Breaking: pope declares troubling interpretation of al ‘authentic magisterium’

[graciew]

My stance is simple: Do your job or STEP DOWN.

What is your job?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Sorry, but I’m going to have to continue this conversation by PM ONLY…for obvious reasons.

 

[steve-b]

RandomAlias:

I trust Pope Francis a lot more than I trust whoever wrote that article.

I concur 100%! This is sensational and rather disturbing. There’s no fire and the Catholic Church is not imploding. Personally, I don’t care for Church Militant. Something just seems off, like they’re gonna snap at any minute.

That’s why I wouldn’t rush to make a judgement on an article.

 

[Boler]

Sin is sin

Except when it’s not. Ignorance of grave matter may constitute no sin (culpable sin is not the same as grave matter) at all.

but it does not change the fact that sin is damaging to humans

Granted, grave matter is still damaging. But there are also imprudent responses that would only compound the damage.

I believe it is a huge error to suggest that keeping folks ignorant of their sin in ANY situation is what a confessor/pastor/priest should do.

Right, but if it’s not sin but rather merely matter there may be complex circumstances in which it’s more prudent to temporarily leave someone in their “material sin”, so to speak.

I also do not see AL as suggesting that pastoral care involves keeping people ignorant of their sins.

Again, you are not distinguishing between sin and merely grave matter.

AL claims that some folks in irregular relationships may lack sufficient “deliberate consent” such that their adultery is a mortal sin and in those situation partaking of the Eucharist is not prohibited. This position may be problematic, but it is not as problematic IMO as the intentional darkness (ignorance) advocated in the passages quoted.

That makes no sense. They’re the same thing. If you’re giving Communion to the non-culpable adulterer, you are also intentionally keeping them in “darkness”.

 

[pnewton]

This comment is precisely why people are turning away from the Church.

People who turn away from the Church over a comment, especially by the Pope, were never turned much toward the Church to begin with.

My stance is simple: Do your job or STEP DOWN.

It is not up for you to give the Holy Father his job evaluation. Do you not think he believes he is doing his job? So who should be his judge? The blogosphere? Judgement by internet?

 

[pnewton]

None of the commentary surrounding this is surprising in the least. People just don’t take the Faith seriously enough and that’s exactly why the Church bleeds out members and money everyday.

It is not only lack of charity, but hubris to presume to judge others here based on the comments and how much they line up with one opinion or another. Goodness gracious, since when has avoiding rash judgment of the Holy Father been a signal that one is not serious about one’s faith?

This is the primary reason for all of the appeal to authority. For those who don’t understand, it’s “because Vatican said so” and that’s how the Protestants “lost” the culture war.

You could not be more wrong. The reason Catholics appeal to the authority, when the authority is an actual authority, is that is how authority works, how the Catholic Church works. Democracy works otherwise, but that is democracy.

 

[graciew]

The reason Catholics appeal to the authority, when the authority is an actual authority, is that is how authority works, how the Catholic Church works. Democracy works otherwise, but that is democracy.

And it is natural,PNewton .That is what is difficult to convey…
It is portraid as if there were islands with no contact with each other. But there is a sense of belonging,of family, that though we know that this person is a Bishop,that person is a priest,this person is Monsignor so and so, there is a bond,there is appreciation,there is dialogue when there can be…
There is this natural familiarity within given respect because we grew up thanks to their gift of life too.With them…
The same Bishop who gives the Mass,with all his vestment,leaves the place with his poncho on his shoulder because it is cold,and mingles humbly in the multitude. I have this image of my last Bishop some months ago. …Through eyes of tenderness,the same eyes that look at us tenderly.
Now he will preside CEA.
It is a life experience . And it isn t independent of mutual love and respect. It isn t cold and distant. Even if there is a distance and we never get to speak to each other.

 

[steve-b]

Considering the topic of this thread, and it’s various turns so far

Excerpt from Fr Weinandy, theologian, & his letter to pope Francis Re: AL and Ch 8 (emphasis mine)

“…… only where there is truth can there be authentic love, for truth is the light that sets women and men free from the blindness of sin, a darkness that kills the life of the soul. Yet you seem to censor and even mock those who interpret Chapter 8 of "Amoris Laetitia" in accord with Church tradition as Pharisaic stone-throwers who embody a merciless rigorism. This kind of calumny is alien to the nature of the Petrine ministry. Some of your advisors regrettably seem to engage in similar actions. Such behavior gives the impression that your views cannot survive theological scrutiny, and so must be sustained by “ad hominem” arguments.
Second, … Again and again you portray doctrine as dead and bookish, and far from the pastoral concerns of everyday life. Your critics have been accused, in your own words, of making doctrine an ideology. But it is precisely Christian doctrine – including the fine distinctions made with regard to central beliefs like the Trinitarian nature of God; the nature and purpose of the Church; the Incarnation; the Redemption; and the sacraments – that frees people from worldly ideologies and assures that they are actually preaching and teaching the authentic, life-giving Gospel. Those who devalue the doctrines of the Church separate themselves from Jesus, the author of truth. What they then possess, and can only possess, is an ideology – one that conforms to the world of sin and death.
Third, faithful Catholics can only be disconcerted by your choice of some bishops, men who seem not merely open to those who hold views counter to Christian belief but who support and even defend them. What scandalizes believers, and even some fellow bishops, is not only your having appointed such men to be shepherds of the Church, but that you also seem silent in the face of their teaching and pastoral practice. This weakens the zeal of the many women and men who have championed authentic Catholic teaching over long periods of time, often at the risk of their own reputations and well-being. As a result, many of the faithful, who embody the “sensus fidelium,” are losing confidence in their supreme shepherd… "

Exerpt From An open letter to Father Weinandy, from his predecessor, on ‘Amoris Laetitia’ and Pope Francis | America Magazine. This was a letter from Msgr John J. Strynkowski to Father Weinandy’s Re: his letter to Pope Francis Re: AL A Theologian Writes To the Pope: There Is Chaos in the Church, and You Are a Cause - Settimo Cielo - Blog - L’Espresso

Not everything is coming from bloggers

 

[FiveLinden]

Hmmm. A guy with a wig v a guy with a tiara. Hmmm.

 

[Crusaderbear]

“My Lord Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead ALL souls to heaven, ESPECIALLY those MOST in need of thy mercy…”

The Mother of the Lord can ask us to pray this as part of the Rosary.

Aren’t the people we are discussing “most in need”?

I defer to Pope Francis…but that’s just me.

Will this AL interpretation bring more people back to the faith, or drive more away?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

now people are being forced to use made-up words and participate in invalid weddings which in some cases last less than 2 years.

You’re not being “forced” to use a word or sell a cake or do anything here.
Nor do these “invalid marriages” affect you and if you don’t think the marriage is valid then you should rejoice when it “ends after 2 years” so the person has a chance to reform.
This communion hangup that people have who are not even the priests making the decision is just minding other peoples’ business for them. If you’re not a priest, you get zero say in this issue anyway. It’s pointless to get wound up about it unless you just enjoy getting wound up.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Sounds like Martin Luther to me.

Most people leave the church nowadays because they just can’t be bothered going to Mass every week, maybe they have some doubts about God, and they may also want to just go commit sins and not worry about it. People who would leave because a divorced person went to Communion are a tiny minority who are hung up on their own, probably fictional and misguided, perception of what “The Church” should be.

 

[HarryStotle]

SuperLuigi:

now people are being forced to use made-up words and participate in invalid weddings which in some cases last less than 2 years.

You’re not being “forced” to use a word or sell a cake or do anything here.
Nor do these “invalid marriages” affect you and if you don’t think the marriage is valid then you should rejoice when it “ends after 2 years” so the person has a chance to reform.
This communion hangup that people have who are not even the priests making the decision is just minding other peoples’ business for them. If you’re not a priest, you get zero say in this issue anyway. It’s pointless to get wound up about it unless you just enjoy getting wound up.

So the secular tenet of “live and let live” has now become Church doctrine?

I suppose the early Church martyrs who died for their faith were just “getting wound up” about it? They should have resolutely minded their own business and burned the incense or made it “easy” on themselves by agreeing that just saying a few words doesn’t really mean you believe those words in your heart. Would have spared a lot of blood and tears, I suppose.

Watered down blood and tears, but still spared.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

So the secular tenet of “live and let live” has now become Church doctrine?

Was there a doctrine that said we get a vote or should go marching around the Vatican with placards when we object to something the Pope does?

Do we get to impeach him?

People just like to get wound up so they can sit around clucking and gasping over The World Today.

 

[theCardinalbird]

So is the article authentic or is it just causing a disruption for no reason?

 

[HarryStotle]

Was there a doctrine that said we get a vote or should go marching around the Vatican with placards when we object to something the Pope does?

Do we get to impeach him?

People just like to get wound up so they can sit around clucking and gasping over The World Today.

You will need to speak to and correct Catherine of Siena about “objecting to something the Pope does.” That would be “Saint” Catherine of Siena.

But characterizing ALL concern as “clucking and gasping” or just “getting wound up” seems a bit nonchalant, blasé and dismissive about the genuine concerns that people do have.

What was it that Pope Francis said about truly listening to what others have to say? Shouldn’t he also be seriously listening to those who are deeply concerned? Are you?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You will need to speak to and correct Catherine of Siena about “objecting to something the Pope does.” That would be “Saint” Catherine of Siena.

I don’t care if you object, I object to stuff all the time.
Just pointing out that from a practical standpoint, we can’t do anything about it (I can’t change the things the Church does that I object to either) and if one is not living in sin then this particular issue has no impact on you.

Also, most of the people wanting to challenge the Pope over AL are the same ones who like to cite old catechisms on the subjects of heretics and Protestants and such and then when someone points out those are old and superseded, start making speeches about deference to Holy Father Eugene or Pius whatever and how the Church is unchanging. Can’t have it both ways.

 

[Gorgias]

So is the article authentic or is it just causing a disruption for no reason?

Just out of curiosity, have you read the Buenos Airos bishops’ guidelines? The document comes across much more measured than you might expect. It’s not just the “OMG! The sky is falling!” that some make it out to be…

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

AL claims that some folks in irregular relationships may lack sufficient “deliberate consent” such that their adultery is a mortal sin and in those situation partaking of the Eucharist is not prohibited. This position may be problematic, but it is not as problematic IMO as the intentional darkness (ignorance) advocated in the passages quoted.

That makes no sense. They’re the same thing. If you’re giving Communion to the non-culpable adulterer, you are also intentionally keeping them in “darkness”.

No, they are not the same.
AL advocates that pastors council with folks in irregular situations. It never occurred to me that this counseling should involve lying to them (overtly or via omission). If that is the point of AL it is even worse than I thought (I have no doubt some pastors will choose your path, but I think that is embracing darkness and should be avoided. And I do not think we have enough data to claim the pope is advocating this dishonesty).

Instead, AL advocates that it is possible that those already in irregular situations may continue to sin and partake of the Eucharist. The ignorance will be dispelled, but the pastor and the individual may determine that the “deliberate consent” (7c in the below is lacking) thus their continued sin is venial not mortal.

1. Mortal sin requires three things:
   A. Grave matter – adultery is grave matter and this has not changed.
   B. One must KNOW the act is a sin and is grave matter.
   C. One must give full consent to the sin knowing it is grave matter. This means they must choose the sin

7C is called "deliberate consent in Catholic thought.

I hope you can see how “knowledge” is 7B and “deliberate consent” is 7C.
Charity, TOm

 

[Gorgias]

7C is called "deliberate consent in Catholic thought.

The thing is, “deliberate consent” means more than “choosing the sinful act”. They must do so on its own, for its own sake, desiring the sin.

In the case of an irregular marriage, some cannot choose continence (i.e., complete cessation of marital relations). If continence would create a strain on the new (irregular) marriage such that children of that new marriage would suffer (e.g., if the couple should split because of the attempt at continence), then the choice to commit the sin wouldn’t be from “full consent”, but in a spouse’s or spouses’ grave fear for the consequences of not allowing marital relations to continue.

In that case, the pastoral approach might counsel prudence, over time, allowing the couple to come to an understanding of how such a solution would be the best approach for them. Gradually, over time, having been told of the objective sinfulness of their actions, a pastor would hope to bring them to a lived understanding (rather than just an intellectual understanding) of the situation. In such a way, the hope would be to transform them into avoiding that sin.