Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
FYI - Here is a quick one, though there is a lot:
Click to expand...
Right. Thanks for the quote. And I know he affirms the teaching about Humanae Vitae against contraception.

What about from Chapter 8? Is there anything in it, or in its footnotes, which are binding on Catholics as being the constant belief of the Church?
 
carn said:
You mean, i do not have to decide when someone (*) proposes some sexual activity towards me, whether i should decline due to it being an intrinsically evil act or whether it might one of the issues ok due to circumstances (in which case i should also make a quick evaluation of circumstances)?

Phoning my priest in such situation might irritate the one proposing, at least, probably making him/her even angry. And even discussing such issues with a priest afterwards might make him/her angry, since potentially he/she considers this details to be none of the priest’s business; discussing such things with priest without that partner knowing does not feel like gold standard of conduct.

And in case i agreed to the proposal and screw up my confession schedule, i do not have to then ponder prior/at beginning of mass whether i should present myself for communion?

And if you suggest, i just should go along whatever is ok according to my bishop, does that mean the standard of the most “liberal” priest under that bishop should be applied (anyone can go to communion anytime, even non-catholics, hence i should not mind the issue and present myself to communion) - or the least “liberal” priest (in which case “screw up my confession schedule” is sufficient to refrain from communion, i think, as it would be playing safe, which doesn’t hurt, even if i did not sin)?

Ever thought that some people in certain situations have to make decisions fully knowing they are somewhat “critical” without being able to discuss issues with pries and therefore prefer clarity to have a better foundation to decide upon?
  • insert husband/wife, remarried husband/wife, non-married; the problem does not change, as long as there aren’t intrinsical evil acts, because if there is no intrinsic evil act the sin will depend on the situation and potentially even non-married might be ok; just like husband/wife proposing to use condom has to be somehow decided; and coincidentally, whether there are intrinsic evil acts, which is relevant for such decisions, is one of the dubias asked.
I cannot exclude that i will end up in a situation in which the answer of the dubias will be for me personally relevant in a decision for which i cannot phone a priest to help me sort things out.

(Note, currently i presume that absolutely nothing changed whatsoever; but that presumption does not add up much with the dubias not being answered)
Click to expand...
The scenarios you describe – or attempt to describe – in your exercise are so far removed from the attitudes and dispositions that I have found when working with couples seeking pastoral accompaniment in exceptional circumstances that I would compare the difference by contrasting their day in opposition to the darkness of the night; their attitudes and dispositions being completely praiseworthy as opposed to the mockery I read, which is at best worthy of contempt.

What you write illustrates a night and day difference of mindset indeed from the souls who have sought pastoral accompaniment with me.

In fact, I would proceed to say that such persons as would propose such scenarios of mockery would not be well received in my diocese; rather, they would be quickly escorted out of the parish priest’s office and put onto the street.

I have to admit, however, that participating in this thread has been quite an experience that gives an insight into certain sorts of participant in this forum…I just doubt it is the sort of experience that the posters think they are providing.

You several times wrote “dubias.”

Singular = dubium
Plural = dubia
 
Don_Ruggero said:
You several times wrote “dubias.”

Singular = dubium
Plural = dubia
Click to expand...
Thanks for correcting me.
Don_Ruggero said:
The scenarios you describe – or attempt to describe – in your exercise are so far removed from the attitudes and dispositions that I have found when working with couples seeking pastoral accompaniment in exceptional circumstances that I would compare the difference by contrasting their day in opposition to the darkness of the night; their attitudes and dispositions being completely praiseworthy as opposed to the mockery I read, which is at best worthy of contempt.

What you write illustrates a night and day difference of mindset indeed from the souls who have sought pastoral accompaniment with me.
Click to expand...
Regarding “attempt to describe”, please mind that i used “I” for good reason.

That potentially you consider my way of describing issues as worthy of contempt (or did i misunderstand that?)
Don_Ruggero said:
In fact, I would proceed to say that such persons as would propose such scenarios of mockery would not be well received in my diocese; rather, they would be quickly escorted out of the parish priest’s office and put onto the street.
Click to expand...
and might even kick me out of the door if i am seeking help and formulate my questions and problems the way i consider them best formulated, is at least not lacking clarity.

If i have difficult questions, i guess i am more or less on my own, if many priests can match you’re charitable conduct.
 
patricius79 said:
Right. Thanks for the quote. And I know he affirms the teaching about Humanae Vitae against contraception.

What about from Chapter 8? Is there anything in it, or in its footnotes, which are binding on Catholics as being the constant belief of the Church?
Click to expand...
I do not see where it would be binding, but only because it is instructive. He gives instructions, for example, to priests. Most Catholics would not be affected by this. Those that are still are free to simply refrain from communion, so no, that is not binding.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
The Pope alone is beyond all reach. Having supreme and full jurisdiction, there is nothing else left which he does not himself hold.

The Cardinals, properly, are beyond the critiquing of everyone of lesser dignity and stature than they. It is indeed wrong for those hierarchically beneath them to judge or impugn them.

However, of course, the Cardinals exist beneath and under the authority of the Successor of Peter – to whom they owe obedience and submission.

The judgment of Cardinals and Cardinals petitions is solely and exclusively the domain of the Pope. If His Holiness finds the petition without merit…then the petition is without merit.
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts on the formal act of correction that was noted by Cardinal Burke? And what of the four cardinals and other bishops who have come to their support asking for the Pope to answer their dubium?
 
Don_Ruggero said:
The Pope alone is beyond all reach.
Click to expand...
This statement seems more like papolatry. The Pope is not beyond reach, and certainly not beyond counsel, admonishment, or correction – if deemed needed. This has certainly happened on occasion in the history of the Church, and rightly so. Even our first pope was withstood to his face while in Antioch, “for he was clearly in the wrong.”
The Cardinals, properly, are beyond the critiquing of everyone of lesser dignity and stature than they. It is indeed wrong for those hierarchically beneath them to judge or impugn them.
Click to expand...
However, of course, the Cardinals exist beneath and under the authority of the Successor of Peter – to whom they owe obedience and submission.
Click to expand...
The judgment of Cardinals and Cardinals petitions is solely and exclusively the domain of the Pope. If His Holiness finds the petition without merit…then the petition is without merit.
Click to expand...
These four cardinals are not even accusing the pope of being in the wrong but rather simply requesting clarification. They are not challenging the authority of the pope – in fact, they are appealing to it, which is precisely why they are approaching him to settle the matter. They recognize and acknowledge his supreme teaching authority. Canon 212 certainly allows for the Christian faithful to make known to the Church their spiritual needs, which would obviously include clear teaching. If the laity can do this, undoubtedly these cardinals can as well, especially on behalf of the lay faithful. The CCC states that catechesis has to reveal in all clarity the joy and the demands of the way of Christ, and clarity is needed here, so yes, the petition has merit.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
For that matter, even if no lay person in the whole diocese understood anything about any of this, it does not in any way impede the implementation of the guidelines because the laity have absolutely nothing to implement.
Click to expand...
This is not germane to the discussion. This has to do with clarity in Church teaching to better understand the practice of the Church.
 
I have no particular sympathy, frankly, if there are people who are confused …
Click to expand...
This is a sad response, especially if coming from a priest.
 
irenaeus1 said:
This statement seems more like papolatry.
Click to expand...
:confused:Wouldn’t that be where the pope is literally worshiped? This seems like rhetoric, as well as a straw man. “Beyond reach” does not mean beyond correction, counsel or criticism, as would seem obvious, since he receives all these things, but as he chooses as did Peter with Paul.
 
The questions submitted by four cardinals about the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia have already been answered, according to Father Antonio Spadaro.

More…
 
He could, certainly, but would he? I highly doubt it as that would be basically a “nuclear option” that would leave a decidedly bad impression from a great many people, myself included. It would look to all the world like they were being punished and beaten down for speaking their minds in a civil and reasonable manner, as if His Holiness were a Roman Emperor putting some uppity Senators in their place for daring to criticize him. I don’t see Pope Francis being quite that petty. Not to mention, it wouldn’t exactly shut them up anyway, if that were the intended result. Cardinal Burke in particular is made of more resolute material than to be silenced because they took his red hat away.
 
Pat_Payne said:
He could, certainly, but would he? I highly doubt it as that would be basically a “nuclear option” that would leave a decidedly bad impression from a great many people, myself included. It would look to all the world like they were being punished and beaten down for speaking their minds in a civil and reasonable manner, as if His Holiness were a Roman Emperor putting some uppity Senators in their place for daring to criticize him. I don’t see Pope Francis being quite that petty. Not to mention, it wouldn’t exactly shut them up anyway, if that were the intended result. Cardinal Burke in particular is made of more resolute material than to be silenced because they took his red hat away.
Click to expand...
It does have some of the earmarks of a threat.
 
But it appears the issue is less the dubia than the fact that it was made public. Which if the dubia was sincerely intended, seems to have been an unnecessary exercise of pressure.
 
Aside from the merits of one side or the other, regarding A. L, whatever happened to confidential communications? For both sides?

If cardinals disagree with the pope, and he chooses not to respond to their private communication, what is the value of taking it to the whole world? Couldn’t they simply communicate with the college of cardinals their concerns? And maybe also the staff of the Vatican tribunals concerned with the Family?

Likewise, why is the Dean of the Rota making warnings, or threats, in public about 4 people? Doesn’t he have the email addresses of the 4 cardinals?

Scripture warns against Christian bringing Christian into the “courts” of the heathens. Nowadays, using the media to hit your opponent is bringing them into the heathen “court” of public opinion; rather than settling this privately.
 
Could this not be what Our Lady spoke of when she said “bishop against bishop, cardinal against cardinal”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top