Cardinal Burke: Formal correction of Amoris Laetitia could happen in New Year

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyc176
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue_Horizon said:
Originally Posted by EIF5A
Is the idea that refraining from sexual intercourse from civilly-married partner is too large of a burden and too great of an expectation?
Click to expand...
Council of Trent, Session VI:
CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Veritas Splendor
The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all.
Click to expand...
Given that, andTrent, it would be very much in accord with Reason to asksuch couples to refrain from sexual activity.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Where does this moral imperative, this “should” come from?
It is certainly not a self-evident moral principle to me.

Why does the Pope have to answer to any particular person’s difficulties, let alone in the way they want it?

In any case I believe he has done so, though the manner and the terms of reference may still not satisfy.
Click to expand...
If the Pope had answered the questions from the Cardinals, we wouldn’t be having this thread.
Blue_Horizon said:
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
A simple yes or no answer is all it takes please…
Click to expand...
No one is tying the Pope’s hands or keyboard. If the questions have a false premise similar to your example, he is free to state what the false premise is, and then answer the question.

Here is how one answers your example: This question presents a false premise that I have ever beaten my wife, which is not true. I have not, nor am I beating my wife.

There you go, a very simple answer to even a faulty or trick question.
pnewton said:
I am wondering if the cynicism behind this possibility might be part of the reason the Pope has not answered. The idea that a simple yes or no will do is, well simplistic. There are too many that believe any no answer will change doctrine. Therefore no answer can be a one word answer.
Click to expand...
No, a refusal to answer is not a one-word answer. It is a nonanswer.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Where does this moral imperative, this “should” come from?
It is certainly not a self-evident moral principle to me.
Click to expand...
In the language of morals, a moral imperative would require the word “ought” and not “should”.
 
pnewton said:
I am wondering if the cynicism behind this possibility might be part of the reason the Pope has not answered. The idea that a simple yes or no will do is, well simplistic. There are too many that believe any no answer will change doctrine. Therefore no answer can be a one word answer.
Click to expand...
There either is or is not an Absolute Truth.
 
If and when a correction goes out, I would not expect copies to be sent directly to CNN, BBC, Fox News, Der Spiegel, etc.
 
Stat_Crux said:
This example question has already been answered by the philosopher (and practicing Catholic) Edward Feser on his blog:

edwardfeser.blogspot.fr/2016/12/denial-flows-into-tiber.html

To quote his response to your example:

The blog posting above explains some of the rationale behind the call for a response to the Five Dubia. It is a somewhat lengthy posting (hence I’ve not copied it all here), but contains some reasonable arguments which we shouldn’t dismiss out of hand.
Click to expand...
I disagree with Feser.
No fair judge would allow the question.
Neither is Pope Francis in the dock 😊.

If anyone is in the dock now I suggest it is Cardinal Bourke who is no longer following traditional polite procedures but playing to the lay gallery…and succeeding to some extent with the disaffected.

Yes, it would be good if the Pope could find some way to allay the Cardinals concerns. But if he chooses to do so privately or in ways outside of the Cardinals expectations that is surely his prerogative.
Personally I see Cardinal Bourke as seeing no answer other than agreement with his world view so no response agin his view will ever satisfy.
Silence therefore is itself a response, and indeed the most polite one possible in the circumstances.
Jesus did exactly the same in the face of his set opponents when writing in the sand.
 
Stat_Crux said:
Council of Trent, Session VI:
Click to expand...
If one had to choose between 60 Catholic years experience of human nature and the out of context interpretation/application of a 500 yr old quote by an idealistic young man…which would you go with?
 
Blue_Horizon said:
If one had to choose between 60 Catholic years experience of human nature and the out of context interpretation/application of a 500 yr old quote by an idealistic young man…which would you go with?
Click to expand...
Neither, when put that way.

If one had to choose between 2000 years of authentic and repeated Catholic teaching which encompassed not only all those years of experience of human nature, plus Divine Guidance and the words of Jesus Himself (no ‘additions’), and an out of context interpretation/application of a not-approved-by-two-thirds majority addition, ambiguously phrased, of a non-magisterial document, OTOH. . .
 
zz912 said:
If the Pope had answered the questions from the Cardinals, we wouldn’t be having this thread.
Click to expand...
I was going to respond but just couldn’t stop smiling and gave up :).
No, a refusal to answer is not a one-word answer. It is a nonanswer.
Click to expand...
You are going to waste an awful lot of your life fruitlessly rebelling against those in authority over you if you are unable to mature past this view ZZ.

You will of course want to take this further but there is nothing more to say if you do not get this sorry. Just some helpful advice from my own experience of being like yourself when much younger.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Neither, when put that way.

If one had to choose between 2000 years of authentic and repeated Catholic teaching which encompassed not only all those years of experience of human nature, plus Divine Guidance and the words of Jesus Himself (no ‘additions’), and an out of context interpretation/application of a not-approved-by-two-thirds majority addition, ambiguously phrased, of a non-magisterial document, OTOH. . .
Click to expand...
TE are you stalking me? I am flattered I think :eek:.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
TE are you stalking me? I am flattered I think :eek:.
Click to expand...
We appear to be interested in the same topics, if not from the same point of view. No, I just happened to check back in to the forums since I had logged on to check out some recipes. With the munchkins home this week, and the impending snow tomorrow, I want to get a few casseroles etc into the freezer.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
You are going to waste an awful lot of your life fruitlessly rebelling against those in authority over you if you are unable to mature past this view ZZ.

You will of course want to take this further but there is nothing more to say if you do not get this sorry. Just some helpful advice from my own experience of being like yourself when much younger.
Click to expand...
It’s baffling to me that you keep attempting to insult and belittle those who disagree with you on these forums.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
I was going to respond but just couldn’t stop smiling and gave up :).

You are going to waste an awful lot of your life fruitlessly rebelling against those in authority over you if you are unable to mature past this view ZZ.

You will of course want to take this further but there is nothing more to say if you do not get this sorry. Just some helpful advice from my own experience of being like yourself when much younger.
Click to expand...
Blue Horizon… You are being rude and out of line. Please respect others’ opinions even if they might seem wrong to you. You made rude comments on posters whose opinions have been helpful and fruitful in fostering and advancing discussions in this forum. You have lived your own life and have your own viewpoints–as do others. But let the merits of your arguments speak for themselves, and perhaps even win the arguments. Personal attacks and insults on others only speak less of you and have no place on this forum.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
I disagree with Feser.
No fair judge would allow the question.
Neither is Pope Francis in the dock 😊.

If anyone is in the dock now I suggest it is Cardinal Bourke who is no longer following traditional polite procedures but playing to the lay gallery…and succeeding to some extent with the disaffected.

Yes, it would be good if the Pope could find some way to allay the Cardinals concerns. But if he chooses to do so privately or in ways outside of the Cardinals expectations that is surely his prerogative.
Personally I see Cardinal Bourke as seeing no answer other than agreement with his world view so no response agin his view will ever satisfy.
Silence therefore is itself a response, and indeed the most polite one possible in the circumstances.
Jesus did exactly the same in the face of his set opponents when writing in the sand.
Click to expand...
And your reasoning behind your rejection of Feser is? You can’t disregard somebodies reasoning out of hand because it is not in agreement with your world view, that’s exactly what you’ve just accused Cardinal Burke of doing.

Surely you must understand that if we’re to have a discussion of the sort our Pope desires, a true attempt to discern God’s will, it must be one in which each attempts to answer the others concerns, address points raised and convince one another of where the truth is? Surely that’s the only way to resolve the situation that has been created?

Whether or not a “fair judge” would allow the question is a purely hypothetical statement. In saying that you are also suggesting that your own example question was wrong; why then did you propose it if you’re so unhappy with your own example?

As demonstrated by Feser in the article I linked, there is still a factually “correct” answer to the hypothetical question you raised and there is also nothing stopping the Pope from answering “yes, but…” or “no, but…”

We agree it would be good if the Pope could allay the Cardinals’ concerns. However, if this is only to be done in private, what about the Bishops, Priests and Catholics in the pews? If there is available somewhere a rationale argument based on Doctrine and reason as to why the progressive interpretation of AL is correct, which surely there must be if those who hold this opinion are satisfied they are acting in accord with God’s will on such a sensitive area of moral theology, then why not share it publicly so that all might understand “the truth of it”? Or is it instead because the argument does not stand up to scrutiny? Neither “your” position nor “mine” would seem to gain any convincing legitimacy from the present confusion.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
If one had to choose between 60 Catholic years experience of human nature and the out of context interpretation/application of a 500 yr old quote by an idealistic young man…which would you go with?
Click to expand...
If you have 60 years of experience of human nature, which is longer than I have been alive, I would also hope that you would have the charity and patience to try to explain the apparent error in my using that quotation. As it stands you do not appear to be engaging in any reasoned discussion on this topic.

All I have to go on is the apparently authoritative texts of a Council of the Church and your opinions; which would you suggest I rely on to form my conclusions if you were me?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top