Pope endorses Argentine bishops' document on Amoris Laetitia

[Don_Ruggero]

I dont think anything further needs to come from the Pope as its all very clear now what he wants to happen at Diocesan level. And local Dicoeses can still choose to completely ignore his new initiatives…which I see a local area US bishops Conference has recently done despite all the grand words of their Guidelines.

However re the document that the three Cardinals signed…
A bad move on their part.
I foresee such a non-dialoguing spirit will cause them to be predictably and quietly demoted/marginalised re any privileges they may have. The Pope has authority to do so and would not be unjust in this. The Church after Iall is not a democracy.
The Pope wants opposing views to be fraternally discussed rather than have set positions hurled at each side like canonballs.

I would make a distinction to what you wrote…there is assuredly guidance coming from the Holy See but it is now coming through the channels it normally would come, which are non-public.

The guidelines for the Diocese of Rome, along with other guidelines from various dioceses, will provide helpful assistance to smaller dioceses with fewer resources at their disposal.

The Church is very much not a democracy…thankfully.

 

[rcwitness]

I would make a distinction to what you wrote…there is assuredly guidance coming from the Holy See but it is now coming through the channels it normally would come, which are non-public.

The guidelines for the Diocese of Rome, along with other guidelines from various dioceses, will provide helpful assistance to smaller dioceses with fewer resources at their disposal.

The Church is very much not a democracy…thankfully.

That makes it sound like we are on a need to know basis. Though, we do need to know.

If what JPII and Benedic XVI were inaccurate about portraying the issue, I believe a worldwide public clarification would be appropriate.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

That makes it sound like we are on a need to know basis. Though, we do need to know.

If what JPII and Benedic XVI were inaccurate about portraying the issue, I believe a worldwide public clarification would be appropriate.

The decision of what is appropriate rests with the College of Bishops.

 

[rcwitness]

The decision of what is appropriate rests with the College of Bishops.

Yep, but they will have to face the music eventually. A covert operation doesn’t seem very wise to me.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The Holy Father also made it clear that he wanted to instruct priests. I have wondered why there is so much clamor about clarity, when this was clear to me on each reading. I also do not know why traditional Catholic are so adverse to the traditional concept of subsidiarity. I have come to believe that it is not clarity that is demanded, but** uniformity**, specifically uniformity beyond the diocesan level, down to the individual level. “Pastoral” concerns are to be rejected in favor of uniformity, in this case, according to the understanding of “me”. Pope Francis clearly warned against this philosophy, where people are viewed as categories and not individuals.

Direction comes from Rome. Beyond that, decisions must be made locally, one on one, as much as possible. The priest we have are all well educated and the vast majority know the limits. Their bishops know they are to watch over them. Subsidiarity not only allows for this type of administration, it prefers it. Angry poster number 21 on a forum does not have a say in the decisions of a priest, any more than the bishop of Katmandu has any say in shepherding the people of Argentina. Sure, we can all engage in the modern American idea of everyone is entitled to their opinion. Should we?

You have written very well in all your posts.

As a priest, I can say that “angry poster 21,” as you name him, would be summarily shown the door for attempting to have a say in any decision I made that was either beyond his competence or was reserved to my office…above all when it concerned matters proper to me with my brothers in the presbyterate and my bishop, such as the implementation of Amoris Laetitia.

The implementation, at the inter-diocesan level and at the diocesan level and then again in the context of a parish priest in a diocese pastorally accompanying someone in view of Amoris Laetitia, does not concern other people than those directly implicated.

While I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion, as you write, the opinion from my perspective is less than valueless when it is coming from someone who

a) is not actually a bishop or a priest
b) lacks advanced studies in theology and canon law, which provides basis and context to the opinion
c) has no actual involvement with the issue practically
d) demonstrates no understanding of either the operation of the Roman curia or a chancery.

As the bishops, with their periti, work on the guidelines and as we share these with each other and continue our work, the (name removed by moderator)ut of non-theologians and non-canonists is by and large meaningless.

The thoughts of my brother priests are, of course, a different matter…but then they bring to the matter their years of academic study as well as the breadth and depth of their pastoral experience. The distinction between that conversation and such as one reads in a discussion thread like this is as different as day is from night.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I would make a distinction to what you wrote…there is assuredly guidance coming from the Holy See but it is now coming through the channels it normally would come, which are non-public.

The guidelines for the Diocese of Rome, along with other guidelines from various dioceses, will provide helpful assistance to smaller dioceses with fewer resources at their disposal.

The Church is very much not a democracy…thankfully.

ThankYou for this additional insight into the more hidden clerical level procedures involved.

 

[irenaeus1]

However re the document that the three Cardinals signed…
A bad move on their part.
I foresee such a non-dialoguing spirit will cause them to be predictably and quietly demoted/marginalised re any privileges they may have. The Pope has authority to do so and would not be unjust in this. The Church afterall is not a democracy.
The Pope wants opposing views to be fraternally discussed rather than have set positions hurled at each side like canonballs.

I think the document that the cardinals and bishop and theologians signed is well written. If the pope quietly demotes/marginalizes re any privileges they may have, that would not be prudent on his part as he’s the one that asked for robust dialogue, and nothing they are stating is counter to Church teaching.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think the document that the cardinals and bishop and theologians signed is well written. If the pope quietly demotes/marginalizes re any privileges they may have, that would not be prudent on his part as he’s the one that asked for robust dialogue, and nothing they are stating is counter to Church teaching.

I believe you have missed my point.
To my mind the manner, method and “posture” of the Cardinals here is what is objectionable…not their differing view. The document fair smacks of a fixed, resolute position that seems unwilling to suggest fallibility and the possibility that pertinent matters are even open for debate. The Pope clearly holds the matters are open for debate.

Don Ruggero, I would be interested in your intuitive reaction to this document and whether it represents a healthy contribution or appropriate vehicle for the AL debate if you feel it appropriate to comment?

 

[irenaeus1]

While I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion, as you write, the opinion from my perspective is less than valueless when it is coming from someone who

a) is not actually a bishop or a priest
b) lacks advanced studies in theology and canon law, which provides basis and context to the opinion
c) has no actual involvement with the issue practically
d) demonstrates no understanding of either the operation of the Roman curia or a chancery.

As the bishops, with their periti, work on the guidelines and as we share these with each other and continue our work, the (name removed by moderator)ut of non-theologians and non-canonists is by and large meaningless.

This seems to be a pompous, elitist, and clericalist attitude to state that unless you meet these criteria, your opinion is meaningless and less than valueless.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This seems to be a pompous, elitist, and clericalist attitude to state that unless you meet these criteria, your opinion is meaningless and less than valueless.

Let me guess…you have little formal theological training, you have never worked for the Church in a full time lay pastoral capacity for any significant amount of time, you have no real understanding of Church History or Canon Law other than that of an auto didact and you have little scholarly discussion or relationship with a range of priests.

And when you struggle with AL you see the problems as largely being on the Popes side and are concerned that those here who have expended much time and effort advancing in the above areas see your experience and views as little more than those of a novice learning to ride a new bike?

I don’t know about you but when I am gifted with the presence of experts farther along the path than I, I try to listen more than I expound. There are many areas of knowledge I work from filler rather than wood and am very happy to replace said filler with something more substantial. I am quite happy to accept my views in these filler areas are little more than the tentative stammerings of a child and essentially valueless for the moment.
You…perhaps not so much.

 

[TMC]

This seems to be a pompous, elitist, and clericalist attitude to state that unless you meet these criteria, your opinion is meaningless and less than valueless.

That is not what the Don said. But, moreover, why do you need or even want to have an opinion on how a pastor treats someone else’s marriage? Why is it anyone’s business but the couple and their pastor?

 

[Rau]

That is not what the Don said. But, moreover, why do you need or even want to have an opinion on how a pastor treats someone else’s marriage? Why is it anyone’s business but the couple and their pastor?

Would you anticipate that a Catholic might want an understanding of the treatment principles prescribed by the Church and then to be applied by pastors ? That much seems reasonable.

 

[TMC]

Would you anticipate that a Catholic might want an understanding of the treatment principles prescribed by the Church and then to be applied by pastors ? That much seems reasonable.

I think AL provides that, in conjunction with the Catechism and the rest of Church teaching. What I see here, is posters that seem concerned that some Catholic is going to get treated more mercifully than the poster thinks appropriate. Not their business.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Let me guess…you have little formal theological training, you have never worked for the Church in a full time lay pastoral capacity for any significant amount of time, you have no real understanding of Church History or Canon Law other than that of an auto didact and you have little scholarly discussion or relationship with a range of priests.

And when you struggle with AL you see the problems as largely being on the Popes side and are concerned that those here who have expended much time and effort advancing in the above areas see your experience and views as little more than those of a novice learning to ride a new bike?

I don’t know about you but when I am gifted with the presence of experts farther along the path than I, I try to listen more than I expound. There are many areas of knowledge I work from filler rather than wood and am very happy to replace said filler with something more substantial. I am quite happy to accept my views in these filler areas are little more than the tentative stammerings of a child and essentially valueless for the moment.
You…perhaps not so much.

You have said it well. I will only add that my first number…if it is someone who is not a priest or a bishop…focuses on those whom the provisions directly concern…and even then not everyone is implicated and certainly not in the same way. The retired bishops are making their contributions in terms of their thoughts and reflections that get folded into the guidelines…which they themselves won’t apply. The newly ordained priests, at the other end of the spectrum, will need their own accompaniment, just as they need mentoring as they progress into having parishes of their own.

The provisions mainly concern a priest who has both cura animarum and relevant jurisdiction. The diocesan bishop is obviously implicated. Even lay people in the Church’s full time employ won’t be applying anything from Amoris Laetitia in concrete pastoral care. As for the rest of the laity, the most sound advice if they encounter someone in a life situation where they need pastoral accompaniment of a special sort is to refer them to their parish priest who, if he is not best suited, will refer them to whom the bishop has designated.

In all my years, the only correspondence from the Holy See or from my own chancery that was actually not non-public…that is to say that was meant for the public to see and read…were appointments that would be made public by a decree. More than 95% of the correspondence, I would estimate, was non-public.

When people do not even understand the basics of how communications from the Roman curia and the chancery occur – that directives are given in a non-public forum – and an expectation is expressed as though everything occurs – or should occur – by published documents to which everyone has access, then really one is operating at such an absurd level that there really is not much to say at all.

 

[Rau]

I think AL provides that, in conjunction with the Catechism and the rest of Church teaching. What I see here, is posters that seem concerned that some Catholic is going to get treated more mercifully than the poster thinks appropriate. Not their business.

In general I agree with your last sentence, save for gross violations of priestly duty - though in this context, it is hard to imagine “an outsider” being able to recognise that occurrence.

 

[TMC]

In general I agree, save for gross violations of priestly duty - though in this context, it is hard to imagine “an outsider” being able to recognise that occurrence.

We agree on that.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

In general I agree with your last sentence, save for gross violations of priestly duty - though in this context, it is hard to imagine “an outsider” being able to recognise that occurrence.

If there is a gross violation of priestly duty, then it is for the father of the diocese, the head of the Particular Church, to address that. Not a lay person. Only he would have both the competence to assess the matter and the jurisdiction to redress it.

 

[KSU]

Correct. I read the English translation, not the Pope’s personal transcript.

But I did read the official translation as written. My information comes from that, not the rather oddly named “Life Site News”. The only accuracy in their title is that they are a website. Archbishop Bruno Forte, shepherds the people in Chieti-Vasto. I do not live there. I have no interest in special interest blogs that scour the planet to find something that might support what ever editorial that might catch their fancy for a while, and post little translated snippets under the category of news. It is like a deliberated confirmation bias.

The fact that you are disparaging what Archbishop Bruno Forte said, as well as Life Site News which published his remarks, shows that you didn’t even bother to read the entire linked article. The Archbishop is a confidant of Pope Francis and is on your side.

You reacted blindly, based only on the identity of the poster–me, your humble servant

 

[Rau]

If there is a gross violation of priestly duty, then it is for the father of the diocese, the head of the Particular Church, to address that. Not a lay person. Only he would have both the competence to assess the matter and the jurisdiction to redress it.

Of course, but he needs to be informed in order to assess and redress.

 

[KSU]

Excerpts from catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/06/23/dont-confuse-sensus-fidelium-with-majority-opinion-of-the-faithful-say-vatican-theologians/

Church leaders must always take account of the sensus fidelium, or “sense of the faithful”, but it should never be confused with “the majority opinion of the faithful in a given time or place”, Vatican theologians have said.

The International Theological Commission published the document “Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church” on the Vatican website in late June with the approval of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

While the validity and importance of different Church teachings cannot be the subject of a popular vote, the degree to which they are or are not accepted by most Catholics is important, the commission members wrote.

“When the reception of magisterial teaching by the faithful meets with difficulty and resistance,” the document said, “appropriate action on both sides is required.”

Particularly drawing on the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, members of the theological commission rejected the idea that Catholic laity are to blindly obey everything the pope and bishops tell them. But the document emphasised the importance of assuming Church leaders are correct, trying to understand the basis for their teaching and, in particular, for praying, regularly receiving the sacraments, studying and being an active member of the Catholic community before claiming to be able to discern that a Church teaching needs adjustment.