Cardinal Marx: Pope’s Line in Amoris Laetitia is “Very Clear” (National Catholic Register/EWTN)

[TMC]

I tend to agree with Cardinal Marx. If there was any uncertainty in AL it has been more than dispelled by the Argentinian bishops’ guidelines in Sept 2016 and their clear, unequivocal, unambiguous approbation on the same day by Pope Francis.

Point though is that even if AL is clear it is not official. The bit about giving Communion to remarried divorcees is in a footnote and a footnote is not part of the official document. With an issue as massive as this, AL’s refusal to give a definitive decision at least a couple of paragraphs long in the main body of the text is indication in itself that the Pope was not prepared to use the full weight of his authority to endorse something he personally approves of.

Hence the confusion.

Not sure how the underlined portion can be correct. Apostolic exhortations are official. I am not aware of an “footnote” exception. Nor is there a requirement for a certain word count.

 

[Randolph]

I am not sure your point. Cardinals and bishops disagree with each other about the proper application of the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage and its relationship to the reception of the sacraments. Most believe the Pope has it right. A vocal minority insist they are correct. Discussion of doctrine is not always comfortable, but it is sometimes necessary. My point is that it is more healthy and productive to discuss the actual disagreement, than to talk about “confusion.”

We have discussed and debated the ambiguity/confusion of AL and the Dubia at great lengths on this forum in the past several months. It’s not a matter of majority vs minority. It’s a matter of doctrine of the Church, and whether one’s conscience along with pastoral accompaniment can allow oneself to receive Communion without living in continence and without repentance of sin and infidelity. Doctrines are revealed truths of the Catholic faith and are not up for disagreement.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Not sure how the underlined portion can be correct. Apostolic exhortations are official. I am not aware of an “footnote” exception. Nor is there a requirement for a certain word count.

True enough. Which raises the question of just how ambiguous AL actually is.

I think my main point remains intact. Why does AL not spell out in unmistakable terms that sexually remarried divorcees may now receive Communion, albeit on a case-by-case basis, i.e. something on the lines that several episcopal conferences have already done?

 

[pnewton]

It’s not a matter of majority vs minority. It’s a matter of doctrine of the Church, and whether one’s conscience along with pastoral accompaniment can allow oneself to receive Communion without living in continence and without repentance of sin and infidelity. Doctrines are revealed truths of the Catholic faith and are not up for disagreement.

However, how doctrines are revealed are through people, as written revelation is complete. Majority does matter to the extent it reveals the sensus fidei. If the Pope, and the bishops mostly with him, do not see a contradiction of doctrine in a certain practice, that is a more reliable revelation than reading posters here, or dipping into one’s most entertaining Catholic bloggers.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

True enough. Which raises the question of just how ambiguous AL actually is.

I think my main point remains intact. Why does AL not spell out in unmistakable terms that sexually remarried divorcees may now receive Communion, albeit on a case-by-case basis, i.e. something on the lines that several episcopal conferences have already done?

This was both the purpose of the ambiguity as well as the danger. As I have written in other places, the lack of clarity is present to allow some who want changes to begin practicing it, then later people will claim that use as justification for making it a church wide practice.

 

[JimG]

Cardinal Marx may find it very clear. So does Cardinal Muller. But their conclusions are opposite.

 

[JPUSC]

This was both the purpose of the ambiguity as well as the danger. As I have written in other places, the lack of clarity is present to allow some who want changes to begin practicing it, then later people will claim that use as justification for making it a church wide practice.

“If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried, you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

Pope Francis to Archbishop Bruno Forte, Archbishop of Chieti-Vasto, Italy chosen by the Pope to be the special secretary to the synods, relayed during a presentation on the Pope’s recent exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

Italian news website, Zonalocale.it
zonalocale.it/2016/05/03/…-chiesa-/20471

’No turning back’

The theologian widely acknowledged as the principal ghostwriter of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, says the Jesuit pontiff has already begun changing the Church in ways that cannot be reversed.

Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, rector of the Catholic University of Argentina, said that, even if the pope’s adversaries tried to turn back the clock in the next pontificate, the People of God would not stand for it.

“The people are with (Francis) and not with his few adversaries,” he said in an exclusive published Sunday in the Italian daily, Corriere della Sera.

The 52-year-old Fernandez is one of the pope’s principal theological advisers. Francis, who had to fight Vatican opposition to name his fellow countryman university rector in 2009, appointed the theologian titular archbishop only two months after he became pope.

The archbishop said the 78-year-old Jesuit pope is patiently laying the groundwork for reforms that cannot be undone.

“No, there’s no turning back,” he told the paper’s highly respected political analyst, Massimo Franco.

“If and when Francis is no longer pope, his legacy will remain strong,” the archbishop said.

"For example, the pope is convinced that the things he’s already written or said cannot be condemned as an error. Therefore, in the future anyone can repeat those things without fear of being sanctioned,” he added.

Archbishop Fernandez is one of the leading theological aides to the pope, who last year was appointed to a special commission inside the Synod of Bishops…

“The pope goes slow because he wants to be sure that the changes have a deep impact. The slow pace is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the changes. He knows there are those hoping that the next pope will be turn everything back around. If you go slowly it’s more difficult to turn things back. He makes this clear when he says ‘time is greater than space.’”

“The pope must have his reasons, because he knows very well what he’s doing. He must have an objective that we don’t understand yet. You have to realize that he is aiming at a reform that is irreversible. If one day he should intuit that he’s running out of time and he doesn’t have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up."

international.la-croix.com/news/no-turning-back/1220

 

[Randolph]

However, how doctrines are revealed are through people, as written revelation is complete. Majority does matter to the extent it reveals the sensus fidei. If the Pope, and the bishops mostly with him, do not see a contradiction of doctrine in a certain practice, that is a more reliable revelation than reading posters here, or dipping into one’s most entertaining Catholic bloggers.

Doctrines are divine truths declared by the Church. They are to be believed and faithfully followed by all Catholics. No one has the authority to contradict or undermine them. That includes all popes and bishops. The Church belongs to Christ and must be obedient to Christ. If the Church departs from Christ and His teachings, the Church ceases to be herself.

 

[TMC]

We have discussed and debated the ambiguity/confusion of AL and the Dubia at great lengths on this forum in the past several months. It’s not a matter of majority vs minority. It’s a matter of doctrine of the Church, and whether one’s conscience along with pastoral accompaniment can allow oneself to receive Communion without living in continence and without repentance of sin and infidelity. Doctrines are revealed truths of the Catholic faith and are not up for disagreement.

The teachings of the Church are obviously a common point of discussion, as evidenced by the current conversation. It is equally obvious that there are sometimes disagreements, as we are currently witnessing a disagreement.

I agree that it is not a “majority rules” situation. That said, I think there is significance to be found in the fact that the majority of those with teaching authority appear to support the Pope’s teaching, which also appears to be in line with the sensus fidelium.

 

[TMC]

True enough. Which raises the question of just how ambiguous AL actually is.

I think my main point remains intact. Why does AL not spell out in unmistakable terms that sexually remarried divorcees may now receive Communion, albeit on a case-by-case basis, i.e. something on the lines that several episcopal conferences have already done?

Well, I think that it does, and that the implementing documents from various conferences make that all the more clear.

 

[Randolph]

The teachings of the Church are obviously a common point of discussion, as evidenced by the current conversation. It is equally obvious that there are sometimes disagreements, as we are currently witnessing a disagreement.

I agree that it is not a “majority rules” situation. That said, I think there is significance to be found in the fact that the majority of those with teaching authority appear to support the Pope’s teaching, which also appears to be in line with the sensus fidelium.

If it involves a misuse or a violation of doctrines, sensus fideum itself is irrelevant. Doctrines themselves do not answer to sensus fideum. It can even be a 99 to 1 for-or-against majority, and it would not matter. For example, if 99 out of 100 bishops now no longer believe in the virgin birth, it would not change the perpetual virginity of the Holy Mother. The same goes for the Eucharist, the Holy Trinity, Christ being both human and divine, Christ resurrection, indissolubility of marriage, and all other doctrines. The Catholic faith is about divine truth from Christ. Doctrines,by definition, inform and clarify the catholic faith–not dilute it. If the “application” of doctrines causes confusions or divisions within the Church, or contradicts/undermines doctrines themselves, then it is scandalous.

On a side note and just out of curiosity, you stated that “the majority of those with teaching authority appear to support the Pope’s teaching”. Could you tell me what Pope’s teaching you are referring to, and provide the reference for the majority?

 

[Mark121359]

As president of the German bishops’ conference, Cardinal Marx, who is also a member of the Pope’s “C9” group of cardinals advising the Holy Father on curial reform, attended both synods. Along with the president of the French bishops’ conference,*** he was also instrumental in holding a controversial “shadow synod” in Rome in 2015, during which participants pushed for admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments and acceptance of those living in same-sex unions.***

The above paragraph from the OP’s article begs special attention, especially the bolded part. Here is the link that tells the story of the controversial “shadow synod” that is being referenced. Here is another article about it as well. I don’t recall much discussion about it on here when this originally happened. It will give you an idea of just what some of the Pope’s top advisors are pushing for. If these are the men whom we are to place our trust in who are saying that Amoris Laetitia is “very clear”…then good luck with that! My sincere prayers are with Cardinal’s Carlo Caffarra, Raymond Burke, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner and the thousands of priests from around the world who are asking for a clarification of Amoris Laetitia.

Peace, Mark

 

[TMC]

If it involves a misuse or a violation of doctrines, sensus fideum itself is irrelevant. Doctrines themselves do not answer to sensus fideum. It can even be a 99 to 1 for-or-against majority, and it would not matter. For example, if 99 out of 100 bishops now no longer believe in the virgin birth, it would not change the perpetual virginity of the Holy Mother. The same goes for the Eucharist, the Holy Trinity, Christ being both human and divine, Christ resurrection, indissolubility of marriage, and all other doctrines. The Catholic faith is about divine truth from Christ. Doctrines,by definition, inform and clarify the catholic faith–not dilute it. If the “application” of doctrines causes confusions or divisions within the Church, or contradicts/undermines doctrines themselves, then it is scandalous.

On a side note and just out of curiosity, you stated that “the majority of those with teaching authority appear to support the Pope’s teaching”. Could you tell me what Pope’s teaching you are referring to, and provide the reference for the majority?

I am referring to the Pope’s teaching in AL, as you well know and understand. I said that the majority appear to be with the Pope as that is my perception. Certainly the majority of bishops that have spoken out have spoken favorably. Do you have reason to believe that the majority oppose the teaching?

 

[Randolph]

I am referring to the Pope’s teaching in AL, as you well know and understand. I said that the majority appear to be with the Pope as that is my perception. Certainly the majority of bishops that have spoken out have spoken favorably. Do you have reason to believe that the majority oppose the teaching?

During the last synod, there were votings on each paragraph of the final document. I understood each paragraph received at least a simple majority in the affirmative or even higher threshold. Pope Francis said that he relied on the Synod as a basis for AL. As for AL itself, I am not aware of any polling. I really can’t even attempt to guess. Because of the obedience nature of the Church hierarchy, I am inclined to say many would say “yes” by default.

 

[Tobias2]

Archbishop Fernandez is one of the leading theological aides to the pope, who last year was appointed to a special commission inside the Synod of Bishops…

**“The pope goes slow because he wants to be sure that the changes have a deep impact. The slow pace is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the changes. He knows there are those hoping that the next pope will be turn everything back around. If you go slowly it’s more difficult to turn things back. He makes this clear when he says ‘time is greater than space.’”

“The pope must have his reasons, because he knows very well what he’s doing. He must have an objective that we don’t understand yet. You have to realize that he is aiming at a reform that is irreversible. If one day he should intuit that he’s running out of time and he doesn’t have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up."**This quote from Archbishop Fernandez is a clear statement of the Pope’s intentions - led by the Spirit.

The AL change in terms of for lay Catholics in new marriages is one the Pope wants all the faithful to come and embrace. He is giving this time for complete discernment.

Too many Catholics seem afraid of where the Pope and bishops are taking the Church. I don’t understand that fear. If one is Catholic then one believes in the inability of the Pope to teach error on matters of faith and morals.

The second paragraph gets to the point. If the Pope feels his time is limited he will speed up what the Spirit is having him reveal. Perhaps in an official ex cathedra statement? If indeed he defines that remarried Catholics can receive the Eucharist based on their conscious and confessor how could any believing Catholic not accept that? Not accepting the more complete doctrine would be a Protestant act.

 

[Randolph]

The teachings of the Church are obviously a common point of discussion, as evidenced by the current conversation. It is equally obvious that there are sometimes disagreements, as we are currently witnessing a disagreement.

There are plenty of room in the Church for disagreements. Often, it is healthy and beneficial. As for AL, there are ambiguity and confusion. If you don’t mind, I will refer to Cardinal Caffara’s recent interview on this subject. See the link below:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-caffarra-explains-the-reasons-behind-the-dubia-40937/

 

[RCinMT]

Archbishop Fernandez is one of the leading theological aides to the pope, who last year was appointed to a special commission inside the Synod of Bishops…

**“The pope goes slow because he wants to be sure that the changes have a deep impact. The slow pace is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the changes. He knows there are those hoping that the next pope will be turn everything back around. If you go slowly it’s more difficult to turn things back. He makes this clear when he says ‘time is greater than space.’”

“The pope must have his reasons, because he knows very well what he’s doing. He must have an objective that we don’t understand yet. You have to realize that he is aiming at a reform that is irreversible. If one day he should intuit that he’s running out of time and he doesn’t have enough time to do what the Spirit is asking him, you can be sure he will speed up."**This quote from Archbishop Fernandez is a clear statement of the Pope’s intentions - led by the Spirit.

The AL change in terms of for lay Catholics in new marriages is one the Pope wants all the faithful to come and embrace. He is giving this time for complete discernment.

Too many Catholics seem afraid of where the Pope and bishops are taking the Church. I don’t understand that fear. If one is Catholic then one believes in the inability of the Pope to teach error on matters of faith and morals.

The second paragraph gets to the point. If the Pope feels his time is limited he will speed up what the Spirit is having him reveal. Perhaps in an official ex cathedra statement? If indeed he defines that remarried Catholics can receive the Eucharist based on their conscious and confessor how could any believing Catholic not accept that? Not accepting the more complete doctrine would be a Protestant act.

How can one speed up what the Spirit is having one reveal? If time is running short, doesn’t that come from the Spirit, too? If so and if the Spirit has not instilled a sense of urgency up to now, then what would make one believe the he should speed things up? One’s own judgement?

As for the rest, one can question easily because of the linear nature of such a change in doctrine (which the Pope insists is not happening). To the point, what would be the basis of denying communion to the following person:

Man runs a prostitution ring comprised of underage girls. He’s married with children. If he stopped running the ring he would become destitute and his wife would leave him, taking the children with her. Man knows running the ring is a sin, confesses but will continue doing so because it would be “impossible” for him not to do so in terms of his marriage. This man can receive communion because he discerns he’s good with God.

Now you want talk protestant, that’s protestant.

 

[TMC]

There are plenty of room in the Church for disagreements. Often, it is healthy and beneficial. As for AL, there are ambiguity and confusion. If you don’t mind, I will refer to Cardinal Caffara’s recent interview on this subject. See the link below:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-caffarra-explains-the-reasons-behind-the-dubia-40937/

I agree that there is room in the Church for disagreements. While charity requires that I take the retired Cardinals at their word as to their motivations and reasons for the dubia, I stand by my statement that most, if not all, of the “confusion” is really disagreement. The primary confusion is that some do not understand why the Pope is teaching as he is. The teaching itself is relatively clear.

 

[Randolph]

I agree that there is room in the Church for disagreements. While charity requires that I take the retired Cardinals at their word as to their motivations and reasons for the dubia, I stand by my statement that most, if not all, of the “confusion” is really disagreement. The primary confusion is that some do not understand why the Pope is teaching as he is. The teaching itself is relatively clear.

One key obligation of all cardinals—retired or otherwise–is to defend the faith. I would not question any cardinal of his motivations or reasons for the submitting the Dubia as they are fulfilling their duty. Furthermore, after examining of the 4 cardinals’ concerns about AL, I am convinced of the merits.

You stand by your belief that it is a disagreement. I believe it’s more than that. It is a confusion.

Help me understand why you said that “the primary confusion is that some do not understand why the pope is teaching as he is.” What is it that some don’t understand that causes the primary confusion?

 

[TMC]

One key obligation of all cardinals—retired or otherwise–is to defend the faith. I would not question any cardinal of his motivations or reasons for the submitting the Dubia as they are fulfilling their duty. Furthermore, after examining of the 4 cardinals’ concerns about AL, I am convinced of the merits.

You stand by your belief that it is a disagreement. I believe it’s more than that. It is a confusion.

Help me understand why you said that “the primary confusion is that some do not understand why the pope is teaching as he is.” What is it that some don’t understand that causes the primary confusion?

I am also not questioning anyone’s motives.

As to the primary confusion, I believe that many of those that are confused are confused as to how the Pope can disagree with them on an issue they obviously feel strongly about. Given their level of certainty, and their faith in the Church, they can not understand how the Church could teach as it is. That is my sense, anyway.