Amoris laetitia chapter 8 is so confusing!

[mrsdizzyd]

The point is that AL lends itself to the Maltese interpretation, and to claim that it clearly doesn’t allow for such an interpretation seems misguided.

I have quoted extensively from the document showing that while Pope Francis allows for discernment he does not open the sacraments to everyone whose conscience says that adultery is A-OK. He has given assent to guidelines from Argentina, Rome, and Lisbon. In all those cases, it is clear that couples in discernment may never actually get access to the sacraments.

Therefore, if a bishop misinterprets AL or if someone believes the bishop has misinterpreted AL, there are procedures in place through the CDF to address these concerns.

 

[Ghosty1981]

I am not saying that the Lisbon and Argentine guidelines are not also possible interpretations of AL. I am saying that the Maltese guidelines stand and have not been contradicted. They have been read by the Pope, and he thanked the Bishops for the guidelines.

We will have to wait and see if the Maltese guidelines stand the test of time. For the time being they are apparently well within the scope of AL’s teaching.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Have you read the Maltese guidelines?

I just took some time to read them. They put a lot of stipulations on what the discernment process would entail and the things a pastor would be expected to teach in order to correctly form the conscience.

If a pastor rigorously followed this process and the person’s conscience was properly informed and enlightened, I would be shocked if they could still arrive at a place of peace with God unless there were some extreme circumstances going on in this marriage and they were unable to escape it.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Yes, I have read the guidelines extensively, and digested them. At the final portion it places the individual’s conscience over the judgement of the priest. So, after all of the priestly guidance, if the couple is clear in their conscience they “can’t be precluded from the Sacraments”.

The guidelines also explicitely state that continence is not required. It is not enough to say “I can’t imagine people reaching such a conclusion” when the document explicitely allows for such conclusions and binds priests to them.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Follow up question: do you think that AL backs up this conclusion that a priest must take the conscience as the final word?

I don’t think that it does. In paragraph 303 of AL we find this quote:

Recognizing the infuence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.

Taking conscience into account is not the same thing as requiring that conscience override the judgement of the priest especially not for something as serious as admittance to the sacraments.

Again, I think the bishops had in mind here that a properly formed conscience shouldn’t come to the conclusions that God thinks adultery is A-OK. But, I think Malta exceeds Pope Francis’ words in AL. That makes this issue the perfect one for priests in this diocese to raise to the CDF for intervention.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I’m not sure if you think AL is helpful or harmful… Or both?

Both…

 

[ConstantLearner]

Yes, I have read the guidelines extensively, and digested them. At the final portion it places the individual’s conscience over the judgement of the priest. So, after all of the priestly guidance, if the couple is clear in their conscience they “can’t be precluded from the Sacraments”.

Really doesn’t make a lot of practical sense then, does it? It could have simply said, “Follow your conscience.”

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Ghosty1981:

Yes, I have read the guidelines extensively, and digested them. At the final portion it places the individual’s conscience over the judgement of the priest. So, after all of the priestly guidance, if the couple is clear in their conscience they “can’t be precluded from the Sacraments”.

Really doesn’t make a lot of practical sense then, does it? It could have simply said, “Follow your conscience.”

I can’t help but think the bishops could not have meant what that line implies. What is the point of discernment at all if in the end people are just free to do what they want?

They must believe that a correctly formed conscience couldn’t find peace with God. You still need to safeguard the sacraments though.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Anyone who’s read the document knows Pope Francis knew Chapter Eight would be challenging. From Dr. Jeff Mirus’s article on AL:

The controversy stirred by Amoris Laetitia arises from Chapter Eight, “Accompanying, Discerning and Integrating Weakness”. As Pope Francis wrote in the introduction, it is likely that “married couples will be more concerned with Chapters Four and Five, and pastoral ministers with Chapter Six, while everyone should feel challenged by Chapter Eight” (emphasis added). This is because Chapter Eight considers an extremely difficult theological and pastoral question, namely: In ministering to the needs of her sinful members, to what degree can the Church take into account the reality that the human person cannot achieve the goal of spiritual growth all at once, but typically must proceed by degrees?

…Pope Francis rejects gradualism of the law (as if God’s law changes to accommodate our spiritual deficiencies). But he recognizes the gradualism of moral and spiritual growth. This makes it possible, without failing to set forth the demands of the Christian life, to judge that a person has not reached sufficient spiritual development and discernment for some of his or her sins to be considered mortal. Hence there is a certain legitimate latitude for gradualism in pastoral care, striving always toward greater perfection.

Apply this to irregular marriages, and you can see the problem it presents. As I stated at the time of the first Synod on the Family in 2014, it is not necessary to conclude, from the objective gravity of the sins(s) involved in an irregular marriage, that these sins are always subjectively mortal. Human confusion and even compulsion in marriage matters is probably more difficult to overcome than in almost any other area of life. Pope Francis tries very hard to promote a proper application of this spiritual understanding.

Only footnote 351 mentions communion:

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” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039). [This is footnote 351.]

The Controversy at the Heart of Amoris Laetitia

If Catholics who have divorced and remarried without obtaining an annulment can in some cases be given permission to receive communion, will this do more harm than good? That’s the question at the heart of the controversy over Pope Francis’ post synodal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia...

www.catholicculture.org

I see no confusion in the document itself. I don’t even see it as challenging, but I studied it in sixth year theology class in college.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Chapter 8 is challenging without a doubt. He is asking that the Church embrace members that had long ago been written off as a lost cause.

Chapter 8 requires a change in attitude that is very difficult for some to accept.

Such is our faith. There was a lot about Christ’s ministry that was and is difficult for people to take.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I see no confusion in the document itself. I don’t even see it as challenging, but I studied it in sixth year theology class in college.

I also don’t see it as confusing or challenging, and I have no theological training.

The article is a good one. While I think that abuse is possible, I also take the Holy Father’s words for what they are. He expects that the church stays faithful to doctrine while also being merciful in its discipline. It’s a tall order for a human institution and an imperfect solution, but taking a legalistic position on such a complex issue is also imperfect.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Except that the guidelines promote walking with the couple and teaching them the best moral course. In the end the guidelines do leave it to the conscience of the couple, however, and indicate that the priest is to allow for this.

I see nothing impractical about it at all. I may be obligated to provide guidance about best practices while still allowing for worse ones. In health education we do it all the time.

 

[Ghosty1981]

What is the point of discernment at all if in the end people are just free to do what they want?

There are those (not sure if these Bishops are among them) that believe that an informed and certain conscience can’t lead one to sin. If someone is informed and certain, and they follow their conscience, then they are not sinning.

There is no objective way to determine if one’s conscience is properly formed. We can know that information has been shared, but not that it has been properly understood. We can’t always be certain of our own understanding, let alone the understanding of others. This is one of the difficulties in “primacy of conscience”, which is not to say that I disagree with idea, only to say that it comes with some very real difficulties.

Now AL doesn’t mandate the approach of Malta, and the Maltese approach isn’t the one I came to from my reading of AL, but obviously AL leaves the door open to the Maltese interpretation. If the Maltese understanding is incorrect it would be the easiest thing in the world to fix, but that hasn’t occured yet.

The fact that AL can be interpreted in a manner consistent with traditional praxis doesn’t mean that it can only be understood in this manner. Church history is full of examples of documents that were intended in an orthodox manner but ended up supporting error, or at least lended themselves to erroneous interpretation. When this occurs, further clarification is required. I argue that the existence and acceptance of the Maltese guidelines indicates that AL is such a document.

Personally, I don’t believe that Pope Francis intends any kind of heresy or moral error, but that doesn’t mean I think he is particularly good at providing clear guidance to the Faithful. I have read AL and I just find it largely unnecessary and uninspiring, but then I’m coming from a particular context that is hardly universal. I think a development towards a recognition that the annulment process is hardly infallible, and allowing for leeway in particular circumstances where the process fails, is a good thing, but AL doesn’t strike me as being especially well directed in this regard. The fact that both the Argentine and Maltese guidelines come from a “faithful” reading of AL only feeds my view that AL merely reflects whatever one brings into it, rather than illuminating anything new or clarifying murky areas of moral theology.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The structure of the Exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations ”

You shouldn’t have put a quotation mark at the end of this sentence—it makes it seem like this is part of the encyclical. It’s not–it’s YOUR words.

First, I am a HUGE Ratzinger fan. Which is one reason I get excited when people start dividing Catholics into Liberal or Conservative. I’m sure there are some people who check off all the boxes on one side or the other, but I suspect most are like me–considered Liberal on this issue, Conservative on that one, and on down the line. In other words, I don’t fit into a box–I’m me.

So bearing that in mind, and going back to my much earlier post about the state passing a law that you have to stop for a red light (as an analogy to Church law on marriage) Ratzinger is saying, “Yes. There’s a law. Here’s what it is.” We all agree. Ratzinger has stated the law clearly. At least those of us who read it–and what percentage of the Catholic population read that encyclical–0.1%? Fewer? I read that section, but not the whole thing. But of course you could make a valid argument that it’s not meant for peasants like us, it’s meant for bishops and priests. And Francis comes along and says, “Yes, I agree there is a law, a very nice law. But what is a red light anyway? Does the red light law cover bicycle paths? If 96% of the drivers go through the red light with regularity, does the law make sense?” And so on. One is not contradicting the other, they are complementary.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Really doesn’t make a lot of practical sense then, does it? It could have simply said, “Follow your conscience.”

I think “Follow your conscience” would be a good summary…

 

[Erikaspirit16]

There is no objective way to determine if one’s conscience is properly formed. We can know that information has been shared, but not that it has been properly understood. We can’t always be certain of our own understanding, let alone the understanding of others. This is one of the difficulties in “primacy of conscience”, which is not to say that I disagree with idea, only to say that it comes with some very real difficulties.

I think you put it very well. One of the issues is to what degree do you attempt to form your conscience? I think we would all agree that the more serious the matter, the more effort we should put forward. However, I don’t think Pope Francis or God expect us to spend every waking hour of our lives studying theology to discern this or that to form our conscience. Just look at where we are today: one group of cardinals interprets this one way, another group a different way. And how much training and prayer have gone into each of their consciences??? In other words, I would contend that it’s not a matter of simply reading this or that and saying “Right. I now know all I need to know to form my conscience about X, Y and Z.” That’s silly. As others have wisely pointed out, this is a journey–we’re always learning more. Our consciences can change over time. Who among us is not horrified at some things they did in high school? It’s all very well for a monk to pray 18 hours a day to “discern” his conscience. But that’s a luxury normal people do not have. I’m sure God expects a reasonable effort, not an extreme effort. If you’re looking for an example, take a look at the Apostles: How many times did one or more of them come to Jesus with a completely wrong interpretation of what he had just heard? How many times did Jesus have to set them straight? So if the Apostles had some problems, shouldn’t we?

 

[rcwitness]

The structure of the Exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations ”

You shouldn’t have put a quotation mark at the end of this sentence—it makes it seem like this is part of the encyclical. It’s not–it’s YOUR words.

Thanks, but it is Ratzinger’s words.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I also don’t see it as confusing or challenging, and I have no theological training.

Despite school, I am no theologian! I did learn from some good ones, though.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I think “Follow your conscience” would be a good summary…

True, but they should seek guidance from their priest, who should give it. We should all be seekers and all work on moving toward a greater understanding of God and the Church.

 

[Mboo]

oh good because it is the priest who is infallible! when we already see how bishops are divided on the correct interpretation of AL, and you ask that we rely on the judgment of a priest, well then I will choose a “modernist” and then I go quietly to sin in good conscience