Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia
- Status
F
fin
Guest
R
ringil
Guest
This Bishop has a history of stirring the pot.
W
Wesrock
Guest
May the Holy Spirit bless and guide our Church, it’s Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops to God’s truth. Blessed Mary, Mother of God, pray for us. Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us. All the angels and Saints, pray for us.
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
MODERATOR REMINDER
Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.
Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.
If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.
You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.
If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.
Proof what you write before you post.
You may not make disparaging remarks about:
As Fr. Grondin said in a recent post, “Sometimes we can think that we know more than we do and that leads us to make assumptions which could be incorrect. While having questions and seeking answers, we still need to trust that the Holy Spirit is who is guiding the Church. Put your mind at ease and trust in God to guide His Church.”
Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.
Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.
If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.
You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.
If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.
Proof what you write before you post.
You may not make disparaging remarks about:
- Vatican II
- Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
- Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
- Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
- Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
- Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
- Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. They are fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.
As Fr. Grondin said in a recent post, “Sometimes we can think that we know more than we do and that leads us to make assumptions which could be incorrect. While having questions and seeking answers, we still need to trust that the Holy Spirit is who is guiding the Church. Put your mind at ease and trust in God to guide His Church.”
A
asd72
Guest
It is reassuring that the Cardinals are seeking this clarification.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I agree, and I do not think that seeking this is protesting, or against the Pope, or malicious. I would not give 2 cents for a prelate who if he himself, or members of his flock, did not fully understand a document, did not ask for clarification. How else can he (and we) carry out what is asked of us if we don’t understand it? And we all know how easy it is to listen to something, carefully examine it, think we ‘get it’ and yet realize later that we completely misunderstood. And that’s on things a lot less complex than Catholic doctrine. I don’t know about you, but in my field, communications between departments and understanding of proposals etc has really tanked, especially in the last 5 years or so. And it often happens that once a person has totally blown the assignment and it has become apparent, and he or she explains why he/she did X, the rest can look back and say, “Well, by golly. I guess one COULD have thought X, even though just about everybody else looked at this and thought it meant Y.” It certainly would have been a lot easier if people had just responded back at the very beginning, “OK in reference to this I plan to do X (or Y)”, because then the ‘X’ person or people would have been seen right from the start, before they made the errors!
Mark121359
Well-known member
Agreed. Especially when you consider that two of the four Cardinals asking for clarification have received a doctorate in canon law! That these men have to ask for clarification is telling…and also troubling.
Peace, Mark
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Also agreed. I do not know why it is the case, but that the ‘Dubia’ of the four Cardinals went unanswered is in itself very troubling.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Submitting dubia is a standard part of Church life. It’s not unreasonable to expect a clear answer
catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/11/24/submitting-dubia-is-a-standard-part-of-church-life-its-not-unreasonable-to-expect-a-clear-answer/
Catholics everywhere should be grateful for the four cardinals’ appeal
catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/11/24/catholics-everywhere-should-be-grateful-for-the-four-cardinals-appeal/
catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/11/24/submitting-dubia-is-a-standard-part-of-church-life-its-not-unreasonable-to-expect-a-clear-answer/
Catholics everywhere should be grateful for the four cardinals’ appeal
catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/11/24/catholics-everywhere-should-be-grateful-for-the-four-cardinals-appeal/
P
pnewton
Guest
I read the example given by the Catholic Herald. It may be just me, but these questions seem markedly different than the ones asked by the four Cardinals. They are simple yes and no questions without all the stipulations and built in argument, assumptions and rhetoric. Consider:
Are Mormon baptisms valid?
Do Holydays of Obligation differ in the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form, given that the Feasts corresponding to those Holydays often do?
Are already-married candidates for the permanent diaconate – and therefore their wives – obliged to practise “perfect and perpetual continence” after ordination?
Versus:
It is asked whether, following the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person “more uxorio” (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by “Familiaris Consortio” n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 34 and “Sacramentum Caritatis” n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live “more uxorio”?
After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
Now, when you add the lengthy introduction and footnotes, I am wondering if just saying it is a dubia makes it a dubia, or maybe it was the format and the style that played a part in the Holy Father’s refusal to answer.
Now, I have no idea what the Catholic Herald was getting at, but I submit that what the four Cardinals submitted is almost nothing like the examples given of previous, supposedly random, dubia.
O
OraLabora
Guest
It doesn’t trouble me in the least. It is the Holy Father’s prerogative to choose whether to answer or not. As a Benedictine, I have made the pledge to be entirely loyal to the Holy Father in all his endeavours. I did so during the reign of Saint John Paul II, I did it in the reign of Benedict XVI, and I make the same pledge to Francis. He is exercising his authority, and I fully support him in that.
It strikes me though, that perhaps he sees the questions being asked as being “loaded”, that is, any answer is a lose-lose for him. Perhaps he thinks the 4 cardinals are fishing for the answer they want, and it’s not so clear to him what they propose to do if the answer they get isn’t the one they want. Rebel à la SSPX? Lick their wounds and move on? Simply agree to disagree? If they are asking they must have a plan on how to respond to an answer they don’t agree with, a plan which they are keeping close to their chests. Clearly then, the Holy Father thinks answering is fraught with far more risk than not doing so. In other words, he is trying to avoid falling into a trap much as Jesus had to avoid falling into traps sprung on Him.
Having read AL in its entirety though, I have to say that focusing on this one chapter misses the point altogether.
I believe the Holy Father was being deliberately ambiguous in the contentious chapter because that’s how life is in reality, it never really is black-and-white, and objective sin and subjective guilt are different matters. He expects clergy that are near to their parishioners to use their pastoral smarts to sort out difficult situations that cannot always be pigeonholed into neat categories, and he especially seeks to reconcile as many people as possible with the Church.
That in essence, is what his “non-answer” is. He is sending the question back into their courts and expects them to make their own discernments in difficult situations, while remaining close to the souls to which they minister.
E
Ender
Guest
What you say may be true, but it doesn’t seem particularly relevant. What did the four cardinals ask?*The Cardinals ask Pope Francis to clear up “grave disorientation and great confusion” concerning the interpretation and practical application, particularly of chapter VIII, of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia and its passages relating to admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments and the Church’s moral teaching. (Bishop Athanasius Schneider)
But does such confusion really exist? These facts are demonstrated by pastoral orientations on behalf of several dioceses and by public statements of some bishops and cardinals, who affirm that in some cases divorced and remarried Catholics can be admitted to Holy Communion even though they continue to use the rights reserved by Divine law to validly married spouses.
*Did the four cardinals exceed their authority; was their action really necessary, are the issues serious enough to warrant such a step?*In publishing a plea for clarity in a matter that touches the truth and the sanctity simultaneously of the three sacraments of Marriage, Penance, and the Eucharist, the Four Cardinals only did their basic duty as bishops and cardinals
*Did they go too far in so publicly raising these questions?*Pope Francis often calls for an outspoken and fearless dialogue between all members of the Church in matters concerning the spiritual good of souls.
*Where’s the issue here (and where is the dialogue)? The confusion is real, the matter is grave, and the approach taken was formal and conventional. Should we be more concerned about the dubia, or the fact that there was no response?
Ender
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
If Pope Francis does not respond, based on what Cardinal Burke has said that, “a formal act of correction” could be given.
Is a a formal correction a better outcome than a clear response from the Pope to try and clear this up?
I think there is confusion around the entire issue of Communion for the divorced and remarried. There are different Cardinals saying different things on the issue on Communion for the divorced and remarried.
I believes clarity needs to be made to try and hopefully stop all this confusion. I hope Pope Francis responds to the dubia.
E
Ender
Guest
I think most people would agree with you, at least about the ambiguous part. The problem is that the ambiguity involves the proper application of three sacraments, which cannot be a good thing. The questions go to a matter of truth, which may be extraordinarily difficult to arrive at, but is in fact black-and-white once it is discovered.
This will inevitably lead to different responses to identical situations, that what is determined to be moral in one diocese will be declared immoral in the neighboring one. Leaving these questions unanswered and letting each bishop “discern” them for himself makes no more sense than leaving the definition of pass interference vague and allowing each umpire to decide for himself how to apply it. One can only imagine how a football game would look under such conditions. Are ambiguities less important in regard to the sacraments than they are in regard to football?
Ender
T
TMC
Guest
Submitting a dubia is a standard part of Church life, and one can hope for the answer they want. But one cannot expect any particular response. The problem here, in my view, is that people are seeking clarity where none exist. Not all issues are black and white, and not all outcomes can be predicted in advance. I believe the Pope is teaching, among other things, that every case must be taken on its own particular terms, and that mercy is not something that can be applied with a cookie cutter.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
If a divorced and remarried couple have not or can to get an annulment, and are not living as brother and sister, are engaging in a sexual relationship with their spouse, and don’t have any intention to stop that sexual relationship, is that not a clear situation where they are in mortal sin and should be stopped from receiving Communion?
As I wrote above, if Pope Francis does not respond, based on what Cardinal Burke has said that, “a formal act of correction” could be given.
Pope Francis is not mandated to respond to the dubia, it’s his choice, but what is described above in terms of a correction could happen if Pope Francis does not respond.
O
OraLabora
Guest
The sacraments are not a football game. The Church militant is by its very nature messy, as we are all sinners on this pile of rocks. It can in no way be compared to an orderly process like a football game boxed in by rigid rules; it is here to help heal the sick, not affirm the righteous.
The sacraments are the means God uses to endow us with sacramental grace. He also gave her the power to bind and loose, but since the withholding of sacramental grace is in itself a very serious matter, it should not be done lightly, as someone’s soul is at stake. Equally should allowing access to such grace to the unrepentant sinner, not be taken lightly. But however ambiguous one finds Chapter 8, nowhere does it suggest that access be granted to the unrepentant unwilling to undertake a faith walk and a reform of one’s life with Christ. The red herring is that Ch. 8 blows open the doors to the sacraments for anyone, and people should stop acting as if it does. It does no such thing as any careful reading would discern.
We are also not under the yoke of the law, but under the yoke of God: “For my yoke is easy, my burden is light” (Mt. 11:30).
I suggest that looking at laws as an absolute is a rather anglo-saxon way of looking at it. Coming from a more Latin tradition myself (francophone), our view of the law is that sometimes exceptions must be made, as did Jesus Himself when working miracles on the Sabbath. We have a saying in French, “l’exception confirme la règle” (the exception confirms the rule). The Holy Father is asking the clergy on the front lines to consider the possibility of exceptions existing and to minister to those souls appropriately. Keep in mind to that the Holy Father sees the world through a Latin lens as well as does much of the Catholic world.
My very respectful suggestion is this: let’s let the pope be pope, and allow him to govern those under his authority as he sees fit. The sky won’t fall if a limited exception is made to allow a few divorced and remarried to the sacraments, and any suggestion to the contrary by some people in the Church betrays a rigidity that seems to be at odds with pastoral reality.
- Status