Amoris laetitia chapter 8 is so confusing!

  • Thread starter Thread starter AUGUSTINE1102
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How can we not expect this rationale to become the rule? In ethics an exception, in no short span of time, will end up dictating the rule. Especially if given to pastors. I look at the Anglican decision for artificial birth control at Lambeth conference in 1930. It was meant to be rare and exceptional hard cases but became normative very quickly. I also point out in the same vein the post-conciliar liturgical reform. Most of the “big” changes were offered as options and not to be seen as the ideal or norm. I dare anyone to find a Novus Ordo in which a priest faces “in the direction of worship” (“back to the people”), latin, Holy Communion on tongue and knees, chant, priest only giving Holy Communion, etc. Yet the Council stated these are all the norm/ideal yet the exceptions/options have become the rule since. Maybe this is why the Church has never ventured to break with Tradition in this regard (divorced and remarried). Maybe the perennial wisdom of Holy Mother Church knows better than one Pope or entourage of progressive clergy. I mean this is not alien or foreign to previous, and I would add more fathful, epochs of Church history yet the Church always said - NO! Our bishop said there is no changes to come. No deviation from tradition. I see the Francis revolution as well-intentioned, but in light of most well-intentioned initiatives, a disaster in the end. That’s my opinion but think I have the past 50 years or so as evidence that most top-down intiatives prove to be pretty ineffective if not counterproductive
 
Last edited:
AUGUSTINE1102 said:
How can we not expect this rationale to become the rule? In ethics an exception, in no short span of time, will end up dictating the rule. Especially if given to pastors.
Click to expand...
Three things help I think:
  1. Bishops create guidelines for their priests to follow.
  2. There is a process in place to address heterodoxy when it arises. Sometimes it works a bit slower than some would like, but the systems does indeed work.
  3. Scripture says hell will not prevail.
 
If that be the case then we will see little change? It depends on “what kind of priest” you go before. Our family will go to only four parishes in our diocese because the priests are pretty hard core and unabashedly orthodox. There are others that I would not trust to teach Catechism to my 1st grader. Maybe I am too jaded. I just think in this day and age you have to search out good clergy amongst a myriad of average or even liberal (evil) ones. Our diocese is better than most. We have been to other diocese like San Diego, or Chicago, or Tucson in which their prelates are openly progressive/liberal and desire that for their diocese. I guess I don’t have a blanket trust that all clergy are capable or functional at what they do. This was the perspective prior to V2. Not all priests could give counsel or hear Confessions. It is alien to our experience because we are living through a vocation implosion for 50+ years now and bishops must grant such faculties because the have no choice.
 
A couple other thoughts.

We already have exceptions for abortifacient drugs when medically necessary (so long as the intent isn’t to contracept). ABCs are not yet allowed.

We have an annulment process, divorce is not yet “allowed”.

We already distinguish between venial and mortal sins, yet we have not done away with confession.

I don’t think it is necessarily the case that exceptions become the rule.
 
Last edited:
AUGUSTINE1102 said:
If that be the case then we will see little change? It depends on “what kind of priest” you go before. Our family will go to only four parishes in our diocese because the priests are pretty hard core and unabashedly orthodox. There are others that I would not trust to teach Catechism to my 1st grader. Maybe I am too jaded. I just think in this day and age you have to search out good clergy amongst a myriad of average or even liberal (evil) ones. Our diocese is better than most. We have been to other diocese like San Diego, or Chicago, or Tucson in which their prelates are openly progressive/liberal and desire that for their diocese. I guess I don’t have a blanket trust that all clergy are capable or functional at what they do. This was the perspective prior to V2. Not all priests could give counsel or hear Confessions. It is alien to our experience because we are living through a vocation implosion for 50+ years now and bishops must grant such faculties because the have no choice.
Click to expand...
To this, I can only say that we must endeavor to be reflexively charitable rather than reflexively skeptical. It’s a challenge.

And for the record, I don’t think Pope Francis expected to see a rush of divorced and remarried people suddenly receiving communion. Everything about Chp. 8 tells me he intends this to be a small number of people brought back to the sacraments over time.

Most people can regualrize their situations by the usual means. Most people have no reason to go through this long and deliberative process.
 
  1. My understanding of certain birth control methods, exceptionally rare, that are approved for medical reasons is that one must refrain from sexual relations. Otherwise it is in practice no different.
  2. A very flawed process and so slow that hetero doxy gets a good head start to do good damage before any remedy is brought forth.
  3. Ultimately in the end Hell will not prevail over God’s will being ultimately accomplished through the Church in the end. But…Satan wins numerous battles in the “day to day” and on a lesser, more pervasive scale. If Satan had not gained ground in the Church we would not be discussing a papal document some (as I now do) is intended to give a pass to mortal sin (divorce and remarriage). But I agree, in the end, Satan will not have triumphed over the small yet faithful remnant of the true Church
 
Last edited:
AUGUSTINE1102 said:
We just finished reading Amoris laetitia for our marriage group.
Click to expand...
And I , @AUGUSTINE1102 , have not read Amoris Laetitia except for Chapter 8 which , prompted by this thread , I have just read out of curiosity .

I find nothing confusing in it .

It’s a straightforward and simple and orthodox expression of how to deal pastorally with difficult situations .

I have no problems with it .
 
AUGUSTINE1102 said:
My understanding of certain birth control methods, exceptionally rare, that are approved for medical reasons is that one must refrain from sexual relations.
Click to expand...
Your understanding is incorrect. My husband and I would not be required to live as “brother and sister” simply because I had a medical condition for which an abortifacient drug was medically necessary for treatment. Also, these conditions are not rare.
 
In numerous conferences and parish talks over the years (20+) it has always been stated that abstinence is required in such circumstances as a normative, blanket prescription. This is coming from bioethicists and theologians. Also, years ago a pastor stated that the diocesan norm is to require abstinence when NFP is not possible or reliable via consultation with pastor. There is debate about “double effect” scenario but I am not competent to draw this out. I think that these statements are to avoid finding “excuses” that those who do not warrant such medical solutions a free pass at ABC. Not arguing but stating that has been the consistent response when the issue has arisen in such situations.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Double effect scenario. The intent must be to treat the illness not infertility. Yet I imagine no one can make such a decision of their own accord but most likely needs the permission from their pastor. I just found out that if one is to separate maritally, he/she must consult their pastor and get permission. That blew my mind! I am no expert on such issues,but again think the use of any abortifacient within the context of narriage, even for medical necessity, is a precarious path. That’s my take.
 
LIke Rob2, I had never read it, although I had read a lot ABOUT it and watched some videos. But this is why I am on these forms–it gives me incentive to learn something new.

So. Having just read chapter 8, I am struck by three passages in particular:
  1. “Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases.”
  2. “It is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being.”
  3. “By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God.”
Frankly, I was expecting a lot more ambiguous language. I didn’t really find any. It’s pretty clear. And I disagree with some others–I think it was well written, clear, and even showed some flair for good rhetoric.

There is nothing new here. It’s the same Catholic doctrine that has always been there. The emphasis is different, that’s all.–and you could certainly argue that even the emphasis is nothing new.

I am particularly struck by my quotation #2–which I think should be obvious to any Catholic, but perhaps is not–that someone who “breaks a rule” may, in fact, be closer to God in his/her life that someone who obeys all the rules. Obvious to me, and probably to Francis, but maybe not to the black-and-whiters out there (You sinned! You go to Hell! Do not collect $200!)

So, having read it, I am an admirer.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
Frankly, I was expecting a lot more ambiguous language.
Click to expand...
I was too. I read it the first time after the Dubia were sent to the Vatican. I then saw why Pope Francis did not answer them. Chp. 8 is not ambiguous. The Pope’s meaning is clear. He is orthodox.
 
Last edited:
I’ll go back to my analogy I’ve used in these threads many times. I hate to repeat myself, but I see some different people here.

Let’s say your city passes a law: Going through a red light is a crime. The punishment will be $1,000 fine or 30 days in jail. Terrific. We need laws. Otherwise, there would be chaos, and of course there are always people out there who are selfish and think only of themselves.

So one day you go through a red light. Because your son is having a medical emergency and needs to get to the hospital ASAP or he will die. Now the black-and-whiters out there would say, “He broke the law. Fine him $1,000 or send him to jail for 30 days. Who cares if his son dies!” But luckily, we live in a nice city. The police might stop you if they see you, and if you explain your problem, they will let you go on your way. But if you get a black-and-whiter policeman, he will give you a ticket. Then you go to court, the judge will conclude you did the right thing, and the policeman will get a rebuke for wasting the court’s time.

So. Going through a red light is illegal. But there are an infinite number of good reasons why you might break that law without being penalized at all. Should we have a law? Of course. Should the law be enforced uniformly without regard to the circumstances? That would not only be stupid, it would be unjust.

So does the Church have laws? Of course. Should we try to follow them? Sure. But what if we have good reasons (in our individual consciences) for not following a law? Should the Church recognize individual special conditions? Of course. It always has and always will. That’s all Francis is saying.

And let’s say for the sake of argument that I run a red light just for fun. But in the rest of my life I am not only law abiding, but I contribute in all sorts of ways to my community. When it comes time to write my obituary (or it comes time for God to judge me…) will my obituary say “He once ran a red light” and ignore my lifetime of contributions and sacrifice? I don’t think so. And the same with someone who does not follow a “law” of the Church, but otherwise lives an exemplary life–will he be punished for eternity in Hell, or welcomed into Heaven? Only God can decide, but it seems to me that as fellow Catholics we need to err on the side of forgiveness and compassion.
 
Last edited:
Continuing to have sexual relations is like continuing to run a red the light every day based on your ignorance the first time.
 
Last edited:
That’s my concern. Is it not the end game of the a priest accompanying a couple living in adultery to the realization that THEY ARE LIVING IN ADULTERY?!?! This whole process is to bring adulterous couples to meet Jesus Christ, to realize they are not living in communion with Him or his law, and help them to make theheroic decisions that would reconcile them to communion be with His Mystical Body?
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
So does the Church have laws? Of course. Should we try to follow them? Sure. But what if we have good reasons (in our individual consciences) for not following a law? Should the Church recognize individual special conditions? Of course. It always has and always will. That’s all Francis is saying.
Click to expand...
If that’s what Pope Francis is saying, to be honest… I can not say that I agree with him (in my conscience). Maybe I’ll try to assume he does not!

Btw, it isn’t “the Church” who “recognizes” something, but individual priests.

What you will see, is the most liberal priests collecting parishioners, and the ones who cannot, in their conscience, consent to Communion while having sexual relations with someone who is not your Christian spouse, being hounded and attacked, rejected and pushed out.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
If that’s what Pope Francis is saying, to be honest… I can not say that I agree with him (in my conscience). Maybe I’ll try to assume he does not!
Click to expand...
That isn’t what Pope Francis is saying.

It’s more like: what if you ran a red light because you erroneously thought it was legal to run red lights in case of an emergency? And, everytime you have an emergency you run that red light thinking it’s ok? And, what if a police officer stops you and tells you it’s a crime to run red lights, but you cannot comprehend ( not just pretending you can’t, but actually can’t) that this action is criminal?

These are the situations Pope Francis is talking about. It’s similar to the idea that the invincibility ignorant may be saved by God through mercy.

Based on Pope JPII’s law of gradualness it is hoped that the grace of the sacraments will help the couple understand what is required of them.

I think we can admit that the number of people who would fit this description are small.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top