Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[Brendan]

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.?

When this document first came out, I was in a rural diocese in Tanzania. My pastor and I were there for the dedication of a new parish.

The Papal Nuncio was present for the dedication, as were the Metropolitan Archbishop and, of course, the Bishop of the Diocese.

That night, the Papal Nuncio gave a briefing on A.L. He had received a copy a week prior, along with instructions on how to present it to the bishops of Tanzania. My pastor, the cathedral rector and the secretaries for the bishops were also staying in the rectory that evening, and thus were planning on attending.

Not being a cleric, I was not planning on attending the meeting, but, as it turns out, I was specifically sent for by the bishop. The reason given was “You are the only one here who is married, this document is for YOU”. That said, the bishop was also aware that I had studied for the Diaconate, and have completed all the academic requirements at our Archdiocean seminary.

The subject of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried was brought up, as it had, of course, received much attention in the press, and was a matter of particular interest in the Synod for the African Bishops.

I asked the Nuncio, “What has changed in this matter from Familaris Consortio”. The answer I received from the Nuncio was “Nothing. Nothing has changed”

So that is how I must read A.L Chapter 8., as if it changes nothing in that matter from what is contained in F.C.

 

[kyrie03]

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.

Thank you Ora! Completely agree—conversion of heart, child-like-faith, and more prayer. Please everyone: pray for our Holy Father and the Spotless Bride of Christ, who are currently under attack from within and without!

You have helped me to see the argument from your point of view, and I’m grateful.

We have a different understanding of what loyalty to the Holy Father and Church entails. You’ve explained your pledge of obedience to the Holy Father following the admirable tradition of the Benedictines. You’ve explained how you see AL to be an assistance in the process toward repentance and conversion for the D/R/NA/SA rare circumstances that are being discussed.

And I hope you’ve seen that those who disagree are only fellow Catholics concerned with how to reconcile AL with FC, wondering how to raise their children in the truth of the faith when the door has been opened to various diverse and contradictory interpretations not only with past teaching but also currently in different diocese.

“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter, not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles” Vatican Council I: Pastor aeternus
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

 

[twf]

When this document first came out, I was in a rural diocese in Tanzania. My pastor and I were there for the dedication of a new parish.

The Papal Nuncio was present for the dedication, as were the Metropolitan Archbishop and, of course, the Bishop of the Diocese.

That night, the Papal Nuncio gave a briefing on A.L. He had received a copy a week prior, along with instructions on how to present it to the bishops of Tanzania. My pastor, the cathedral rector and the secretaries for the bishops were also staying in the rectory that evening, and thus were planning on attending.

Not being a cleric, I was not planning on attending the meeting, but, as it turns out, I was specifically sent for by the bishop. The reason given was “You are the only one here who is married, this document is for YOU”. That said, the bishop was also aware that I had studied for the Diaconate, and have completed all the academic requirements at our Archdiocean seminary.

The subject of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried was brought up, as it had, of course, received much attention in the press, and was a matter of particular interest in the Synod for the African Bishops.

I asked the Nuncio, “What has changed in this matter from Familaris Consortio”. The answer I received from the Nuncio was “Nothing. Nothing has changed”

So that is how I must read A.L Chapter 8., as if it changes nothing in that matter from what is contained in F.C.

That seems to be the answer given by many bishops in many dioceses, but it is not the only answer - hence the confusion. The Pope himself, in his letter to the Argentine bishops, seems to strongly imply a change in practice. Cardinal Kasper has said as much as well, as has Cupich and others. If there was no confusion on this matter, the 4 Cardinals wouldn’t have submitted the Dubia.

 

[Thomas_White]

That seems to be the answer given by many bishops in many dioceses, but it is not the only answer - hence the confusion. The Pope himself, in his letter to the Argentine bishops, seems to strongly imply a change in practice. Cardinal Kasper has said as much as well, as has Cupich and others. If there was no confusion on this matter, the 4 Cardinals wouldn’t have submitted the Dubia.

Agreed. It is a fact there is confusion. We see varied interpretations even here that are irreconcilable. Thus, the necessity for the Dubia.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Agreed. It is a fact there is confusion. We see varied interpretations even here that are irreconcilable. Thus, the necessity for the Dubia.

What you describe as “varied interpretations even here that are irreconcilable” are largely inchoate musings of people who are neither theologians nor canonists; they are coming from people who lack any mandate of canonical governance; actually, even more, they are also from people commenting on things for which they have no pastoral experience whatsoever…with a very very few notable exceptions concerning a handful of people who post here who actually do fit in one or more of these categories, with the credentials and offices that they demand and presuppose.

“Even here?” Even here would be a relevant reference if it were filled with people who actually were writing or had written enacting guidelines. It most assuredly doesn’t.

As it is, the Cardinal Prefect for the competent dicastery is more than capable of giving orientation to those who genuinely need it. And he has demonstrated that he has a very good voice and also that he has no hesitancy to use it.

As should be abundantly clear, when a Cardinal Prefect of a dicastery is speaking with his voice but saying what is the mind and will of the Pope, then standing behind him is the vast power of the Petrine Office.

When, however, a Prefect says something in a public forum that is directly in variance with the mind and will of the Pope, whom the Prefect serves, the Pope can make that quite exceedingly clear…to the Cardinal Prefect and quite beyond.

The reality is, pastoral decisions are always going to be a matter of discretion in the hands of those entrusted with them…and they will make different choices and different determination in what to use and when to use it. That is simply a reality that everyone who has made such an application well knows.

 

[pnewton]

If there was no confusion on this matter, the 4 Cardinals wouldn’t have submitted the Dubia.

This is not the only logical conclusion. I would not think it proper for me to speculate on the motive of any Cardinal. Likewise, I will not assume any motive.

As I noted before, the form of this dubia is different than those that have preceded it, consisting not just of questions that need a yes or no, but of questions with multiple clauses, conditions and assumed facts.

 

[pnewton]

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 asked this before, and have never received and answer, but what statement in Amoris Laeititia is ambiguous?

 

[Thomas_White]

What you describe as “varied interpretations even here that are irreconcilable” are largely inchoate musings of people who are neither theologians nor canonists; they are coming from people who lack any mandate of canonical governance; actually, even more, they are also from people commenting on things for which they have no pastoral experience whatsoever…with a very very few notable exceptions concerning a handful of people who post here who actually do fit in one or more of these categories, with the credentials and offices that they demand and presuppose.

“Even here?” Even here would be a relevant reference if it were filled with people who actually were writing or had written enacting guidelines. It most assuredly doesn’t.

With all due respect, I for one have never been persuaded by this sort of ad hominem argument.

 

[Convert_in_99]

With all due respect, I for one have never been persuaded by this sort of ad hominem argument.

Please! Let’s not judge dear Father Ruggero. He freely offers his time and priestly wisdom to us laypeople. He was not attacking you…he was defending the Holy Father and Holy Mother Church. Why is that so hard to see?

 

[Thomas_White]

Please! Let’s not judge dear Father Ruggero. He freely offers his time and priestly wisdom to us laypeople. He was not attacking you…he was defending the Holy Father and Holy Mother Church. Why is that so hard to see?

I have judged no one. Are not the forum rules that we are all equals here?

 

[Maol_Mhuire]

Please! Let’s not judge dear Father Ruggero. He freely offers his time and priestly wisdom to us laypeople. He was not attacking you…he was defending the Holy Father and Holy Mother Church. Why is that so hard to see?

I’m sure Father is very well intentioned.

I also think some people in this thread would have went to grave lengths to defend Pope John XXII, perhaps out of undue difference to the Bishop of Rome.

To stand with the Holy Father does not mean to be subservient to his every whim. Nor does it mean to be bound by any fancy in doctrine that he comes up with.

 

[pnewton]

I’m sure Father is very well intentioned.

I also think some people in this thread would have went to grave lengths to defend Pope John XXII, perhaps out of undue difference to the Bishop of Rome.

This sort of, “but in the Middle Ages…” comparison has never carried much weight with me. Comparing the Popes of the last couple of centuries to those of a time when the office carried secular power is simply irrelevant. Difference to the Holy Father is not “undue”. Amoris Laetitia is not a “whim”, nor is it a “fancy”.

There is no need to get one’s nose out of joint over what Don R. has said. If the posters here are being held as an example of confusion over this document, it is legitimate to point out that there is an ignorance we have, a lack of training, that is, that precludes our opinion from being evidence of a problem with the letter. Quite the opposite. I would think that humility would demand that we would view our own disagreement with the Holy Father, or with the Church, first from a standpoint of our own deficiency, as that is usually the most likely cause.

I am sure doctors today suffer from the same headache of self-educated and internet savvy patients who believe their opinion of equal standing with the medical profession. Maybe the same is true with lawyers, police, and others. Think in terms of your training and education, if you have some field of specialty. Does this not make your opinion in that area of more values?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I have judged no one. Are not the forum rules that we are all equals here?

No, a lay person is not equal to a Professor of Theology and Priest, especially when it comes to matters that he would have a much better understanding of, like pastoral care to people in irregular situations.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR REMINDER

General Guidelines

• Always abide by the forum rules.
• Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost.
• Posters are expected to treat each other as equals with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching.
• Questions are a better approach than assertions, unless the latter are framed in a non-confrontational and non-accusatory manner.
• Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.
• Rhetorical questions may be used to introduce a new aspect of inquiry but not to evade challenges or to call into question the intelligence, education, or any other personal qualities of another poster.
• It is acceptable to question policies and practices
• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
• It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.
• If you aren’t going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it.
• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.
• Avoid categorizing people by a term which could be considered derogatory (e.g., Nazi or neocon) unless they have embraced that title. In which case, you may qualify them with the term as long as you preface it with the word “avowed.” Posters are asked to use their best judgement when posting articles using such terms. Do not abbreviate terms.

Sarcasm, Making Corrections and Jumping Threads

• On the use of sarcasm: Use emoticons when possible to convey your intent. A smiley-face or a wink can demonstrate that you are not intending malice. End the post on a positive note, devoid of sarcasm. A pleasant ending can act like sugar helping the medicine go down. Think of sarcasm like salt. Just as you wouldn’t dump a shakerful on your food, don’t dump a load of sarcasm into a post. Use it sparingly.
• Don’t jump threads. If you get involved in an argument in one thread, it’s considered poor manners to restart the previous argument in the middle of an unrelated thread. Also, if the moderator closes a thread, consider the subject closed and do not begin it anew in another thread.
• It is easy to stray from the rules in the heat of battle. Try to make corrections gently, with the assumption that no offense was meant. It usually is not. Also, keep in mind that some people are thick-skinned. What seems a vicious attack to you may seem a light-hearted spar to them.

Praise

• When you agree with a part of what someone said. Tell them. It doesn’t hurt your position to agree with some part of an opposing argument. In fact, it lets others know that you are listening.

What to look for in your post before you press submit

• Is the post civil and charitable?
• Does the post challenge those to whom it is directed or does it bash them?
• And remember: always, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answer Forums:

• Stay on the topic of the forum you are posting in. If you are going to post an article, make sure you are placing it in the correct forum.
• Use the original title. When you post an article, be sure to use the original title in the subject of your post. This helps users find the article and lessens the chance of a double post.
• Always provide a link to a publicly available news source.
• **Avoid quoting from copyrighted works. Instead, paraphrase what is said and provide a link. If you do quote, limit your quotes to one to three paragraphs. **
• Do not post articles that make personal attacks or are in other ways inappropriate for the CA forums.

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

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 Benedict XVI. He is fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.

 

[Convert_in_99]

I have judged no one. Are not the forum rules that we are all equals here?

No, clergy are owed more respect than we, even if you don’t agree with wat they are saying. You accused Father of attacking you (the condensed definition of ad hominem.) Which he didn’t, not even close.

I think we all need to review the rules again. I saw Mr.Bay’s post just now.

 

[mlz]

The Great Sifting has begun, IMHO, and much prayer and sacrifice is needed for Pope Francis, for Holy Mother Church and for ourselves (especially for the gift of Final Perseverance). The Cardinals did a necessary thing for the Church, we need clarity.

Remember, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI stressed over and over and over to us…KNOW THE FAITH, the teachings of the Church. It wasn’t “dwell on whatever you think the Faith is or what you want the Faith to be” … but “KNOW the Faith”. There was a reason for that, it was to prepare us for what we are facing now.

This is a very good point as I have read many Catholic prophesy’s that point to what is happening. I am grateful to these Bishops to ask for clarity. We must all pray, pray, pray!
My love in Him,
mlz

 

[pnewton]

No, clergy are owed more respect than we, even if you don’t agree with wat they are saying. You accused Father of attacking you (the condensed definition of ad hominem.)

Saying that one used an ad hominem is not not an accusation of an attack. It is pointing out a logical fallacy, not an attack. Whether or not such an approach is an as hominem fallacy or not, I do not know.

I do know that not everyone is an expert on every subject. It is why when police are caught on video, everyone has an opinion, even if they know little of the circumstance or of police work. My doctor told me my last visit that he gets a little frustrated with people who consider their own internet-based opinion over his own advice. I am sure many of us in different fields have dealt with this.

 

[_Abyssinia]

What you describe as “varied interpretations even here that are irreconcilable” are largely inchoate musings of people who are neither theologians nor canonists; they are coming from people who lack any mandate of canonical governance; actually, even more, they are also from people commenting on things for which they have no pastoral experience whatsoever…with a very very few notable exceptions concerning a handful of people who post here who actually do fit in one or more of these categories, with the credentials and offices that they demand and presuppose.

“Even here?” Even here would be a relevant reference if it were filled with people who actually were writing or had written enacting guidelines. It most assuredly doesn’t.

As it is, the Cardinal Prefect for the competent dicastery is more than capable of giving orientation to those who genuinely need it. And he has demonstrated that he has a very good voice and also that he has no hesitancy to use it.

As should be abundantly clear, when a Cardinal Prefect of a dicastery is speaking with his voice but saying what is the mind and will of the Pope, then standing behind him is the vast power of the Petrine Office.

When, however, a Prefect says something in a public forum that is directly in variance with the mind and will of the Pope, whom the Prefect serves, the Pope can make that quite exceedingly clear…to the Cardinal Prefect and quite beyond.

The reality is, pastoral decisions are always going to be a matter of discretion in the hands of those entrusted with them…and they will make different choices and different determination in what to use and when to use it. That is simply a reality that everyone who has made such an application well knows.

Different views on Amoris Lateia and Communion for the divorced and remarried is not just coming from laypeople, but from the clergy. Compare for example what Bishop Egan has said compared to Cardinal Kasper, for example. They seem to have different views on the allowance for Communion for the divorced and remarried in regards to the Amoris Lateia Apostolic Exhortation.

 

[pnewton]

Different views on Amoris Lateia and Communion for the divorced and remarried is not just coming from laypeople,…

You mention two different things. Different views on communion for the divorced and remarried (the doctrine, not the practice) existed already, as somethings have been defined as doctrine, some have not, allowing for more than one legitimate opinion.

 

[JimG]

Different views on Amoris Lateia and Communion for the divorced and remarried is not just coming from laypeople, but from the clergy. Compare for example what Bishop Egan has said compared to Cardinal Kasper, for example. They seem to have different views on the allowance for Communion for the divorced and remarried in regards to the Amoris Lateia Apostolic Exhortation.

I have often read that, as to doctrine, nothing has changed. That must, I think, be true.

Then I hear from other sources, that as to practice, something has changed.

Doctrine and practice are closely related when it comes to marriage. That’s why I hope that it can be clarified how practice can be changed in this instance without implicit change to doctrine.