Amoris laetitia chapter 8 is so confusing!

  • Thread starter Thread starter AUGUSTINE1102
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Obviously, I can’t speak for Pope Francis. I do have a few opinions:
  1. Clarification isn’t needed. The document speaks for itself. It is only when you take quotes out of context that confusion arises.
  2. He may not trust the motives of those who crafted the dubia. It is an unfortunate reality that there are some aspects of the operations of the Vatican that are “messy” politically speaking. Pope Benedict stepped down because he didn’t think he was well enough to address the problems. Pope Francis was elected with hopes he would reform the institution.
  3. Answering the dubia would establish a universal rule for a process he expressly said could not be reduced to a universal rule. He wants there to be diverse implementation of these pastoral suggestions. That is why he left guidelines up to the individual bishops.
  4. He wants bishops to be in dialogue with each other as they form guidelines that best address the individual needs of the faithful under their jurisdiction. He does not want to interfere with the process.
Ultimately, clarification will come from your individual bishop. If there are issues, they can be dealt with within the chain of command.
 
You think it is more pious to give Francis the benefit of the doubt than multiple Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Theologians?

Maybe an option is that Pope Francis was actually ok with pastors encouraging some couples to receive Communion without an expressed confession to live as sister and brother?

I am not here to make assumptions about interior intentions of clergy. You are assuming Cardinals and Bishops have insincere intentions.

As for # 3, the call to abstain from adultery (in any situation) is definitely a universal law of Christ.
 
rcwitness said:
You think it is more pious to give Francis the benefit of the doubt than multiple Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Theologians?
Click to expand...
It’s not a matter of piety. This is not a completion. I don’t see any reason to believe Pope Francis is anything other than “a son of the church” as he says he is. He is orthodox.
rcwitness said:
You are assuming Cardinals and Bishops have insincere intentions.
Click to expand...
Based on what some are saying, I cannot see how they can be sincere. I’m open to the possibility that I am wrong.
rcwitness said:
As for # 3, the call to abstain from adultery (in any situation) is definitely a universal law of Christ.
Click to expand...
Pope Francis was not said anything to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
It’s not a matter of piety. This is not a completion. I don’t see any reason to believe Pope Francis is anything other than “a son of the church” as he says he is. He is orthodox.
Click to expand...
Fine. Others are free to believe he is capable of error, or leaving a matter open to misinterpretation. I prefer to hear him answer for himself, and not make any judgments, or witness mass divisions among clergy over it’s meaning.
Based on what some are saying, I cannot see how they can be sincere. I’m open to the possibility that I am wrong.
Click to expand...
I definitely can appreciate requesting clarification about one thing, at least.
Pope Francis was not said anything to the contrary.
Click to expand...
Yet, he never affirmed that sexual relations was not an option to resume and still receive Communion. When speaking so directly about the situation of couples in a process of Reconciliation, it warranted it.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
Yet, he never affirmed that sexual relations was not an option to resume and still receive Communion. When speaking so directly about the situation of couples in a process of Reconciliation, it warranted it.
Click to expand...
Why does he need to? I don’t understand why you are obsessed by this point. How can “living in conformity with the gospel” be interpreted any other way? Sex outside of valid marriage is adultery according to the gospel.

If AL were a document about sex and marriage I might understand you harping on this point, but it is NOT a document about sex and marriage (something you would know if you had read it).
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
Why does he need to? I don’t understand why you are obsessed by this point. How can “living in conformity with the gospel” be interpreted any other way? Sex outside of valid marriage is adultery according to the gospel.
Click to expand...
He doesn’t “need” to. Maybe that’s why he didnt… he wanted to exercise his right to remain silent and watch a bunch of people ask questions and not get them answered?
If AL were a document about sex and marriage I might understand you harping on this point, but it is NOT a document about sex and marriage.
Click to expand...
Its not about marriage? I thought it is about family and marriage, and getting specific about divorced and civilly remarried couples and reception of Sacraments.

Yes, I believe he got quite specific, and it warranted an affirmation of the Traditional Teaching regarding the universal law.
 
rcwitness said:
Its not about marriage? I thought it is about family and marriage, and getting specific about divorced and civilly remarried couples and reception of Sacraments.
Click to expand...
No, it is not. You should read it rather than relying on other people’s understanding of bits and pieces of it!

I don’t think we can go any farther in this discussion so long as you refuse to read the document itself.
 
Last edited:
Ok. No problem. I don’t care to read it.

The chapter titles must be very deceiving then!

I care more about how clergy (including the Pope) acts towards one another (including laity). I am disappointed that he did not have the respect to settle the minds of his fellow clergy.
 
Reaction from Cardinals, Bishops, priests, theologians, and laity.

Boy, I’ve said that a lot in this thread.
 
Excuse me for not reading every single comment of yours in this thread.
rcwitness said:
Reaction from Cardinals, Bishops, priests, theologians, and laity.
Click to expand...
Heresies have been started by all of those listed. Not one heresy has been introduced by a Pope.
 
Remember, I’m not claiming he was teaching anything wrong. But when he touched so closely to the divorced and civilly remarried receiving Communion, I believe it warranted reaffirming the law of Christ.

It obviously caused a lot of clergy to strongly feel that in some cases sexual relations can continue while being encouraged to receive Communion.

I know I would not want pastors having this impression.
 
rcwitness said:
Ok. No problem. I don’t care to read it.
Click to expand...
Let me help you out with one thing so that you can stop making this mistake.

AL is about LOVE and how it is expressed authentically within the family as a whole and in terms of particular relations like husband and wife, parent and child, siblings, etc. It covers the Catholic conception of love from womb to tomb. Chapter 8 is about pastoral considerations when people fail to live the marital ideal. It is only one of 9 chapters.

The objections to the document are based on a handful of pages within a letter that is over 200 pages long.
 
Last edited:
All I know is that it raised a lot of concern that he was encouraging pastors and individuals to determine for themselves if sexual relations in irregular marriages can continue while receiving and growing in grace through the Sacraments.

Continuing in sexual relations after the Church helps make one aware of grave sin is a rejection of God’s grace.

This is a universal law of Christ that warranted mentioning, especially when a Dubai was formed.
 
rcwitness said:
Continuing in sexual relations after the Church helps make one aware of grave sin is a rejection of God’s grace.
Click to expand...
Grave sin is not always mortal. Personal culpability is not always a black and white reality. Any ambiguity proposed in AL is most likely due to a misunderstanding of realizing what grave and mortal sin are.
 
Last edited:
AugustTherese said:
40.png
rcwitness:
Continuing in sexual relations after the Church helps make one aware of grave sin is a rejection of God’s grace.
Click to expand...
Grave sin is not always mortal. Personal culpability is not always a black and white reality. Any ambiguity proposed in AL is most likely due to a misunderstanding of realizing what grave and mortal sin are.
Click to expand...
Either way, reception of Holy Communion while continuing sexual relations is not allowed, regardless of culpability.

If it happened before the Church made them fully aware, then it was possibly not Mortal. Yet, the wrong done by remarriage is still adultery.
 
I’m discussing the controversy and subsequent request for clarification over sexual relations within irregular marriages by clergy, and it’s rejection by Pope Francis.

It’s not a good way to introduce pastoral love to the faithful. First express that love to fellow pastors.
 
rcwitness said:
Either way, reception of Holy Communion while continuing sexual relations is not allowed, regardless of culpability.
Click to expand...
Nope. If someone is forced to engage in sexual relations, e.g. rape, that personal is not personally culpable. There are thousands of other examples.
 
If Francis doesn’t want to clarify things that are understandable concerns about the letter, then I don’t want to read the letter.

If nothing is new, and he doesn’t want to make simple efforts to maintain respectful relations with fellow clergy, then his letter doesn’t carry a lot of weight.

If he respected the concerns of fellow Bishops and made appropriate edits, I would be interested in it.

As it is, the way it reads, in chapter 8, I agree that it seems to encourage reception of Communion by those who are in irregular marriages.

Is that what he meant? I will assume not, but it doesn’t help to keep silent when serious requests are made!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top