Jesuit general: all doctrine is subject to discernment [CWN]

[Stat_Crux]

To interject a bit. TMC has a point. Pope Francis is the one leading these reforms. So they shouldn’t so heatedly attacked as they are. YET, that being said, as we have seen from Church history, Popes try to impliment reform and while it appears to be spreading during the designated pontificate, it’s fruit is truly tested in following pontificates. So Catholics need not act like the Church is about to be killed by any of this. If God does not want this in his Church, he will kill it off. Personally though, I think what Pope Francis has implimented will not be abolished, but amended to put safety rails up because of the number of clergy who are using these reforms for abusive purposes to Church teaching. Yet, we shall see. Catholics should be joyful, pray for God’s sovereignty to take charge in the Church. Keep calm and pray.

Agreed, Popes always try to guide the Church, which can include reforms. However, those reforms must still present themselves in continuity with what has gone before if it’s to be demonstrated that it is indeed a legitimate development and not a “corruption” - to use Cardinal Newman’s terminology for those changes which are not legitimate developments of doctrine. The overt contradictions compared to what the Church has always taught have not been resolved, and so therefore the suggestion that, under certain circumstances, you could willfully and repeatedly engage in sex outside of marriage would fail Newman’s own criteria for the test of a valid development.

You correctly identify that a number of clergy are exploiting the wording of Amoris Laetitia to suggest a change in teaching which fits a personal agenda that they have held for a number of years. Cardinal Kasper has held his position since at least the 1970’s and has been rebutted by Popes and the CDF several times before Amoris Laetitia was published. However, no correction of the “liberal” interpretation has yet come and there are no signs a correction will come in the foreseeable future.

Prayer is always to be recommended. However, while we “pray as though everything depends on God, we should act as though everything depends on us.” It’s not enough to kneel and pray while somebody sets fire to your house if you’re kneeling next to a bucket of water.

Now that the change has been proposed, even if it hasn’t been officially taught, it will set Bishops, Priests, Cardinals and Dioceses against each other and we are all, one way or another, eventually going to have to make a choice. We either stick to what has gone before and always been since Christ revealed it to us, embrace a change in teaching and all of the consequences or we ignore the debate and let each diocese choose for itself. The last two options, of course, actually are the same choice: a change in teaching on something so fundamental that it was explicitly condemned in familiaris consortio paragraph 84 and the 1994 CDF letter. It is not just a question of what the Church will do, which is beyond the control of any one of us, but what we as individual souls will do. That is what we will be judged upon.

The Bishop of Malta has already stated to his seminarians that if they don’t like his personal application of Amoris Laetitia “the door to the seminary is open”; e.g. “get out”.

 

[TMC]

I’m glad to give you the good news then, that the teaching has been “got right” for 2,000, years now.

Do you think John Paul II was leading the church away from the truth when he taught that communion for sexually active remarried divorces was IMPOSSIBLE? NO? Didn’t think so. I’m glad to tell you that we agree! I’m very glad we agree about how ridiculous it is to accuse the Holy Father of leading God’s flock away from the Truth. Unless of course you think John Paul II wasnt the Holy Father…

So what is your opinion? Do you believe that Pope Francis is leading God’s flock away from the Truth? I have pointed out several times that is the only possible meaning to ascribe to your many posts on this topic, but you will not comment on it directly. I believe that John Paul II was the Holy Father. Do you believe that Francis is? Do you believe he is leading the Church away from Christ’s teachings?

 

[Stat_Crux]

With respect, the idea that the Church has not changed in 2,000 years and that anything that the Pope may do today to change anything about the Church is somehow abandoning tradition or denying the Spirit is simply inaccurate, and a misunderstanding of how the Church works, as well as a misunderstanding of what the Pope is teaching now.

The Church has been growing and changing for 2,000 years. The Church of today is different in many ways from the Church of ancient times, and the Church’s teachings have evolved and grown right along with the Church. The changes happening today are nothing compared with many of the changes of the past. The insistence that the Church must be static and stale to be true is part of the “rigidity” that the Pope is denouncing, at least in my humble opinion.

I have no problem with those who want to discuss changes in the Church and talk through them. But much of what is said in this forum is not discussion - it is condemning and accusing the leaders of the Church of abandoning Christ and leading Catholics astray. If my defense of the Pope has at times been a bit strident, it is because the voices raised so avidly against him have also been strident, and far from charitable.

We agree, there are changes, but that does not mean that any change is automatically ok or that the changes being proposed now are similar to those legitimate developments which have come before that are entirely in continuity with what came before them. If not having the exact same form, they should have the sample principles or moral significance. The Church cannot be “static” and will naturally include an element of change. My concerns, and those of others, are not changes per se, but this particular change that certain prelates have taken it upon themselves to suggest.

Cardinal Newman proposed criteria for how one might recognise a true development of doctrine, and how we might recognise a false development (a “corruption”). His experiences in the Anglican church before his conversion to Catholicism informed his outlook, as many of the same debates were going on in the Anglican church at the time and now with the benefit of hindsight we can see where it has lead them; acquiescence to the society they are supposed to be converting, lack of evangelism or moral authority, and a slow decline into irrelevance.

Cardinal Newman’s criteria were:

1. Preservation of Type - A valid development preserves the essential form and structure of what came before. If that type is undermined, we are dealing with a corruption.
2. Continuity of Principles - It must preserve the principle with which it started. While doctrine may grow and develop, principles are permanent.
3. Power of Assimilation - Just as a healthy organism can take in what it can from its environment, even as it resists what it must, so a sane and lively idea can take to itself what is best in the intellectual atmosphere, even as it throws off what is noxious.
4. Logical Sequence - A doctrine that’s defined and professed by the Church at a point historically distant from its original founding can be considered a development, and not a corruption, if it can be shown to be the logical outcome of the original teaching.
5. Anticipation of Its Future - Doctrines in some way imply or allude to their later development. So authentic developments will have some logical connection to the original deposit of faith.
6. Conservative Action upon Its Past - An evolution that simply reverses or contradicts what came before it is necessarily a corruption and not a development.
7. Chronic Vigour - As long as a doctrine maintains its life and vigor, its ongoing development is assured. However, once a corruption enters into the process, it leads, by its nature, to death and decay. Corrupted doctrines fail to display much historical longevity and ultimately die off.

We can see that the “liberal” interpretation of Amoris Laetitia proposing a change in teaching breaches criteria 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the above, to which, unhappily, no attempt to reconcile with what has always gone before has been made.

 

[Stat_Crux]

So what is your opinion? Do you believe that Pope Francis is leading God’s flock away from the Truth? I have pointed out several times that is the only possible meaning to ascribe to your many posts on this topic, but you will not comment on it directly. I believe that John Paul II was the Holy Father. Do you believe that Francis is? Do you believe he is leading the Church away from Christ’s teachings?

He hasn’t answered the dubia to formally state his opinion, or bound any of the faithful to a particular interpretation, and certainly hasn’t invoked infallibility towards either interpretation.

On that basis I’d probably say we aren’t being “lead” towards anything. Instead confusion abounds, and it’s diocese by diocese which way people are going.

 

[TMC]

We agree, there are changes, but that does not mean that any change is automatically ok or that the changes being proposed now are similar to those legitimate developments which have come before that are entirely in continuity with what came before them. If not having the exact same form, they should have the sample principles or moral significance. The Church cannot be “static” and will naturally include an element of change. My concerns, and those of others, are not changes per se, but this particular change that certain prelates have taken it upon themselves to suggest.

Cardinal Newman proposed criteria for how one might recognise a true development of doctrine, and how we might recognise a false development (a “corruption”). His experiences in the Anglican church before his conversion to Catholicism informed his outlook, as many of the same debates were going on in the Anglican church at the time and now with the benefit of hindsight we can see where it has lead them; acquiescence to the society they are supposed to be converting, lack of evangelism or moral authority, and a slow decline into irrelevance.

Cardinal Newman’s criteria were:

1. Preservation of Type - A valid development preserves the essential form and structure of what came before. If that type is undermined, we are dealing with a corruption.
2. Continuity of Principles - It must preserve the principle with which it started. While doctrine may grow and develop, principles are permanent.
3. Power of Assimilation - Just as a healthy organism can take in what it can from its environment, even as it resists what it must, so a sane and lively idea can take to itself what is best in the intellectual atmosphere, even as it throws off what is noxious.
4. Logical Sequence - A doctrine that’s defined and professed by the Church at a point historically distant from its original founding can be considered a development, and not a corruption, if it can be shown to be the logical outcome of the original teaching.
5. Anticipation of Its Future - Doctrines in some way imply or allude to their later development. So authentic developments will have some logical connection to the original deposit of faith.
6. Conservative Action upon Its Past - An evolution that simply reverses or contradicts what came before it is necessarily a corruption and not a development.
7. Chronic Vigour - As long as a doctrine maintains its life and vigor, its ongoing development is assured. However, once a corruption enters into the process, it leads, by its nature, to death and decay. Corrupted doctrines fail to display much historical longevity and ultimately die off.

We can see that the “liberal” interpretation of Amoris Laetitia proposing a change in teaching breaches criteria 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the above, to which, unhappily, no attempt to reconcile with what has always gone before has been made.

I think that the path set out by Amoris Laetitia is a legitimate development, and much easier to describe in that way than some of the more major changes in Church doctrine. I realize that others may disagree, but I would point out that growth always looks more organic in retrospect than it does prospectively.

 

[Ginny89]

So what is your opinion? Do you believe that Pope Francis is leading God’s flock away from the Truth? I have pointed out several times that is the only possible meaning to ascribe to your many posts on this topic, but you will not comment on it directly. I believe that John Paul II was the Holy Father. Do you believe that Francis is? Do you believe he is leading the Church away from Christ’s teachings?

I have said clearly many times that I believe the pope IS wrong to refuse to correct those who ARE leading the church away from Truth and provide clarity. It is YOU who insists that the pope has TAUGHT the church in contradiction to John Paul II and the other 263 popes without ever quoting any public teaching of Pope Francis’ of course! You always run to what we can make of his private inclinations. You try to claim more for the pope than he has ever claimed for himself! It is you who has on this thread claimed that the pope is “the head” of this heretical movement, not me! While I believe it is his job to stop it and he has not, I have never once pretended that he is the head instigator or pusher of this nonsense. He just wont use his authority to stop it and has even encouraged it in private, which I have always been clear about regarding my views on this that it is a mistake and a scandal.

And even if that WAS what I had said, which it is not, it is still mighty hypocritical to tear your garments over the description that this is ‘a movement away from Truth’ as if you were appalled by the suggestion that a pope could lead the flock away from Truth when YOU clearly believe that the teaching of a pontiff was contrary to the truth. If you believe this is NOT a movement away from the Truth then you hold that Pope John Paul II’s teachings and the previous 2000 years WERE!

 

[Stat_Crux]

I think that the path set out by Amoris Laetitia is a legitimate development, and much easier to describe in that way than some of the more major changes in Church doctrine. I realize that others may disagree, but I would point out that growth always looks more organic in retrospect than it does prospectively.

I should like to firstly state, for the avoidance of doubt and to try and overcome the limitations of communicating with someone using letters on a screen, that I’m not attacking you in these posts. I disagree strongly with certain interpretations of Amoris Laetitia in the absence of a compelling reason to follow them or change Church teaching, but it is nothing personal against you.

I could at first reading agree with your comments that the path set out by Amoris Laetitia is a legitimate development. But the crux of the problem is that there are several paths one could derive from the text, each of which has been given support by different “ideological camps”. However, I would say overtly that my interpretation is that Amoris Laetitia doesn’t (and can’t, not least because of the doctrinal restrictions but also because neither of the two synods passed resolutions supporting such a change) propose a change in the constant moral teaching on access to Communion for the divorced and remarried or propose anything beyond what was already proscribed by Familiaris Consortio and Veritatis Splendor. I think it calls for much better pastoral support for couples and those in difficult situations, and MUCH better wedding preparation and catechesis, but not at the expense of offering an apparently false, purely human, mercy which leaves people in situations of sin without calling them to conversion.

I suppose my question to you would be; if you’re happy it’s a legitimate development, and the contradictions I see aren’t actually contradictions, how have you arrived at that position? What argument have you followed that I’m not seeing from my current position?

(I may be late in replying to any response, my dinner is ready…)

 

[codefro]

Agreed, Popes always try to guide the Church, which can include reforms. However, those reforms must still present themselves in continuity with what has gone before if it’s to be demonstrated that it is indeed a legitimate development and not a “corruption” - to use Cardinal Newman’s terminology for those changes which are not legitimate developments of doctrine. The overt contradictions compared to what the Church has always taught have not been resolved, and so therefore the suggestion that, under certain circumstances, you could willfully and repeatedly engage in sex outside of marriage would fail Newman’s own criteria for the test of a valid development.

You correctly identify that a number of clergy are exploiting the wording of Amoris Laetitia to suggest a change in teaching which fits a personal agenda that they have held for a number of years. Cardinal Kasper has held his position since at least the 1970’s and has been rebutted by Popes and the CDF several times before Amoris Laetitia was published. However, no correction of the “liberal” interpretation has yet come and there are no signs a correction will come in the foreseeable future.

Prayer is always to be recommended. However, while we “pray as though everything depends on God, we should act as though everything depends on us.” It’s not enough to kneel and pray while somebody sets fire to your house if you’re kneeling next to a bucket of water.

Now that the change has been proposed, even if it hasn’t been officially taught, it will set Bishops, Priests, Cardinals and Dioceses against each other and we are all, one way or another, eventually going to have to make a choice. We either stick to what has gone before and always been since Christ revealed it to us, embrace a change in teaching and all of the consequences or we ignore the debate and let each diocese choose for itself. The last two options, of course, actually are the same choice: a change in teaching on something so fundamental that it was explicitly condemned in familiaris consortio paragraph 84 and the 1994 CDF letter. It is not just a question of what the Church will do, which is beyond the control of any one of us, but what we as individual souls will do. That is what we will be judged upon.

The Bishop of Malta has already stated to his seminarians that if they don’t like his personal application of Amoris Laetitia “the door to the seminary is open”; e.g. “get out”.

Absolutely, on everything you said. Pope Francis hasn’t actually changed any doctrines at all. All our doctrines are still up and running. What Pope Francis has done is allowed those who feel cut off by the Church to engage in a period of discernment with their pastor a way of being reconciled with the Church. That is seriously all he has done. The problem is that, yes, people like Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Marx are capitalizing on that and THEY are deciding that THEY do not see ANY culpibility in the laypeople who come to them and THEY are advising that those Catholics recieve the sacraments. Now let’s be clear here: if they are doing such a thing, and openly (these are smart men and they know what they are doing) defying Church teaching, then they will answer for that in the afterlife. Yet, back to Francis, what he has actually set up has not changed church teaching or has attacked it. He has tried to find a way for people to seek mercy in the Church and to find hope in their situations. It could very well be that the people seeking discernment are indeed living in mortal sin. They then must immediately repent of that sin and go through whatever channels they need to in order to remedy that situation. Francis’ reforms don’t change that fact. I think what people are upset about is when the Pope calls for people cut off from the sacraments to discern their situation, they interpret that as meaning just go take communion anyways. That is not true discernment. St. Ignatius instructed those following his exercises to thinking with the Church, not against her. If people find they knew church teaching, and discern that they knowingly defied the Church, and chose the path of the Devil, they must be told so and must repent. If they do, great. If they don’t, the Church cannot give up on them or cut them off. The Church must invite them to continue to dialogue and try to appeal to their conscience as best she can.

 

[TMC]

He hasn’t answered the dubia to formally state his opinion, or bound any of the faithful to a particular interpretation, and certainly hasn’t invoked infallibility towards either interpretation.

On that basis I’d probably say we aren’t being “lead” towards anything. Instead confusion abounds, and it’s diocese by diocese which way people are going.

I disagree with your last sentence quite strongly. Leaders don’t always lead by demand and pronouncement. In fact, I find that to be a weak leadership style. I think what Pope Francis is doing is leading in a more effective way.

 

[Ghosty]

I disagree with your last sentence quite strongly. Leaders don’t always lead by demand and pronouncement. In fact, I find that to be a weak leadership style. I think what Pope Francis is doing is leading in a more effective way.

When there is a radical divergence in interpretation then clarification by prounouncement is appropriate. Lack of clarification in such circumstances is lack of leadership by definition, as the Church is not being “lead”, but rather being scattered.

This has been the teaching of the Church in previous times.

 

[RCinMT]

I disagree with your last sentence quite strongly. Leaders don’t always lead by demand and pronouncement. In fact, I find that to be a weak leadership style. I think what Pope Francis is doing is leading in a more effective way.

You may not understand Catholicism. Local traditions are one thing, but moral teachings and Eucharistic practices are not supposed to vary from locality to locality. That’s highly problematic.

And quite frankly, the pope is supposed to lead by pronouncement in accordance with doctrine and deposit of the faith. Christ gave the pope and disciples the authority and duty to lead, to bind and loose, as it were. What I never saw Christ say was for each bishop to decide his own truths.

This issue isn’t tantamount to something like giving an absolution to eat meat when St. Patrick’s Day falls on a Friday.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;

Did Jesus abolish Moses’s laws re divorce?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I should like to firstly state, for the avoidance of doubt and to try and overcome the limitations of communicating with someone using letters on a screen…

Do you think that brief words chiselled on stone 4000 years ago in an another language (eg Do not commit adultery) or brief statements written on papyrus 2000 years ago (eg Jesus re divorce) suffer from similar “limitations” and hence require discernment?
All the more so for situations very different from the one Jesus addressed.

Given the ArgDraft it now seems clear to most people that Pope Francis meant pretty much what some people feared in AL from the start.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Lack of clarification in such circumstances is lack of leadership by definition.

I personally do not see that such “by definition” comes from the word “clarification”.

Was Jesus a leader? Were the apostles leaders?:
"Many of his disciples said, “This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it…From that time on, many of His disciples turned back”
“When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some began to mock him…”
"…they began to argue among themselves, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
"His disciples said to Him, “If this is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry.“Not everyone can accept this word,” Jesus answered…”
“You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving…For this people’s heart has grown callous”
“This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”

Periods of confusion and even “non acceptance” seem expected of all disciples at some time in their life. It was one of a number of teaching techniques Jesus intentionally used to grow his followers in faith, virtue and wisdom.

So such is a necessary lesson taught by their master and leader I would have thought. “Lack of clarification” unlikely seems to be “lack of leadership by definition”.

Its a trial that both the Cardinals and some posters on CAF are themselves battling with at the moment. Therefore this is hardly of itself a sign of poor leadership “by definition”. Quite the opposite in my opinion.

 

[JimG]

From Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith:

Sorry, Fr Sosa, but we must take Jesus literally on marriage
catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/02/24/sorry-fr-sosa-but-we-must-take-jesus-literally-on-marriage/

The article is itself a good piece of discernment.

“Well, we have been discerning, and we have been doing so for centuries. One is left wondering whether Fr Sosa’s call for continuing discernment is, in fact, a call to keep at it until we come up with a different answer.”

 

[Ghosty]

I personally do not see that such “by definition” comes from the word “clarification”.

Was Jesus a leader? Were the apostles leaders?:
"Many of his disciples said, “This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it…From that time on, many of His disciples turned back”
“When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some began to mock him…”
"…they began to argue among themselves, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
"His disciples said to Him, “If this is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry.“Not everyone can accept this word,” Jesus answered…”
“You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving…For this people’s heart has grown callous”
“This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”

Periods of confusion and even “non acceptance” seem expected of all disciples at some time in their life. It was one of a number of teaching techniques Jesus intentionally used to grow his followers in faith, virtue and wisdom.

So such is a necessary lesson taught by their master and leader I would have thought. “Lack of clarification” unlikely seems to be “lack of leadership by definition”.

Its a trial that both the Cardinals and some posters on CAF are themselves battling with at the moment. Therefore this is hardly of itself a sign of poor leadership “by definition”. Quite the opposite in my opinion.

Read what I wrote carefully. I said that in these circumstances lack of pronouncement is lack of leadership, not that leadership always requires clear pronouncement. Using an example of Christ in a wholly different circumstance and role is not useful in this discussion.

The problem here is that the Magesterium has clearly made pronouncements on this matter, and far more clearly and solemnly than anything we get from Amoris Laetitia or interviews with Cardinals and the Pope. Some interpretations of Amoris Laetitia appear to be in line with tradition, some do not. Furthermore the Pope is hardly Christ, and he has no claim to special Divine Revelation; he can no more make new revelation than I can. It is not the place of the Pope, nor any theologian, to open new and potentially contradictory Mysteries of Faith, so the example of Chris is particularly innappropriate in our current circumstances.

That said, the heart of this discussion is the role of discernment in morality. The problem we face is that those who are unprepared are being told to discern, even against Conciliar decrees. Personal discernment is not, in itself, a Sacred virtue; cows discern the best patch of grass to eat. Educated discernment, guided by prayer and a sound spiritual director, is Holy indeed, but that is due to the Grace God bestows on such discernment, not something that arises from personal discernment itself.

When multiple parties diverge in their discernment of a doctrine that is precisely the time when a Cociliar or Papal pronouncement is warranted, though not always immediately necessary. In the past at least one Pope has been condemned and anathemized precisely for not doing this. It is not enough to point at Christ and say “even He was vague at times”; Christ was God, and His Word was discerned by those with the Gift of the Holy Spirit. The Pope, no matter how Holy, is far from this, and the Bishops are not the Apostles after Pentecost.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Read what I wrote carefully. I said that in these circumstances lack of pronouncement is lack of leadership, not that leadership always requires clear pronouncement. Using an example of Christ in a wholly different circumstance and role is not useful in this discussion.

The problem here is that the Magesterium has clearly made pronouncements on this matter, and far more clearly and solemnly than anything we get from Amoris Laetitia or interviews with Cardinals and the Pope. Some interpretations of Amoris Laetitia appear to be in line with tradition, some do not. Furthermore the Pope is hardly Christ, and he has no claim to special Divine Revelation; he can no more make new revelation than I can. It is not the place of the Pope, nor any theologian, to open new and potentially contradictory Mysteries of Faith, so the example of Chris is particularly innappropriate in our current circumstances.

That said, the heart of this discussion is the role of discernment in morality. The problem we face is that those who are unprepared are being told to discern, even against Conciliar decrees. Personal discernment is not, in itself, a Sacred virtue; cows discern the best patch of grass to eat. Educated discernment, guided by prayer and a sound spiritual director, is Holy indeed, but that is due to the Grace God bestows on such discernment, not something that arises from personal discernment itself.

When multiple parties diverge in their discernment of a doctrine that is precisely the time when a Cociliar or Papal pronouncement is warranted, though not always immediately necessary. In the past at least one Pope has been condemned and anathemized precisely for not doing this. It is not enough to point at Christ and say “even He was vague at times”; Christ was God, and His Word was discerned by those with the Gift of the Holy Spirit. The Pope, no matter how Holy, is far from this, and the Bishops are not the Apostles after Pentecost.

And still Jesus intentionally refused to “pronounce” and left his gainsayers in the dark to stew in their juices or convert. No loss of leadership, let alone “by definition” there from what I can see…despite the fineprint above.

 

[Ghosty]

And still Jesus intentionally refused to “pronounce” and left his gainsayers in the dark to stew in their juices or convert. No loss of leadership, let alone “by definition” there from what I can see…despite the fineprint above.

Jesus’ example is not applicable to this situation for the reasons I stated, and several more besides.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Jesus’ example is not applicable to this situation for the reasons I stated, and several more besides.

If you say so .

 

[Ghosty]

If you say so .

You can always respond to what I’ve actually written.