Amoris laetitia chapter 8 is so confusing!

  • Thread starter Thread starter AUGUSTINE1102
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Full knowledge is only present if they understood what the priest told them. If they left the meeting just as confused as they were before and therefore just as convinced as they were before that their marriage is OK, then culpability is still in question.
Click to expand...
That would have to be one lousy pastor!
If they leave the meeting with full knowledge, but show no interest in living according to the marital ideal, then AL and every previous church document says they may not be admitted to the sacraments.
Click to expand...
You know, I have argued with well educated Catholics, who claimed priest friends were supporting their interpretation of AL, that some situations include remaining sexually active in their irregular marriage while reception of Sacraments.

One priest even stated he would absolve a person who has remorse for getting remarried, yet does not intend to live in continence.

It’s not realistic to claim AL has not led to misunderstandings about couples needing to live in continence if they are to receive Communion in a worthy manner.

I had to eventually conclude that AL is not very practical regarding doctrine, but an effort to lure couples into communication with their pastor. It intentionally avoids the necessity of continence so as not to “turn off” the potential reunion of some Catholics.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
You know, I have argued with well educated Catholics, who claimed priest friends were supporting their interpretation of AL, that some situations include remaining sexually active in their irregular marriage while reception of Sacraments.

One priest even stated he would absolve a person who has remorse for getting remarried, yet does not intend to live in continence.
Click to expand...
If people want communion to be open to everyone and they are willing to flout the rules and teaching of the church in order to do so, then they will whether AL exists or no.

AL does not teach that people who are culpable of sin can receive communion whenever they want.

AL teaches that when culpability is in question a period of discernment might lead to the reception of the sacraments under certain conditions… or it might not. Nothing new here.
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
AL does not teach that people who are culpable of sin can receive communion whenever they want…AL teaches that when culpability is in question a period of discernment might lead to the reception of the sacraments under certain conditions… or it might not. Nothing new here.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter if someone is culpable for getting into a situation or not, reception of His Eucharist is not allowed if sexual relations continue. The point of AL is to lure couples into communication with a pastor. The pastor cannot advise Holy Communion without an expressed intention to refrain from sexual relations within an irregular marriage.
 
Last edited:
A huge amount of Catholics and clergy thinking it does. And because of lack of clarity!
 
Because of lack of clarity or because of media messaging, anti-Francis agendas, and/or reflexive uncharitability toward Pope Francis?
 
That sermon certainly seems like an example of a new Jansenism. I do not see what the point is, beyond the preacher trying to avoid the messiness of life. If he would like to reform the system of canon law so that God’s mercy is revealed more clearly, I am all for it. But it just is not applicable here.

A married couple wants to share their love with the Church, to have others recognize it and enjoy it as an image of God’s love. They do not want to use loopholes to justify themselves, but they are forced into it by others who think they know better. Loopholes are a response to those who lay heavy burdens and will not life a finger to help.
 
I’m talking about CAF discussions. They criticise me for “not understanding”!

For expressing that continence is necessary for those in irregular marriages!

BlackFriar was one!
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
I’m talking about CAF discussions. They criticise me for “not understanding”!

BlackFriar was one!
Click to expand...
I understand. All I’m saying is that the issue isn’t clarity. The issue is media messaging and personal bias.

I submit that the people who read AL and see it as allowing everyone to communion were already biased in that direction. Pope Francis did no such thing in Chapter 8.
 
Here is a good example from paragraph 294:
Whatever the case, “all these situations require a constructive response seeking to transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage and family in conformity with the Gospel.
Click to expand...
 
mrsdizzyd said:
40.png
rcwitness:
I’m talking about CAF discussions. They criticise me for “not understanding”!

BlackFriar was one!
Click to expand...
I understand. All I’m saying is that the issue isn’t clarity. The issue is media messaging and personal bias.

I submit that the people who read AL and see it as allowing everyone to communion were already biased in that direction. Pope Francis did no such thing in Chapter 8.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, they don’t think everyone should be admitted to Communion. But that some rare situations are permitted to receive while continuing in their sexual relations within their irregular marriage.

Some of the posters in these threads were very adamant about it. And criticizing me and others for not being able to understand because I have not been formally educated in theology!
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
But that the rare situations were permitted to receive while continuing in their sexual relations within their irregular marriage.
Click to expand...
AL says that where possible these irregular marriages should be brought into conformity with the gospel.

AL acknowledges that sometimes there are problems with the nullity process (humans can make mistakes), so sometimes a marriage has been deemed irregular that is not actually irregular. Discernment can bring these problems to light.
 
The point my priest friends were making is that in order to reconcile with the Church and bring the couples back to the Sacraments and good deal of soul searching, discernment, and virus required. There will be struggle for those couples that will be able to be reconciled. We have to admit that a large portion of these couples will not be reconciled ultimately in the end due to the objective grave nature and the fact their second unions are mere adultery, as repeated papal and Magesterium statements have made clear. Hence, paragraph 1651assumes this in that it encourages those who cannot be reconciled to full participation in the Church must seek participation in other ways.
 
Lack of clarity. Media reports would only make it evident a possible deviation from Church teaching might exist. It would therefore, for those truly seeking God’s will, to be conservative and not deviate from existing Church norm. But I have friends around the nation that hear reports of pastors and parishes permitting public adulterers to receive Communion without a process of discernment. Very big in Archdiocese of Chicago but that would be expected.
 
AUGUSTINE1102 said:
But I have friends around the nation that hear reports of pastors and parishes permitting public adulterers to receive Communion without a process of discernment. Very big in Archdiocese of Chicago but that would be expected.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in AL that allows for this.

Paragraph 300:
Priests have the duty to “accompany [the divorced and remarried] in helping them to un-derstand their situation according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop.
Click to expand...
To blame this situation on AL is like blaming the moon for the activities of the night.
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
To blame this situation on AL is like blaming the moon for the activities of the night.
Click to expand...
But they are using AL as their reason! Maybe not because AL actually guides them to do so, but it’s lack of clarity opened the door.
 
Many folks who have no clue what the texts of Vatican II actually say point to Vatican II for the abuses that go on in the Church today. And many folks who have no clue how to interpret Church documents point to “ambiguities” in a Church text to either justify their misinterpretation of it, or to completely reject the text itself.

The rule of thumb when interpreting a new Church document is that, whenever ambiguity exists, we interpret in light of what has been said in the past.

And one thing that I’ve noticed in the writings of Pope Francis (and he’s said this in a number of places) is that he doesn’t like to “waste time” or “pastoral energy” repeating what has been repeated numerous times in previous documents and throughout previous papacies. Rather, he presupposes those documents and papacies, and asks that we take a creative approach to the issues that we are facing here and now while remaining faithful to Tradition.
 
As a side note, I want to congratulate everyone on keeping this discussion civil. I’ve been involved in more discussions and conversations on AL - both on this forum and elsewhere - that eventually degenerated into insults and disrespect for clergy. This has been the most civil discussion I’ve been involved in so far. Way to go, everyone!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top