A Handbook for Faithfully Interpreting Amoris Laetitia

[Randolph]

Hmmm, I’m sure the Pope would be interested in learning that you have determined that he has lost teaching authority.

TMC. Francis (poster) said no such thing. Read his/her comment again if you must. You should and must know better than attributing words and meanings to people that do not belong to them. Let the merits of your arguments convince others of your point of view.

The Catholic Church belongs to Christ—NOT to any pope, any bishop or any priest. The teaching authority of any clergy member was made possible only by Christ alone. The teaching authority comes with the office which again Christ established. The responsibility of all clergy is bring Christ and the Magisterium to the world. When any teaching is ambiguous and confusing, it is a problem. The Church is Catholic which also means the same irregular marriage can NOT be accepted in Malta, Chicago, San Diego or Munich, while it can be rejected in Philadelphia, Quebec, La Crosse, or Ontario. Remember that the Church ceases to be Catholic and no longer belongs to Christ if she departs from the teachings of Christ.

Another key problem is with the role of individual conscience and pastoral accompaniment. Does it now mean that any couples in irregular marriage can now receive Holy Communion if their own conscience is ok with it and their priest is ok with it? (Even if the couple still maintains their adulterous relationship) Can individual conscience with priestly accompaniment now overrule Christ and the Magisterium regarding indissolubility of marriage? Using the same logic, can ANY sins or infidelity now be overruled by individual conscience with an approval of a any priest? Is Christ even relevant?

Over 2,000 years, popes, bishops and priests have assured us that, despite their very, very best efforts, amazing faith and self sacrifices, they too are human, and they make mistakes. This is not a knock on their offices which Christ ordained. This is a humble reminder to all of us that the original sin of our first parents remains with us.

 

[TMC]

The Pope has never lost teaching autority. He can not teach against the churches official teaching. The Church teaches that anyone in a state of mortal sin (in this case adultery) should not present themselves for HOly Communion. This has been verified by the last two Popes.Pope Francis can not teach differently, without a complete explantion and that leaves mass confusion for the faithful. This is not his teaching Authority.

So you understand the scope of the Church’s teaching, but the Pope does not?

 

[TMC]

I have done no such thing.

Let me ask you this: all along and still, I have agreed with what St John Paul II taught in Familiaris Consortio. Pope Francis has proposed something which on the face of it, seems to contradict what was taught in FC. I can either agree with what one pope said, or what the other pope said, but not both. What am I to do?

You have three choices, as I see it. You can work to harmonize Pope Francis’ teaching with the prior Popes (which I believe is possible) You can simply follow the Pope, and not worry about any perceived conflict. Or you can conclude the Pope is wrong. What you cannot do, in my view, is decide that the Pope does not have the authority to teach as he does.

 

[TMC]

He has not lost his teaching authority nor his deserving of our patience and respect.

He has also not exercised the infallibility of his office, in having chosen to not define a matter of faith and morals or by formally binding Catholics to a particular interpretation of AL (either orthodox or unorthodox). Indeed at the start of Amoris Laetitia he even says that pastoral ideas “do not always require the intervention of the Magisterium”.

Why do so many Catholics think that there are two kinds of teaching - infallible, and optional? The vast majority of Church teachings are not infallible, but that does not mean they are not authoritative.

 

[pnewton]

The interview failed to answer the most critical question about this handbook, which is, so what? Three priest collaborated on may or may not be a good handbook to use and may or may not be used. I do not know why this is even news. If they had written this at the behest of the Holy Father, or if this publication was sanctioned by the Vatican for use in addressing implementation of Amoris Laetitia, then it would be new.

 

[pnewton]

To see how this plays out, read the history of the (US) Episcopal Church of the last 100 years.

No thanks. The Catholic Church is not the Episcopal Church. The differences are quite extreme, to much to learn anything from this.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

You have three choices, as I see it. You can work to harmonize Pope Francis’ teaching with the prior Popes (which I believe is possible) You can simply follow the Pope, and not worry about any perceived conflict. Or you can conclude the Pope is wrong. What you cannot do, in my view, is decide that the Pope does not have the authority to teach as he does.

Which leads to the question: just how ambiguous is AL? (that it is ambiguous is clear enough from the differing reactions to it)

Has anyone on CAF done a critical analysis of the controversial passages?

 

[TMC]

Which leads to the question: just how ambiguous is AL? (that it is ambiguous is clear enough from the differing reactions to it)

Has anyone on CAF done a critical analysis of the controversial passages?

I don’t believe that the fact that people disagree about it means it is particularly ambiguous. I don’t find it more ambiguous than other Church documents of similar weight and moment. There are widely varying opinions on how it should be interpreted, but that is also not really unusual. Some folks are acting like this kind of thing has never happened, but they have short memories. The wide disagreements on the interpretation of some VII documents (which continue to this day) are much more significant than what we are seeing here. Frankly, some are trying to “interpret” the document into non-existence, but the Pope is not going to allow that.

 

[Thomas_White]

The difficulty with Amoris Latitia is that critical parts of it are not only ambiguous but also incoherent. Consequently, there can be no definitive interpretation of it.

 

[St_Francis]

The Pope has never lost teaching autority. He can not teach against the churches official teaching. The Church teaches that anyone in a state of mortal sin (in this case adultery) should not present themselves for HOly Communion. This has been verified by the last two Popes.Pope Francis can not teach differently, without a complete explantion and that leaves mass confusion for the faithful. This is not his teaching Authority.

So you understand the scope of the Church’s teaching, but the Pope does not?

TMC, you are the one who does not understand that there are varying levels of Papal statements and that few of them rise to the level of infallible pronouncement on their own.

 

[St_Francis]

You have three choices, as I see it. You can work to harmonize Pope Francis’ teaching with the prior Popes (which I believe is possible)

You could help a lot of confused people if you would show us how!

You can simply follow the Pope, and not worry about any perceived conflict.

This kinda goes against my faith, to discard my belief in one thing which the Church has perennially taught for a novelty.

Or you can conclude the Pope is wrong.

I have not done this as I have insufficient information on which to render this judgement.

2What you cannot do, in my view, is decide that the Pope does not have the authority to teach

Again, I have not done this. Have you confused me with another poster, perhaps?

as he does.

This is too ambiguous to respond to.

 

[TMC]

TMC, you are the one who does not understand that there are varying levels of Papal statements and that few of them rise to the level of infallible pronouncement on their own.

Very few of the Church’s teachings are infallible. But all of the Church’s teachings are authoritative. Not infallible is not the same as optional. Are you saying that Pope Francis’ teaching is optional? What makes his teaching optional while the teachings of other Popes are authoritative?

 

[TMC]

You could help a lot of confused people if you would show us how!

This kinda goes against my faith, to discard my belief in one thing which the Church has perennially taught for a novelty.

I have not done this as I have insufficient information on which to render this judgement.

Again, I have not done this. Have you confused me with another poster, perhaps?

This is too ambiguous to respond to.

There are literally thousands of posts on this forum about AL. In several I have explained how Pope Francis teaching is a development of existing doctrine. But you don’t need to rely on me (and you should not). You can just read what he actually wrote, and the way he has said it should be interpreted. Or you can decide to disagree with him. Instead you have chosen to simply the declare the Pope is too confusing, and that you are therefor excused from following his teaching. You are certainly entitled to dissent from the Church’s teaching if you choose to do so, but it seems you don’t want to be in that position. But I don’t think that using supposed ambiguity to justify discarding or ignoring the Pope’s teaching is really any different than expressly dissenting. The Pope is not always right about everything. I certainly disagree with him on some things But he is the authoritative teacher of the faith, and he is teaching authoritatively in AL.

 

[pnewton]

TMC, you are the one who does not understand that there are varying levels of Papal statements and that few of them rise to the level of infallible pronouncement on their own.

Very few of the Church’s teachings are infallible. But all of the Church’s teachings are authoritative. Not infallible is not the same as optional.

It sounds right to me. What do you think was mistaken about the Pope’s teaching authority.

 

[St_Francis]

Very few of the Church’s teachings are infallible. But all of the Church’s teachings are authoritative. Not infallible is not the same as optional. Are you saying that Pope Francis’ teaching is optional? What makes his teaching optional while the teachings of other Popes are authoritative?

The teachings of the previous popes were in line with the perennial teachings of the Church. Pope Francis’s apparent teaching appears to deviate from that.

 

[TMC]

The teachings of the previous popes were in line with the perennial teachings of the Church. Pope Francis’s apparent teaching appears to deviate from that.

You say so. The Pope seems to disagree with you. I agree with the Pope.

 

[St_Francis]

There are literally thousands of posts on this forum about AL. In several I have explained how Pope Francis teaching is a development of existing doctrine. But you don’t need to rely on me (and you should not). You can just read what he actually wrote, and the way he has said it should be interpreted. Or you can decide to disagree with him. Instead you have chosen to simply the declare the Pope is too confusing, and that you are therefor excused from following his teaching. You are certainly entitled to dissent from the Church’s teaching if you choose to do so, but it seems you don’t want to be in that position. But I don’t think that using supposed ambiguity to justify discarding or ignoring the Pope’s teaching is really any different than expressly dissenting. The Pope is not always right about everything. I certainly disagree with him on some things But he is the authoritative teacher of the faith, and he is teaching authoritatively in AL.

I think that you are being unfair in equating confusion about this issue with dissent.

 

[TMC]

I think that you are being unfair in equating confusion about this issue with dissent.

I think that many Catholics who dissent from Church teaching tell themselves they are not “really” dissenting by claiming confusion, ambiguity, or simply denying that the teaching is what it clearly is. Don’t mistake me, I am fine with dissent - I think dissent is required when dictated by one’s conscience. I dissent from some teachings. But it bugs me when Catholics refuse to admit dissent by claiming that certain teachings are unclear, or not binding, or exceed the Church’s teaching authority. I am not saying you are one of those people - I can’t make that judgment. But I do believe it is a common characteristic, especially in the US Church.

 

[St_Francis]

I think that many Catholics who dissent from Church teaching tell themselves they are not “really” dissenting by claiming confusion, ambiguity, or simply denying that the teaching is what it clearly is. Don’t mistake me, I am fine with dissent - I think dissent is required when dictated by one’s conscience. I dissent from some teachings. But it bugs me when Catholics refuse to admit dissent by claiming that certain teachings are unclear, or not binding, or exceed the Church’s teaching authority. I am not saying you are one of those people - I can’t make that judgment. But I do believe it is a common characteristic, especially in the US Church.

If you dissent from some teachings, what does it matter to you what the opinion of others on this matter is? On what basis do you argue for it?

To me, Christ gave the Church the authority to teach and the protection of the Holy Spirit from teaching error. That does not mean that there won’t sometimes be problems. I accept that authority and believe what the Church teaches. I do not dissent on some points with which I disagree, because that would mean that the only reason I believe the ones I agree with is that they accord with my opinion: I would be negating the authority of the Church *altogether, *even in areas with which I agree.

AL on the face of it appears to disagree with what the Church has taught up til now. Up til one moment last year, I was supposed to believe one thing, now I am supposed to believe something else.

I am not denying anything. I trust that the Church will either work this out or provide an explanation as to how this new teaching is in line with previous teachings. So far, none of the explanations I have read, most of which involve stories of people in pain, have provided that explanation.

 

[TMC]

If you dissent from some teachings, what does it matter to you what the opinion of others on this matter is? On what basis do you argue for it?

To me, Christ gave the Church the authority to teach and the protection of the Holy Spirit from teaching error. That does not mean that there won’t sometimes be problems. I accept that authority and believe what the Church teaches. I do not dissent on some points with which I disagree, because that would mean that the only reason I believe the ones I agree with is that they accord with my opinion: I would be negating the authority of the Church *altogether, *even in areas with which I agree.

AL on the face of it appears to disagree with what the Church has taught up til now. Up til one moment last year, I was supposed to believe one thing, now I am supposed to believe something else.

I am not denying anything. I trust that the Church will either work this out or provide an explanation as to how this new teaching is in line with previous teachings. So far, none of the explanations I have read, most of which involve stories of people in pain, have provided that explanation.

I disagree with some of the Church’s teachings, but I have the intellectual integrity to admit that. What bothers me is that so many Catholics seek to justify themselves as fully compliant with the Church’s teachings by simply rejecting the teachings they don’t like as optional, non-binding, not infallible, or (the new favorite) “vague.”

Why do I care? A few reasons. One - I am here to discuss the faith and it is difficult to do that when posters simply refuse to engage on the Church’s actual teachings. Another - it gets old to be called a “cafeteria Catholic” (and much worse) for admitting dissent on some issues, when the person throwing those terms around disagrees with other Church teachings that he or she simply pretends don’t matter for some reason.