Pope endorses Argentine bishops' document on Amoris Laetitia

[ToTheWest]

You are not intruding, this is a forum.

While your example may be a valid example the more common problematic reality that I believe the Pope’s mention in the usual Apostolic Exhortations since the 1980s is more simple than this. It is where the remarried couple have not been able to receive justice from the Tribunal for purely technical reasons. Also they have a stable 2nd marriage with kids and they both sincerely believe, from the ongoing counsel of involved officials, the 1st marriage does not actually exist before God. Therefore they believe they are in fact free before God to marry each other but recognise of course that this is not yet Canonically possible…and may never be in the foreseeable future.

Keep in mind that the failure of a Tribunal to declare nullity is by no means the same as declaring that such a decision in the future is impossible. The subjective conviction of the couple may well be objectively correct before God and the officials involved likely agree with them. Unfortunately human justice is regularly enough frail in both secular and religious courts for the same old reasons.

Blue Horizon - I appreciate the response. I think I see. So the common situation Pope Francis has in mind is when there are technical obstacles to a receiving a declaration of nullity. However, the couple, their priest and nearly any objective Catholic authority would agree that the current marriage is essentially valid.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon - I appreciate the response. I think I see. So the common situation Pope Francis has in mind is when there are technical obstacles to a receiving a declaration of nullity.

That tribunals do regularly let down deserving cases on procedural grounds is a situation that has been repeatedly recognised and lamented by the Popes and Cardinal Ratzinger since the 1980s.

However, the couple, their priest and nearly any objective Catholic authority would agree that the current marriage is essentially valid.

We need to be very accurate in describing this situation which is incredibly complex.

It is certainly true that significant numbers of remarried Catholics failing to gain a decree of nullity may well be free before God to marry their current civil partner though the Church is as yet unable to objectively validate that prudential pastoral judgement.

Currently only a Tribunal may rectify that objectively (to humans) irregular state of affairs. An accompanying priest cannot make such a pronouncement to set this irregular public state aright. But he may eventually judge such couples access to Communion - sexual relations not withstanding.

That, whether we like it or not, is the current Pope’s clear position.
That doesnt mean any priest has to impliment it.

Do note that Pope JPII was also a liberal on this point in his time. He reversed a long standing tradition/discipline of auto excommunication of such remarried couples. He warmly welcomed them into the Church even if not to Communion. We survived this innovation.

Keep in mind too that even under the “old way” those who live as brother and sister are still in a “public state of sin” … despite being allowed access to Communion their state still continues to be irregular and objectively contradicting Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility of Christian Marriage. That is why they still may not receive Communion publically, but only secretly.

Pope Francis is doing no more than extending the above brother/sister exception (these persons are also in objective public sin yet may go to Communion) to another smaller group of irregulars whom it is prudentially judged should be allowed to Communion because their 2nd marriage would likely collapse if the undesirability of sexual relations was set in opposition to the good of Communion.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Check out the full commentary at the following link from Dr. Jeff Mirus:
An invalidly married couple has had children together, who are still at home.
Either the man or the woman recognizes the sinfulness of the “marriage”, regrets having entered into it, and desires now to do what is right (which in this case would be for the parents to live as brother and sister while still caring for their children as mother and father in the same household). The other party refuses to live as brother and sister.

Actually, whatever we decide as the correct way to go here also likely holds for a first marriage! If one in conscience grows from the start to believe one’s marriage is not a true marriage for some significant reason then a moral person is obligated to have this situation objectively judged by a tribunal and withdraw from sexual relations if possible.

It is likely that many Catholic wives endure their first marriage anyways out of fear of the consequences for themselves or their children. Over time some do live to see their wayward husbands turn their lives around…a win/win for all involved.
Others who should have left (for the sake of their children if not themselves) may sin only venially for staying out of very understandable weakness.

Life is complex, the Church is there to help discern what God wants for all involved.
There are no easy answers that do not involve attention to one’s conscience over time in equal dialogue with objective processes involving Church officials.

 

[Richca]

The end does not justify the means (CCC#1753). One may not do evil so that good may result from it (CCC#1756). It is not lawful to do evil or sin however small or great it is in order that good may come of it or by doing such an evil to avoid a small or great harm. I think the hypothetical case that Dr. Mirus presents here involves a violation of these above mentioned catholic moral principles. It is not lawful for a person to sin or fornicate for the sake of a two parent family even if such sexual acts were somehow rendered venial sins and not mortal sins. The end does not justify the means and one may not do evil so that good may result from it. Fornication is an objectively moral evil, it is always wrong regardless of the end and the circumstances. Contrary to Dr. Mirus’ contention that it would be difficult to discern if the repentant parent should separate from the unrepentant one (even though in the same breath he says 'even if we argue that separation is the morally correct course), it appears to me that this is a pretty clear case and the right course of action that the repentant parent needs to separate.

 

[kyrie03]

That tribunals do regularly let down deserving cases on procedural grounds is a situation that has been repeatedly recognised and lamented by the Popes and Cardinal Ratzinger since the 1980s.

We need to be very accurate in describing this situation which is incredibly complex.

It is certainly true that significant numbers of remarried Catholics failing to gain a decree of nullity may well be free before God to marry their current civil partner though the Church is as yet unable to objectively validate that prudential pastoral judgement.

Currently only a Tribunal may rectify that objectively (to humans) irregular state of affairs. An accompanying priest cannot make such a pronouncement to set this irregular public state aright. But he may eventually judge such couples access to Communion - sexual relations not withstanding.

That, whether we like it or not, is the current Pope’s clear position.
That doesnt mean any priest has to impliment it.

Do note that Pope JPII was also a liberal on this point in his time. He reversed a long standing tradition/discipline of auto excommunication of such remarried couples. He warmly welcomed them into the Church even if not to Communion. We survived this innovation.

Keep in mind too that even under the “old way” those who live as brother and sister are still in a “public state of sin” … despite being allowed access to Communion their state still continues to be irregular and objectively contradicting Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility of Christian Marriage. That is why they still may not receive Communion publically, but only secretly.

Pope Francis is doing no more than extending the above brother/sister exception (these persons are also in objective public sin yet may go to Communion) to another smaller group of irregulars whom it is prudentially judged should be allowed to Communion because their 2nd marriage would likely collapse if the undesirability of sexual relations was set in opposition to the good of Communion.

You base your opinion about possible freedom to marry and receive Communion without Tribunal annulment on the fact the Church (most recently Pope Francis as he exhorted in AL and those theologians and Bishops who assist him) recognizes incredibly complex situations and isn’t able to act in a timely manner for the one who wishes to partake of sacraments - did I understand you correctly?

You also believe that those who question whether or not the Pope, the bishops and theologians have got it right in AL are setting themselves higher than, standing in judgement of, or being disobedient to lawful authority. (Christ promised, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church/Peter,” and “”Whatever you (Peter) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”) Is that a close enough summary?

Can you recognize that others look to the definition of marriage as Christ Himself stated in Matthew, as reaffirmed by numerous popes and continual practice of Church through the ages, and by JPII in Familiaris Consortio - cannot reconcile the contradictions?
Matthew 29:3-10
And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them:* Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?** And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife,** and they two shall be in one flesh.**
Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

• Except it be: In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living.

Familiaris Consortio
However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon
Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this there is another special pastoral reason: If these people were admitted to the Eucharist the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the convenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.
*
Can you recognize how one could reason that AL is more than just a development of doctrine, it is a contradiction to past Church practices that directly expresses doctrines: indissolubility of marriage and reality of True Presence in Eucharist (not to be profaned by unworthy reception)?

I’m also not the Pope and do not stand in judgement of Him. I just don’t see how BOTH points of view can be correct at the same time. There is only 1 Truth, Who is God.

 

[kyrie03]

Actually, whatever we decide as the correct way to go here also likely holds for a first marriage! If one in conscience grows from the start to believe one’s marriage is not a true marriage for some significant reason then a moral person is obligated to have this situation objectively judged by a tribunal and withdraw from sexual relations if possible.

It is likely that many Catholic wives endure their first marriage anyways out of fear of the consequences for themselves or their children. Over time some do live to see their wayward husbands turn their lives around…a win/win for all involved.
Others who should have left (for the sake of their children if not themselves) may sin only venially for staying out of very understandable weakness.

Life is complex, the Church is there to help discern what God wants for all involved.
There are no easy answers that do not involve attention to one’s conscience over time in equal dialogue with objective processes involving Church officials.

You posted prior that Tribunals could judge a marriage valid when in fact it is null. Do you believe they could err in reverse: declare marriage null when in fact it is valid?

Is it possible that dialogue with Church officials could also lead to erroneous conclusions? I’m NOT suggesting they do, I’m just posing a question for the sake of determining what is true.

I agree that conscience CAN be useful. Do you agree that the conscience does not always judge properly? Out of ignorance or bad reasoning, it can judge wrongly?
Erroneous judgment is often our own fault, and can have many causes (from Catechism, 1791-2):
Lack of care in forming our conscience or our powers of reason
Misunderstanding conscience
Damage caused by repeated and habitual sin
Following the bad example of others
Rejection of Church teaching
Ignorance of Christ and the Gospels
Neglecting the work of our conversion to Christ
Neglect of charity
If our conscience errs and we’re responsible for the error, then we are guilty of the evil committed. We are not guilty for the evil if we’re not responsible for the error.

But even if the guilt is not imputable to us, it’s still an evil act. This greatly hinders our ability to advance in the moral life and live in union with God. As Pope John Paul II puts it:
…[T]he performance of good acts… constitutes the indispensable condition of and path to eternal blessedness…. Only the act in conformity with the good can be a path that leads to life…. If [an act is not good]…, the choice of that action makes our will and ourselves morally evil, thus putting us in conflict with our ultimate end, the supreme good, God himself. (Veritatis Splendor, 72)

 

[KSU]

You base your opinion about possible freedom to marry and receive Communion without Tribunal annulment on the fact the Church (most recently Pope Francis as he exhorted in AL and those theologians and Bishops who assist him) recognizes incredibly complex situations and isn’t able to act in a timely manner for the one who wishes to partake of sacraments - did I understand you correctly?

You also believe that those who question whether or not the Pope, the bishops and theologians have got it right in AL are setting themselves higher than, standing in judgement of, or being disobedient to lawful authority. (Christ promised, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church/Peter,” and “”Whatever you (Peter) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”) Is that a close enough summary?

Can you recognize that others look to the definition of marriage as Christ Himself stated in Matthew, as reaffirmed by numerous popes and continual practice of Church through the ages, and by JPII in Familiaris Consortio - cannot reconcile the contradictions?
Matthew 29:3-10
And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them:* Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female?*** And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife,** and they two shall be in one flesh.**
Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

• Except it be: In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living.

Familiaris Consortio
However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon
Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this there is another special pastoral reason: If these people were admitted to the Eucharist the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the convenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.

Can you recognize how one could reason that AL is more than just a development of doctrine, it is a contradiction to past Church practices that directly expresses doctrines: indissolubility of marriage and reality of True Presence in Eucharist (not to be profaned by unworthy reception)?

I’m also not the Pope and do not stand in judgement of Him. I just don’t see how BOTH points of view can be correct at the same time. There is only 1 Truth, Who is God.

Nice post. Please allow me to make two points which will support your overall point:

First, there is absolutely no official confirmation that Pope Francis “exhorted in AL” any change to Familiaris Consortio or to Canons 915/916 or any other Church teaching. In fact, it is only a minority position that he did–more like a wish based entirely on assumptions and an ambiguous footnote in AL which the Pope told reporters he couldn’t remember.

Second, Christ did not say “except it be for fornication”. He said “except it be for porneia”, meaning illicit or invalid. catholic.com/quickquestions/if-jesus-made-an-exception-for-divorce-in-cases-of-adultery-why-doesnt-the-church The USCCB uses that correct translation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You base your opinion about possible freedom to marry and receive Communion without Tribunal annulment on the fact the Church (most recently Pope Francis as he exhorted in AL and those theologians and Bishops who assist him) recognizes incredibly complex situations and isn’t able to act in a timely manner for the one who wishes to partake of sacraments - did I understand you correctly?

Not really.
The theology and Canon Law behind legitimate pastoral decisions can be incredibly complex. The right and wrong ways forward for particular situations are more easily discerned by experienced pastors.

You also believe that those who question whether or not the Pope, the bishops and theologians have got it right in AL are setting themselves higher than, standing in judgement of, or being disobedient to lawful authority.

Not really.
I am saying it is a discussion/reolution that needs to take place between the competent officials involved. It beyond the competence of 99% of the laity to strongly weigh in, nor should they upset themselves that they do not understand - they do not need to. They need only follow the direction of their local competent official…if indeed they need be strongly involved at all. That is all God expects of the flock.

(Christ promised, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church/Peter,” and “”Whatever you (Peter) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”) Is that a close enough summary?

I don’t see a strong connection with what I have stated.

Can you recognize that others look to the definition of marriage as Christ Himself stated in Matthew, as reaffirmed by numerous popes and continual practice of Church through the ages, and by JPII in Familiaris Consortio - cannot reconcile the contradictions?

I also understand Scripture, for Catholics at least, needs to be interpretted by the living Magisterium. That would seem to indicate Pope Francis is up for that role.
Do you accept the validity of Marriage Tribunals which regularly demonstrate marriages we thought were marriages are not? Jesus is surely happy with the complex principles involved which at first glance appear to contradict Scripture and legalise divorce and remarriage as many of our Protestant Scripture literalists opine to this day.
Difficult isn’t it?
Hence the need for the Magisterium to interpret and clarify even those words of Jesus that seem most clear at first pass.

Obviously, being a human court, there are significant numbers of worthy Tribunal cases that are unable to be declared so for purely technical obstacles.

Can you recognize how one could reason that AL is more than just a development of doctrine, it is a contradiction to past Church practices that directly expresses doctrines: indissolubility of marriage and reality of True Presence in Eucharist (not to be profaned by unworthy reception)?

One can reason anything one is ideologically committed to regardless of the legitimate authority advising otherwise. This attitude, where the individual defines objective reality in isolation from its Leader and allegedly under the personal and direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, is called Protestantism.

I’m also not the Pope and do not stand in judgement of Him.

You may not be doing so for him as a person but you do seem to be doing so wrt his views on Communion and remarriage.

I just don’t see how BOTH points of view can be correct at the same time. There is only 1 Truth, Who is God.

That is clear.
Such confusion needs to be borne patiently cognizant of the fact most of us lay persons are all inexperienced and theologically uneducated lay person and it may be beyond us to ever understand.

God brings us peace, but he never said would get that through understanding and clarity but through faith in a person.

For myself there is little confusion. Only principles are unchanging, their application and practice according to different contexts and times may vary accordingly.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You posted prior that Tribunals could judge a marriage valid when in fact it is null.

I hope i did not. Can you quote where you believe I said that?

Is it possible that dialogue with Church officials could also lead to erroneous conclusions? I’m NOT suggesting they do, I’m just posing a question for the sake of determining what is true.

Tribunals are based on human processes so of course they are fallible.
Unless our consciences strongly prompt otherwise God expects us to obey authority even if fallible.

I agree that conscience CAN be useful. Do you agree that the conscience does not always judge properly? Out of ignorance or bad reasoning, it can judge wrongly?

In personal ethics conscience is not simply useful but essential.
On serious ethical issues we must inform our consciences through wise counsel and follow our conscience should it provide clear direction under pain of grave personal sin…even if it is still objectively mistaken. If we engage in activity that Church authority likely judges to be grave matter we must continuously re-assess our situation with ongoing wise counsel. If our conscience still does not condemn us then the ignorance is not culpable. That ignorance may be vincible and one day the HS will lead this erroneous conscience to objective truth and one’s actions will change. Its a process in such cases and accompanyment with wise counsel is what Pope Francis rightly recommends.

Of course it is possible that the Church authority is the one mistaken or thwarted in such accompanyment processes that seek to learn objective truth. Tribunals may or may not eventually be free to issue a decree of nullity in the case of irregular marriages. There will be some cases where the couple is in fact objectively correct (but the Tribunal is unable to decree such due to recognised technical difficulties). If the accompanying priest eventually comes to understand this Pope Francis has given him authority to allow access to Communion. God be praised.

But even if the guilt is not imputable to us, it’s still an evil act.

You need to be theologically trained to understand the subtleties here.
Strictly speaking it is NOT a personally evil (moral) act but an evil (physical) act…or more simply a disordered action. Grace may therefore abound anyways.

Pope John Paul II puts it:…T]he performance of good acts… constitutes the indispensable condition of and path to eternal blessedness

Same as above.
Be careful not to confuse “good actions” with “good moral acts” and “bad actions” with “evil moral acts”.

Its the same distinction Jesus made between cleaning the outside of cup and plate versus purifying the inside.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

First, there is absolutely no official confirmation that Pope Francis “exhorted in AL” any change to Familiaris Consortio or to Canons 915/916 or any other Church teaching. In fact, it is only a minority position that he did–more like a wish based entirely on assumptions and an ambiguous footnote in AL which the Pope told reporters he couldn’t remember.

There is no need for any sort of additional document from Pope Francis. He is quite able to guide the college through such means as he chooses, which is in fact what is happening…at the level it needs to happen.

ONLY the Magisterium of the Church has the power to interpret, or clarify, the Church’s teaching.

 

[kyrie03]

I also understand Scripture, for Catholics at least, needs to be interpretted by the living Magisterium. That would seem to indicate Pope Francis is up for that role.
.

By living Magisterium, do you mean who is living at current time, or does it include all prior papal teachings and Church doctrines?
If you cannot see the disconnect between past papal teaching and current papal teaching that I attempted to highlight, to each his own, I guess.

 

[kyrie03]

Do you accept the validity of Marriage Tribunals which regularly demonstrate marriages we thought were marriages are not? Jesus is surely happy with the complex principles involved which at first glance appear to contradict Scripture and legalise divorce and remarriage as many of our Protestant Scripture literalists opine to this day.
Difficult isn’t it?
Hence the need for the Magisterium to interpret and clarify even those words of Jesus that seem most clear at first pass.
.

Yes, I accept validity of marriage tribunals……I don’t consider them “infallible” per se……they are a valid recourse and laity should trust their judgements. However, it DOES happen that declarations of marriage tribunals are challenged to a higher authority and overturned….hence, fallible. This is not my argument

Yes, the Magisterium was instituted precisely to interpret, explain, and safeguard the Truths of our Catholic Faith. I have been quoting from past Magisterium and contrasting it to current….both cannot be correct. If you believe current Magisterium can contradict what was clearly taught in the past, or at least develop practices that, if practiced, fail to uphold clearly the established doctrines in the Church, I’m in no position to label you. I’m not quoting Scriptures as protestants and making it conform to my own interpretation. The confusing understanding is originating from AL when read in light of prior teaching

 

[kyrie03]

One can reason anything one is ideologically committed to regardless of the legitimate authority advising otherwise. This attitude, where the individual defines objective reality in isolation from its Leader and allegedly under the personal and direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, is called Protestantism.

The Leader of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. He speaks to us through the Church He established, including Pope Francis……is AL infallible and I need to accept as is, or am I allowed to voice my concern that I find it confusing when compared to past Church teaching?
I’ll ignore the label you insinuated.

 

[KSU]

There is no need for any sort of additional document from Pope Francis. He is quite able to guide the college through such means as he chooses, which is in fact what is happening…at the level it needs to happen.

** I take your technical point, but my point is that nobody with authority to speak for the Mgisterium has yet come out and said that the Pope has changed the Magisterium’s teaching on the subject dogma or its discipline. Absent some official direction from the Pope himself (which he has thus far refused to do), it’s not going to happen. A change of that magnitude requires some sort of clear notice to and for the whole Church–not by means of a private, leaked letter to a few local bishops regarding a draft document which is hardly dispositive of anything to begin with.**

ONLY the Magisterium of the Church has the power to interpret, or clarify, the Church’s teaching.

**You probably meant to say authoritatively interpret or clarify. Otherwise, parents, theologians and other teachers would be denied their lay apostolate. We don’t appear to have a disagreement. **

 

[kyrie03]

I hope i did not. Can you quote where you believe I said that?

Sorry if I put words in your mouth……I must have misunderstood your post #72 to Abyssinia

 

[Blue_Horizon]

By living Magisterium, do you mean who is living at current time, or does it include all prior papal teachings and Church doctrines?
If you cannot see the disconnect between past papal teaching and current papal teaching that I attempted to highlight, to each his own, I guess.

Who is the authority to decide for the Church if there is the objective “disconnect” that you perceive?

Given that this authority is ultimately the current Pope (afterall JPII isnt here to clarify how AL may or may not “disconnect” with, say, FC)
… you are essentially asking readers to decide between your personal view and that of Pope Francis (who clearly believes he is in agreement with the spirit and principles of past Popes and indeed the Deposit of Faith).

That is a “no contest” sorry Kyrie.

In cases of doubt, especially if one is a theologically uneducated lay person, I humbly suggest we go with the Pope rather than “each to his own” which is a more Protestant response.

He may be mistaken in his prudential judgement (as may in turn JPII on this matter) but that is irrelevent - if we are in doubt one will not be faulted by God for following our current Pope.

On the other hand if in sincere conscience you really mean to say that Pope Francis is a material heretic then by all means don’t go to Communion if you are in an irregular marriage situation and dont seek priestly accompanyment.

One in this position of course would have absolutely no right to counsel others that Pope Francis is wrong. It is not our calling as lay persons to engage the Papacy in this manner - that is the role of Pope Francis’s peers such as the Cardinals and leading bishops of the Catholic Church. I am sure they are capable of the job without us less than theologically competent lay people self righteously interfering.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Leader of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. He speaks to us through the Church He established, including Pope Francis……
I’ll ignore the label you insinuated.

I am not being perjorative towards you whatsoever.
If you meant what I understood you to mean then that type of merthodology/thinking would normally be considered a Protestant approach. If the meaning I elucidated is not what you meant then where the insinuated insult?
BTW Protestants go to heaven too do they not .

If you do not understand what it means to say that Pope Francis is the current Leader of the Catholic Church there’s nothing more to say really.

is AL infallible and I need to accept as is, or am I allowed to voice my concern that I find it confusing when compared to past Church teaching?

Its no more infallible than FC.
I would not think questions of infallibility here are helpful.

Its a Pastoral document giving a pastoral direction to local Priests.
If you are in an irregular marriage situation you do not need to take up the pastoral caring opportunities being offered to you.

By the same token Pope Francis is clearly asking Congregations to be tolerant and understanding of those who do - and the PPs who accompany them.
That may well extend, in some cases, to not judging those few who may eventually be permitted to come forward to Communion and who may not be living as brother and sister.

I think it would be fair to say that your posts suggest you have gone beyond the level of simply airing your confusion. You seem to be saying Pope Francis is wrong.
If I am mistaken in this observation please correct me.

 

[kyrie03]

In personal ethics conscience is not simply useful but essential.
On serious ethical issues we must inform our consciences through wise counsel and follow our conscience should it provide clear direction under pain of grave personal sin…even if it is still objectively mistaken. If we engage in activity that Church authority likely judges to be grave matter we must continuously re-assess our situation with ongoing wise counsel. If our conscience still does not condemn us then the ignorance is not culpable. That ignorance may be vincible and one day the HS will lead this erroneous conscience to objective truth and one’s actions will change. Its a process in such cases and accompanyment with wise counsel is what Pope Francis rightly recommends.

Agree we must inform conscience according to Church teaching. And when we sin, our mind is darkened and we are not as able to objectively see the truth. (See what CCC lists as barriers to forming right conscience).
Whether or not someone is invincibly ignorant can be best determined with a good confessor, or perhaps, only by God. I am NOT judging the guilt. I am only reiterating what the Church has taught and why.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I take your technical point, but my point is that nobody with authority to speak for the Mgisterium has yet come out and said that the Pope has changed the Magisterium’s teaching on the subject dogma or its discipline. Absent some official direction from the Pope himself (which he has thus far refused to do), it’s not going to happen. A change of that magnitude requires some sort of clear notice to and for the whole Church–not by means of a private, leaked letter to a few local bishops regarding a draft document which is hardly dispositive of anything to begin with.

The draft document, when and as it will be promulgated, will be dispositive for the Particular Churches entrusted to those Bishops. And, I am sure, supplemented by verbal guidance or confidential communication from the respective diocesan bishop to his presbyterate. All that is beyond the canonical competence of ANY lay person. The bishop may decide not even to engage the deacons of the diocese in his expositions and delineations…which is absolutely his prerogative.

You keep returning to points that are simply valueless.

There is no need for any further public statement or declaration whatsoever by the Vicar of Christ. Official direction comes from the Pope by many means, which hardly need involve advising the lay faithful…in any way, shape, or form. The lay faithful are to comply with the directive of the hierarchy just as the presbyterate is to carry out what the bishop directs; those at these respective level (the presbyterate and laity) are not implicated in the implementation of such directives as they are brought into existence…

Over the decades, I have been in receipt of many letters, often transmitted for convenience through the nuncio to the Conferences of Bishops around the world (including my own) with official directives from the Holy Father or from one of the dicasteries. You seem to have no familiarity with how things are actually transmitted.

The laity are not informed in these many instances because the laity, frankly, are not implicated in any meaningful way. Period.

There is often no need to advise the laity of the Church of any change in pastoral practices…and certainly not that are extremely narrow in their application. Anymore than they are in need of advisement on issues related to, for example, certain cases involving the internal forum, which guidance comes to us from the Holy See, or on specific procedures related to recourse in an appeal process engaging the tribunals, similarly communicated to us by the Holy See…to use but two of what could be many examples.

That you think something or everything should be communicated in very public ways is perfectly meaningless. And perfectly purposeless.

Communications also come, from the diocesan bishop but above all from the Holy See, under varying categories of confidentiality.

Ultimately when it concerns matters that are the prerogative of the Pope alone or of the Bishops (or some number of them) with the Pope or to the extent it devolves to them, the Bishops alone, that is the locus of activity. Not with the lay faithful. Not in the media. Not in public. That point should be, by this point, crystal clear.

When you make a statement “A change of that magnitude requires some sort of clear notice” you demonstrate thereby that you do not know of what you speak. The statement is an error in fact, from the perspective of theology and ecclesiology.

You may wish that it were otherwise but the wishing does not oblige the Successors of the Apostles to act in any way other than the way in which they, in fact, freely and deliberately act.

You probably meant to say authoritatively interpret or clarify. Otherwise, parents, theologians and other teachers would be denied their lay apostolate. We don’t appear to have a disagreement.

No. You are wrong in what you suppose I meant to say. I said exactly what I wrote, in the formulation I wrote it, for specific theological reason.

A parent, a theologian, a teacher or anyone engaged in a lay apostolate transmits the teaching of the Magisterium. Interprets is a technical term and it does not apply in the categories you cite.

Even those of us who hold a mandate as theologian are, by that vocation, at the service of the Magisterium. We do not interpret the Magisterium. We explicate what the Magisterium articulates.

In the service of our respective bishop as his theological advisor or as periti to a gathering of bishops, we will offer our advice and our counsel that derives from our lifetime of study and research in so far as we are asked or consulted. The bishops, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, may accept, amend, or reject that which we have offered…for they alone…the Successors of the Apostles…either the successor of Peter acting alone or the college acting with and under Peter’s Successor…are the guardians of the Sacred Deposit of the Faith and the ones who also govern its applications.

To interpret, as to define, has a specific and technical definition in theology related to the Magisterium. You manifest by your statement a lack of acquaintance with the terminology which therefore makes me arrive at the conclusion, after reading so many posts, that the attempt of explaining this topic yet one more time would be truly a fruitless effort.

As for the pastoral accompaniment that is being discussed, let us be crystal clear. A lay person may say something is “not going to happen”…they may say that the action requires some “official declaration” according to some manifestation that they conjure in their own mind…they may think other avenues of proceeding wrong…but such musings do not impede the process that is proceeding apace, even as I type this post.

 

[kyrie03]

I am not being perjorative towards you whatsoever.
If you meant what I understood you to mean then that type of merthodology/thinking would normally be considered a Protestant approach. If the meaning I elucidated is not what you meant then where the insinuated insult?
BTW Protestants go to heaven too do they not .

If you do not understand what it means to say that Pope Francis is the current Leader of the Catholic Church there’s nothing more to say really.

Its no more infallible than FC.
I would not think questions of infallibility here are helpful.

Its a Pastoral document giving a pastoral direction to local Priests.
If you are in an irregular marriage situation you do not need to take up the pastoral caring opportunities being offered to you.

By the same token Pope Francis is clearly asking Congregations to be tolerant and understanding of those who do - and the PPs who accompany them.
That may well extend, in some cases, to not judging those few who may eventually be permitted to come forward to Communion and who may not be living as brother and sister.

I think it would be fair to say that your posts suggest you have gone beyond the level of simply airing your confusion. You seem to be saying Pope Francis is wrong.
If I am mistaken in this observation please correct me.

If both FC and AL are equal, how does one determine which should be lived and taught to the next generation? They are in CONTRADICTION. Truth cannot mean 2 different things at the same time.

How does posting what the Church used to teach and expressing interest in exploring what is the “spirit” of the law judge a particular pontiff?