possibilities” (as it were) that are present after AL are the same that were present before AL. Of course, you and others understand this differently, despite constant proclamations by many bishops that nothing has changed regarding doctrine or canon law.

The hyperbole is unnecessary, trivializing things, with a failure to mention that many prelates in the hierarchy see it the same way as “many” on this forum. Bishops and laity alike don’t just “desire Communion consistency”; it’s a command of Christ’s that we all be one. It’s not the “firmament” that may “crumble”, but the unity of God’s holy Church. As Cardinal Müller lucidly pointed out last year:
It cannot be that the universally binding doctrine of the Church, formulated by the Pope, is given different and even contradictory regional interpretations. The basis of the Church is the unity of faith. The Church no longer experiences a new revelation.

No one can alter the sacraments as a means of grace according to their own choice – for example, so that the sacrament of Confession can be given without the intention to sin no more…

The unity of the Church is not the object of our desires, but a commandment of Christ, that all who believe in Him are united in a true sacramental communion of Church, life, and confession.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
billy15 said:
The “full discernment possibilities” (as it were) that are present after AL are the same that were present before AL. Of course, you and others understand this differently, despite constant proclamations by many bishops that nothing has changed regarding doctrine or canon law.
Click to expand...
Lets unpack your concentrated observations.

Well forgive us for observing that two Synods, AL, the Magisterial affirmation of the Argentinian Guidelines and the acceptability of the Malta Guidelines (which you no doubt feel are from the pits of hell) were all a big waste of time and effort then if what you opine were true 🤣.
Of course, you and others understand this differently, despite constant proclamations by many bishops that nothing has changed regarding doctrine or canon law.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I agree with you that the new disciplinary allowances opened up by AL do not require any changes to either Canon Law or doctrine.

It is simply a matter of changing prudential judgements over time as to what concretely constitutes “manifest” “grave sin” and “obstinately persist” in today’s unheard of situation where over 30% of married Catholic members are in an irregular situation. It is no longer the exception but the norm.

As PFI says, we are in an emergency situation, a war zone field hospital. Some here think the Church is still some sleepy Catholic hospital with expansive, sprawling manicured green lawns and colourful flower gardens run by nuns in some peaceful quiet middle American town out of the 1950s.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
Well forgive us for observing that two Synods, AL, the Magisterial affirmation of the Argentinian Guidelines and the acceptability of the Malta Guidelines (which you no doubt feel are from the pits of hell) were all a big waste of time and effort then if what you opine were true.
Click to expand...
You’ve misunderstood what I’ve said, and again, your hyperbole is unnecessary and unhelpful. I find the Maltese Guidelines to be inconsistent with the Church’s teaching regarding not only the present topic, but conscience itself. And I do not believe that AL, the two synods preceding it, or the Argentinian Guidelines were a waste of time. Your observation from what I “opine” does not follow at all.

Focusing solely on the AL document itself, there is actually a lot of wonderful material in there. It does not need to be reduced to a footnote or two or a single chapter. His Holiness makes many, many great points throughout the document, particularly in Chapters 5 and 6. As Bishop Olmsted points out in the Diocese of Phoenix’s guidelines for AL:
“Amoris Laetitia covers a wide range of topics related to marriage and family life, with a particular emphasis on the family’s vocation and mission of love… The exhortation encourages married couples, families, and pastoral ministers to accompany and care for families and others in need of the Lord’s mercy and healing.”
Click to expand...
The exhortation is a pastoral letter, encouraging priests and pastors to continue to grow in their pastoral mission of solidarity and accompaniment with the faithful entrusted to them. Of course it wasn’t a waste of time and effort.
BlackFriar said:
I agree with you that the new disciplinary allowances opened up by AL…
Click to expand...
This is where the question lies which we were discussing earlier: Is the Church’s practice of barring from Communion those divorced and civilly remarried members of the faithful, who live with a new partner more uxorio, simply disciplinary, or is it doctrinal? You appear to see this restriction as not being an infallible teaching of the Church, rooted in divine law. Of course, some people may not realize that they are sinning by having sex with their legally recognized spouse while their legitimate and true spouse they divorced (or the true spouse who divorced them) is still living. But what happens after they are told that such relations with their new partner are, objectively, adulterous?
 
Last edited:
The same applies for the person who did not initially know that masturbating to pornography is gravely sinful. He may not be fully culpable and may have sinned venially for a long time, but now knows the seriousness of such a sin. Do we tell him to stop immediately and repent, knowing this will be difficult for him (but not impossible), or do we tell him he doesn’t have to stop right away? Of course, we would tell him to stop sinning as charitably as one can tell another, particularly pastors. The same would go for the couple in question. Do we tell them they must stop immediately and repent, despite this particular cross being hard, or do we tell them that it may be possible to participate in the sacraments without living as brother and sister if they come to “acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God”, as the Maltese Guidelines put it? And we haven’t even gotten into the ramifications of culpable or vincible ignorance.

This is why what we see unfolding is so very sad. Many bishops teach contrary to what the Maltese bishops (and admittedly others) suggest. When asked if AL has changed any Church teachings, the Phoenix Guidelines state the following, quoting AL 300, emphasis mine:
Apostolic Exhortations do not change doctrine. Canon Law also is not changed by the Exhortation. For example, Pope Francis mentions that “…neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules… What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases… Priests have the duty to ‘accompany (the divorced and remarried) in helping them to understand their situation according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop’.”
Click to expand...
If this teaching regarding the reception of Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried is not simply a discipline with no doctrinal weight, but an infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, then it follows that AL has not changed this practice. As I’ve stated before, AL is to be read in continuity with the Magisterium of past pontificates. It is an important document for pastoral practice, and it is indeed in continuity with the Church’s tradition. I’ll close with a lengthy quote from Bishop Olmsted again in another letter, as he synthesizes all this nicely, emphases mine:
 
Last edited:
As a good shepherd, Pope Francis focuses special attention on those who walk on the edge of despair because of personal failures and problems they have suffered in their families, and because of the complex and contradictory situations in which they find themselves now. He calls for deeper and sustained pastoral accompaniment of these suffering families, assuring them that they are welcome in the Church family, and that we are eager to seek ways to integrate them more fully into our local communities. This situation does not, it is important to note, mean that the Catholic persons are excommunicated from the Church. They should be encouraged to pray, attend Mass, and rectify the situation in communication with their pastor, who remains their pastor despite the case of objective sin. Accompaniment is possible and should be the case in our parishes.

This does not, however, include receiving Holy Communion for those who are divorced and remarried. Pope Francis specifically calls those in this situation “to seek the grace of conversion” (#78). Throughout Amoris Laetitia we see a continuity with the Church’s Magisterium especially that of Blessed Paul VI, St. John Paul II, and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI which reaffirm the constant tradition of the Church.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
billy15 said:
The “full discernment possibilities” (as it were) that are present after AL are the same that were present before AL.
Click to expand...
You’ve misunderstood what I’ve said, and again, your hyperbole is unnecessary and unhelpful. I find the Maltese Guidelines to be inconsistent with the Church’s teaching regarding not only the present topic, but conscience itself.

And I do not believe that AL, the two synods preceding it, or the Argentinian Guidelines were a waste of time. Your observation from what I “opine” does not follow at all.
Click to expand...
Well we both live on different planets then and there is no common ground to discuss if you seriously believe AL coupled with Argentina and Malta, both Guidelines applauded by Pope Francis, have not allowed for new practises re Communion access.

BTW your personal conscience is not an indicator of objective truth.
I would think the ordinary views and instructions of the Pope in an Apostolic Exhortation has every chance of possessing exactly the objectivity that you accord to your own contradictory personal, untrained lay insights.

If Pope Francis applauds the Maltese Guidelines then clearly your lay interpretation of what accords with Church Teaching is far more likely the trolley-cart with the speed wobbles rather than the Supreme Pontiff’s Lamborghini methinks 🤣.
 
Last edited:
Time and time again you speak of “personal lay” insights, or “untrained” interpretations by laymen. You know full well Pope Francis despises clericalism. First off, you don’t know me or know my experiences, so let’s stop with the assumptions. Second, you keep turning what I and others place here and elsewhere for the consideration of all as my own “lay interpretation”. I stand on the shoulders of giants, i.e., the bishops. Tell us why Bishop Olmsted, not I, is mistaken above. Why his position fails. Or that of other men like Archbishop Chaput, Archbishop Sample, Archbishop Pettipas, Bishop Reig, Bishop Peta, Bishop Lopes, et al. They all must live on a different planet than you do as well. Bishop James Conley of the Diocese of Lincoln,in his letter to priests in his diocese on AL states, "Sexual relationships outside the bonds of marriage constitute circumstances of grave sin. The Lord calls those who are divorced and civilly remarried, or who are cohabiting, to continence … like every person who is conscious of grave sin, divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who engage in ongoing sexual relationships may not approach Holy Communion.”

Perhaps in your opinion I don’t have “common ground” with you, but does Bishop Conley? Do you have “common ground” with Archbishop Chaput? When you are presented with the view of a particular bishop, you turn it around and make it seem as if that bishop’s view comes from one with “contradictory personal, untrained insights”, i.e., a mere lay person. Nonsense. I don’t claim to know everything and am continually learning (as we all should be), but I’m not ignorant and uninformed either. I’m a son of the Church.

And again, what is disturbing is that bishops are contradicting bishops. Trained bishops are contradicting trained bishops. Yet you harp on those who present the views of bishops with views on this document that contradict your own (and the bishops you agree with) as being the views of simple, uninformed laymen. No matter what “planet” you currently reside on, surely you can admit that it is not good for the Church to have bishops contradicting bishops regarding the implementation of AL.
 
And one cannot claim without meriting laughter that “circumstances” change when you walk across the border from Germany to Poland, or when you drive from Chicago to Springfield.
 
billy15 said:
I stand on the shoulders of giants, i.e., the bishops
Click to expand...
Please.
When the giants are fighting each other that’s an indication we dwarfs should keep our feet firmly planted on the ground and leave it to the giant of the giants to sort out.

Hmmmn, that could make a catchy Papal title: Gigans Gigantum.
Time and time again you speak of “personal lay” insights, or “untrained” interpretations by laymen. You know full well Pope Francis despises clericalism.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Given he is also highly trained and educated non clericalist I am sure he is equally opposed to amateur laypersons punching well beyond their limits also.
 
Last edited:
Sounds too much like bishop of bishops… which is too close to “universal bishop”, a title Pope St Gregory the Great condemned as heretical. 😛

What would “biggest giant” or “chief giant” be?
 
Last edited:
Gigans Gigantissimus perhaps (the giant-est giant) - even catchier.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top