Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Oneofthewomen]

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

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb1.htm

That is what I know and believe now also. The point I am trying to make is that many people my age and younger do not have the same lived experience, and divorce was not/is not the taboo it was for your generation. To try and dismiss that fact is part of the problem.
Your generation understands this implicitly, as it was beaten into your heads by the good Sisters and society as a whole upheld a stricter moral code, at least publically.

The shame of divorce is all but gone now (which is a good thing) but the idea of permanence in anything is long since gone also. When it doesn’t work or when the better model comes out, toss it and get a new one is our new way of life. It was just a matter of time before the same mentality invaded our social lives too.

That is what is so revolutionary and special about Amoris Laetitia- we finally have a Pope, who with many of the Bishops who realizes that we have many very poorly catechised and lost sheep pout there,and some of it is the Church’s fault. All she is trying to do is bring home her lost sheep and help them come back into the loving arms of the fold. No doctrine has been changed, and no moral absolutes have been lessened. Therefore, the “clarification” that is being asked for, is really unnecessary.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

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.

I agree. But if we have been “in” the world for a long time, without knowing anything different because of faulty & poor catechesis, and then find our way back home, should we expect the door slammed in our face?

We cannot discount that this has happened in the past and sadly, will probably continue to happen in the future, although I hope with much less frequency now that the Holy Father has given his Bishops & Pastors some guidelines for dealing with people who find themselves in messy situations.

 

[RosyAnne]

I agree. But if we have been “in” the world for a long time, without knowing anything different because of faulty & poor catechesis, and then find our way back home, should we expect the door slammed in our face?

We cannot discount that this has happened in the past and sadly, will probably continue to happen in the future, although I hope with much less frequency now that the Holy Father has given his Bishops & Pastors some guidelines for dealing with people who find themselves in messy situations.

It’s a terrible predicament and there is definitely faulty and poor catechesis going on, but not when it comes to marriage prep. I was married 30 years ago and even then we had to go through months of prep classes (once a month or something, I can’t remember lol). I grew up in a home where the Faith was taught only to me (nominally) in school, we sometimes said a prayer over our meal at dinner, but that was it. And even I knew, and my friends all knew, that you couldn’t just get married and remarried at will and that it was very, very important to have your wedding in the Church. That’s what we all did and only two of us out of our gaggle of girls stayed in our first marriages (so far we’re both hanging in there).

I have done plenty of nasty things in my life, most knowingly, but was still able to walk into a Confessional and start over again as soon as I walked out. This remarriage business is different…it’s such a tangled web, truly a diabolical trap. Yes, I believe at the time that most, if not all, in this situation DID KNOW what they were doing was against the teaching of the Church…but didn’t care and still moved on with their 2nd marriages (or 3rd or 4th or whatever). Just like I didn’t care (or at least didn’t let it stop me) when I still chose to do XYZ.

 

[Thomas_White]

That is what I know and believe now also. The point I am trying to make is that many people my age and younger do not have the same lived experience, and divorce was not/is not the taboo it was for your generation. To try and dismiss that fact is part of the problem.
Your generation understands this implicitly, as it was beaten into your heads by the good Sisters and society as a whole upheld a stricter moral code, at least publically.

It is not so simple as that. It was the post-war generation that came of age during the chaos of the mid-to-late 1960’s that brought about the many changes in today’s society. I know; I was there.

Nevertheless, I simply cannot agree that a divorced and remarried Catholic who has not received an annulment should not be permitted to receive Communion (absent the abstinence of conjugal relations). Those in such circumstances should get out of the irregular relationship if they wish to return to the Sacraments. Though this perhaps seems harsh to many, it is noted that the real issue here is one’s eternal salvation.

 

[RosyAnne]

I have done plenty of nasty things in my life, most knowingly, but was still able to walk into a Confessional and start over again as soon as I walked out. This remarriage business is different…it’s such a tangled web, truly a diabolical trap. Yes, I believe at the time that most, if not all, in this situation DID KNOW what they were doing was against the teaching of the Church…but didn’t care and still moved on with their 2nd marriages (or 3rd or 4th or whatever). Just like I didn’t care (or at least didn’t let it stop me) when I still chose to do XYZ.

Ahhh…quoting myself…it just occurred to me that there might be a difference here. As Catholics, we all know we can repent and go to Confession and all will be well (if we are sincere). That’s a basic, foundational block of our faith. Many of us, especially those of us who live (or lived) as Catholics in Name Only…that’s our MO to take for granted.

Those who do go ahead and remarry and yada yada knowing that the Church teaches differently…well they may not fully grasp or understand that this isn’t something that you can just go to Confession for when or if you do decide to start practising your Faith again. They may not realize that they are locking themselves out unless they make a big change in their life (brother/sister thing…annulment of first marriage…etc).

hmmm.

That still doesn’t change anything but I can see how full knowledge has just gone from black/white to gray.

 

[Thomas_White]

Ahhh…quoting myself…it just occurred to me that there might be a difference here. As Catholics, we all know we can repent and go to Confession and all will be well (if we are sincere). That’s a basic, foundational block of our faith. Many of us, especially those of us who live (or lived) as Catholics in Name Only…that’s our MO to take for granted.

Those who do go ahead and remarry and yada yada knowing that the Church teaches differently…well they may not fully grasp or understand that this isn’t something that you can just go to Confession for when or if you do decide to start practising your Faith again. They may not realize that they are locking themselves out unless they make a big change in their life (brother/sister thing…annulment of first marriage…etc).

hmmm.

That still doesn’t change anything but I can see how full knowledge has just gone from black/white to gray.

I don’t understand how it could possibly be that a Catholic in those circumstances, while recognizing the relationship was sinful, would not know that making a Confession would not change a thing so long as they continued in the irregular marriage.

Where is the gray area?

 

[RosyAnne]

Thomas I’m thinking there’s a possibility they assumed they could just confess and move on. I’m thinking they didn’t think it through. At least some of them.

I know in my own experience with a friend who insisted that “the Church wasn’t going to tell me what to do” when she divorced her husband and remarried another man a year later…she didn’t think, at that time, that she would ever “need” or “want to go back” to the Church. And since that’s as far as it probably went for her, she never thought too deeply about this not being a simple “Confession will do the trick” to get back into Church.

I’m making assumptions, but it seems plausible to me.

 

[graciew]

The issue for me is that we want everything under control. In this box,in that box,and it is ok for many things .But reality is dynamic and I would say that without getting into the mud and touching the untouchable we cannot understand . Nor explain .

   This is the  streets. No matter how many hours of library we have spent,there is the person . And a person is not an " exception" but a person.

We want a laboratory,but life is not a laboratory. We want to fly,but we have to walk. With Jesus.
You can turn me upside down and I still see Amoris Laetitia an amazing help for us all and our Pope the son of the Church he is .

I will read it again and again and pray that each day when there is a challenge there is the joy Twenty nine years married and counting ,thanks God .
Do not miss the chance to read it with an open heart. The time and love and knowledge invested is incredible .
It is sad we haven t devoted time to its amazing riches so close to our daily lives . Perhaps we still.can.
Peace .
PS: We are the " sheep".A challenge: Find one that smells of perfume!!

 

[JPUSC]

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Matthew 19

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

Luke 16:18

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into hell. If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into hell.”

Matthew 5:27-30

Seems rigid to me.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You are not a cleric,therefore, you shouldn’t be giving pastoral advice in this circumstance. However, I am a Cleric.

But, to be clear, so that I do not misunderstand: you are a member of the SSPX?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The issue for me is that we want everything under control. In this box,in that box,and it is ok for many things .But reality is dynamic and I would say that without getting into the mud and touching the untouchable we cannot understand . Nor explain .

This is the streets. No matter how many hours of library we have spent,there is the person . And a person is not an " exception" but a person. We want a laboratory,but life is not a laboratory. We want to fly,but we have to walk. With Jesus.

You can turn me upside down and I still see Amoris Laetitia an amazing help for us all and our Pope the son of the Church he is .

I will read it again and again and pray that each day when there is a challenge there is the joy Twenty nine years married and counting ,thanks God .

Do not miss the chance to read it with an open heart. The time and love and knowledge invested is incredible .

It is sad we haven t devoted time to its amazing riches so close to our daily lives. Perhaps we still can.
Peace.
PS: We are the " sheep".A challenge: Find one that smells of perfume!!

A sheep that smells of perfume…

Ah. That brings back memories. They do exist. They are exceedingly rare to encounter in one’s priestly life…but when one does, one never forgets, in spite of the passage of years. They are extraordinary, and even privileged, souls.

Amoris Laetitia has been one of the most marvelous of documents to work with, for me.

 

[patricius79]

A sheep that smells of perfume…

Ah. That brings back memories. They do exist. They are exceedingly rare to encounter in one’s priestly life…but when one does, one never forgets, in spite of the passage of years. They are extraordinary, and even privileged, souls.

Amoris Laetitia has been one of the most marvelous of documents to work with, for me.

I give my assent to A.L. though I’m still in the process or reading it. I think it is a very long document, and that it would be good to clearly state that only those who are firmly resolved to keep the moral law–including living in complete continence in irregular marriages–may receive Communion

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas I’m thinking there’s a possibility they assumed they could just confess and move on. I’m thinking they didn’t think it through. At least some of them.

I know in my own experience with a friend who insisted that “the Church wasn’t going to tell me what to do” when she divorced her husband and remarried another man a year later…she didn’t think, at that time, that she would ever “need” or “want to go back” to the Church. And since that’s as far as it probably went for her, she never thought too deeply about this not being a simple “Confession will do the trick” to get back into Church.

I’m making assumptions, but it seems plausible to me.

I’m sure divorce is often a traumatic experience and marrying another person within a year might in instances represent a continuation of it. In this way, a Catholic who divorces and remarries without an annulment might only later fully realize (psychologically) what they have done to their spiritual life and to their relationship with the Church. It is sad, of course, and deserving of compassion.

But there is the conscience. I tend to doubt that simply returning to the Sacraments and Holy Communion truly resolves the issue in many if not most instances. There are reasons adultery is a grave sin, and this often involves the person left behind. It is often said that the easiest person to fool is yourself, and for this reason I believe that the process that seems to have been suggested or presented in AL is a potentially dangerous one for many.

I further tend to doubt that very many Catholics truly believe that simply going to Confession, while continuing in an irregular marriage, will resolve the situation for them. It seems to me that many would remain troubled.

 

[Thomas_White]

I give my assent to A.L. though I’m still in the process or reading it. I think it is a very long document, and that it would be good to clearly state that only those who are firmly resolved to keep the moral law–including living in complete continence in irregular marriages–may receive Communion

Agreed.

 

[patricius79]

Agreed.

I feel that Chapter 8 seems to be the chapter which some will interpret in a way which leads us further down the road into lukewarmness.

I have trouble understanding some of the things he says.

For example, he says in paragraph 311:

*At times we find
it hard to make room for God’s unconditional
love in our pastoral activity.364 We put so many
conditions on mercy that we empty it of its concrete
meaning and real significance. *

But it seems to me that we often aren’t putting any conditions on the reception of Communion. Even churchgoing Catholics don’t go to Confession. I’m grateful for priests and I know they are all alone in parishes, and I’m extremely weak myself so I understand if they are scared to preach clearly about the moral crisis. Most priests usually say nothing from the pulpit about certain grave sins regularly practiced by many of their flocks, without repentance… And they don’t remind people of the requirements for receiving Communion.

So how can the Pope be saying that we are being too rigorous? He says a lot about mitigating circumstances involved with habitual grave sins (like sex in an irrregular marriage). And I agree that some people can have diminished culpability.

But it seems like maybe he says little about how we must intend to keep the moral law, and how priests should not over-emphasize diminished culpability, especially after someone has been counseled.

He also repeatedly refers to following the commandments as “the Christian ideal” or something like that. But the commandments are not just the Christian ideal. They are minimal moral requirements which concern very destructive behaviors and bear on our salvation.

I hope I’m not fostering dissent here. I submit myself to the Holy Father. I just am confused.

Maybe I’m misreading him.

 

[graciew]

A sheep that smells of perfume…

Ah. That brings back memories. They do exist. They are exceedingly rare to encounter in one’s priestly life…but when one does, one never forgets, in spite of the passage of years. They are extraordinary, and even privileged, souls.

Amoris Laetitia has been one of the most marvelous of documents to work with, for me.

Take care,good Father…
And thank you for being with us.

 

[patricius79]

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

What has the door been opened to, if not Communion for those who have no firm resolve to give up their grave sexual immorality?

Not that our Holy Father says that. But has he said otherwise or really clarified his meanings?

 

[Brendan]

What has the door been opened to,

Or more specifically , what door is being opened that hasn’t been fully open since the foundation of the Church?

 

[patricius79]

Or more specifically , what door is being opened that hasn’t been fully open since the foundation of the Church?

Brendan, on a related topic: how are we to read a document like A.L. as faithful, obedient Catholics? I know with all matters of faith and morals we are to give the assent of faith. But with something like A.L. as I understand it we give our religious assent. What does that mean exactly, especially as regards–for example–the ambiguous statements in A.L.?

 

[OraLabora]

Brendan, on a related topic: how are we to read a document like A.L. as faithful, obedient Catholics? I know with all matters of faith and morals we are to give the assent of faith. But with something like A.L. as I understand it we give our religious assent. What does that mean exactly, especially as regards–for example–the ambiguous statements in A.L.?

I would ask first in all sincerity, are you directly affected by the parts of AL that are controversial? If not, I wonder if a wiser course of action would be to simply pick our battles. For most, including myself, the real battle remains conversion of the heart, while leaving the theological duking to those who are qualified.

Conversion of the heart, it may surprise many if I’m to judge based on what I read here, has little to do with doctrine and everything to do with living the gospel values in one’s own life. It’s so simple that even a child who wouldn’t know a Church doctrine from a Church doctor can do it.

Jesus tells us to approach Him with a child-like faith. This debate needlessly complicates what should be something very simple, configuring our lives to the Gospel values which really aren’t all that complicated. Whether the Holy Father got it right or wrong in AL should be immaterial in living those values unless one is directly affected, in which case I recommend some quality time with one’s pastor or spiritual director, not a CAF forum.

The promise of the keys should be enough to assuage our consciences that the Barque of Peter won’t founder on the rocks.

I’ve been around long enough to know that life, including my own, is messy. Throw 1 billion messy lives into the mix and it quickly becomes obvious that nor I nor even the Church can clean them all up. All she can do is propose a path that helps us deal with our own sins and messy lives, through her pastors to which this task has been entrusted.

I for one am realizing that more prayer and lectio and less CAF arguing are the proper response to controversy. And with that comment, I bow out of this argument.