Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[patricius79]

Have I suggested otherwise?
.

I’m glad you agree that a person must have the intention to keep the basics of the moral law–which would include refraining from sex in an irregular marriage-- in order to receive Communion. Is that right?

I heard you saying that those who are concerned about the Pope’s positions are expecting perfection of people, which would be rigorism.

But nobody to my knowledge is saying that at all. So it sounds like maybe he concerns of some people here are, to some extent, being treated roughly and insensitively with black and white thinking?

If we should avoid black and white thinking about those living in irregular marriages, shouldn’t we avoid using black and white thinking on those who want the dubia to be answered?

But I agree that evaluating someone’s efforts to avoid adultery and other sins belongs with that person and their Confessor.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Or why is it any of your business if people are concerned about relativism and apathy in the Church.

I don’t see apathy & relativism everywhere, that is why. Most of the people I know personally, and from what I am gleaning from this and other threads, seem to think that most people are following the “rules” only if they think & act just like them. That is conformity, not unity, and it is decidedly not Catholic.

But alll our sins–including adultery, contraception, pride, idolatry, theft, or sacrilegious Communion–affect the whole Church.

Yes, and I don’t believe anyone has said anything different. But again, I am no one’s confessor or Pastor, so therefore, it is not my place to decide if a sin is indeed being committed. Do you not have faith in your priests to make such determinations?

If I’m not willing to keep the basics of the moral law, but choose to receive Communion, I am hurting others.

Maybe. It would be true if it were truly causing scandal, as in the people involved were activly and vocally defying the rules. I don’t believe that is the case in 99% of cases though, so the question becomes again- Do you not trust the priests/Bishops to make the correct decisions when they are counseling people who are in these situations?

Right now we’re in a major crisis which affects everyone. Very few Catholics, for example, go to Confession or submit themselves to the moral teachings of the Church.

To be honest, I am so tired of hearing about a “crisis”. I was contacted once to participate in a survey by a widely respected institution that has been used since to paint a very grim portrait of our Church in some circles. What many do not understand about surveys and how they are reported is that most of the questions are worded to elicit the response that the surveyors want, not the actually truth. I think Mark Twain said it best, “There are lies, damn, lies and then their are government statistics”.

In that context, it’s understandable to me why some Cardinals and pastors want clarification.

Yes, it is. It’s because they do not like what they have heard since March 19, 2013, and want the Church to be a small, neat, little museum for Saints instead of a hospital for sinners.

 

[patricius79]

I don’t see apathy & relativism everywhere, that is why. Most of the people I know personally, and from what I am gleaning from this and other threads, seem to think that most people are following the “rules” only the ones who think & act just like them. That is conformity, not unity, and it is decidedly not Catholic.

Yes, and I don’t believe anyone has said anything different. But again, I am no one’s confessor or Pastor, so therefore, it is not my place to decide if a sin is indeed being committed. Do you not have faith in your priests to make such determinations?

Maybe. It would be true if it were truly causing scandal, as in the people involved were activly and vocally defying the rules. I don’t believe that is the case in 99% of cases though, so the question becomes again- Do you not trust the priests/Bishops to make the correct decisions when they are counseling people who are in these situations?

To be honest, I am so tired of hearing about a “crisis”. I was contacted once to participate in a survey by a widely respected institution that has been used since to paint a very grim portrait of our Church in some circles. What many do not understand about surveys and how they are reported is that most of the questions are worded to elicit the response that the surveyors want, not the actually truth. I think Mark Twain said it best, “There are lies, damn, lies and then their are government statistics”.

Yes, it is. It’s because they do not like what they have heard since March 19, 2013, and want the Church to be a small, neat, little museum for Saints instead of a hospital for sinners.

Maybe they want the Church to be a hospital for sinners, but not a hospice for sinners.

Regarding the state of the family and Church as the context of A.L., doesn’t Pope Francis say that the state of the family is very serious?

Also, what percentage of Catholics, would you personally guess, go to Confession at least once every three months, and assent to all the doctrines and moral teachings of the Church?

As to your question about whether I trust pastors. I put my faith in their authority in the Church, which comes from Christ, and I sympathize with them and respect them… And I do want them to clearly teach the truth in love.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Also, what percentage of Catholics, would you personally guess, go to Confession at least once every three months, and assent to all the doctrines and moral teachings of the Church?

Why are you asking people to do more than the Church does?

One needs to confess when in mortal sin, or once a year. Is it better to do more, of course, but it is not required. So I will ask again, why are you requiring more than the Church does?

As for assenting to all the doctrines of the Church, yes, I assent to the fact that the Church has doctrines that I must follow, and I believe most people do also. But assenting to, and fully embracing are 2 totally different things. We are humans and we struggle, that is why we have the Church in the first place, to help us to come to understand truth.

Most of the people I know are doing the best they can. Do they fall? Of course, but they pick themselves up, seek reconciliation and try again. That is what faith is about, trying to become perfect, not being perfect.

 

[Brendan]

Maybe they want the Church to be a hospital for sinners, but not a hospice for sinners.

 

[patricius79]

Maybe. It would be true if it were truly causing scandal, as in the people involved were activly and vocally defying the rules. .

According to the logic of individualism, our sins don’t affect one another much. But I think that according to the logic of the family of God, every sin I’ve ever committed has hurt you and the whole Church–especially my big sins.

So I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being respectfully assertive if one believes that problems in the Church need to be addressed.

Unless of course one is obliged by obedience to keep silent.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Why are you asking people to do more than the Church does?

One needs to confess when in mortal sin, or once a year. Is it better to do more, of course, but it is not required. So I will ask again, why are you requiring more than the Church does?

As for assenting to all the doctrines of the Church, yes, I assent to the fact that the Church has doctrines that I must follow, and I believe most people do also. But assenting to, and fully embracing are 2 totally different things. We are humans and we struggle, that is why we have the Church in the first place, to help us to come to understand truth.

Most of the people I know are doing the best they can. Do they fall? Of course, but they pick themselves up, seek reconciliation and try again. That is what faith is about, trying to become perfect, not being perfect.

Of course Catholics have their times of struggle and we are not perfect, but the divorced and remarried who cannot get an annullment have a particular challenge because of their situation, and are called to live as brother and sister. It’s not impossible for them to do this, there are couples who live as brother and sister. If they will not do that and choose to have a sexual relationship, that is a CHOICE they make, just as it for somebody to use contraception or to look at pornography. In none of these three situations are people forced to engage in things which make them sin. While the Church should call ALL sinners, whatever their sin may be, to change their ways, the Church also can’t support sin and the Church cannnot commit sacrilege by allowing somebody in grave sin to receive Communion.

 

[patricius79]

Why are you asking people to do more than the Church does?

One needs to confess when in mortal sin, or once a year. Is it better to do more, of course, but it is not required. So I will ask again, why are you requiring more than the Church does?
t.

Could you answer my question: what percentage of Catholics, would you say, confess their sins (I’ll even make it less frequent) at least once every six months and assent to all the doctrines and moral teachings of the Church?

As to you question, yes, Catholics are obliged to confess mortal sins only once a year; and to receive Communion only once a year. But these are bare minimums. A person might do these and still be in a lot of spiritual trouble.

But even if we make it that minimal: what percentage of Catholics would you say confess their sins at least once a year and assent to all the Church’s doctrines and moral teachings?

I think the percentage is low. I would guess it’s around 25% or less of churchgoing Catholics, and that’s just from the regular churchgoers. I could be wrong, and I hope I am. But it’s my honest perception.

And in that context. I would like the dubia to be answered and for us to admit we have a serious crisis wherein secularism, individualism, and relativism, have profoundly influenced the minds of Catholics.

 

[ProdigalSun]

I agree. Moreover it would appear that the circumstances addressed by Ch. 8 in AL don’t even apply to the vast majority of those posting here.

Why are we so afraid of admitting a few lost sheep to the fold?

We would all do well to remember Jesus’s promise of the Keys. The gates of Hades will not prevail. Have faith folks! He couldn’t have made His promise any clearer! Currently, it is Pope Francis who is entrusted with His keys. I fully have faith that he is a worthy keeper of them, and place my trust into this successor of St. Peter to steer the Church in the rough waters of the 21st century.

A year or two ago I would have agreed with you. I’m not so sure of our Pope anymore. I find that what he does and says confuses people more than helps them. Many Catholics practicing and not have given into the thought that contraception, abortion, homosexual activity is not so much of a sin as just another way of life because of what Pope Francis has said & done. I’m certainly confused by his tremdous mercy for sinners then turns around and calls other sinners out for their sin showing no mercy at all.

No I’m not so sure about this Pope I find him very confusing which makes me not so sure of my faith in him or the church.

 

[Ender]

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.

In football, as in the church, there are rules (doctrines), and the application of those rules in specific instances. Just because the rules are defined doesn’t mean applying them is simple, but at least in football the rules are clear. In the church it is no longer just the application of the doctrines that is confusing; it is the doctrines themselves that are no longer clear.

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.

Actually that is exactly what is implied. If that wasn’t the question there wouldn’t be any doubts.

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.

No one has ever suggested that it opens communion for one and all; that has never been the doubt. The question rather is who does it open those doors to today for whom they were closed yesterday?

I suggest that looking at laws as an absolute is a rather anglo-saxon way of looking at it.

Again, this is more innuendo than argument. How can we know if a law applies in a particular situation if we don’t even know for sure what the law means? How did we get to the point where ambiguity in the law - as opposed to ambiguity in its application - is acceptable?

Ender

 

[ProdigalSun]

I don’t see apathy & relativism everywhere, that is why. Most of the people I know personally, and from what I am gleaning from this and other threads, seem to think that most people are following the “rules” only if they think & act just like them. That is conformity, not unity, and it is decidedly not Catholic.

Yes, and I don’t believe anyone has said anything different. But again, I am no one’s confessor or Pastor, so therefore, it is not my place to decide if a sin is indeed being committed. Do you not have faith in your priests to make such determinations?

Maybe. It would be true if it were truly causing scandal, as in the people involved were activly and vocally defying the rules. I don’t believe that is the case in 99% of cases though, so the question becomes again- Do you not trust the priests/Bishops to make the correct decisions when they are counseling people who are in these situations?

To be honest, I am so tired of hearing about a “crisis”. I was contacted once to participate in a survey by a widely respected institution that has been used since to paint a very grim portrait of our Church in some circles. What many do not understand about surveys and how they are reported is that most of the questions are worded to elicit the response that the surveyors want, not the actually truth. I think Mark Twain said it best, “There are lies, damn, lies and then their are government statistics”.

Yes, it is. It’s because they do not like what they have heard since March 19, 2013, and want the Church to be a small, neat, little museum for Saints instead of a hospital for sinners.

But see parishioners are not going to the priest to discern this stuff. Maybe a portion is but I suggest a very small portion. Me and my wife have been a part of our parish marriage prep course. The confusion is Rampant and we have finally walked away from this ministry.

I am truly disappointed with this pope I will continue to pray for him and my Church as I have no where else to go. But I can not be apart of the confusing information that comes form him!

 

[Ender]

Why are we so afraid of admitting a few lost sheep to the fold?

Why are you having so much difficulty in even admitting what the concern is about? The dubia is:* 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…
*It is difficult to respond respectfully when such a grave and gratuitous insult is so casually issued.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Sorry to burst any bubbles- but why is this any of our business?

Just because most of us are not in this situation personally hardly means it is of no consequence to us. How would we advise a friend who came to us and said “I’m interested in the Catholic church, but what will she say about my second marriage”? Do we really want to tell them the truth, which is “Find out which diocese will allow it and go there”?

Why should people in the pews know the personal, private business that happens between a couple and their confessor?

They shouldn’t. Which is why no one has ever suggested otherwise.

Do we have that little faith in our Priests/Pastors/Bishops that we do not think that they will do what is necessary through the law?

How can they possibly do what is “necessary through the law” if there is no agreement on what the law says? That’s what this question is about: clarifying the doctrines the clergy is supposed to apply.

Ender

 

[OraLabora]

Why are you having so much difficulty in even admitting what the concern is about? The dubia is:* 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…
*

It’s rather simple, I don’t see what the concern is about because I don’t see what the concern is about. I have no difficulty with what the Holy Father wrote in AL, nor with the concept that it is not possible to find black-and-white answers to fit all situations. Nor do I have any issue with the fact that the Holy Father left it as an open-ended question to sort out at the pastoral level.

It is difficult to respond respectfully when such a grave and gratuitous insult is so casually issued.

Ender

The “we” would rather suggest that it was not intended as a personal insult, but rather as a rhetorical question. If it came across otherwise I apologize.

 

[OraLabora]

How would we advise a friend who came to us and said “I’m interested in the Catholic church, but what will she say about my second marriage”?

I would answer the way I would have always answered: speak with a priest. I’d even suggest going to the local monastery to speak to one of the fathers there. I wouldn’t presume to be able to answer a question that is not mine to answer: I am not a priest, much less their confessor and to give advice beyond telling them to get advice from the appropriate source would be well above my pay grade.

Do we really want to tell them the truth, which is “Find out which diocese will allow it and go there”?

It was well known long before AL was redacted that there were some dioceses where obtaining an annulment was easier (and in many cases rather cheaper) than others.

They shouldn’t. Which is why no one has ever suggested otherwise. How can they possibly do what is “necessary through the law” if there is no agreement on what the law says? That’s what this question is about: clarifying the doctrines the clergy is supposed to apply.

Nobody is changing doctrine. Doctrine is clear, alas our fallen nature has made pastoral care rather more messy. This is nothing new. The Church has always taught that grave sin can have mitigating circumstances. I posted quotes from the CCC and AL a few posts ago.

What I find surprising is that many people seem to think that the same mitigating circumstances cannot be applied to the situation of the divorced and remarried. The Holy Father has rather, it seems to me, made clear in AL that they can apply.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It’s rather simple, I don’t see what the concern is about because I don’t see what the concern is about. I have no difficulty with what the Holy Father wrote in AL, nor with the concept that it is not possible to find black-and-white answers to fit all situations. Nor do I have any issue with the fact that the Holy Father left it as an open-ended question to sort out at the pastoral level.

Indeed.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Could you answer my question: what percentage of Catholics, would you say, confess their sins (I’ll even make it less frequent) at least once every six months and assent to all the doctrines and moral teachings of the Church?

I will not play this game. It is none of my business to police my fellow Catholics. I believe that 100% of them seek the Sacrament of Reconciliation when they need to and I believe that 100% of them assent to the rules, and if/when they fail in upholding them, I believe 100% seek help in understanding.

As to you question, yes, Catholics are obliged to confess mortal sins only once a year; and to receive Communion only once a year. But these are bare minimums. A person might do these and still be in a lot of spiritual trouble.

Sorry, but this is a very big presumption and one that I will not touch. I do not expect anything more from my fellow Catholics than what the Church expects from me.
FWIW, I have a regular confessor and confess every 4-6 weeks. But that is my choice. I would never presume to be holier than someone who only confesses once a year.

But even if we make it that minimal: what percentage of Catholics would you say confess their sins at least once a year and assent to all the Church’s doctrines and moral teachings?

Hopefully, 100% But it is not really my problem. As I have said, it is all I can do to keep myself on the straight & narrow, I am not going to make it my business to do the Church’s job when it comes to my fellow Catholics. I can share my experiences, but ultimately we are each responsible for our own actions, not the actions of anyone else.

I think the percentage is low. I would guess it’s around 25% or less of churchgoing Catholics, and that’s just from the regular churchgoers. I could be wrong, and I hope I am. But it’s my honest perception.

And why is this your perception? Have you actually talked to anyone about this? Are you involved in parish ministries that help to teach the faith to adults & children? Do you support the initiatives of your parish for education with your time/talent/treasure?
I don’t really care what the percentage of people who confess every 3 or 6 months is. I only care that people confess when they need to.

And in that context. I would like the dubia to be answered and for us to admit we have a serious crisis wherein secularism, individualism, and relativism, have profoundly influenced the minds of Catholics.

I don’t think answering the dubia will stop the secularism, individualism, and relativism of the 21st Century.
In fact, I think answering the questions they way they have been asked is would cause more harm than good.
I can’t help but to think that these questions were already brought up once, in front of all those attending they Synod, and that the issue was addressed then. It is my firm belief that the answer was not what a very small sub-set of the Church wanted, and now they are setting themselves up as an “alternate magisterium”.
AL has not changed any teachings of the Church, why is that not sinking in.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Have I suggested otherwise?

Take note though, of what oneofthewomen said. I would not presume to be in a position to evaluate what that effort would or should involve in individual circumstances.

Again I suggest that we place our trust in what the Holy Father says, and in the ability of his pastors to exercise pastoral discernment in these cases. Only the couples involved and their confessors are in any position to evaluate their efforts to “keep the basics of the moral law”.

I certainly wouldn’t want anyone here to butt in on my confessions, I suggest that charity would demand that we do the same and let this sort itself out at the appropriate pay grade, which happens to be far above anyone’s here, with the exception of the few priests on the forum.

I compliment you and Oneofthewomen for your posts.

Frankly, once posters began stating they were trying – having neither an education in theology or canon law – to comment having not even read the document, it is then I understood any response on my part is simply time wasted that could be put to better use as no response is merited. I can only say that I am grateful that very rare was the student in my class who tried something so deplorable.

Or, from my perspective as a professor, even less of interest is offering any sort of comment when posters evidence not knowing or understanding the most basic vocabulary that a student who had successfully completed Fundamentals of Moral Theology would know.

Your remark of your own experience is an important one; it also reminds me of those relatively few occasions in my priesthood where some lay person sought to insert himself/herself into situations that concerned the pastoral care of others and the decisions that were made based on such peoples unique situations. As these matters touched upon the interloper in no way, shape, form, or fashion, they were told in no uncertain term that it was none of their business at all and that they were to withdraw forthwith. I would hope in every instance that priests would tell such people, who are acting like busybodies, to withdraw.

The cura animarum is precisely given.

 

[patricius79]

What I find surprising is that many people seem to think that the same mitigating circumstances cannot be applied to the situation of the divorced and remarried. The Holy Father has rather, it seems to me, made clear in AL that they can apply.

Mitigating circumstances can apply to all sins. But since they remain grave sins objectively, we must be very clear about the firm resolution to avoid them, and their near occasion. For example, the firm resolution to avoid theft, contraception, heresy, and sex within an irregular marriage. That’s what I think the Church needs to be clear about.

 

[Brendan]

Let’s look at a hypothetical situation.

Suppose there was a person in a fictional country, Fictionia. Torture is legal there, and unfortunately, somewhat widely practiced. The person in question is a government Torture Technician, a person who, in their current position, regularly engages in torture.
This person seeks a deeper relationship with Christ, through the Catholic Church.
All Catholics would agree that mercy is to be shown to torturers, and that the Kingdom of God is open to such people as well.

But several questions arise.

On culpability, if the person is perhaps new to the Church and first encountering, via RCIA, the Church’s view that their current state is gravely wrong. Or perhaps they were a badly catechized Catholic who is experiencing a reawakening of their Faith and a call to the deeper life of the Church. The person could rightly be said to not be culpable for entering into the role of Torture Technician in the first place.
But could the same be said for individual acts of torture that follow? Would having engaged in torture habitually allow them to continue with a clean conscience. Perhaps their conscience allows them to torture, perhaps in the belief that the Church is in error on its position. Does a lack of culpability in regards to entering into the position of Torture Technician mean that there is a presumption of lack of culpability for any or all of the following individual acts of torture? What level of intent not to commit torture in the future should be asked of the person in confession?

If the person recognizes that the Church is correct, but feels they cannot exit their position as Torture Technician, it might be that their spouse is also a Torture Technician and would leave them and their kids if they stopped torturing. What should the Church tell them? Does the good of a continued family life justify the continued acts of moral wrong? If they feel that remaining in the role of Torture Technician will most certainly result in further instances of torture, should the Church ask them to remove themselves from the role, as a near occasion of sin, even though the family might suffer, either emotionally or financially?

Now lets say others in the parish find out about the persons role as a Torture Technician. Would they be justified in encouraging the person to cease (as a Spiritual Work of Mercy), or should they just mind their own business, as the torture does not affect them directly. Would it be ‘legalism’ for other parish to remind the person that the Church considers torture to be wrong in every case, or is that too ‘black and white’.
How about a view that, while such acts meet the Church’s definition of torture, the Church sees only externally, not with the eyes of God. Perhaps the acts are not really torture in the eyes of God, and thus members of the Church should not attempt to change any behaviors, as we do not know the real truth of the acts as God sees them, only as the Church does.

Thoughts?