Pope endorses Argentine bishops' document on Amoris Laetitia

[Blue_Horizon]

The point I was trying to make is not concerned so much with history but the fact that the sin of adultery concerns having sexual relations with the wife or husband of somebody else and just as having sexual relations can be repeated so adultery can be repeated. It’s a bad human act as opposed to a virtuous one. It would only be a one time event if one only committed it once, i.e., had intercourse one time with somebody else’s wife or husband.

Richca I believe you are missing Brendan’s point.
Also, your moral theology of virtue and vice presented here is flawed.

Sexual relations amongst the irregularly married cannot rightly be called “a bad human act” or a vice without more information as to personal understanding and consent.

In Catholioc moral theology a full “human act” (whether good or bad) implies full consent and avertance (culpability if you will) and this is the very factor in question in this discussion.

What I think you really mean is that their actions are objectively disordered - which is certainly true. But then one doesn’t have to assume sexual relations to observe another equally grave disorder. Simply confecting a 2nd civil marriage is the prior single act that puts them into this permanent grave state of disorder regardless of whether they are sexually active or not. This disorder will continue until they are civilly divorced or possibly permanently separate.

This is the “state and condition” that JPII refers into in FamCons. Barring from Communion is mostly to do with this - not the sexual relationship you over emphasise.

This is what JohnS is averting us to re Church History and I believe he is absolutely spot on.

It is only us post Trent Catholic laity who are so hung up about ongoing sexual adultery amongst the remarried that bars them from being admitted to public Communion.
This is not really the primary reason at all methinks.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Are you suggesting that every annulment ruling is an infallible Papal Magisterial decree?

How did you come up with that conclusion?

In a fallible world where judgments are prudential there is always some wiggle room for error, mistakes, confusion and disagreements even between saints as to the best way to proceed or understand complex situations.

God does not expect us to have personal nervous breakdowns and remain frozen in the headlights of our difficult ongoing situations trying to work out the absolute truth.

In cases of doubt/confusion we only need follow our local Catholic officials who are in Communion with Peter whether what they say may be correct or not correct.
God does not punish us for following the leaders he gave us.

Of course if one’s own conscience is very clear on such matters by all means follow that so far as current Papal guidelines allow.

If one is opposed in conscience to the new pastoral opportunities Pope Francis is providing one is not obliged to access them- but lets not put down those who do.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Thank you for that link. It and the links therein capture very well all the various misunderstandings and faulty theology surrounding this issue. It should be required reading for any poster in this thread. Not that it will change many minds, but it will clarify positions of the two camps, help posters to better state their case and judge the veracity of the arguments presented.

The link also finally brings up the truth that, first, this issue is driven not only by straights, but by gays as well; and, second, regardless of whether or not the Magisterium clarifies the issue, the religious right will practice the traditional form of accompaniment and discernment while the religious left will practice the new form a bit more openly.

I fear that Catholicism might for a time become unofficially like the Jewish Faith with Orthodox, Reform and Conservative branches because that would be more than OK for some and of little concern for many pretend Catholics. But of course we must believe that, through the Holy Spirit, either or both the Magisterium and the Sensus Fidelium will act to bring about unity–the first steps are already underway.

The older I get the clearer become the reasons for Christs “hard sayings.” He knew of course that we would need His commands to keep us out of these man-made messes.

Sex and lack of faith are powerful weapons Satan uses to progressively cloud reason and erode the Faith of young people, and then entrap them in irregular marriages and otherwise… Even Our Lady tells us that sins of the flesh are the number one cause of lost souls.

I am sure those opposed to the new fangled marriage Tribunals which legalise Catholic Divorce feared the sky would fall down also.

Did it?

 

[pnewton]

I fear that Catholicism might for a time become unofficially like the Jewish Faith with Orthodox, Reform and Conservative branches because that would be more than OK for some and of little concern for many pretend Catholics.

If by “unofficial” you mean unlabeled, then yes, but it is much more, with millions of shades of opinions, sin, weakness, faithfulness, etc. Orthodox Catholicism allows, even demands charity, for areas in which we can differ.

It seems thought when we try to label and categorize people in groups, we always have a tendency to put ourselves in the best, most elite group (as in, the “remnant”). Such labeling is only a pretense to insult others who differ from us, yet who are faithful and orthodox. You could also use the older Jewish example of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I was thinking of my first reading of Amoris Laetitia, and the one thing that struck me, and keeps getting missed, is the Holy Father wanted for people to be treated as individuals and not categories. Most of the discussion here is exactly the type of thinking that the Holy Father wants his priests to avoid.

You are quite correct. And the pastoral accompaniment of the individuals is entrusted to those with cura ainimarum. The only real response by anyone who does not have cura animarum is to refer the person in pastoral need to one with cura animarum.

What I do not get is why anyone would spend time sweating what some priest and some penitent in another country will be doing. I am reminded at times like this of John 21, where Peter, after having a heart felt talk with Jesus about his own future, looks over at John ans starts asking about John’s future. Jesus’ answer must resonate with us if we start to allow His work of mercy with another to cause us consternation: “What is that to you?”

An encounter, moreover, which no lay person has any influence over at all. My priestly ministry is lived under my bishop, fraternally with my brother priests of my presbyterate, and informed by my life and vocation as a theologian.

 

[KSU]

I am sure those opposed to the new fangled marriage Tribunals which legalise Catholic Divorce feared the sky would fall down also.

Did it?

Those of us old fogies who fail to see the benefit of throwing gas (i.e.,the fifty percent shortened annulment Tribunal procedure which can’t but tend to hurry our already over-burned bishops into less juridical/less informed annulment decisions) on the fire (i.e., the already largely suspect, almost guarantied grant of annulments).

We do not expect the sky to fall, we expect more suspect annulments because bishops now have less certainty of the facts resulting from the fifty percent less-reviewed information with which they are presented. So, my young whipper snapper friend, we old timers have yet to be proven wrong about Mitis ludex Dominus Iesus.

Now, thank you for bringing it up. By issuing Amoris Laetitia, you say Pope Francis wants, through the internal forum, to turn priests into de facto finders of secrete exceptions to Christ’s black and white teaching on adultery so they can become grantors of annulment-like decisions for purposes of receiving Communion.

If you are correct, Mitis ludex Dominus Iesus and Amoris Laetitia should have been combined into one neat new praxis for allowing folks to receive Communion.

And did you note how the Pope made Mitis ludex Dominus Iesus crystal clear as to his intent? No ambiguity, no confused theologians, clergy or laity as to his intended result. Why didn’t the Pope want to tell the Catholic universe what his intended result was from Amoris Laetitia? If you are correct, why didn’t the Pope want to say it? He refused to tell reporters more than once what he wanted to accomplish, and said he couldn’t even remember the all-important–to your theory-- footnote 351.

I’m with those who believe that the Pope knew what he wanted as a result of AL, but that he wanted the clergy to figure it out and do their own thing in their own locals, which you may agree with if I read your posts correctly.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Those of us old fogies who fail to see the benefit of throwing gas (i.e.,the fifty percent shortened annulment Tribunal procedure which can’t but tend to hurry our already over-burned bishops into less juridical/less informed annulment decisions) on the fire (i.e., the already largely suspect, almost guarantied grant of annulments).

We do not expect the sky to fall, we expect more suspect annulments because bishops now have less certainty of the facts resulting from the fifty percent less-reviewed information with which they are presented. So, my young whipper snapper friend, we old timers have yet to be proven wrong about Mitis ludex Dominus Iesus.

Am I to understand that you think the diocesan bishop is the recipient and the judge of the petitions for declaration of nullity?

 

[pnewton]

An encounter, moreover, which no lay person has any influence over at all. My priestly ministry is lived under my bishop, fraternally with my brother priests of my presbyterate, and informed by my life and vocation as a theologian.

As I read the document, I noted that Pope Francis seemed to have great confidence in the clergy of the Church to fulfill their ministerial and pastoral function. I mentioned previously the resource of “the great body of reflection”, but you point out the tremendous resource priest have in each other. If this were any other body of learned professionals engaging in some difficult endeavor, who among the ignorant would attempt to second guess their ability to accomplish a task where the boss had such total confidence in them.

Imagine a group of engineers, for example, tasked with building something new. The president of the firm believes them totally capable of the task give the abundance of knowledge and resources at their disposal. What painter, or janitor, would take the time to argue that they would be incompetent in the task?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

We do not expect the sky to fall, we expect more suspect annulments because bishops now have less certainty of the facts resulting from the fifty percent less-reviewed information with which they are presented. So, my young whipper snapper friend, we old timers have yet to be proven wrong about Mitis ludex Dominus Iesus.

Well KSU I am not sure you are old enough to be this “whipper snapper’s” dad but I appreciate the compliment all the same thanks .

I’m basically a glass half-full person who sees any goodness in a world weakened by Original Sin as a cause of joy and leave the mistakes, errors, immaturities and veniality of both petitioners and judges to be rightly judged at death. I don’t expect institutions to be perfect and not abused by clever individuals because that level pof perfection is impossible in this life. It does not keep me awake at night because I am not trying to control the world but mostly only myself - and I don’t do the best of jobs even there some of the time. The rest I leave to God to advance and those who actual temporal responsibility it is to do so.
Anything more is just unhelpful chicken-lichen stuff and likely of the devil.

Now, thank you for bringing it up. By issuing Amoris Laetitia, you say Pope Francis wants, through the internal forum, to turn priests into de facto finders of secrete exceptions to Christ’s black and white teaching on adultery so they can become grantors of annulment-like decisions for purposes of receiving Communion.

No, I don’t think I am wholly committed to that as explanation.
Jesus’s teaching is surely not black and white here for if it was we wouldn’t have Tribunals but be back in the good old Early Church days where one grave public sin ruined your Baptismal Innocence and you got the boot with no come back. And again, if it were bvlack and white we wouldn’t have the clear cultural evolution/adaption of Jesus’s alleged unchanging words on this topic in each of the Gospels…not the differing interpretations and practises re remarriage in the different Christian denominations all of which allegedly should not be confused or differ over these “black and white words” of Jesus on this topic.

Why didn’t the Pope want to tell the Catholic universe what his intended result was from Amoris Laetitia? If you are correct, why didn’t the Pope want to say it? He refused to tell reporters more than once what he wanted to accomplish, and said he couldn’t even remember the all-important–to your theory-- footnote 351.

If Jesus didn’t want to overly traumatise those outside his inner circle and so spoke in parables to allow time for assimilation rather than confrontation then why cannot Pope Francis not do the same?

*“With many such parables Jesus spoke the word to them, to the extent that they could understand. He did not say anything to them without a parable. But privately He explained all things to His own disciples.”

And He told them, “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside, everything is expressed in parables, so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.*

I’m with those who believe that the Pope knew what he wanted as a result of AL, but that he wanted the clergy to figure it out and do their own thing in their own locals, which you may agree with if I read your posts correctly.

Of course he knew what he wanted. He also knows that many true blue Catholics aren’t quite ready for it so he seems to speaks in riddles so far as they are concerned.
But those destined for eternal life will get the hidden meaning immediately…others not so soon.
I would not say this means he intends that understanding priests are being given open slather to do anything they like. But of course some will as Original Sin ensures there is always some abuse in any organisation.
Abuse in the breach is surely, alone, not sufficient reason for denying the principle behind such initiatives…

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As I read the document, I noted that Pope Francis seemed to have great confidence in the clergy of the Church to fulfill their ministerial and pastoral function. I mentioned previously the resource of “the great body of reflection”, but you point out the tremendous resource priest have in each other. If this were any other body of learned professionals engaging in some difficult endeavor, who among the ignorant would attempt to second guess their ability to accomplish a task where the boss had such total confidence in them.

Imagine a group of engineers, for example, tasked with building something new. The president of the firm believes them totally capable of the task give the abundance of knowledge and resources at their disposal. What painter, or janitor, would take the time to argue that they would be incompetent in the task?

:yup: In point of fact, I quite agree with you. It can be rather remarkable to watch, I will admit.

I can understand, to a certain limited degree, that people could have concerns…because of what they, for the most part of the group, actually don’t begin to know or comprehend. Every theologian grasps that phenomenon who has taught in the first cycle.

But, honestly there is a point where the reaction only causes wonderment. It reminds me of the Lord in the Gospel when the Twelve awaken Him in panic. “Do you not care that we are all about to drown!” And He calms the sea and asks them why they were panic-stricken. They were never in the slightest danger of any harm whatsoever.

Without being unkind, I can count on two hands the number of laity who have actually articulated an issue or concern in a way that was engaging to one who has taught the range of courses preparing one for priesthood, been a diocesan official who rotated through the different offices across the years, served in the academy, received appointments outside the diocese, and also held across the years the cura animarum.

On the other hand, when we are in meetings or even in small group conversations or the bishop brings us in to share with us a communique he has received or we hold a convocation on the formulation of guidelines, there is actually such tranquility. It is all remarkably calm and placid.

Of course, the heaviest burden will fall on those who had been sent by the diocese for advanced degrees and specialisations beyond what a priest would have for ordination and, of them, those with length of ordination, years of accumulated pastoral work, and broadest experience through the assignments held…since we are drawing upon depth in canon law, theology, as well as lived experience. None of which is unfamiliar territory to the senior most priests. In fact, it is a snapshot as to why priests are assigned as they are…so they have the education and practical experience to draw upon if they are going to have to step into a position of special trust for their bishop and their brothers.

It is an interesting reflection about secular professions in lay life you evoke.

Of course, the *fraternitas *that is experienced among those raised to the Order of Presbyter transcends the sense of camaraderie or professional rapport physicians, lawyers, or engineers experience.

Ours derives from the ontological character imparted and received sacramentally through the laying on of hands and the prayer of consecration. Thus we became not only a priest but, thereby, a co-worker with the Order of Bishops. Indeed we form a stable college around the cathedra of the diocese and he who occupies it. At a point in life one will have seen several occupants of the cathedra come and go.

Indeed, by the sacramental effects through which we act in persona Christi Capitis, singularly or collectively, we have a relationship to each other that transcends that of any other human relationship. Plus, I am wed to my Particular Church, by the bond of incardination. No professional association and no professional commitment could begin to match that. It is not a metaphor. It is a lived and profound reality.

That experience, and the assignments I received over the decades, allowed me to glimpse the bond that exists among those who have the fullness of the Sacrament of Holy Order and who occupy a place in the College of Bishops. It is they who are the Successors of the Apostles. It is they who are the guardians of the sacred deposit of the faith. The Church’s Magisterium. The College has never been, since the age of the Apostles, so well constituted as it is today.

Yes, the Pope has a very fatherly regard for his sons, the priests and certainly for his brothers, the bishops.

He is in every way a remarkable man, personally and in all of his qualities, and I have complete confidence in him. I could not possibly have less qualm. This is not the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo, after all. When you’ve taught Trinity and Christology and taught the history of the first four centuries, that puts the present moment in its very proper and slight perspective.

 

[rcwitness]

How did you come up with that conclusion?

So I asked, “Are you suggesting that every annulment ruling is an infallible Papal Magisterial decree?”

You said:

The difference is that if Peter approves, regardless of the failings allegedly involved, it is a publicly acceptable 2nd marriage to Jesus.

How do you know Peter approves? You seem to be implying there is an “Extraordinary Magisterial” pronouncement made.

In a fallible world where judgments are prudential there is always some wiggle room for error, mistakes, confusion and disagreements even between saints as to the best way to proceed or understand complex situations.

So is the annulment process fallible then? And what does that mean? That people can be given wrong judgments?

God does not expect us to have personal nervous breakdowns and remain frozen in the headlights of our difficult ongoing situations trying to work out the absolute truth.

Right. But we have consequences for our actions. If we recklessly jump into a marriage without intending to embrace the actual vows we make, are we just victims of circumstance and somehow the rules don’t apply?
Can we just say, “Oh it was a big mistake. I didn’t really mean it.” And then the Church say, “Oh, it’s ok… Jesus said if you didn’t really mean it, then it’s “porneia” and the marriage never happened.” ???

In cases of doubt/confusion we only need follow our local Catholic officials who are in Communion with Peter whether what they say may be correct or not correct.
God does not punish us for following the leaders he gave us.

I’m not following why you imply I think there is a punishment for following Catholic officials.

Of course if one’s own conscience is very clear on such matters by all means follow that so far as current Papal guidelines allow.

If one is opposed in conscience to the new pastoral opportunities Pope Francis is providing one is not obliged to access them- but lets not put down those who do.

Following our conscience is not a suggestion or just an option sometimes, but our duty always. The reason there are so many annulment in the first place is a lack of clear conscience and following Catholic Teaching.

 

[rcwitness]

And I’m not suggesting that there are no legitimate Annulments… or that the Church should not have a Tribunal in order to review and determine specific cases.

I am agreeing with Jon S that there is Scandal involved because I don’t believe Jesus’ exception for divorce on the grounds of “porneia” supports the many many Annulments claimed by the Church. I believe reform should be made.

What I believe Pope Francis is encouraging, is for the members of the Catholic Church who are in irregular, invalid marriages and therefore unable to receive Communion in good conscience to Reconcile their relationship with the Church and Jesus by seeking spiritual direction of their pastors.

This doesn’t mean that the pastor will be able to give them a decision of Annulment, or be able to allow them Communion without a decision of whether their current marriage can be Reconciled or not.

Our brothers and sisters are in these situations because they put themselves in that situation. And I realize there are all sorts of levels of culpability. That is beside the point. The point is the marriage is either able to be convalidated and the couple remain as husband and wife, or it cannot because it is unlawful and the couple must refrain from sexual relations.

Pope Francis is not concerned with beating people up for mistakes, but reconciling them with Jesus! He is calling them to this end.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So I asked, “Are you suggesting that every annulment ruling is an infallible Papal Magisterial decree?”

You said:

How do you know Peter approves? You seem to be implying there is an “Extraordinary Magisterial” pronouncement made.

So is the annulment process fallible then? And what does that mean? That people can be given wrong judgments?

Right. But we have consequences for our actions. If we recklessly jump into a marriage without intending to embrace the actual vows we make, are we just victims of circumstance and somehow the rules don’t apply?
Can we just say, “Oh it was a big mistake. I didn’t really mean it.” And then the Church say, “Oh, it’s ok… Jesus said if you didn’t really mean it, then it’s “porneia” and the marriage never happened.” ???

I’m not following why you imply I think there is a punishment for following Catholic officials.

Following our conscience is not a suggestion or just an option sometimes, but our duty always. The reason there are so many annulment in the first place is a lack of clear conscience and following Catholic Teaching.

What I have said is fairly plain and obvious and not really needing a heavy duty analysis or too much over thinking to grasp.
If somebody lodges a case with a Tribunal and a decree of nullity is eventually issued then who are we to question it. The Church has made a decision, all people are free to move on with their lives with moral certainty whether you and Ithink some of those involved are manipulative or not. Jesus asks no more of those sincerely enough involved.

If any involved party is aggrieved they are of course free to follow their own conscience in the matter privately and in the public sphere as far as Canon Law allows. If someone believes they are still married regardless of the Tribunals finding then by all means they should not go to Communion. But to criticise their remarried partner for doing so would be to oppose both Peter and Jesus who surely expect faithful Catholics to accept such official judgements regardless of the absolute truth of the matter which in the end noone knows with absolute certitude. Such is most of life.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And I’m not suggesting that there are no legitimate Annulments… or that the Church should not have a Tribunal in order to review and determine specific cases.

I am agreeing with Jon S that there is Scandal involved because I don’t believe Jesus’ exception for divorce on the grounds of “porneia” supports the many many Annulments claimed by the Church. I believe reform should be made.

What I believe Pope Francis is encouraging, is for the members of the Catholic Church who are in irregular, invalid marriages and therefore unable to receive Communion in good conscience to Reconcile their relationship with the Church and Jesus by seeking spiritual direction of their pastors.

This doesn’t mean that the pastor will be able to give them a decision of Annulment, or be able to allow them Communion without a decision of whether their current marriage can be Reconciled or not.

Our brothers and sisters are in these situations because they put themselves in that situation. And I realize there are all sorts of levels of culpability. That is beside the point. The point is the marriage is either able to be convalidated and the couple remain as husband and wife, or it cannot because it is unlawful and the couple must refrain from sexual relations.

Pope Francis is not concerned with beating people up for mistakes, but reconciling them with Jesus! He is calling them to this end.

I believe you are tilting at windmills. AL initiatives have nothing explicit to do with judgements re the public status of the 2nd marriage which remain objectively disordered.

 

[KSU]

Am I to understand that you think the diocesan bishop is the recipient and the judge of the petitions for declaration of nullity?

Of course he isn’t both the recipient of the petitions and the sole judge:

“III. – The bishop himself as judge. – In order that a teaching of the Second Vatican Council regarding a certain area of great importance finally be put into practice, it has been decided to declare openly that the bishop himself, in the church over which he has been appointed shepherd and head, is by that very fact the judge of those faithful entrusted to his care. It is thus hoped that the bishop himself, be it of a large or small diocese, stand as a sign of the conversion of ecclesiastical structures,[5] and that he does not delegate completely the duty of deciding marriage cases to the offices of his curia”

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by KSU:
Thank you [Abyssinia]for that link. It and the links therein capture very well all the various misunderstandings and faulty theology surrounding this issue. It should be required reading for any poster in this thread. Not that it will change many minds, but it will clarify positions of the two camps, help posters to better state their case and judge the veracity of the arguments presented.

The link also finally brings up the truth that, first, this issue is driven not only by straights, but by gays as well; and, second, regardless of whether or not the Magisterium clarifies the issue, the religious right will practice the traditional form of accompaniment and discernment while the religious left will practice the new form a bit more openly.

I fear that Catholicism might for a time become unofficially like the Jewish Faith with Orthodox, Reform and Conservative branches because that would be more than OK for some and of little concern for many pretend Catholics. But of course we must believe that, through the Holy Spirit, either or both the Magisterium and the Sensus Fidelium will act to bring about unity–the first steps are already underway.

If by “unofficial” you mean unlabeled, then yes,

I mean without either official recognition or labeling by the Church, as it already is, just much more openly.

but it is much more, with millions of shades of opinions, sin, weakness, faithfulness, etc. Orthodox Catholicism allows, even demands charity, for areas in which we can differ.

Charity, of course, but not necessarily acceptance.

It seems thought when we try to label and categorize people in groups, we always have a tendency to put ourselves in the best, most elite group (as in, the “remnant”). Such labeling is only a pretense to insult others who differ from us, yet who are faithful and orthodox. You could also use the older Jewish example of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

** I don’t like your use of the word “we” when you talk that way. Speak for yourself if you wish, but please don’t include me.**

 

[Brendan]

There is nothing in the quote above that mention this is unchangeable, or that it is doctrine, as a function of logic and language. It simply does not say “unchangable”. Again, this was taken up at the synod… etc.

Again, the Magesterium, in the form of the last synod, declined to call this doctrine, contrary to the minority opinion.

It states the contradiction is objective, which means that it is not subjective, not dependent upon time nor place.

That is not an act of discipline.

 

[Jon_S_1]

It states the contradiction is objective, which means that it is not subjective, not dependent upon time nor place.

That is not an act of discipline.

But scandal does change with time and place. That is what we all need to understand.

In the fourth century, it was objectively contrary to the image of Christ and the Church for clergy to have polygamous marriages.

And yet some did…and they were not in violation of any church law or norm until the 8th century. There was no scandal because it was common and accepted in that culture.

So too, with this. Does it objectively undermine the image of Christ and the Church by having a second marriage. Yes it does. Does that mean it is scandalous to the faithful…lets be honest…no it is generally not.

 

[irenaeus1]

As I read the document, I noted that Pope Francis seemed to have great confidence in the clergy of the Church to fulfill their ministerial and pastoral function. I mentioned previously the resource of “the great body of reflection”, but you point out the tremendous resource priest have in each other. If this were any other body of learned professionals engaging in some difficult endeavor, who among the ignorant would attempt to second guess their ability to accomplish a task where the boss had such total confidence in them.

Imagine a group of engineers, for example, tasked with building something new. The president of the firm believes them totally capable of the task give the abundance of knowledge and resources at their disposal. What painter, or janitor, would take the time to argue that they would be incompetent in the task?

Unfortunately, Pope Francis’ confidence in the clergy does not always come through well, and he has publicly often been quite critical of the clergy… what with his comments accusing priests of using the confessional as a torture chamber or where he mentioned that priests were either acting as animals (or treating single parents as animals – depending on the translation)… either one not reflecting well on priests, etc.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Unfortunately, Pope Francis’ confidence in the clergy does not always come through well, and he has publicly often been quite critical of the clergy… what with his comments accusing priests of using the confessional as a torture chamber or where he mentioned that priests were either acting as animals (or treating single parents as animals – depending on the translation)… either one not reflecting well on priests, etc.

There are always tares amongst the wheat. Calling them out does not mean that all the wheat becomes tares…