Pope endorses Argentine bishops' document on Amoris Laetitia

[_Abyssinia]

In certain cases.

And some innocent spouses endure their spouses practice of non-abortive contraception - in good conscience (in the way directed by the Church).

(the church issued a document actually for confessors guiding them in their counsel and direction on this matter -perhaps something similar will come forth regarding the present discussion).

What non-abortive contraception is there?

I am not a medical professional but I doubt it can be known absolutely definitively that any contraception can not act in an abortive manner.

I don’t see a comparison between the scenario of a spouse using contraception, which the other spouse may disagree with but has no direct control over (and surely this alone wouldn’t impair the spouse not using contraception to receive Communion) what that spouse chooses to take, compared to a couple choosing to have sexual relations despite not having a declaration of nullity?

 

[Jon_S_1]

What non-abortive contraception is there?

I am not a medical professional but I doubt it can be known absolutely definitively that any contraception can not act in an abortive manner.

Condoms
Completing the marital act outside the woman

Probably some others too.

 

[TCEL]

Thanks everyone for humoring me. I’m not trying to stir the pot. I know many of my questions tend to seem irrelevant to the issue at hand, but they help me.

 

[Bookcat]

Let us all remember that the private letter of the Pope is what it is and not what it is not.

We have to in a real sense wait for more down the pike…

 

[KSU]

Thanks everyone for humoring me. I’m not trying to stir the pot. I know many of my questions tend to seem irrelevant to the issue at hand, but they help me.

You are not alone. For example, catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11324

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR REMINDER

No matter how tempting it is especially as an anonyous poster on the Internet, do not pass judgement on others. You do not have the authority to do that; when you do and if it comes to the moderating staff’s attention you will receive a warning, infraction or suspention

No derogatory statements about Catholic clergy

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, thank you.

Doesn’t it seem one thing to lift an excommunication, and another to allow for Communion? But perhaps not. My understanding of excommunication is that it places someone outside of reception of the sacraments.

Some would say “if something was so bad that it incurred a public excommunication how can it suddenly become acceptable and not incurr excommunication.”

Fact is JPII made remarried Catholics acceptable whereas before they were outcasts.
They are now no longer judged as a group destined for hell and living outside of sanctifying grace. Some may be, but the public presumption is now otherwise.

I believe the point is that much of Church “teaching” is not in fact set in eternal concrete but has been “poured” for a certain context and a certain time. If that context changes the next “pouring” of concrete may well be very different. New wine and new wineskins.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That is an excellent illustration of how Protestantism works. Everything is simply “a matter of prudent decisions by Church authority - and may change as times and the maturity of congregations on certain issues advances.”

Instead of saying everything is Protestantism and walking away … how about offering a well argued position on why you believe this particular Communion issue must be a theological article of faith rather than a longstanding discipline that may therefore be applied differently for very particular persons caught up in very particular circumstances?

We rightly teach abortion is always and everywhere wrong … yet we also recognise that not all interventive medical destruction of innocent embryos is legitimately called “abortion.”

The same with the remarried. In general we might say such is what Jesus meant by adultery. But not always. There are very particular circumstances where we might prudently and correctly judge that a 2nd marriage and the sexual relationship consequent may not legitimately be called that sorty of adultery…if in fact it is even rightly called adultery at all.

There is always a place for prudential judgements when we apply unchanging moral definitions to very complex human situations.

That is not Protestantism - it is simply Applied Catholic Moral Theology.

 

[ToTheWest]

As a Protestant revert to Catholicism I find all of this quite troubling.

I left Protestantism because of its epistemological incoherence and I was quite confident that I had found the one true Church founded by Jesus. One of my major hurdles in returning to the Church was the Papacy.

Sorry if this is derailing the thread, but when Christ says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, what do others take it to mean?

In that passage after becoming Catholic and hearing/reading Catholic commentators I took it to mean that the Pope would not be allowed to teach error, and more specifically in the form of an ex cathedra statement. Is this how others understand it or is my understanding a bit too limited?

Are we to understand “not prevail” as not ‘ultimately prevail’, but that the gates of hell may, in fact, swirl all around us and even move in and amongst the Church possibly to the point that it looks as though they may prevail but never actually finally prevail?

Sorry, but this whole saga has been a cause of great concern for me, though I will admit I am naturally prone to doubt.

Hello, Persecuted.

I understand where you are coming from. As a recent revert from Protestantism myself, I have had to do a lot of grappling with things after some of Pope Francis’ more controversial statements, the recent synods on the family, the issuance of Amoris Laetitia, and now this letter to the Argentine Bishops. However, I think amidst it all, I have gained a much better understanding of how the Church really works, and identified some deficiencies in my thinking that I have had to make some adjustments to.

As background, I decided to revert from Protestantism in 2012, having gained a great respect for Pope Benedict (after many years of wrestling with Catholicism). Benedict seemed clear, careful and reserved about most everything he said. Under his leadership, it was easy to feel like everything was safe and stable.

Then just before the Easter Vigil in 2013 (when I was scheduled to be confirmed), Benedict announced he was stepping down. It was almost as if the Lord was saying, “Don’t just revert because you trust Pope Benedict. Do you trust me?”

Pope Francis obviously has a very different style than Pope Benedict. He uses a lot of hyperbole, tends to shoot from the hip a lot more, doesn’t dot every i and cross every t, and seems willing to talk about just about anything with anyone. He is not looking to make things stable and comfortable, but rather to shake things up and make things uncomfortable. Whether this is good or bad, who knows just yet. But needless to say, that style was somewhat unnerving to me.

Looking back, my suspicion is that a lot of the pro-Catholic apologists I read prior to reverting had a tendency to be a bit overly idealistic in their portrayal of the papacy and the Church’s teaching on infallibility. Church history, on the other hand, seems to show things with popes being a lot more messy than I was led to believe. There have been plenty of occasions when things that popes were saying or doing had Catholics scratching their heads and wondering if God was really still with the vicar of Christ (and per the episode cited in Galatians, I wonder if St. Paul may have even asked at times if St. Peter himself had lost it). Yet the Church moved forward, and those situations were only really understood well in hindsight.

I guess my point is that I don’t know what the final resolution will be on all these questions, or how the Church will look back at Pope Francis’ papacy. However, I do think that the kind of messiness, controversy and lack of clarity we are dealing with right now is probably more par for the course than a lot of us have been led to believe. And accordingly, I would try not to let it get you too worried about the Church’s teaching on infallibility or whether God is still protecting the papal office from error. Things will go forward and the Church will only really understand it all in hindsight. And in many ways, that mirrors the way I have learned to deal with the trials and tribulations God has brought me through in my own life - they can unnerve me in the midst of them and make me question God, but they make a lot more sense in hindsight.

Admittedly, this may not be a great source of comfort to you or answer all your questions, but I just wanted to let you know how I have come to understand things. And know that I am right here with you in it all asking the sames kinds of questions.

I will pray a Hail Mary for you, my friend. God bless!

 

[pnewton]

That is not Protestantism - it is simply Applied Catholic Moral Theology.

It is also how the Church has always worked. The authority in protestants, generally speaking, resides in the individual. He has the authority to understand the Bible. There is usually a temporal authority in the pastor, but none of the laity are bound to him and can simply switch to a different church more in line with himself. He (the individual) is the judge.

Catholicism, while recognizing the supremacy of conscience, still maintains an authority structure of bishops operating as the regional authority under the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Considering this, the one who is submitting to the authority of the bishops is more in line with Catholicism, and the one is is “leaning unto his own understanding” is more in line with Protestantism.

 

[KSU]

Instead of saying everything is Protestantism and walking away …**Friend, if you want to debate, please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that everything you said is Protestantism. I said Protestantism is saying that everything is simply “a matter of prudent decisions by Church authority - and may change as times and the maturity of congregations on certain issues advances.” That quote of yours, and only that quote, is what I referred to. In fact, a group of prelates at the Synod leading up to AL took my position after it appeared that they were being asked by others to vote like Protestants on what is NOW to be considered doctrine concerning irregular marriage, adultery and Communion. **

how about offering a well argued position on why you believe this particular Communion issue must be a theological article of faith rather than a longstanding discipline that may therefore be applied differently for very particular persons caught up in very particular circumstances?** I have tried here and in various similar threads for over a year to pin down examples of what you mean, but posters who take your position never agree to my requests. So, the ball is still in your court. I refuse to waste more time guessing at exactly what you mean. In any case, you are the one saying that Christ’s own words and the resulting, abundantly clear Catholic dogma no longer mean what it has meant since He spoke those words.You are the proponent of change here and thus the person on whom falls the burden of offering a theologically sound, well argued position on why you believe there has been a development in the relevant Church teaching. **

We rightly teach abortion is always and everywhere wrong … yet we also recognise that not all interventive medical destruction of innocent embryos is legitimately called “abortion.”**Why can’t you then, in the same manner, offer an example of what I have been requesting concerning the matters at issue here? **

The same with the remarried. In general we might say such is what Jesus meant by adultery. But not always.**Yes, my friend, always–unless you can define exactly who and what are these mysterious “very particular persons caught up in very particular circumstances” ** There are very particular circumstances where we might prudently and correctly judge that a 2nd marriage and the sexual relationship consequent may not legitimately be called that sorty of adultery…if in fact it is even rightly called adultery at all.You are at it again.

There is always a place for prudential judgements when we apply unchanging moral definitions to very complex human situations.And exactly what is that place in the context of this thread?

That is not Protestantism - it is simply Applied Catholic Moral Theology. That depends of course on what exact situation you have in mind.

 

[deaconjohnO]

AL is possibly also written by a Saint.

What though is your point?

Let me ask you this. What does FC say regarding irregular unions?

 

[deaconjohnO]

Deacon John, while I absolutely share your viewpoint on this issue and on the verity of the teachings in Familiaris Consortio, “X is written by a Saint” is not a guarantee of inerrancy. (For example, Saint Gregory of Nyssa was a Universalist and believed that Mary experienced doubt at the moment of the crucifixion.) (

Wondering if Gregory of Nyssa had a coat of arms…if so I’m wondering if he had a set of keys in his coat of arms.

 

[KSU]

September 15, 2016

The Catholic bishops of Alberta and the Northwest Territories in Canada have issued new guidelines for priests regarding the pastoral care of divorced and remarried Catholics, saying that those who wish to receive Communion should resolve to live as brothers and sisters.

Acknowledging confusion among Catholics about the possibility of a change in Church teaching, the Canadian bishops’ statement reads:

It may happen that, through media, friends, or family, couples have been led to understand that there has been a change in practice by the Church, such that now the reception of Holy Communion at Mass by persons who are divorced and civilly remarried is possible if they simply have a conversation with a priest. This view is erroneous.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29357

 

[Don_Ruggero]

September 15, 2016

The Catholic bishops of Alberta and the Northwest Territories in Canada have issued new guidelines for priests regarding the pastoral care of divorced and remarried Catholics, saying that those who wish to receive Communion should resolve to live as brothers and sisters.

Acknowledging confusion among Catholics about the possibility of a change in Church teaching, the Canadian bishops’ statement reads:

It may happen that, through media, friends, or family, couples have been led to understand that there has been a change in practice by the Church, such that now the reception of Holy Communion at Mass by persons who are divorced and civilly remarried is possible if they simply have a conversation with a priest. This view is erroneous.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29357

If anyone believes “simply hav[ing] a conversation with a priest” is a path forward in restoration to approaching the sacraments, indeed their view is erroneous…and these Canadian bishops are assuredly quite correct.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Wondering if Gregory of Nyssa had a coat of arms…if so I’m wondering if he had a set of keys in his coat of arms.

Well, Deacon, none of the successors of the apostles, including Gregory, had coats of arms in the fourth century.

He is, however, one of the Cappadocian Fathers…which places him in an extremely rarefied place, theologically and ecclesiologically.

 

[KSU]

If anyone believes “simply hav[ing] a conversation with a priest” is a path forward in restoration to approaching the sacraments, indeed their view is erroneous…and these Canadian bishops are assuredly quite correct.

Yes. A “simple conversation with a priest” refers only to what the couple in an irregular marriage may have gathered (erroneously) was all there was to it.

Here is the Bishops’ full teaching. It leaves no doubt that prolonged in-depth discussions with their pastor concerning the complete scope of Church teaching is what is strongly recommended to bring the couple into acceptance of and compliance with that teaching, i.e., obtaining a decree of first-marriage nullity if possible, or, failing that, living as brother and sister.

caedm.ca/Portals/0/documents/family_life/2016-09-14_PastoralAccompanimenttoDivorcedandRemarried.pdf

 

[Blue_Horizon]

KSU:
KSU would you mind quoting people in the customary manner on CAF.
The above is empty because you put your comments in my text box.
Yes you bolded but that really isnt thathelpful.

I dont know what your difficulty is with my questions to you.
Your inability to understand my references to the examples clearly in AL and the Argentinian Bishop’s document suggests a difficulty more affective than intellective.
You also seem to want me to understand you more fully by reading your threads over the last 12 months elsewhere .

If you “refuse to waste time guessing at what I mean” then just let it go. I suggest other open people here will readily understand; and if they did not and cared to discuss with me in an open manner I am sure they would be polite enough to have a go at stating what they think I said and taking it from there.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is also how the Church has always worked. The authority in protestants, generally speaking, resides in the individual. He has the authority to understand the Bible. There is usually a temporal authority in the pastor, but none of the laity are bound to him and can simply switch to a different church more in line with himself. He (the individual) is the judge.

Catholicism, while recognizing the supremacy of conscience, still maintains an authority structure of bishops operating as the regional authority under the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Considering this, the one who is submitting to the authority of the bishops is more in line with Catholicism, and the one is is “leaning unto his own understanding” is more in line with Protestantism.

These are interesting angles I haven’t thought deeply about thanks.

 

[KSU]

KSU would you mind quoting people in the customary manner on CAF.
The above is empty because you put your comments in my text box.
Yes you bolded but that really isnt thathelpful.

I dont know what your difficulty is with my questions to you.
Your inability to understand my references to the examples clearly in AL and the Argentinian Bishop’s document suggests a difficulty more affective than intellective.
You also seem to want me to understand you more fully by reading your threads over the last 12 months elsewhere .

If you “refuse to waste time guessing at what I mean” then just let it go. I suggest other open people here will readily understand; and if they did not and cared to discuss with me in an open manner I am sure they would be polite enough to have a go at stating what they think I said and taking it from there.

I agree; let’s just let it go, as you recommend.