Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Giuseppesiri58]

^This.

I will be held to account for any souls I lead astray on judgement day, because of my own stubbornness in insisting I am right while trying to “fraternally correct” a soul I perceive as in worse shape than mine. If I drive away that soul because of my harshness, I am almost certain I will see him or her jump past me in the line on Judgement Day.

Good idea to always have the parable of the publican and the sinner in mind, as well as the log vs the speck.

You are not a cleric,therefore, you shouldn’t be giving pastoral advice in this circumstance. However, I am a Cleric and I assure you that I would never lead a soul astray by allowing them to partake in the Source and Summit of the faith while persisting in a grave situation. Adultery is as deadly as cancer as is any grave situation. Not unlike a Patient who knows nothing of their illness when a Doctor would tell them they don’t need treatment. Adultery is a black and white situation…its never a grey situation. One is either an adulterer or they are not. If one is ignorant of their situation it is the obligation of the priest to direct the lost soul towards salvation which is our first article of canon law. Marriage is a black and white issue. One is either married or they are not. If one is married and decides to simulate an additional marriage then action MUST be taken by the cleric providing pastoral care. Clarification on the matter regarding a particular part of a wonderful document. The footnote on paragraph 351 has already placed stress on unity. We now have retired ordinaries making astonishing public comments directed towards the 4 cardinals. The time is now, for the sake of unity, for clarification.

lifesitenews.com/news/greek-bishop-rips-four-cardinals-its-you-who-receive-communion-sacrilegious

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/11/24/attacks-on-four-cardinals-aim-to-silence-the-truth-says-bishop-schneider/

 

[OraLabora]

You are not a cleric,therefore, you shouldn’t be giving pastoral advice in this circumstance. However, I am a Cleric and I assure you that I would never lead a soul astray by allowing them to partake in the Source and Summit of the faith while persisting in a grave situation.

The ONLY pastoral advice I would give to anyone in such a situation is to consult with their pastor.

Nowhere have I ever suggested otherwise.

 

[OraLabora]

Is it common for other Western rite Catholics to pledge to the “person “ of particular popes who happen to live at the time the person is alive? No offense intended, but as Byzantine Catholic, I’m really struggling to comprehend the purpose of such an action Wouldn’t it make more sense to pledge to the Church?

The Holy Spirit protects the Church (not necessarily the pope) from error --I’m not arguing against papal infallibility -it’s authentic, but I don’t see it being used in this instance by Francis. We’ve seen in history, popes can stray from teachings of Church (examples are Pope John XXII who taught that Beatific Vision didn’t take place until after general resurrection and Pope Liberius who sought peace and harmony with Arians by agreeing to exile and excommunication of St Athanasius.)

You seem to be misrepresenting the whole point of the Dubia.
What do you find “rebel a la SSPX” about the concerns voiced by the cardinals?
What “trap” are you suspicious of them attempting to spring on Pope Francis?
What “risk” is there for the pope to use his authoritative voice to put an end to confusion threatening to splinter the barque of Peter?
How is asking for clarification detrimental to helping souls reconcile with the Church?
More to the point……how can Familiaris Consortio and Amoris Laetitia be reconciled – because this strikes me as being primary concern of doubt-number-one, as opposed to possible motivations you seem to see.

When there is confusion about doctrine, isn’t the voice of Peter used as an authority and based on revealed Truths, the very remedy Christ intended for his Church?
If Francis is using his voice of authority - can you explain exactly what he is saying? And how it agrees with what prior authoritative voices in papacy have taught?

*I also interpret that Pope Francis is trying to be pastoral to the poor, sick, and marginalized, to gently lead them into the fulness of the Catholic Church. And I’m not trying to find fault with him. I’m just requesting, as I see the cardinals doing, for him to clear up the confusion for the sake of UNITY in the TRUTH- precisely the reason for which Christ established the papacy.

Whatever Byzantines do, Benedictines do promise obedience and loyalty to the Pope. It’s a long-standing tradition. Not specifically mentioned in the Rule, but absolutely covered in one of the three parts of the solemn profession of monastics (or promise, in the case of we oblates), that of “obedience”.

 

[graciew]

You are not a cleric,therefore, you shouldn’t be giving pastoral advice in this circumstance. However, I am a Cleric and I assure you that I would never lead a soul astray by allowing them to partake in the Source and Summit of the faith s]

Maybe because it is your post number 8 …,do not worry… Ora is Ora and we understand his tone.He has been with us for a long time and has helped us a great deal.
I am grateful he is here.

 

[kyrie03]

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.

I have a different understanding of infallibility than what you seem to be suggesting here. And maybe that’s one reason why there is so much misunderstanding between posters.

Ignoring the provocative red herring about fear of admitting lost sheep to the fold, does Christ’s promise of the Keys extend to the footnote in AL and the various interpretations in different diocese and by different prelates?
Is Pope Francis even claiming to steer the Church with AL?

Maybe the waters are rough because they contradict prior popes and the traditional teaching and practice of the Church for 2,000 years? And some recognize the Church’s consistent teaching (as expressed in FC) more likely to be infallible than a footnote and interpretations?

 

[OraLabora]

I have a different understanding of infallibility than what you seem to be suggesting here. And maybe that’s one reason why there is so much misunderstanding between posters.

A pledge of obedience is quite apart from infallibility. We obey our parents even though they are not infallible. We (meaning Benedictines) obey the Holy Father for much the same reason; after all keep in mind we are an institution of Pontifical Right. Our duty is to obey and defend the Holy Father.

Ignoring the provocative red herring about fear of admitting lost sheep to the fold,

You got that one wrong. I don’t fear admitting lost sheep to the fold. I fear driving them away by interacting with the lost sheep at a level above my pay grade or my limited interpersonal skills.

does Christ’s promise of the Keys extend to the footnote in AL and the various interpretations in different diocese and by different prelates?
Is Pope Francis even claiming to steer the Church with AL?

It is not for me to say. As I mentioned earlier, the obtaining of an annulment can vary wildly in differing dioceses, whether on the grounds of facility or cost. The Church is united, not uniform, and different cultural and social conditions in different dioceses may call upon different responses. Africa for instance, can have far different problems related to marriage and becoming fully in communion with the Church.

Maybe the waters are rough because they contradict prior popes and the traditional teaching and practice of the Church for 2,000 years? And some recognize the Church’s consistent teaching (as expressed in FC) more likely to be infallible than a footnote and interpretations?

Personally I don’t think the “footnote” will change 2000 years of teaching. If anything, I think the Holy Father treaded carefully here. A footnote that says “perhaps, maybe, in certain circumstances, in the face of certain difficulties, in unique cases” is hardly a blanket endorsement of sacraments for the D&R.

If you ask me that makes it rather clear that it isn’t the rule, but a very rare exception for someone willing to undergo a conversion process. Perhaps my Latin background as a Francophone makes it easier for me to understand the concept of “the exception confirms the rule”. I don’t have trouble with that concept. Therefore AL doesn’t trouble me anywhere near as much as it does many folks here. And so far I have not seen a cogent argument to change my view, and this has been debated for over 2 years now on CAF.

What “trap” are you suspicious of them attempting to spring on Pope Francis?

It seems to me they already know the answer they want to hear. If Francis answers the contrary, they will publicly challenge him. If Francis answers what they want to hear, the media will have at him. Either way Francis’s papacy would be severely weakened. A classic lose-lose situation, much like when my wife asks “do I look fat in this dress?” There is no “correct” answer, that is no answer that won’t hurt the Holy Father.

It seems to me a rather obvious trap, although I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the 4 cardinals sprung this trap willingly, but rather is probably an unintended consequence of their questioning.

 

[kyrie03]

So, I think we are finally getting to the heart of the matter, finally.

It is in our human nature to cry “it’s not fair” whenever we see a “perceived” injustice.
That is what I think is happening here.

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

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

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?

Presumption is a very dangerous thing. One could even say they “presume” that anyone who does not “love their neighbor as themselves” should not be receiving. I see a lot of that in all the threads about AL- the presumption that I have the right to know, and to make judgments of what I think. None of us laity has that right, and I would think that we need to get that idea right out of our heads. Unless & until one is in this particular situation- what difference does it make what happens to someone else? It’s all I can do to keep myself on the right path, and it is way above my pay-grade to worry about such things.

I’m glad that presumption is recognized as dangerous. This is what CCC has to say:

2092 There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he** presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit)**.

Presuming to receive Holy Communion without repentance and conversion is exactly what AL seems to allow for in limited circumstances. Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio teaches us the Church sees it as dangerous for the person receiving (unto own condemnation) and the scandal given to others.

You are mistaken about posters presuming to judge others --no one is suggesting they should make judgements about the state of others’ souls and whether or not someone has right to receive Eucharist.

At issue is whether or not the Church can change the practice -which is based on doctrine -of Communion for D/R/non-annulled/sexually active. Either the Church taught incorrectly for 2,000 years or she didn’t.

 

[kyrie03]

Whatever Byzantines do, Benedictines do promise obedience and loyalty to the Pope. It’s a long-standing tradition. Not specifically mentioned in the Rule, but absolutely covered in one of the three parts of the solemn profession of monastics (or promise, in the case of we oblates), that of “obedience”.

Do you recognize that various popes have led some into error (such as examples I mentioned about John XXII and Liberius)? And that the Church (not Peter) is Who is protected from the gates of hell prevailing against?

 

[OraLabora]

Presuming to receive Holy Communion without repentance and conversion is exactly what AL seems to allow for in limited circumstances.

That strikes me as profoundly misreading what it actually says:

Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others.

As for the way of dealing with different “irregular” situations, the Synod Fathers reached a general consensus, which I support: “In considering a pastoral approach towards people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together, the Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance so they can reach the fullness of God’s plan for them”,328 something which is always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed that “the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal. The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral care, a care which would allow them not only to realize that they belong to the Church as the body of Christ, but also to know that they can have a joyful and fruitful experience in it. They are baptized; they are brothers and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into their hearts gifts and talents for the good of all. Their participation can be expressed in different ecclesial services, which necessarily requires discerning which of the various forms of exclusion currently practised in the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional framework, can be surmounted. Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church and experience her as a mother who welcomes them always, who takes care of them with affection and encourages them along the path of life and the Gospel. This integration is also needed in the care and Christian upbringing of their children, who ought to be considered most important”.334

Priests have the duty to “accompany [the divorced and remarried] in helping them to understand their situation according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop. Useful in this process is an examination of conscience through moments of reflection and repentance.

Conversation with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of the Church and on what steps can foster it and make it grow. Given that gradualness is not in the law itself (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34), this discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church. For this discernment to happen, the following conditions must necessarily be present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it”.338 T**hese attitudes are essential for avoiding the grave danger of misunderstandings, such as the notion that any priest can quickly grant “exceptions”, **or that some people can obtain sacramental privileges in exchange for favours.

351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments.

My bold.

Clearly then, your assertion that AL allows holy communion without repentance and conversion is manifestly not supported by the document itself. In the rare circumstances it may be allowed, it is part of the process of repentance and conversion, not an end in itself.

At issue is whether or not the Church can change the practice -which is based on doctrine -of Communion for D/R/non-annulled/sexually active. Either the Church taught incorrectly for 2,000 years or she didn’t.

The 2000 y.o. doctrine is the indissolubility of marriage. The practice of excluding them from communion is rather less than 2000 years old; 2000 years ago, divorce was rare among Christians, and life expectancy was closer to 40 years than the current 80 years. Social conditions were totally different. I see AL as not changing doctrine. I see it as a modest change to a discipline based on circumstances that weren’t foreseen 2000 years ago.

 

[OraLabora]

Do you recognize that various popes have led some into error (such as examples I mentioned about John XXII and Liberius)? And that the Church (not Peter) is Who is protected from the gates of hell prevailing against?

I am sorry but I’m not entering into this argument. One, it is off-topic. Two, I am quite confident in that I am leaning on a 1500 year tradition, that of the oldest Order in the Church and am quite faithful to the Rule of Saint Benedict, and my own abbot, in adhering to this tradition.

It’s not a debate I care to enter into at the moment.

 

[kyrie03]

A pledge of obedience is quite apart from infallibility. We obey our parents even though they are not infallible. We (meaning Benedictines) obey the Holy Father for much the same reason; after all keep in mind we are an institution of Pontifical Right. Our duty is to obey and defend the Holy Father.

You got that one wrong. I don’t fear admitting lost sheep to the fold. I fear driving them away by interacting with the lost sheep at a level above my pay grade or my limited interpersonal skills.

It is not for me to say. As I mentioned earlier, the obtaining of an annulment can vary wildly in differing dioceses, whether on the grounds of facility or cost. The Church is united, not uniform, and different cultural and social conditions in different dioceses may call upon different responses. Africa for instance, can have far different problems related to marriage and becoming fully in communion with the Church.

Personally I don’t think the “footnote” will change 2000 years of teaching. If anything, I think the Holy Father treaded carefully here. A footnote that says “perhaps, maybe, in certain circumstances, in the face of certain difficulties, in unique cases” is hardly a blanket endorsement of sacraments for the D&R.

If you ask me that makes it rather clear that it isn’t the rule, but a very rare exception for someone willing to undergo a conversion process. Perhaps my Latin background as a Francophone makes it easier for me to understand the concept of “the exception confirms the rule”. I don’t have trouble with that concept. Therefore AL doesn’t trouble me anywhere near as much as it does many folks here. And so far I have not seen a cogent argument to change my view, and this has been debated for over 2 years now on CAF.

It seems to me they already know the answer they want to hear. If Francis answers the contrary, they will publicly challenge him. If Francis answers what they want to hear, the media will have at him. Either way Francis’s papacy would be severely weakened. A classic lose-lose situation, much like when my wife asks “do I look fat in this dress?” There is no “correct” answer, that is no answer that won’t hurt the Holy Father.

It seems to me a rather obvious trap, although I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the 4 cardinals sprung this trap willingly, but rather is probably an unintended consequence of their questioning.

Thanks for helping me understand your point of view.

**Would Pope Francis’ papacy be severely weakened if he simply stated that what Pope John Paul II taught in FC regarding Communion for D/R/NA/SA … is still binding on all of the faithful? **

Would you not agree that the confusion in Church is due to controversy during the synods and various interpretations of AL?

Are you suspicious of ulterior motives of the cardinals who wrote the dubia?

 

[OraLabora]

Thanks for helping me understand your point of view.

Would Pope Francis’ papacy be severely weakened if he simply stated that what Pope John Paul II taught in FC regarding Communion for D/R/NA/SA … is still binding on all of the faithful?

No. But now that the door is opened a crack, if he closed it, it would undermine his papacy. As you probably would be willing to admit, the media would have a field day with it.

Would you not agree that the confusion in Church is due to controversy during the synods and various interpretations of AL?

No. I think the confusion is due to the inability to adapt to a new social reality: divorce on demand, which among Catholics is due to poor catechesis on the nature of marriage (much discussed in AL). As someone in the hierarchy remarked (I forget who), if we did our job properly on marriage, we wouldn’t even need to get to footnote 351. It’s a mistake to examine AL only on the basis of that footnote because it has much else to say about marriage, preparation for it, and the family. The effects of this poor catechesis has been known well before AL was penned. Witness the almost scandalous rate of annulments in the US today. Clearly something is amiss with our preparation for sacramental marriage. Meanwhile, the victims of this are accumulating and there is an urgent need to attend to their spiritual needs.

Are you suspicious of ulterior motives of the cardinals who wrote the dubia?

I’m sorry, I am not going to answer that question.

 

[Brendan]

No. But now that the door is opened a crack, if he closed it, it would undermine his papacy.

Is the door open a crack? What is the crack open to?
Hence why I feel that clarification is a good thing.

I’m sorry, I am not going to answer that question.

I’ll take a shot at that: since they, and the entire College are all Princes of the Church, I would not claim that ANY of them have ulterior motives. Rather, they ALL have what they consider to be the best interests of the Church at heart. Any of them might have differences of opinion on how best to accomplish that, but that is all.

 

[asd72]

That strikes me as profoundly misreading what it actually says:

My bold.

Clearly then, your assertion that AL allows holy communion without repentance and conversion is manifestly not supported by the document itself. In the rare circumstances it may be allowed, it is part of the process of repentance and conversion, not an end in itself.

The 2000 y.o. doctrine is the indissolubility of marriage. The practice of excluding them from communion is rather less than 2000 years old; 2000 years ago, divorce was rare among Christians, and life expectancy was closer to 40 years than the current 80 years. Social conditions were totally different. I see AL as not changing doctrine. I see it as a modest change to a discipline based on circumstances that weren’t foreseen 2000 years ago.

Repentance involves contrition and the firm resolve to turn away from sin. The Priest cannot give absolution to someone without these things.

The grace of God is not confined to the sacraments. You seem to believe you need the sacraments to come to repentance, when in fact God gives us the grace outside of the sacraments to come to this point.

 

[OraLabora]

Repentance involves contrition and the firm resolve to turn away from sin. The Priest cannot give absolution to someone without these things.

And nowhere does AL suggest otherwise. Please re-read the quotes I posted.

The grace of God is not confined to the sacraments. You seem to believe you need the sacraments to come to repentance, when in fact God gives us the grace outside of the sacraments to come to this point.

Sacramental grace is often necessary to fortify us. As the Holy Father says, it is medicine, not a prize.

I say this as someone who has been in a situation where sacramental grace made all the difference in the world.

 

[_Abyssinia]

It seems to me that individuals have an interpretation of Amoris Laetia, and different individuals have different interpretations of certain aspects of this document, and this can result in the confusion that some have surrounding this whole issue regarding the divorced and remarried. It appears that even the clergy may have some different interpretations, just look at what Bishop Egan has said in comparison to Cardinal Kasper in regards to Amoris Laetia and Communion for the divorced and remarried? Do these two not have a significant difference of interpretation on the issue? This is why I hope there is clarity made by the Pope himself. The Pope may or may not respond to the dubia, and the formal correction spoken of by Cardinal Burke may happen if Pope Francis does not respond, but surely it is not good thing for these different interpretations to continue to go on and on on an issue which is so serious. Surely there needs to be a unified understanding and not what is going on at the moment where different people have different interpretations.

 

[Thomas_White]

I think the confusion is due to the inability to adapt to a new social reality: divorce on demand, which among Catholics is due to poor catechesis on the nature of marriage (much discussed in AL). As someone in the hierarchy remarked (I forget who), if we did our job properly on marriage, we wouldn’t even need to get to footnote 351.

I have to disagree. What is so difficult about the concept of the indissoluble nature of Catholic marriage? However, I would agree that if the idea is too difficult for a person to comprehend, then they should not even contemplate marriage in the Church.

The indissolubility of marriage was quite clear to us by at least the fourth grade.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I have to disagree. What is so difficult about the concept of the indissoluble nature of Catholic marriage? However, I would agree that if the idea is too difficult for a person to comprehend, then they should not even contemplate marriage in the Church.

The indissolubility of marriage was quite clear to us by at least the fourth grade.

That is interesting, how old are you?

I am 46, born in 1970, and growing up, I knew the Catholic Chruch taught that marriage was for life, but that there were always exceptions. And I was one of only a few of my friends who came from a “normal family- Dad, Mom & kids” all living together in the same house. Most of my friends were raised by single mothers or their parents had shared custody.

So, while at one time, one man, one woman, until death do us part, was the norm, it has not been for at least the past 40 years. You cannot change that fact, and therefore it calls into question the true understanding of marriage as a Sacrament in many cases.

 

[Thomas_White]

That is interesting, how old are you?

I am 46, born in 1970, and growing up, I knew the Catholic Chruch taught that marriage was for life, but that there were always exceptions. And I was one of only a few of my friends who came from a “normal family- Dad, Mom & kids” all living together in the same house. Most of my friends were raised by single mothers or their parents had shared custody.

So, while at one time, one man, one woman, until death do us part, was the norm, it has not been for at least the past 40 years. You cannot change that fact, and therefore it calls into question the true understanding of marriage as a Sacrament in many cases.

I am 71, born in 1945. This is what I know and believe:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb1.htm

 

[RosyAnne]

So, while at one time, one man, one woman, until death do us part, was the norm, it has not been for at least the past 40 years. You cannot change that fact, and therefore it calls into question the true understanding of marriage as a Sacrament in many cases.

Keep in mind we are to be “in the world” but not “of the world”. The secular world is not our moral authority nor does it have any credibility as a moral guide, God is…and He reveals His unchanging Truth through His Church.

In other words, we are to change the world, not let the world change us.