Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[carn]

Not everyone can understand the CCC. Not everyone can read…period. Not every Catholic is raised in a Catholic environment.

Really, this is pretty tiresome…explaining reality to people.

Reality is, that you indicated that the Church must strive that the laity must not know too much about Church teaching.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I think there is a misunderstanding of how people change behaviors in the fearful reaction to anything “pastoral.”

Remember when the just say no campaign completely eliminated drug use in America by saying it was bad for you?

Ain’t that the truth. Institutions, societies or governments are usually unwilling to put in the necessary work to fix a problem. They usually end up throwing money at it, or ignoring it, or half-a**ing a solution. Prohibition, The War on Drugs, No Child Left Behind, using prisons to house the mentally ill etc…etc…

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Reality is, that you indicated that the Church must strive that the laity must not know too much about Church teaching.

No, I didn’t say that. You’ve taken what I said and have ran over a cliff with it.

I know you have disagreed with what Fr. Ruggero said about positions of authority based on training and experience so you probably won’t like what I will say about how much time it takes for someone who knows little about ‘Church matters’ to get to a point where they have a proper understanding of what a pastor thinks the individual needs to understand for every step forward.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

This is what I don’t understand. If you are NOT in a situation like this, why do YOU need clarity?

This is a matter that is between the couple & their confessor/priest, and MAYBE their Bishop.

There has been no change to the actual teaching. AL is a document that is meant to help with pastoral care that is 200+ pages and people are getting hung up on a footnote. I don’t get it.

I am a revert, Baptized as an infant, then away for the Church until 6th grade. I was catechised for a total of 3 years in the early 80’s and received First Communion & Confirmation. Then left the Church again as a young adult. When I decided to return, some 15 years later, I was in an irregular situation. If my priest(s) had taken such a “hard line” stance as some of you seem to suggest, I NEVER would have made it back home to the Catholic Church. I can’t help but to think that is what many of you here want and it makes me very sad.

Ok, “such people” … “are a blight”; that seems like a pretty harsh condemnation.

Oneofthewomen specifically refered to “some of you”, so some people in this thread discussing the issue. And was actually answering to Abyssinia.

I might know not realy much about Church law; but i know something about civil law; and under that it would not be unreasonable to understand, that as Oneofthewomen referred to some people here in the thread, that Don Ruggero effictively called some people in this thread a “blight”, with Abyssinia rather clearly (and probably me, cause he already said elsewhere he does not like my attitudes).

Good grief; i already have been in a lot of “fun” name calling and mud slinging in online forums; but “blight” is well above the usual stuff. And actually i am pondering, whether that “blight” might also be meant for the 4 cardinals? Who knows.

But i guess i cannot return in kind, otherwise it would end in work for poor mods.

Two scenarios:

A talks to divorced and remarried couple B1/B2 how they should act so that it is proper for them to receive sacraments.

A asks on an internet forum fellow catholics how AL would effect access of divorced and remarried couples to sacraments and how AL fits to the rest of the teaching of the Church.

Can you discern the two scenarios?

Or is A in both cases a “blight”?

Better re-read what I wrote, because it in no way just about or directed to Abyssinia, and I resent your implications and tone.

I have been involved in a few threads on this topic and I have run I to this attitude often, the “hard line” stance by people who, no matter how well meaning, are ultimately keeping people from reconciling with the Church over matters that are none of their business.

 

[patricius79]

I have been involved in a few threads on this topic and I have run I to this attitude often, the “hard line” stance by people who, no matter how well meaning, are ultimately keeping people from reconciling with the Church over matters that are none of their business.

Shouldn’t we care about whether we ourselves keep the moral law, and about others, and about the Church?

 

[carn]

Better re-read what I wrote, because it in no way just about or directed to Abyssinia, and I resent your implications and tone.

Don Ruggero called the people you talked about a “blight”; my answer was directed to him; sorry if you thought i meant you.

I have been involved in a few threads on this topic and I have run I to this attitude often, the “hard line” stance by people who, no matter how well meaning, are ultimately keeping people from reconciling with the Church over matters that are none of their business.

I do not want to keep anyone from reconciling.

I am just curious about whether and what changes there are and how they add up with prior teaching. And i dislike contradictions.

And, BTW, i can put the number of people in the world who might have had a harder time in reconciling with the Church if being constantly told that they should not ask questions, need not understand and lack the intellect for it anyway to at least 1.

 

[OraLabora]

Could you give a concrete example? I agree that we should admit what we don’t know.

I’m not sure I understand what you want a concrete example of. My post refers to any pastoral inquiry about a marital irregularity. I don’t think I’d answer differently in any type of case no matter how well versed I would be on the topic, as I don’t have the pastoral care of that soul entrusted to me. When specific questions about specific situations arise on this forum, I rarely bother to participate in those threads but if I did, my answer would always be the same: consult with your pastor.

The same with any in-person inquiry.

Now if someone asked me, say, how to celebrate the feast of St. Andrew in the Liturgy of the Hours, then I would gladly give a specific answer, because it is a topic I have a lot of experience in, and indeed our oblate director uses me to teach the Liturgy of the Hours to oblates.

But on irregular marriages, the permutations and combinations are too great in order to give a specific answer. In general terms I might say something like the Church takes marriage very seriously, but does have pastoral procedures in place to deal with irregular situations, but those can only be rightly discussed with one’s own pastor who will examine every angle of a specific situation before proposing a course of action.

I think it Fr. Ruggero remarked it is rather similar to answering complex medical questions. I may know about Type II diabetes because I have type II diabetes, but my situation, level of control, severity, etc., are all different from someone else’s, and other then me speaking in generalities like losing weight and eating healthier, only that person’s physician can lay out a treatment plan tailored to his or her needs: degree and intensity of exercise based on cardiac test results, medication and dosage, etc.

Or if someone is complaining of pain that sounds like appendicitis, then I can’t offer more advice than “get yourself to a hospital pronto”.

Really spiritual health is not that much different than physical health. If you really feel unwell, a physician or nurse-practioner is best positioned to help you. Similarly if you are spiritually unwell due to past mistakes, you should seek out the most appropriate physician for your soul, your pastor. So why would one arrogate for him or herself the role of physician for an enquirer’s soul when only a real physician, the priest, possesses the proper training and information to treat the patient?

This forum has a policy to forbid the giving of medical advice. I’m beginning to think they should apply the same policy to pastoral advice, beyond giving generalities and proposing that inquiries be directed to the local pastor.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Don Ruggero called the people you talked about a “blight”; my answer was directed to him; sorry if you thought i meant you.

I do not want to keep anyone from reconciling.

I am just curious about whether and what changes there are and how they add up with prior teaching. And i dislike contradictions.

And, BTW, i can put the number of people in the world who might have had a harder time in reconciling with the Church if being constantly told that they should not ask questions, need not understand and lack the intellect for it anyway to at least 1.

No Church teaching has changed. None! Zero! Zip! Nada!
The teachings are all exactly the same. What has changed is that Pope Francis is not living in a vacuum and knows that there are a lot of people out there who are confused, scared and unsure of situations they have gotten themselves into, who, for lack of a better word, feel shunned by their faith community. That is not what being Catholic is about.

And to be perfectly honest, I just do not understand why this is so hard for some to accept.

 

[carn]

No, I didn’t say that. You’ve taken what I said and have ran over a cliff with it.

Ok, you tried to weasel out of actually saying something and i tried to encourage you to say something.

I know you have disagreed with what Fr. Ruggero said about positions of authority based on training and experience so you probably won’t like what I will say about how much time it takes for someone who knows little about ‘Church matters’ to get to a point where they have a proper understanding of what a pastor thinks the individual needs to understand for every step forward.

If i remember correctly, i disagreed mostly about things he said regarding intellect and some people being a blight.

For the rest, as we are also talking about rules here (remember, there was once a rule regarding sacraments and divorced and remarried and that got now changde/adjusted/needs to be discerned/is not altered anyway/etc. depending on interpretation); and about understanding rules that is both my job and my hobby; it would be quite a joke if you actually believed it would take long and be complicated to explain rules for a lack of capability/understanding on my side; the pattern is instead that those somehow claiming there is no problem fail at offering conclusive arguments; and that is actually not only my opinion but also from people you cannot disparage for lack of capability to understand, e.g. Cardinal Burke (who is probably quite above me in rule issues).

 

[carn]

No Church teaching has changed. None! Zero! Zip! Nada!
The teachings are all exactly the same. What has changed is that Pope Francis is not living in a vacuum and knows that there are a lot of people out there who are confused, scared and unsure of situations they have gotten themselves into, who, for lack of a better word, feel shunned by their faith community. That is not what being Catholic is about.

And to be perfectly honest, I just do not understand why this is so hard for some to accept.

For me its hard to accept, because various people i think to be rather well versed in the issue are worried and/or hinting at problems and/or claiming there are problems AND they get some decent insults thrown at them. That is strong indication that something is amiss.

What i do not get is, why some people think insults are good replacement for arguments.

 

[graciew]

! Nada!

No dictionary !!! Thank you!! Gracias!:extrahappy:

 

[JimG]

No Church teaching has changed. None! Zero! Zip! Nada!

No Church teaching has changed. I keep hearing this, and I believe it. That is good. It means that the words of Jesus regarding marriage in the Gospels still apply. Marriage is permanent and lasts until death. I hope that this teaching continues to be emphasized. It is what the world needs to hear.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No Church teaching has changed. None! Zero! Zip! Nada!
The teachings are all exactly the same. What has changed is that Pope Francis is not living in a vacuum and knows that there are a lot of people out there who are confused, scared and unsure of situations they have gotten themselves into, who, for lack of a better word, feel shunned by their faith community. That is not what being Catholic is about.

And to be perfectly honest, I just do not understand why this is so hard for some to accept.

I guess I’m really confused. I mean, I have lived through the pontificates of Pope Pius XII, Pope St. John XXIII, Pope Paul IV, Pope John Paul I, Pope St. John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI.

Did any of them ‘live in a vacuum’ and did not work (or did not do so with sufficient pastoral care) to help all those confused, scared, unsure people?

Because you say the change is that POPE FRANCIS is not 'living in a vacuum etc." which implies that other Popes, ahem, did.

I am not criticizing any Pope in any way, shape, or form, but I am very frankly confused by what you have written, because in coupling ‘change’ and “Pope Francis” you really appear to imply that he is acting in a different way from his predecessors.

Again, I am not criticizing YOU in any way, shape, or form, either. And I won’t even use the “C” word (clarity), but I would appreciate knowing exactly how Pope Francis differs from say Pope St. John Paul II in his understanding of how to help scared people, so that I would know what the real ‘change’ is here.

 

[graciew]

I guess I’m really confused. I mean, I have lived through the pontificates of Pope Pius XII, Pope St. John XXIII, Pope Paul IV, Pope John Paul I, Pope St. John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI.

Did any of them ‘live in a vacuum’ and did not work (or did not do so with sufficient pastoral care) to help all those confused, scared, unsure people?

Because you say the change is that POPE FRANCIS is not 'living in a vacuum etc." which implies that other Popes, ahem, did.

I am not criticizing any Pope in any way, shape, or form, but I am very frankly confused by what you have written, because in coupling ‘change’ and “Pope Francis” you really appear to imply that he is acting in a different way from his predecessors.

Again, I am not criticizing YOU in any way, shape, or form, either. And I won’t even use the “C” word (clarity), but I would appreciate knowing exactly how Pope Francis differs from say Pope St. John Paul II in his understanding of how to help scared people, so that I would know what the real ‘change’ is here.

She did not say anything about previous Popes. Let us not make this bigger.
And I knew it would not last long ,I had to look up " in a vacuum."
Also, I do no see the purpose of this thread . It was a wrong message .

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Pope Francis called a synod of Bishops to address family issues. If you (the figurative you, not you personally) can’t see that “family issues” have become a lot more complicated and require a more nuanced pastoral approach, I guess I just don’t know what else to say.

Prior Pope’s also did not to deal with “armchair theologians” who had instantaneous access to all sorts of information that they may or may not fully understand.
This is what I meant with the “vacuum” comment. Except for Benedict, who did so briefly, Francis’s pontificate is playing out in the Twitter feed with 140 characters. And we have to change how we respond to and help people thought their situations in different ways. The truth has not and cannot change, how we help people understand it must.

 

[commenter]

No Church teaching has changed. I keep hearing this, and I believe it. That is good. It means that the words of Jesus regarding marriage in the Gospels still apply. Marriage is permanent and lasts until death. I hope that this teaching continues to be emphasized. It is what the world needs to hear.

Well, you know that no Church teaching has changed, and I know it, and a minority of Catholics and non Catholics know it. But I suspect many, perhaps most, Catholics and non Catholics think it ****has ****changed. If an inaccurate perception has arisen, there is responsibility to set the record straight. People don’t respond to any actual situation, they only respond to what they think is the situation. It

It is true, in theory, that laity who hear about persons in a pastoral crisis should refer them to a priest. But laity are constantly talking with confused Catholics, and non Catholics, who are not in a pastoral crisis but have misinformation. They won’t make an appointment with a priest. They might listen for a few minutes to you, someone they know. It goes without saying that I should tell people I am not an expert, that they should seek out a priest, but knowing they usually won’t, I give them what information I know is accurate, whether it’s about marriage, birth control, abortion, ordination of women, etc. I am the one standing there, right now.

With all due respect to priests and deacons, laity are on the front lines, since we are the parents, we are the coworkers, we are the friends and neighbors, we do most of the evangelism. We try to present not our own opinion but information accurate and consistent with the clergy and bishops. At present, some clergy and bishops seem to be interpreting the general template of AL differently from other clergy and bishops, which is a very different issue than the specific, person-by-person pastoral approach, John is different from Bill, and should be treated differently. What we are seeing is that if you have **this **bishop you are **all **treated differently from all those who have ****that ****bishop.

That isn’t pastoral sensitivity, it is confusion, and silence makes it worse.

 

[TCEL]

Well, you know that no Church teaching has changed, and I know it, and a minority of Catholics and non Catholics know it. But I suspect many, perhaps most, Catholics and non Catholics think it ****has ****changed. If an inaccurate perception has arisen, there is responsibility to set the record straight. People don’t respond to any actual situation, they only respond to what they think is the situation. It

It is true, in theory, that laity who hear about persons in a pastoral crisis should refer them to a priest. But laity are constantly talking with confused Catholics, and non Catholics, who are not in a pastoral crisis but have misinformation. They won’t make an appointment with a priest. They might listen for a few minutes to you, someone they know. It goes without saying that I should tell people I am not an expert, that they should seek out a priest, but knowing they usually won’t, I give them what information I know is accurate, whether it’s about marriage, birth control, abortion, ordination of women, etc. I am the one standing there, right now.

With all due respect to priests and deacons, laity are on the front lines, since we are the parents, we are the coworkers, we are the friends and neighbors, we do most of the evangelism. We try to present not our own opinion but information accurate and consistent with the clergy and bishops. At present, some clergy and bishops seem to be interpreting the general template of AL differently from other clergy and bishops, which is a very different issue than the specific, person-by-person pastoral approach, John is different from Bill, and should be treated differently. What we are seeing is that if you have **this **bishop you are **all **treated differently from all those who have ****that ****bishop.

That isn’t pastoral sensitivity, it is confusion, and silence makes it worse.

Thank you! If people reconcile with the Church based on false notions, what happens if they’re disabused of those notions? What if twenty years down the road, this issue has been settled and practice is the same as it always was? Wouldn’t false information or promises engender dissent and resentment like contraception has? Really, this era of Church history will be about the purification and clarification of marriage and the family. I do think it safe to say that.

 

[JimG]

Well, you know that no Church teaching has changed, and I know it, and a minority of Catholics and non Catholics know it. But I suspect many, perhaps most, Catholics and non Catholics think it ****has ****changed. If an inaccurate perception has arisen, there is responsibility to set the record straight. People don’t respond to any actual situation, they only respond to what they think is the situation. It

It is true, in theory, that laity who hear about persons in a pastoral crisis should refer them to a priest. But laity are constantly talking with confused Catholics, and non Catholics, who are not in a pastoral crisis but have misinformation. They won’t make an appointment with a priest. They might listen for a few minutes to you, someone they know. It goes without saying that I should tell people I am not an expert, that they should seek out a priest, but knowing they usually won’t, I give them what information I know is accurate, whether it’s about marriage, birth control, abortion, ordination of women, etc. I am the one standing there, right now.

With all due respect to priests and deacons, laity are on the front lines, since we are the parents, we are the coworkers, we are the friends and neighbors, we do most of the evangelism. We try to present not our own opinion but information accurate and consistent with the clergy and bishops. At present, some clergy and bishops seem to be interpreting the general template of AL differently from other clergy and bishops, which is a very different issue than the specific, person-by-person pastoral approach, John is different from Bill, and should be treated differently. What we are seeing is that if you have **this **bishop you are **all **treated differently from all those who have ****that ****bishop.

That isn’t pastoral sensitivity, it is confusion, and silence makes it worse.

I’m always in favor of clarification over ambiguity. If nothing has changed as to the doctrine, that’s good, and I would like that fact to be clarified and presented often, at official levels. Over the course of years, I’ve seen many marriage questions answered both in the “Ask an Apologist” forum and in Catholic magazines Q&A columns. The answers were always straightforward and succinct and understandable. But on this thread I’ve read from several posters than the only possible answer to particular marriage questions is to ask your parish priest. I have to wonder whether in the future such Q&A’s in printed or online publications must become a thing of the past, with questioners simply being advised to talk to their pastor. I hope that is not the case. Marital situations may be varied, but moral norms are clear. (Not that I have anything against talking with one’s pastor about particular situations–that’s a good thing. But I do think it ought to be possible to present Catholic teaching in a straightforward manner without leaving people confused.)

 

[graciew]

I’m always in favor of clarification over ambiguity. If nothing has changed as to the doctrine, that’s good, and I would like that fact to be clarified and presented often, at official levels. Over the course of years, I’ve seen many marriage questions answered both in the “Ask an Apologist” forum and in Catholic magazines Q&A columns. The answers were always straightforward and succinct and understandable. But on this thread I’ve read from several posters than the only possible answer to particular marriage questions is to ask your parish priest. I have to wonder whether in the future such Q&A’s in printed or online publications must become a thing of the past, with questioners simply being advised to talk to their pastor. I hope that is not the case. Marital situations may be varied, but moral norms are clear.

Jim,I do not know much,but it has always been " go to the priest". We can listen,as friends,relatives whatever but all we want in the end is that we are together as a parish community ,and Mass.
So,I am speaking for myself,parting from the pleasure or happiness or whatever word of being part of our little communities,we draw our friends not as a strategy at all but because it is good and warm and there is a life within the parish.
So from the bottom of my heart,most if the time,even if I know the answer to sth relatively simple " go to rhe priest" was and is always better.and a way to say meet the host! Needless to say that being the “Martha Martha” type I had “Mary” tupé friends in the parish that would do much better than me in their spiritual ministering and explaining
So really I do not know if the issue is that this does not come out natural there. It did in my parrish there though,súper active and very cool priests ,quite available.Cool, I mean receptive.

 

[JimG]

Jim,I do not know much,but it has always been " go to the priest". We can listen,as friends,relatives whatever but all we want in the end is that we are together as a parish community ,and Mass.
So,I am speaking for myself,parting from the pleasure or happiness or whatever word of being part of our little communities,we draw our friends not as a strategy at all but because it is good and warm and there is a life within the parish.
So from the bottom of my heart,most if the time,even if I know the answer to sth relatively simple " go to rhe priest" was and is always better.and a way to say meet the host! Needless to say that being the “Martha Martha” type I had “Mary” tupé friends in the parish that would do much better than me in their spiritual ministering and explaining
So really I do not know if the issue is that this does not come out natural there. It did in my parrish there though,súper active and very cool priests ,quite available.Cool, I mean receptive.

Still, if a non-Catholic acquaintance asked me “Does the Church believe that marriage is permanent, lasting till death?” I would have no problem answering “yes, that is what we believe about marriage.” I would not say, “here is the number for my pastor,” because they would not call him. They just asked a simple question about Catholic belief, and the answer is pretty clear. If they asked, “does the Catholic Church teach that artificial contraception is wrong?” I could answer that one as well. “Yes, that is the teaching.”