New priest praised Amoris Laetita in Homily today

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

That Wikipedia excerpt bears no resemblance to Chapter 8 of AL. None. That is not the result of “misinterpretation”.

But this is the current interpretation that the Belgian bisshops have arrived at. If, as you say, this is not a misinterpretation, then what is it?

People making up stuff and doing what they want because they prioritize their desires over those of the church and God?..

 

[Roguish]

People making up stuff and doing what they want because they prioritize their desires over those of the church and God?..

People? We are not talking here of “people”. We are talking about the Roman Catholic bishops of Belgium (as an example). “People” are free to think what they want. The bishops report to the Pope. Yet, in spite of their exceedlingly liberal interpretation of AL, they have not been corrected.

The point I’m obviously trying to make, is that you underestimate how much leeway some clergy have already taken in interpreting AL, and that nothing is being done about this. You may defend AL all you like, but this is what is actually happening.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

If there are abuses occurring, I have no doubt they will be dealt with via the CDF. The CDF does not move quickly. I wouldn’t assume that “nothing” is happening simply because there wasn’t a press release from the Vatican immediately after the guidance was issued.

 

[pnewton]

The point I’m obviously trying to make, is that you underestimate how much leeway some clergy have already taken in interpreting AL, and that nothing is being done about this. You may defend AL all you like, but this is what is actually happening.

One reason I am not concerned about the teaching and pragmatic effects of Amoris Laetitia is that I suspect that those that will abuse it would abuse canon law and church teaching anyway. I first read about priests making exceptions decades ago. AL has a lot of good, solid teaching, a point often missed by the focus on one paragraph.

 

[Mboo]

If there are abuses occurring, I have no doubt they will be dealt with via the CDF. The CDF does not move quickly. I wouldn’t assume that “nothing” is happening simply because there wasn’t a press release from the Vatican immediately after the guidance was issued.

without speculating and by confining to verifiable facts, these episcopal conferences did not retract , so one can reasonably conclude that the Vatican has done nothing, or the Vatican has not sufficient authority to make himself respected.
As for the supposed “slowness” of the CDF, it would be as serious, because we are facing a situation that can put the souls of the faithful at risk, while reasonably nothing justifies a slowness …

 

[Roguish]

If there are abuses occurring, I have no doubt they will be dealt with via the CDF.

You’re an incorrigible optimist, Dizzy I understand that, but I can’t join in (anymore), though I’ve certainly tried. It was at your suggestion a couple of weeks ago that I reread parts of AL while making a sincere attempt to interpret it from the assumption that it was written from an orthodox point of view. I just couldn’t make it work.

In response to your point about the CDF: it has been reported that after reviewing AL (prior to its publication) the CDF submitted 20 pages of objections to it, presumably to the Pope, and that none of these objections were heeded. So if indeed the CDF was snubbed this way, it is highly unlikely that they have now been commissioned with the task of carefully watching over its implementation. More likely, the CDF has been taken out of the equation as far as AL is concerned.

Look here, for example. The whole article is interesting, but the passage that’s directly relevant reads as follows:

[…] it has emerged the CDF had clear misgivings about the document before it was published — concerns which were never heeded. [The cardinals’] dubia formed part of the CDF’s 20 pages of corrections […]

 

[Roguish]

One reason I am not concerned about the teaching and pragmatic effects of Amoris Laetitia is that I suspect that those that will abuse it would abuse canon law and church teaching anyway. I first read about priests making exceptions decades ago.

You are right that priests have been making exceptions for a long time. In fact many priests make these “exceptions” so often that they have effectively already been the rule for many years. Moreover, there are plenty of remarried and unmarried couples who simply never confess or reveal their situation to clergy.

But to adduce any of this as a reason not to worry about AL is like saying “bad priests have been cutting corners for a long time, bad stuff has been happening for a long time, why make a fuss over a document that creates even more leeway”.

In my opinion the very fact that many unmarried/remarried individuals are already cutting corners anyway (and some priests are knowingly allowing it), would have been one good reason not to “loosen” the Church’s stance on these matters.

AL has a lot of good, solid teaching, a point often missed by the focus on one paragraph.

This is true. But good stuff cannot compensate for errors, or even for vagueness – not in matters of morals anyway. Robert Spaemann, a German Catholic scholar, commented as follows:

One cannot expect, when dealing with a papal magisterial document, that people rejoice about a beautiful text and then ignore the decisive sentences which change the teaching of the Church. There is indeed only the clear yes-or-no decision. There is no third possibility between giving Holy Communion or not. (from this webpage)

 

[mrsdizzyd]

It’s not that I am optimistic. (Actually, you are probably the first person to call me optimistic about anything. I tend to have a very melancholy disposition. I’ve been praying about that. Maybe those prayers are having an effect…)

What I am is charitable in my view of the pope. I understand that he is orthodox, I understand how his Jesuit spirituality influences his thinking and his language ( especially words like “discernment” and “conscience”), and I am not prone to jumping to conclusions before it is warranted or worse.

The pope has given his assent to only a few sets of guidelines issued. Those mirror in most if not all cases his Chapter 8. They clearly define who is affected and preserve his careful, thoughtful, and narrow process as outlined in AL.

If there are abuses I have no doubt they will be addressed in due course.

We do not know what recommendations the Pope accepted or rejected let alone what the recommendations were. Why would I then speculate about the pope’s motives or actions toward the CDF? Card. Mueller would not speculate and he was the one who sent the suggestions!

I do not know what complaints have reached the CDF. I do not know what the CDF has decided to take up and what it has not. I do not know what if any instructions they have received from the Holy Father. On what basis could I then say that they have done “nothing”? We are not privy to the inner-workings of the CDF. They could just as easily be doing a lot behind the scenes as they could be doing nothing.

Those of you who have decided to draw your own conclusions are welcome to them. I prefer not to jump to conclusions or speculate about what may or may not be going on.

 

[pnewton]

This is true. But good stuff cannot compensate for errors, or even for vagueness – not in matters of morals anyway. Robert Spaemann, a German Catholic scholar, commented as follows:

That surely is a matter of opinion. I find the document to be solid and the “vagueness” a mis-characterization of its deliberate teaching that we need to stop treating people as categories.

I also totally disagree with him that teaching has changed. That statement just begs the question, and has every time someone says it. At the last family synod, a minority of the bishops tried to get this practice defined as doctrine, but they are a minority.

 

[Roguish]

What I am is charitable in my view of the pope.

So was I, for the first five years of his papacy. I really was – several times I was moved to tears by the things Pope Francis said. (And by that I mean moved by the profundity and sincerity of what he said.) And to this day I still think he means well. But… I find it hard to close my eyes to the dangers of the way he words things, especially because I feel that things are “piling up”. The recent change in the Church’s stance on the death penalty is the latest item where my gut tells me we’re going in the wrong direction. Too much pragmatism. Too much accomodation of modern sentiments and circumstances. It feels like the 60’s all over again. Not that I was around back then, but I’ve sure been around to witness the aftermath of that “liberating” era. Our current Pope reminds me of Pope John XXIII. He means well, but in his enthusiasm and pragmatism he is losing sight of very serious dangers. Same with John XXIII: he meant well when he called VC2 – but it’s hard to look back now and not feel that he did quite a bit of damage.

 

[Roguish]

I find […] “vagueness” a mis-characterization of its deliberate teaching that we need to stop treating people as categories.

As far as I know the term “vagueness” has not been applied to the idea that we shouldn’t treat people as categories. Rather, it has been applied to turning what used to be an “objectively sinful situation” into a “matter of discernment” – and more importantly, without requiring those in such a situation to commit to making a change. It is precisely the absence of such a requirement (i.e. for those in the sinful situation to make a real effort to get out of it) that is so problematic. Spaemann is perhaps a bit sarcastic when he comments on this, but if we overlook the sarcasm his point is well made:

“But when it comes to sexual relations,” [Spaemann] continues, “which are in objective contradiction to the Christian order of life, I would like to know from the pope after which time period and under which conditions such an objectively sinful behavior becomes a conduct which is pleasing to God.”

Again: the problem – as I see it anyway – is that AL does not clearly require a commitment to change on the part of those in “irregular unions”. As I understand the document (and insofar as I remember it right now), it allows unmarried/remarried couples to “discern” and then decide to return to communion – and persist in the same situation without change. Indeed this is precisely how the bishops of Belgium (see one of my earlier posts in this thread) have interpreted AL.

P.S. What I personally would have appreciated so much more, is if the Pope had insisted on all remarried getting proper annulments, and then make those annulments a little easier to obtain. Not easy to obtain, but easier. (Currently they can be quite tortuous.) That is where discernment should have come in: in getting an annulment. Annulments are great, you see – when they are legit. It gives people closure. It’s not just about obtaining the right to re-marry. It’s about having the Church acknowledge that what you thought was a real marriage (and which obviously failed) was in fact not a proper marriage in the eyes of the Church; and that therefore you are officially declared a never-married-before single person again. That is relief. That is closure: knowing that you are yet to enter into your first true marriage because the earlier one has been declared to never have been a real marriage anyway. But under AL, the Church accomodates your reluctance to get a proper annulment by allowing you to return to communion anyway – and that is not closure at all. You still feel/know/believe that you were in an earlier marriage, no matter how much better things are with your new mate.