Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia

[TCEL]

Which is why the laity need clarity on what the Church teaches.

If someone were to ask me about this subject, it does make me feel a bit sheepish that I would have to answer, “I don’t know.” I have non-Catholic Christian relatives who don’t get Catholicism, and this confusion can’t possibly be helping. I hope no one asks me.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Which is why the laity need clarity on what the Church teaches.

The matter is referred to the priest or bishop who has jurisdiction to address and resolve the matter, authoritatively and definitively.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

If someone were to ask me about this subject, it does make me feel a bit sheepish that I would have to answer, “I don’t know.” I have non-Catholic Christian relatives who don’t get Catholicism, and this confusion can’t possibly be helping. I hope no one asks me.

Why would it make you sheepish? Or why would you hesitate to say “I don’t know”? That is why there are canon lawyers and tribunals and experts.

Having a complex marriage issue to be dealt with is not unlike having a complex health issue. There are any number of avenues a specialist may choose to pursue, based on what is the diagnosis and what is the prognosis of the given situation in which the patient finds themself. One hopes that the patient has at hand the best possible care, from a range of healthcare providers of various levels, in view of their specific need.

 

[patricius79]

This is precisely correct. And, frankly, cannot be too much underscored.

I would never talk about any pastoral decision or any pastoral accommodation with any party outside those directly concerned. The more personal the matter, the more those who are outside of the situation need to be shut down from having any involvement whatsoever.

You are exactly correct. And it is precisely such people, as you indicate, who do incalculable harm to souls, damage the Church, and are a blight.

There are many people who insert – or attempt to insert – themselves into situations where they simply do not belong. I have little patience for such busybodies and those who are parish priests need to act forcefully and decisively against such persons.

So many situations that one encounters in pastoral life have nothing to do with a mindset as though one were following a procedures manual. Even where, externally, two situations can be seemingly identical outwardly, the path of pastoral intervention and care may be wholly different, in light of other factors.

No less true is the fact that the more unusual the situation, the more need there is for such a person in such a situation to be followed by a priest who is a pastoral caregiver that combines being both very knowledgeable and very experienced…one who has, as Pope Francis has stated, discernment.

Father,

Are you saying there could be a situation where a couple in an irregular “marriage” could have relations? If so, would you give an example?

In Familiaris Consortio, did not JPII teach that those in irregular marriages needed to separate if possible, and if not, then they need to live in continence?

I doubt that that led to damage in the Church. Of course I’m sure that situations are very complex, and require the experience and discernment form the clergy, just as you say.

But doesn’t the Church teach that the moral law binds always and everywhere, which would include the sixth commandment?

 

[Megan7]

Except when he teaches we error as in the case of Pope John XXII

***VENERABLE POPE PIUS IX *** 1846-1878)

“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith,
do not follow him.”

**POPE INNOCENT III **(CA. 1160-1216)

    "The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he

rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by
man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff
glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be
already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he
who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of
him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast
out and trampled under foot by men.’" (Sermo 4)

CARDINAL JUAN OF TORQUEMADA (1388-1468)

“Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope
can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are
not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that
he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in
what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,… it is said in the Acts
of the Apostles: ‘One ought to obey God rather than man’; **therefore,
were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the
articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of
the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, **but in such
commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)…”

Thanks for the quotes

With all due respect to all involved including the Holy Father. Is it possible that this

is taking place to prevent other Cardinals, Bishops, Priests who might feel the same way,

from joining the 4 Cardinals? From what I understand other Clerics would also like a

clarification.

Again, I mean no disrespect to the Pope, or any other Cleric.

My prayers for Holy Mother Church, the Holy Father, Cardinal Burke, etc.

God bless,

+PAX .

 

[OraLabora]

If someone were to ask me about this subject, it does make me feel a bit sheepish that I would have to answer, “I don’t know.” I have non-Catholic Christian relatives who don’t get Catholicism, and this confusion can’t possibly be helping. I hope no one asks me.

We can’t expect to have every answer to every question on Catholicism.

If I were questioned on this subject I would simply say that since this particular situation does not apply to me, and as these cases are often complex, I can’t properly give a satisfactory answer. If it is a general inquiry out of curiosity from a non-Catholic, I would stop there. If someone was inquiring with regards to their own particular situation concerning a possible return to the Church or a desire to enter RCIA, I would go one step further and urge the questioner to consult with the pastor of his or her local parish, for a proper analysis of their situation and possible solutions. I would then also assure the person(s) that I will pray for them and wish them all the best.

Contrary to Brendan’s assertion this is evangelization; it is done in humility, and in a way that makes the Church attractive to possible new or reverted Catholics as it doesn’t slam any doors shut, and ensures that one answers within the limitations of one’s pay grade as it were.

Giving answers that are above and beyond our authority engages the very real risk that we drive someone away inadvertently by giving incorrect information. It self-imposes on us a level of authority we do not have and for which we do not have adequate pastoral formation.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

We can’t expect to have every answer to every question on Catholicism.

If I were questioned on this subject I would simply say that since this particular situation does not apply to me, and as these cases are often complex, I can’t properly give a satisfactory answer. If it is a general inquiry out of curiosity from a non-Catholic, I would stop there. If someone was inquiring with regards to their own particular situation concerning a possible return to the Church or a desire to enter RCIA, I would go one step further and urge the questioner to consult with the pastor of his or her local parish, for a proper analysis of their situation and possible solutions. I would then also assure the person(s) that I will pray for them and wish them all the best.

Contrary to Brendan’s assertion this is evangelization; it is done in humility, and in a way that makes the Church attractive to possible new or reverted Catholics as it doesn’t slam any doors shut, and ensures that one answers within the limitations of one’s pay grade as it were.

Giving answers that are above and beyond our authority engages the very real risk that we drive someone away inadvertently by giving incorrect information. It self-imposes on us a level of authority we do not have and for which we do not have adequate pastoral formation.

:yup:

 

[patricius79]

Thanks for the quotes

With all due respect to all involved including the Holy Father. Is it possible that this

is taking place to prevent other Cardinals, Bishops, Priests who might feel the same way,

from joining the 4 Cardinals? From what I understand other Clerics would also like a

clarification.

Again, I mean no disrespect to the Pope, or any other Cleric.

My prayers for Holy Mother Church, the Holy Father, Cardinal Burke, etc.

God bless,

+PAX .

The Vicar of Christ has supreme authority in the Church, and we owe him our affection, prayers, and obedience, out of reverence for Christ But he is also subject to the Word of God.

Here is a quote from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

*The Roman Pontiff - like all the faithful - is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church’s obedience; in this sense he is servus servorum Dei. He does not make arbitrary decisions, but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkope of the primacy has limits set by divine law and by the Church’s divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation.33 The Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism: hence the martyrological nature of his primacy.
*
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

 

[patricius79]

We can’t expect to have every answer to every question on Catholicism.

If I were questioned on this subject I would simply say that since this particular situation does not apply to me, and as these cases are often complex, I can’t properly give a satisfactory answer. If it is a general inquiry out of curiosity from a non-Catholic, I would stop there. If someone was inquiring with regards to their own particular situation concerning a possible return to the Church or a desire to enter RCIA, I would go one step further and urge the questioner to consult with the pastor of his or her local parish, for a proper analysis of their situation and possible solutions. I would then also assure the person(s) that I will pray for them and wish them all the best.

Contrary to Brendan’s assertion this is evangelization; it is done in humility, and in a way that makes the Church attractive to possible new or reverted Catholics as it doesn’t slam any doors shut, and ensures that one answers within the limitations of one’s pay grade as it were.

Giving answers that are above and beyond our authority engages the very real risk that we drive someone away inadvertently by giving incorrect information. It self-imposes on us a level of authority we do not have and for which we do not have adequate pastoral formation.

Could you give a concrete example? I agree that we should admit what we don’t know.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father,

Are you saying there could be a situation where a couple in an irregular “marriage” could have relations? If so, would you give an example?

In Familiaris Consortio, did not JPII teach that those in irregular marriages needed to separate if possible, and if not, then they need to live in continence?

I doubt that that led to damage in the Church. Of course I’m sure that situations are very complex, and require the experience and discernment form the clergy, just as you say.

But doesn’t the Church teach that the moral law binds always and everywhere, which would include the sixth commandment?

You may ask this question as you often as you wish but my answer remains, and will remain, exactly the same:

If you are personally in a situation that is irregular in this regard then you need to speak to your parish priest who has the cura animarum for you, which I do not. He will provide you with pastoral accompaniment tailored to your specific need, according to the established guidelines.

The many various situations of people who are not you, however, are the concerns of others…those people and their priests.

 

[patricius79]

You may ask this question as you often as you wish but my answer remains, and will remain, exactly the same:

If you are personally in a situation that is irregular in this regard then you need to speak to your parish priest who has the cura animarum for you, which I do not. He will provide you with pastoral accompaniment tailored to your specific need, according to the established guidelines.

The many various situations of people who are not you, however, are the concerns of others…those people and their priests.

I agree that we should primarily be concerned with our own behavior.

I think that both clergy and laity should affirm that adultery and other violations of moral absolutes are always wrong.

I don’t think one needs to be an expert in canon law to know basic morals or to learn something about Church teaching. Otherwise AL wouldn’t have been written to the laity at all.

Would you agree?

 

[KSU]

Dan, here is a comment on the 1993 date by my original source. He thinks, as you do, that it probably should be 1994. catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=701

Have you been able to determine whether or not the German article sheds any light on this?

 

[carn]

They in fact left the door open to that with their last sentence in your above quote.

I hope you are in spite of the first sentence of the paragraph quoted from their document correct.

Now, now; be nice. You can’t go there without, at the same time, admitting that there is the possibility that the bishops of Argentina want to support their national pride and joy. And why wouldn’t they? They could do so and still leave the door open a crack for St. JP II and B XVI.

This was not meant in anyway against the bishops of Argentina. It was a possible interpretation of what Cardinal Müller intended there.

I am sorry to say, but if we would not talk about major figures in the Church instituted and guided by God, i would laugh at anybody claiming that this is anything else but a full blown politics war with both sides fighting tooth and nails to drag the party/nation/political entity in that direction. And as in earlier times the Church was striken by politics war, unfortunately it cannot be excluded that we see a new one. And then much what we see would be political moves with several factions trying to subdue the other factions. I hope this is not the case, but too much happened to exclude this.

 

[carn]

In most dioceses, this is a small risk; just as it is possible you will have a car accident this week, you probably won’t have to worry about that risk too much.

There is no effort in most dioceses to communicate to Catholics the level of importance of the Catechism, or even that it exists. If someone ****really ****wants to review a catechism, they can no doubt find one in the religious education office, probably under lock and key. In mint condition.

One finds it online easily in different languages. Tell you what, if i were in a divorce and remarried situation, probability would be high, that i would check out catechism and then ask exactly the question i asked above. But probably i am just a freak.

But can you offer anything against my somewhat overblown claim, that AL works when couples do not bother to read catechism?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t want to be disrespectful of others’ experiences, but if all experiences are equal (and shouldn’t they be?) I have been extremely hurt by the ‘dismissive attitude’ of (thankfully only a few) priests, and not even on my ‘rigid ways’ of today and liking the EF, but actually on some ‘pastoral guidance’. In my younger days, I admit that I fell into sin with a young man. We had nebulous plans of maybe marriage one day (we never did). And, since I had attended Catholic elementary school in those days (and only went on to secular schools when we moved and there was no Catholic school in the area) and had a fairly decent education, even after 5 or 6 years of being ‘away from regular instruction’ (keep in mind that I was confirmed in 3rd grade, not in high school like so many nowadays) , I was uneasy about the possibility of engaging in sin. So I approached the college priests (who must have had a dreadful time back in those tumultuous 1970s) about it. And I was told, flat out told, that as long as I had ‘genuine love’ for the young man, that there was no sin.

Well, that relationship ended and, as nubile females of the time were prone to do, I engaged in a few MORE ‘genuine loving relationships’ including with the man I later married.

You know what? That damaging ‘pastoral care’ instead of stopping me from sliding deeper and deeper into sin just made things worse. It seriously ‘messed me up’. And quite frankly I think it contributed to the later collapse of the marriage, because both of us were ‘damaged’ by that misunderstanding of ‘it’s all right to have sex if you are loving’ care. (And no, I’m not misunderstanding what was said then. It was repeated later by others, and from what my friends from that time and place told me later, it was told to them too.) I guess that people thought that we just couldn’t STOP ourselves from having sex so we might as well try to LIMIT ourselves only to ‘real loving relationships’. But I think it made it both easier to break up, because “well, the love stopped so now it’s WRONG to have sex”, and harder to maintain a marriage because, “love means loving feelings. Loving feelings are harder to get at first, then impossible, so now it’s wrong to have sex. . .and the marriage just explodes”.

It might have sounded harsh to hear the truth: “No, it’s not right to have sex, even if you love each other and THINK you might marry. Stop, and wait, discern, and be sure you understand that marriage means even when you get tired of each other, you are still bound to love, so you’d better understand what love really is”. Heck, I might have stormed off and stewed for a bit. But was I better off remaining in what I thought was ‘grace’ when I was not? When I realized I’d been sold a bill of goods, I was as angry as I would have been (even angrier, because instead of being told a harsh truth, I’d been sold on a soothing lie) back then. It’s a lot harder to be truthful and stand, often all alone, while others make gray areas and pour the soothing poison, but in the end, what do we want? People who are Catholic In Name Only, propagating their own wrongs as rights, disseminating teaching as Catholic that isn’t, because they are “The Church of Nice”? Bodies in the pews because they’re being made much of just for being there? Never challenged? Never learning WHY they’re there? Told that everything is fine as long as they THINK it is?

I am sorry, but I believe that being pastoral means being ‘the bad guy’ sometimes. Nobody likes to hear the doctor say, "You have cancer, now you need to have chemo and surgery’. But if they don’t hear it, they’re going to die without even having a CHANCE to treat the disease and maybe make it through. Yes, some of them will die anyway. Some will refuse to listen, some will make a start, some are just too far along. . . but to act as though saying the words is the REAL problem is ludicrous.

As GK Chesterton put it in Orthodoxy, regarding the question of evil:

"If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as atheists do; or he must deny the present union of God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalist solution to deny the cat

."

Evil, or sin, exists. Either we say that there is no sin, because there is no God; or we say that sin exists and is the cause of men and women rejecting, and not being in union, with God. . .but we don’t say that yes, sin is there, but only if you THINK it is, and not if you think it isn’t.

Denying the cat is NOT rational OR pastoral IMO.

 

[KSU]

I hope you are, in spite of the first sentence of the paragraph quoted from their document, correct.

**Yes, I know, and it’s the only hope we have that the continuity of all three Popes regarding this matter remains intact. Pope Francis is a very clever man and I wouldn’t put this past him as his method of simply emphasizing his penchant for mercy to be applied **when possible.

This was not meant in anyway against the bishops of Argentina. It was a possible interpretation of what Cardinal Müller intended there.

I know that. Nor was it taken as such.

I am sorry to say, but if we would not talk about major figures in the Church instituted and guided by God, i would laugh at anybody claiming that this is anything else but a full blown politics war with both sides fighting tooth and nails to drag the party/nation/political entity in that direction. And as in earlier times the Church was striken by politics war, unfortunately it cannot be excluded that we see a new one. And then much what we see would be political moves with several factions trying to subdue the other factions. I hope this is not the case, but too much happened to exclude this.

Agreed.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

One finds it online easily in different languages. Tell you what, if i were in a divorce and remarried situation, probability would be high, that i would check out catechism and then ask exactly the question i asked above. But probably i am just a freak.

But can you offer anything against my somewhat overblown claim, that AL works when couples do not bother to read catechism?

Not everyone can understand the CCC. Not everyone can read…period. Not every Catholic is raised in a Catholic environment.

Really, this is pretty tiresome…explaining reality to people.

 

[carn]

And it is precisely such people, as you indicate, who do incalculable harm to souls, damage the Church, and are a blight.

Ok, “such people” … “are a blight”; that seems like a pretty harsh condemnation.

Oneofthewomen specifically refered to “some of you”, so some people in this thread discussing the issue. And was actually answering to Abyssinia.

I might know not realy much about Church law; but i know something about civil law; and under that it would not be unreasonable to understand, that as Oneofthewomen referred to some people here in the thread, that Don Ruggero effictively called some people in this thread a “blight”, with Abyssinia rather clearly (and probably me, cause he already said elsewhere he does not like my attitudes).

Good grief; i already have been in a lot of “fun” name calling and mud slinging in online forums; but “blight” is well above the usual stuff. And actually i am pondering, whether that “blight” might also be meant for the 4 cardinals? Who knows.

But i guess i cannot return in kind, otherwise it would end in work for poor mods.

There are many people who insert – or attempt to insert – themselves into situations where they simply do not belong. I have little patience for such busybodies and those who are parish priests need to act forcefully and decisively against such persons.

Two scenarios:

A talks to divorced and remarried couple B1/B2 how they should act so that it is proper for them to receive sacraments.

A asks on an internet forum fellow catholics how AL would effect access of divorced and remarried couples to sacraments and how AL fits to the rest of the teaching of the Church.

Can you discern the two scenarios?

Or is A in both cases a “blight”?

 

[PPeterson]

I think there is a misunderstanding of how people change behaviors in the fearful reaction to anything “pastoral.”

Remember when the just say no campaign completely eliminated drug use in America by saying it was bad for you?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think there is a misunderstanding of how people change behaviors in the fearful reaction to anything “pastoral.”

Remember when the just say no campaign completely eliminated drug use in America by saying it was bad for you?

So the direct analy would be the decriminalization monements ability to cure addicts?