Is "Amoris Laetitia" as dangerous to Church teaching as some claim?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rcwitness said:
So Pope Francis is introducing the notion that discretion can be applied to couples in adulterous relationships, for fallible priests to discern.
Click to expand...
Consider this. If you do not trust tribunals, as you stated above, then you must understand that a second civil marriage might be the first valid marriage, with or without an annulment. As you said, the denial of an annulment might be an error.
 
I said i dont trust ALL tribunal decision.

I am sure many, if not most are accurate. And many are probably very self evident. But when some get into discernment of heart and mind, its subject to how much tribunal members are able to guess, even if it is an educated guess.
 
I don’t know if you believe in the Catholic faith, but I do know some of the things you write do not jive with it.
  1. “They want their partner to stay with them and not have their “needs” met elsewhere.”
    This line you wrote suggests people are very insecure in their love, and they think they need to have sex to keep their partner. I suppose this could cause one to sin, but it won’t result in the desired outcome. Marriage is the institution that provides a measure of security that your partner will stay, and the institution to which most of the truly loving partners eventually drift. Catholics just want them to consciously choose marriage rather than drift into it.
  2. Even theologians and sages have real human emotions, and that’s how they probably end up positing the Church’s teachings, and saving people from themselves.
  3. Sex should only be undertaken in marriage. No other relationship is committed enough.
  4. If pregnancy was as controlled as you believe, we wouldn’t see abortion rates rise with the availability of contraception, as is statistically shown.
  5. I doubt you know thousands of women, or that they’d tell you the truth all the time.
  6. Well, if you look at the whole earth, there are many Muslims and people of other beliefs who put sex in the context of marriage too. Plus, there are still about 1.2 billion Catholics. Some are sinning sexually. Some are not. But that doesn’t change that the Church’s teachings are the beacon.
  7. No Catholic has chastised people for expressing love within its proper place: a proper marriage. So we are not selling something impossible. In fact, until the 1930’s or so, pretty much everybody thought you should wait for marriage, and if a man got a woman pregnant, there was pressure placed on him to marry her.
 
Correct. I’m not catholic and have no interest in being, as can be seen with a mere glance to my profile.

I live in a world with real people. They are my love and my care. It is said; where you place your most love - is where you will gain your greatest reward.

And walk amongst them I truly have. I have no use for rigid creeds. But for reality alone. I wish to reach everyone. Not just those who align with a text book.

I don’t mean to dismiss your points (they apply to some relationships not others) but since you focused on my ‘Catholicism’, in critique; I am not one. Therefore I cannot answer you.
 
Last edited:
You’re welcome to discuss my points regardless of your beliefs. I don’t doubt you care for real people. But sometimes love involves not allowing people something they want.

I’m not sure what you mean by “reach” people. If they are doing what they want, falling in and out of love naturally, where is their need to be “reached”, per se?

I’m not sure what you mean by text book. Do you mean the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Wouldn’t the free lovers also be able to write and read books to which they align? At the very least, they certainly produce movies. I guess that counts. What is wrong with living according to the Bible for instance? As a Christian, you probably try to align with that book?
 
If you are Christian, then you must have a certain level of Catholic belief.

What do you wish to reach everyone with? Is it contrary to Catholic faith? Is it compatible with Catholic faith?

We are not a religion of a text book alone, but a Person and His revelation. Although the Bible does have a prominent place in our knowledge of God. To deny Scripture as the Word of God which is the Father of Jesus fellowshipping with us, offering hope, beckoning our hearts, affirming the faithful, revealing His plan and Son, etc. would be very un-Catholic.

I chose to believe you are quite Catholic, if you believe, are Baptized or desire it, strive to know God and do what is right, desire Communion of His body and blood, love others, keep His laws, and turn from your temptations and failures.
 
Last edited:
AdherentToRome said:
(However I am firmly of the opinion that if the Pope says jump I will jump, if he says do something, I will do it. But in the case of silence I will wait for his clarification so I can do what he asks.)
Click to expand...
He says jump off a cliff, you will do that as well?
 
I might. I like a little hyperbole now an then. But Amoris Laetitia presents on danger of cliff jumping. If one is in an irregular situation that cannot currently be reconciled, one is still totally free to refrain from communion. No one is forcing anyone into pastoral consultation.
 
Your wording is a little confusing to understand what you r trying to convey here. Could you clarify?
 
It’s more like encouraging shepherds to guide and accompany sheep over a cliff who are already heading there. It kind of defeats the purpose of a shepherd…

(if we take one of the common interpretations of AL, which the Pope has not ruled out, unfortunately)
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
Your wording is a little confusing to understand what you r trying to convey here. Could you clarify?
Click to expand...
I meant to say it presents no danger. One is free to act in accord to one’s conscience and refrain from communion. The problem lies when a person wants other to act in accord to his conscience.
Genesis315 said:
It’s more like encouraging shepherds to guide and accompany sheep over a cliff who are already heading there. It kind of defeats the purpose of a shepherd…
Click to expand...
Whether it is a cliff or a path to safe begs the question. That has been done to death, and why there is disagreement here.
 
The issue is whether priests can discern whether couples in an adulterous relationship (already bound by God to another person other than who they are sleeping with) can continue in that relationship because their special circumstances, and therefore receive Communion in a worthy manner.

You are right that no one is forced to receive Communion against their conscience. Who would argue that?
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
The issue is whether priests can discern…
Click to expand...
Interestingly, Priests in the form of a tribunal discern the truth about past events and circumstances in a bid to determine the bond’s validity.

I am unclear what it is exactly that the accompanying priest is to discern.
 
Yep, and i dont believe priests always make the accurate judgment, and we arent expected to believe they are infallible.

But that wont cause me to judge another persons process of following the tribunal either.

Like i said, most cases probably dont depend on discerning the heart and mind of couples. That is my personal rub with AL’s proposition. And that the two previous popes taught that special situations cannot change the principle.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
The issue is whether priests can discern whether couples in an adulterous relationship (already bound by God to another person other than who they are sleeping with) can continue in that relationship because their special circumstances, and therefore receive Communion in a worthy manner.
Click to expand...
It is an interesting point. Is it actual mortal sin, objective mortal sin, or perceived mortal sin that makes one unworthy for communion, as a matter of doctrine, not practice?
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
40.png
rcwitness:
The issue is whether priests can discern whether couples in an adulterous relationship (already bound by God to another person other than who they are sleeping with) can continue in that relationship because their special circumstances, and therefore receive Communion in a worthy manner.
Click to expand...
It is an interesting point. Is it actual mortal sin, objective mortal sin, or perceived mortal sin that makes one unworthy for communion, as a matter of doctrine, not practice?
Click to expand...
Apparently, it depends if you ask JPII, Benedict, or Francis…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top