Amoris laetitia chapter 8 is so confusing!

  • Thread starter Thread starter AUGUSTINE1102
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Right!

And I understand culpability varies. And sometimes it is actual clergy who misguided people into their wrong situation! So these situations can be very difficult, no doubt!

Yet, for a papal document to cause such concern whether it is attempting to allow pastors to discern certain situations as able to continue sexual relations while receiving Communion, and then ignore Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, etc. when they are seeking clarity… well that fits the definition of ambiguity and insufficiency.

If the clergy is not on the same page, then how does anyone expect the Church to apply this exhortation into practical pastoral guidance?

It’s easy to say “I understand it completely”

But what if two people say that, but have different conclusions?
 
What specifically are you asking me? And how have I insulted the Bishop?
 
angel12 said:
40.png
rcwitness:
I already told you… I don’t need to read it.
Click to expand...
Sure. Why bother reading something to see if your repeated criticisms are true?
:roll_eyes:
Click to expand...
I’m expressing what Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, theologians, and laity have expressed.

It’s a fact that many clergy had requested clarification over aspects of AL, and were not afforded an answer. So despite obvious ambiguity, nothing was done, other than comments such as, “It is Thomist” or “Read it as a whole”.

This severely limits the constructivity of the letter.
 
Nothing new under the sun.

Ever hear of Humane Vitae?

People will always object to the magisterium. 4th century Arianism is a good example of that.
 
Last edited:
What is objecting to AL? If clarification is not afforded, how do we know if we are objecting or supporting?
 
The OP said that some in her group liked certain parts while not liking other parts of AL chapter 8. That’s nice and all, but people have been “liking” and “disliking” parts of the magisterium’s teaching since the beginning. There’s nothing unique about Francis’ document, and I personally don’t think it should be controversial.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
The OP said that some in her group liked certain parts while not liking other parts of AL chapter 8. That’s nice and all, but people have been “liking” and “disliking” parts of the magisterium’s teaching since the beginning. There’s nothing unique about Francis’ document, and I personally don’t think it should be controversial.
Click to expand...
There will always be dissent. There will always be people who reflexively dislike the Holy Father and will speak against him. I challenge anyone to find a Holy Father whose actions were not met with criticism. Pope Francis has his detractors who are working hard to discredit him at every turn.

I’ll go even farther and say that AL likely would not be this controversial if more people actually read it rather than parroting other peoples’ agendas and talking points.
 
But what was liked or disliked was not the magisterial teaching, but whether parts of the document were clear and well written, or unclear and poorly written. Big difference.

There has been no rejection of its teaching, but only expressed confusion over some things in it.

We are free to ask what things mean, or criticize how something is written. Who do you ask? The best person to ask, is the person who wrote it.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
I’ll go even farther and say that AL likely would not be this controversial if more people actually read it rather than parroting other peoples’ agendas and talking points.
Click to expand...
Still not acknowledging that Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, theologians, etc. were confused about what some things meant. Do you think they didn’t read it?

It doesn’t mean one is dissenting if they have questions!
 
rcwitness said:
Still not acknowledging that Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, theologians, etc. were confused about what some things meant. Do you think they didn’t read it?
Click to expand...
I actually don’t think the main instigators are confused. I don’t see how someone with significant theological training can actually be confused by Chapter 8 unless they already believed Pope Francis was heterodox and they were looking to prove it.

I think that these detractors are the source of the confusion and that many others, including some clergy, are parroting these talking points. Some of clergy may have decided not to read AL as a result of the detractors’ propaganda campaign (again likely because they had already decided that Pope Francis was a modernist heterodox “bishop” doing the work of Satan and therefore a Holy Father to be prayed for and ignored rather than one to learn from).

But, this is just my opinion. YMMV
 
Last edited:
Paragraph 3 of AL says:
I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does. Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For “cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied”.
Click to expand...
Asking questions within that context is somewhat ridiculous, particularly questions that seek a universal truth from he Vatican.
 
Last edited:
AL, like all Church documents, are written for the whole Church regardless of national culture or local customs. They are not specific in detail but focus on the overall question that the document discusses.

There needs to be different practical solutions if a couple are living in a westerns influenced culture or in a society dominated by another religion where the laws are written in harmony with that religion and not Catholicism or where the tribe is settling marriage issues between spouses.
 
From Chapter 8, and it’s footnote:
"Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end."

Footnote:
In a footnote, Pope Francis states, "In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’ (Evangelii gaudium, 44). I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak’"

This definitely can be interpreted to encourage reception of Communion while continuing sexual relations in an irregular marriage.

The point that doesn’t make sense, is he specifically says “while receiving the Church’s help to this end.”

If one is receiving the Church’s help, they are being made aware of the grave sin of their union. And while some aspects of the union cannot be undone without harm to some, abstaining from sexual relations must be intended and confessed before reception of Holy Communion.

You see, after someone receives the “Church’s help”, they should be made aware of the sin of sexual relations.

I definitely agree with a request to clarify this very important doctrine.
 
Since when has it been the Catholic practice to cherry pick verses without regard for the context within which that quote appears?

What if they cannot separate and have made the commitment before God and are living as brother and sister but one day fall to lust?

Shouldn’t they be treated the same and any of us would be if we had a momentary lapse? Are the sacraments not efficacious in helping us work toward Christian perfection?
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
Since when has it been the Catholic practice to cherry pick verses without regard for the context within which that quote appears?
Click to expand...
I am giving an example of a section that is not clear.
What if they cannot separate and have made the commitment before God and are living as brother and sister but one day fall to lust?
Click to expand...
Yes! This should be expressed by Pope Francis! For example, this part, “a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end” must include the resolution to live in continence.

If they fall into sin, they must bring it to the Sacrament of Reconciliation just like everyone.
Shouldn’t they be treated the same and any of us would be if we had a momentary lapse? Are the sacraments not efficacious in helping us work toward Christian perfection?
Click to expand...
Yes, they should be treated the same. We Reconcile in the Sacrament and then receive His Eucharist.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
What if they cannot separate and have made the commitment before God and are living as brother and sister but one day fall to lust?
Click to expand...
If you had read AL and therefore knew the context within which that quote was taken you would know that Pope Francis had already made very clear that couples must be “in conformity with the gospel”.

Honestly, these are basic critical thinking or critical reading skills.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yes, living “in conformity with the gospel” is obviously the command of the Church. No one is disputing that. The point is HOW is that applied to situations of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

The Church does not automatically demand separation in all things. Sometimes cohabitation is justified. Sexual relations is never justified.
 
Again, if you had actually read AL, you would know that in no instance does Pope Francis say that people can openly commit adultery and recieve communion. No where.
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
Again, if you had actually read AL, you would know that in no instance does Pope Francis say that people can openly commit adultery and recieve communion. No where.
Click to expand...
Again, I don’t think he did. Yet the section I provided (of which this thread is based on) leaves a lot of room to be interpreted that way.

We should not want anyone making that interpretation, Right?

So those who wanted to have Pope Francis, himself, make that distinction, were understandably justified.

I don’t understand why Pope Francis would not want to make that clarification. It would take such little effort.

That is my only criticism, or acknowledgement of what a lot of Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, theologians, and laity was looking to have clarified.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top