Cardinal Schonborn on 'Amoris Laetitia'

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Seems to be a lot of confusion on even the answer to your question. There seems to be four categories of CAtholics right now:

1. Those traditionalist who interpret everything the Pope says and does as a break with tradition and call foul.
2. Those liberals who interpret everything the Pope says and does as a break with tradition and hail him the great reformer.
3. Those faithful Catholics who bend over backwards to prove to us that Pope Francis is in every single way a cookie cutter of St JPII and Benedict and that everyone just doesn’t “understand” the Holy Father’s words.
4. Those faithful Catholics who want to believe the holy father is well meaning but are confused by much of what he says.

I’d add a couple more. But yeah. I don’t think the faithful have been as confused in our lifetimes. To say teaching is being clarified is an odd thing to say.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Seems to be a lot of confusion on even the answer to your question. There seems to be four categories of CAtholics right now:

1. Those traditionalist who interpret everything the Pope says and does as a break with tradition and call foul.
2. Those liberals who interpret everything the Pope says and does as a break with tradition and hail him the great reformer.
3. Those faithful Catholics who bend over backwards to prove to us that Pope Francis is in every single way a cookie cutter of St JPII and Benedict and that everyone just doesn’t “understand” the Holy Father’s words.
4. Those faithful Catholics who want to believe the holy father is well meaning but are confused by much of what he says.

1. People who view him in the same line as St. JPII and Benedict XVI but find his way of explaining is different, while simultaneously not hard to understand.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

1. People who view him in the same line as St. JPII and Benedict XVI but find his way of explaining is different, while simultaneously not hard to understand.

Somebody in number 5 would not be following what the pope is saying.

Artificial birth control with Zika
Homosexual issues
Communion for adulterers

These are issues that have not been clarified but seem to occupy a lot of space in what the pope says and does.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Somebody in number 5 would not be following what the pope is saying.

Artificial birth control with Zika
Homosexual issues
Communion for adulterers

These are issues that have not been clarified but seem to occupy a lot of space in what the pope says and does.

Nope, I’m following what the Pope is saying. And those issues actually occupy almost none of the space in what the Pope says and does, they have just gotten the an absurdly high amount of publicity in the Western media for how much he has discussed them.

Regarding the Zika/contraception issue, I really don’t see it as an issue. Here’s the relevant parts to the interview:

Spanish journalist Paloma García Ovejero of COPE expressed concern over the Zika virus, which seems to be particularly dangerous for the unborn, such that some authorities have suggested abortion. She asked the Pontiff if the Church would consider it as a “lesser evil”.

Abortion is not a “lesser evil”. It is a crime. It is wiping out one to save another. That is what the mafia does. It is a crime, it is absolutely evil. Regarding a “lesser evil”: preventing pregnancy is one thing — we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the 5th and 6th Commandments. The great Paul VI, in a difficult situation in Africa, allowed nuns to use a form of artificial contraception amid the violence. It is important not to confuse the evil of preventing pregnancy, in itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological issue: it is a human issue, it is a medical issue. One person is killed in order to save another — in the best case scenario — or in order to live comfortably. It is against the Hippocratic Oath that physicians take. It is an evil in and of itself. It is not a “religious” evil, to start with, no, it is a human evil. Evidently, as it is a human evil — like all killing — it is condemned. On the other hand, preventing pregnancy is not an absolute evil, and in certain cases, such as the one I mentioned of Bl. Paul VI, it was clear. Moreover, I would exhort the doctors to do everything possible to find vaccines against this disease which is carried by two mosquitos: this has to be elaborated. Thank you.

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2016/february/documents/papa-francesco_20160217_messico-conferenza-stampa.html



Don’t see the issue with #2 as he’s just reiterated what the Catechism says (which he has expressly said also), and #3 is also a non-issue as he doesn’t support giving Communion to unrepentant sinners. There is just a question of culpability, etc. that the Pope has expanded on in AL. And IIRC that discussion should be with a priest in the internal forum. No contradictions with what the prior Popes have said.

Now if Pope Francis said that the validity of marriages can be decided in the internal forum, that would be a contrast with his predecessors. But that’s not at all the case.

 

[OraLabora]

Seems to be a lot of confusion on even the answer to your question. There seems to be four categories of CAtholics right now:

1. Those traditionalist who interpret everything the Pope says and does as a break with tradition and call foul.
2. Those liberals who interpret everything the Pope says and does as a break with tradition and hail him the great reformer.
3. Those faithful Catholics who bend over backwards to prove to us that Pope Francis is in every single way a cookie cutter of St JPII and Benedict and that everyone just doesn’t “understand” the Holy Father’s words.
4. Those faithful Catholics who want to believe the holy father is well meaning but are confused by much of what he says.

You’re missing 5. Faithful Catholics who believe in the Promise of the Keys, that our Holy Father is the legitimate successor of St. Peter, and that as a result, what he has to say is worthy of our prayerful consideration on how it may apply in our own lives. Faithful orthodox Catholics that are obedient, have no agenda or axe to grind, and love him as our spiritual father.

Which is essentially the Benedictine view.

And I daresay we are the silent majority most of whom probably never heard of CAF or bother posting here.

 

[manygift1spirit]

cnsblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/the-teaching-authority-of-amoris-laetitia/

Really great interview with Cardinal Schonborn. Starkly different than that of Archbishop Chaput.

“Just as we read the Council of Nicaea in the light of the Council of Constantinople, and Vatican I in the light of Vatican II, so now we must read the previous statements of the magisterium about the family in the light of the contribution made by AL. We are led in a living manner to draw a distinction between the continuity of the doctrinal principles and the discontinuity of perspectives or of historically conditioned expressions. This is the function that belongs to the living magisterium: to interpret authentically the Word of God, whether written or handed down.”

This is indeed different, the two men vary considerably in their articulation. The archbishop is incredibly precise, further developing specifics called for by AL while building on the foundations of the Magisterium. The cardinal, conversely, is quite vague (“in a living manner”?), although this quote is less so than some of the rest of the interview.

One big problem with the cardinal’s statement: he has it exactly backwards. One reads newer documents in light of older ones, not vice versa. The leaves grow from the trunk, which grows from the roots, not the other way around. That said, the rest of the quote is actually a generalized way of saying exactly what the archbishop spelled out with great clarity (“draw a distinction” - +Chaput made this abundantly clear). I am not sure what is really great about the cardinal’s interview other than to demonstrate the difficulty he has sometimes with verbally passing on the Faith. Although to be fair the contrast is against +Chaput, who may be one of the most articulate teachers of the Faith in North America.

 

[godisgood77]

This is indeed different, the two men vary considerably in their articulation. The archbishop is incredibly precise, further developing specifics called for by AL while building on the foundations of the Magisterium. The cardinal, conversely, is quite vague (“in a living manner”?), although this quote is less so than some of the rest of the interview. Pope Francis absolutely keeps the essential nature of the Church’s teaching, but applies a new insight.

One big problem with the cardinal’s statement: he has it exactly backwards. One reads newer documents in light of older ones, not vice versa. The leaves grow from the trunk, which grows from the roots, not the other way around. That said, the rest of the quote is actually a generalized way of saying exactly what the archbishop spelled out with great clarity (“draw a distinction” - +Chaput made this abundantly clear). I am not sure what is really great about the cardinal’s interview other than to demonstrate the difficulty he has sometimes with verbally passing on the Faith. Although to be fair the contrast is against +Chaput, who may be one of the most articulate teachers of the Faith in North America.

The Cardinal doesn’t have it backwards… He has it exactly right. A development of doctrine happens through a new insight. As such, doctrine must be looked at from the front back. You can’t look from the past because the past is blind to the new development. Of course the new development must keep the essential nature of the doctrine in tact as Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman articulated so well in his opus on the development of doctrine.

+Chaput makes the mistake of speaking in absolutes for all cases when differing situations may call for situational decision making by pastors as the Pope is calling for.

I highly recommend this article… Which clearly elucidates the difference between PJPII and Pope Francis. cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/06/16/no-pope-francis-didnt-call-john-paul-ii-heretic/

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You’re missing 5. Faithful Catholics who believe in the Promise of the Keys, that our Holy Father is the legitimate successor of St. Peter, and that as a result, what he has to say is worthy of our prayerful consideration on how it may apply in our own lives. Faithful orthodox Catholics that are obedient, have no agenda or axe to grind, and love him as our spiritual father.

Which is essentially the Benedictine view.

And I daresay we are the silent majority most of whom probably never heard of CAF or bother posting here.

With every passing presser number 5 is getting harder to be in. Though I have noticed that we don’t have a generation of Catholics that feel comfortable saying " the pope is wrong"
It’s not horrible to disagree with the pope. He is our leader but he is not infallible and he may have some faults. Heck maybe every pope has been wrong about stuff.
Perhaps because I’m a convert its easier for me to say " he got it wrong" than for my dear cradle friends who grew up with mothers who crossed themselves at the very mention of “pope”
I suppose there are good and faithful Catholics who have disagreed with any given pope.

Time after time people try to spin the pope’s words to fit thier view if the church. I’ve reached the conclusion that perhaps we owe this pope the honor and charity to say he knows exactly what he is saying and who he is saying it to. I don’t believe him to be a naive old man who is wrangled by the press or is a puppet to others on the church. I believe he is a holy man who is more than capable to lead and it just so happens I think he is wrong on several issues and views. That does not make me any less of a Catholic or him any less of a pope.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

1. People who view him in the same line as St. JPII and Benedict XVI but find his way of explaining is different, while simultaneously not hard to understand.

:yup:

I find him very Ignatian in his thought process.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You’re missing 5. Faithful Catholics who believe in the Promise of the Keys, that our Holy Father is the legitimate successor of St. Peter, and that as a result, what he has to say is worthy of our prayerful consideration on how it may apply in our own lives. Faithful orthodox Catholics that are obedient, have no agenda or axe to grind, and love him as our spiritual father.

Which is essentially the Benedictine view.

And I daresay we are the silent majority most of whom probably never heard of CAF or bother posting here.

Well said.

The thing I would also say is that, after almost 20 years of Pacelli, Roncalli was very different. But…Della Chiesa in his own way was very different from Sarto on many points. Woytyla was very different from Luciani. Each is their own gift to the Church in their own proper moment of the Church’s history.

I could not be more thrilled with Francis. I think he is an extraordinary gift to both the Church and the world.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This is indeed different, the two men vary considerably in their articulation. The archbishop is incredibly precise, further developing specifics called for by AL while building on the foundations of the Magisterium. The cardinal, conversely, is quite vague (“in a living manner”?), although this quote is less so than some of the rest of the interview.

One big problem with the cardinal’s statement: he has it exactly backwards. One reads newer documents in light of older ones, not vice versa. The leaves grow from the trunk, which grows from the roots, not the other way around. That said, the rest of the quote is actually a generalized way of saying exactly what the archbishop spelled out with great clarity (“draw a distinction” - +Chaput made this abundantly clear). I am not sure what is really great about the cardinal’s interview other than to demonstrate the difficulty he has sometimes with verbally passing on the Faith. Although to be fair the contrast is against +Chaput, who may be one of the most articulate teachers of the Faith in North America.

Assuredly, the Cardinal who led the writing of the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not have “it exactly backwards”. Very far from it.

One reads older documents in light of the new. The Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio now must be read in light of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia…not the other way around.

 

[CrossofChrist]

:yup:

I find him very Ignatian in his thought process.

Agreed. Seems like every other homily he gives the message involves discernment or examining your conscience.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

This is indeed different, the two men vary considerably in their articulation. The archbishop is incredibly precise, further developing specifics called for by AL while building on the foundations of the Magisterium. The cardinal, conversely, is quite vague (“in a living manner”?), although this quote is less so than some of the rest of the interview.

One big problem with the cardinal’s statement: he has it exactly backwards. One reads newer documents in light of older ones, not vice versa. The leaves grow from the trunk, which grows from the roots, not the other way around. That said, the rest of the quote is actually a generalized way of saying exactly what the archbishop spelled out with great clarity (“draw a distinction” - +Chaput made this abundantly clear). I am not sure what is really great about the cardinal’s interview other than to demonstrate the difficulty he has sometimes with verbally passing on the Faith. Although to be fair the contrast is against +Chaput, who may be one of the most articulate teachers of the Faith in North America.

Very good for you to point out. While matters of Cannon Law are always simply based on the current laws in place at the time, teachings of the ordinary magisterium are interpreted from highest authority to lowest authority, and then oldest to newest. As Catholics we make every attempt to see continuity between statements from members of the magisterium throughout time, interpreting new in light of the old, and resolving conflicts we may find between the words of the magisterium (the proximate rule of faith) by looking to tradition (the remote rule of faith).

 

[manygift1spirit]

The Cardinal doesn’t have it backwards… He has it exactly right. A development of doctrine happens through a new insight. As such, doctrine must be looked at from the front back. You can’t look from the past because the past is blind to the new development. Of course the new development must keep the essential nature of the doctrine in tact as Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman articulated so well in his opus on the development of doctrine.

+Chaput makes the mistake of speaking in absolutes for all cases when differing situations may call for situational decision making by pastors as the Pope is calling for.

I highly recommend this article… Which clearly elucidates the difference between PJPII and Pope Francis. cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/06/16/no-pope-francis-didnt-call-john-paul-ii-heretic/

Actually, I think there was a communication issue here, and it may be some on me as well as the cardinal. The Newman exposition is exactly what I had in mind. If this is what he was driving at, I am actually in full agreement. As others have mentioned sometimes the cardinal is tough to crack. But if he is following Newman (development, not supersession), I’ll retract. mea culpa.

I liked the article too. It all comes down to culpability. And they did well to mention the “ideal” and “gradualness” issues could have been clarified better.

I think you are misreading the archbishop. He is proposing pastoral guidelines for his diocese. But notice what he is recommending…he is putting a high priority on a particular Work of Mercy, instructing the ignorant. In other words he wants to teach (he is good at this) so folks understands what their moral responsibilities are. With this pastoral choice already made, the other limits are simply the result of logical syllogisms. So continuing with this particular framing, while one might prudentially choose to focus on other Works of Mercy (the quote of the doc from the PCF implies that it’s OK to do so), he has made no mistake at all. I actually am looking forward to reading some other bishops’ adaptations, as I have never read of (say) Cdl Kaspar proposing anything specific in lieu of instruction.

As a corollary to this teaching emphasis, note also the archbishop’s awareness of scandal. This is an example of where teaching and instructing one person indirectly involves teaching another person and guiding their participation in a way that does not mislead the first. This is true even if there is deficient culpability in the second person. Of course this goes both ways. And we can see here the merit of the statement that the best way to evangelize is to simply be a Saint.

I have a general query that anyone can respond to. In the archbishop’s letter, he developed on the example of cohabitation that AL refers to in passing. I fully understand this example as one where it might be morally best to maintain cohabitation and attempt chastity rather than disrupt children’s lives (e.g.). But I cannot think of an analogous example where a properly and pastorally instructed couple in an invalid marriage would need to receive communion to avoid a serious harm, akin to disrupting children in the other example. What types of harm are we talking about here? I cannot conceive of any. Not saying there cannot be any, but if someone knows an example please reply.

 

[godisgood77]

I think you are misreading the archbishop. He is proposing pastoral guidelines for his diocese. But notice what he is recommending…he is putting a high priority on a particular Work of Mercy, instructing the ignorant. In other words he wants to teach (he is good at this) so folks understands what their moral responsibilities are. With this pastoral choice already made, the other limits are simply the result of logical syllogisms. So continuing with this particular framing, while one might prudentially choose to focus on other Works of Mercy (the quote of the doc from the PCF implies that it’s OK to do so), he has made no mistake at all. I actually am looking forward to reading some other bishops’ adaptations, as I have never read of (say) Cdl Kaspar proposing anything specific in lieu of instruction.

As a corollary to this teaching emphasis, note also the archbishop’s awareness of scandal. This is an example of where teaching and instructing one person indirectly involves teaching another person and guiding their participation in a way that does not mislead the first. This is true even if there is deficient culpability in the second person. Of course this goes both ways. And we can see here the merit of the statement that the best way to evangelize is to simply be a Saint.

I believe you are correct that emphasis is on teaching the ignorant and avoiding scandal. I would only have two points regarding that emphasis. First, I do not believe that the answer is to help people understand their situation. I believe that most people already understand the Church’s teaching and their individual situation. I believe the goal that Pope Francis is going for is to integrate those in less than perfect situations in to the life of the Church to the extent possible considering their situation, disposition and willingness to sacrifice.

Number two is related to this statement by +Chaput in his guidelines:
Even where, for the sake of their children, they live under one roof in chaste continence and have received absolution (so that they are free from personal sin), the unhappy fact remains that, objectively speaking, their public state and condition of life in the new relationship are contrary to Christ’s teaching against divorce. Concretely speaking, therefore, where pastors give Communion to divorced and remarried persons trying to live chastely, they should do so in a manner that will avoid giving scandal or implying that Christ’s teaching can be set aside. In other contexts, also, care must be taken to avoid the unintended appearance of an endorsement of divorce and civil remarriage; thus, divorced and civilly remarried persons should not hold positions of responsibility in a parish (e.g. on a parish council), nor should they carry out liturgical ministries or functions (e.g., lector, extraordinary minister of Holy Communion).

This point is hard to understand and where the emphasis on avoiding scandal becomes counter productive. How are we to believe that an individual who repents, is absolved and lives in continence can not hold positions of responsibility? Is living under same roof as an adult of the opposite gender as brother and sister now a serious sin? Is this person not condemned by the Church forever even after valid reconciliation; the equivalent of a scarlet letter? It seems that this point directly contradicts AL 296…

296.  The Synod addressed various situations of weakness or imperfection. Here I would like to reiterate something I sought to make clear to the whole Church, lest we take the wrong path: “There are two ways of thinking which recur throughout the Church’s history: casting off and reinstating. The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of Jerusalem, has always always been the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement… The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever; it is to pour out the balm of God’s mercy on all those who ask for it with a sincere heart… For true charity is always un-merited, unconditional and gratuitous”.326 Con-sequently, there is a need “to avoid judgements which do not take into account the complexity of various situations” and “to be attentive, by necessity, to how people experience distress be-cause of their condition”.327

 

[Vico]

I believe you are correct that emphasis is on teaching the ignorant and avoiding scandal. I would only have two points regarding that emphasis. First, I do not believe that the answer is to help people understand their situation. I believe that most people already understand the Church’s teaching and their individual situation. I believe the goal that Pope Francis is going for is to integrate those in less than perfect situations in to the life of the Church to the extent possible considering their situation, disposition and willingness to sacrifice.

Number two is related to this statement by +Chaput in his guidelines:
Even where, for the sake of their children, they live under one roof in chaste continence and have received absolution (so that they are free from personal sin), the unhappy fact remains that, objectively speaking, their public state and condition of life in the new relationship are contrary to Christ’s teaching against divorce. Concretely speaking, therefore, where pastors give Communion to divorced and remarried persons trying to live chastely, they should do so in a manner that will avoid giving scandal or implying that Christ’s teaching can be set aside. In other contexts, also, care must be taken to avoid the unintended appearance of an endorsement of divorce and civil remarriage; thus, divorced and civilly remarried persons should not hold positions of responsibility in a parish (e.g. on a parish council), nor should they carry out liturgical ministries or functions (e.g., lector, extraordinary minister of Holy Communion).

This point is hard to understand and where the emphasis on avoiding scandal becomes counter productive. How are we to believe that an individual who repents, is absolved and lives in continence can not hold positions of responsibility? Is living under same roof as an adult of the opposite gender as brother and sister now a serious sin? Is this person not condemned by the Church forever even after valid reconciliation; the equivalent of a scarlet letter? It seems that this point directly contradicts AL 296…

296.  The Synod addressed various situations of weakness or imperfection. Here I would like to reiterate something I sought to make clear to the whole Church, lest we take the wrong path: “There are two ways of thinking which recur throughout the Church’s history: casting off and reinstating. The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of Jerusalem, has always always been the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement… The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever; it is to pour out the balm of God’s mercy on all those who ask for it with a sincere heart… For true charity is always un-merited, unconditional and gratuitous”.326 Con-sequently, there is a need “to avoid judgements which do not take into account the complexity of various situations” and “to be attentive, by necessity, to how people experience distress be-cause of their condition”.327

Re: Is living under same roof as an adult of the opposite gender as brother and sister now a serious sin?

Avoiding scandal is a continuation of what the Church teaches in Familaris Consortio of 1981 and later documents. Scandal is given to the weak and it may be through both the clergy and the couple.

 

[godisgood77]

Re: Is living under same roof as an adult of the opposite gender as brother and sister now a serious sin?

Avoiding scandal is a continuation of what the Church teaches in Familaris Consortio of 1981 and later documents. Scandal is given to the weak and it may be through both the clergy and the couple.

I understand the need to avoid scandal and the Church’s teaching. The issue I’m trying to get at is when does the need to avoid scandal infringe on the rights of the individual who is seeking assistance. In this case is seems like we are saying that a certain segment can never be fully reintegrated, no matter what they do.

 

[Vico]

I understand the need to avoid scandal and the Church’s teaching. The issue I’m trying to get at is when does the need to avoid scandal infringe on the rights of the individual who is seeking assistance. In this case is seems like we are saying that a certain segment can never be fully reintegrated, no matter what they do.

The faithful have the right to receive assistance from the Church. The rule is charity, and scandal in uncharitable, so in grave matters no scandal should be given. St. Paul said he would not eat meat offered to the pagan idols although it would not be bad for him, because it could lead others into sin.

 

[godisgood77]

The faithful have the right to receive assistance from the Church. The rule is charity, and scandal in uncharitable, so in grave matters no scandal should be given. St. Paul said he would not eat meat offered to the pagan idols although it would not be bad for him, because it could lead others into sin.

The St Paul example doesn’t concern grave matter. With respect, I don’t believe the instance of a fully repentant and absolved individual holding a position of responsibility is either, though I understand that there are other opinions out there.

Honestly, I believe the scandal is actually exclusion of good people, good Catholics from positions of responsibility. As Pope Francis said, the Church is not in the business of condemning anyone forever.

 

[godisgood77]

The faithful have the right to receive assistance from the Church. The rule is charity, and scandal in uncharitable, so in grave matters no scandal should be given. St. Paul said he would not eat meat offered to the pagan idols although it would not be bad for him, because it could lead others into sin.

The St Paul example doesn’t concern grave matter. With respect, I don’t believe the instance of a fully repentant and absolved individual holding a position of responsibility is either, though I understand that there are other opinions out there.

Honestly, I believe the scandal is actually exclusion of good people, good Catholics from positions of responsibility. As Pope Francis said, the Church is not in the business of condemning anyone forever.