Controversial parts of Amoris Laetitia and changing assumptions

[wet-rat]

It seems that with our current Holy Father it is more important to ask about what is at the heart of his message rather than focusing on the exact (legal) meaning of his words. This is in some ways a cultural departure for the Latin church.

That said, here are a few thoughts about the context of this document.

1. Historically, “avoiding scandal” has been considered an important goal of any pastoral policy. This makes the most sense in a culture that predominantly accepts the Church’s moral framework, as the meaning of a pastoral restriction is interpreted in light of the moral principles. In today’s society where most people (Catholics included) do not share this moral framework, such restrictions are simply interpreted as mean spirited. This changes the required pastoral approach – if the Church is to engage the broader world. The other option would be for the Church to withdraw from the world, and focus on communicating to its own.
2. The presumption of validity that is given to marriages is becoming incompatible with the circumstances. The overwhelming majority of people in our society today (Catholics included) are ignorant of what marriage is.
3. The presupposition that actions such as getting married, engaging in the marital act, using contraception, etc. flow from free and informed choices is also challenged. There is a strong coercion that comes from our society, and an ignorance of any alternative way of life.
4. The assumption that our church leaders are forming the faithful in correct morals is also no longer valid. This societal coercion has strongly impacted and undermined catechetical formation.

These changing assumptions necessitate a prudential change to pastoral practices. It seems that in Amoris Laetitia there is an attempt to elevate concerns of this sort. It is almost like the shift in mindset missionaries of generations past must have made when evangelizing aboriginal peoples. Do you focus on a head covering when the people is not accustomed to wearing loincloths? How do you move the culture away from polygamy or cannibalism?

In the Hebrew Scriptures, we see God slowly forming a people, meeting them where they are and leading them step by step without taking them too far outside of their understanding. Is that what Pope Francis is trying to do with our repaganized culture today?

 

[Reuben_J]

The last sentence. The fact that you ask that question, in itself perhaps highlights the uniqueness of this Pope. Of course, we should ask the Holy Father himself. After all he still reigns.

I can’t remember that we tried to figure out what the last two Popes said. Probably there were, but on the whole their teachings were quite clear. When Pope Benedict XVI taught about relativism and secularism, most Catholics would just know what he meant.

AL is not the first controversial thought of the Holy Father. The other was about the usage of condoms to prevent HIV transmission though that was probably easier to understand. Would AL has any similarity to the logic behind the statement on condoms to prevent HIV transmission?

 

[JimG]

It is almost like the shift in mindset missionaries of generations past must have made when evangelizing aboriginal peoples.

An interesting comparison. The implication is that our civilization has reverted from a Christian society in which certain moral principles were held in common, to a more primitive society with little understanding of morality. The comparison seems apt. It is the direction we have been headed for some time—back to moral primitivism.

 

[wet-rat]

If I remember right, the comments about condoms and HIV transmission focused on sex workers, who are often essentially slaves. In such a circumstance, the condom is a defense against an aggression, not a barrier to a marital act.

Similar reasoning has been applied to the appropriateness of various contraceptive actions after a rape.