Pope Francis needs to clarify Amoris Laetitia, says Dutch cardinal

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Neither the Cardinal Wim Eij nor Dr Peters are the Pope.

Other Bishops and canon lawyers of the same level in the Church are not having a problem with Amoris Laetitia

Jim
 
Last edited:
It’s clear there is significant confusion surrounding AL, the Pope needs to clear this up.
 
The Dutch cardinal is correct.

Sadly, there are many Catholics who think that the Pope can do whatever he wants. Such a belief is not authentic Catholic teaching.

Sadder still, there are Catholics of a more “progressive” bent who only become ultramontanists when it suits them.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Other Bishops and canon lawyers of the same level in the Church are not having a problem with Amoris Laetitia
Click to expand...
That’s the point. Multiple good, smart, educated people unable to share a common understanding.
 
Last edited:
Yes, we know Jim. Those are the ones prescribing methods in which the D&R Catholics can “discern” for themselves. And therein lies the conflict. This is not a question of discipline, but a question of Dogma. How can one Diocese or one country permit D&R to receive the Sacraments unhindered yet the Diocese or country next to them not? Is this not division? Is this not a further break within the Body of Christ? Is this not creating scandal for the Faithful?
The solution is quiet simple really. The Holy Father needs to pronounce, in clear language, exactly what AL allows. AL is His document. His thoughts. I do not believe it is asking to much for the Holy Father to clarify this directly and remove the confusion.
 
If anyone thinks that Pope Francis has not upheld Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, I would recommend they read and reread chapter 3 of Amoris Laetitia, which quotes extensively from the documents of Vatican II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pope St. John Paul II, Canon Law, and the Relatios from the two Synods of Bishops on the Family. As a matter of fact, I believe chapter 8 can only be fully understood if read in light of chapters 3 - 5. The “confusion” we’re seeing today stems not from the document itself, which mostly just repeats the work and words of the two Synods of Bishops on the Family, but from folks who are reading one paragraph and one footnote of the document in isolation from the rest of the document. These folks are on both “sides” of the political-theological spectrum, so I’m not pointing a finger at any one group here.
 
The ghostwriter of AL should probably just come out with his interpretation for clarification. Oh wait…he has.
 
The ghostwriter himself has no authority to officially interpret the text. That’s the job, first and foremost, of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. There are plenty of bishops who agree that the document can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the Church’s universal teaching, including the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Those are the bishops and interpretations we should be paying attention to.
 
Here is one quote from Dr. Peter’s comments at the linked article:

“It doesn’t matter what reasons might be offered by the storied Archdiocese of Braga for its plan to authorize the administering of holy Communion to basic divorced-and-remarried Catholics. If that is, as reported in the Catholic Herald, their plan, they are wrong. Patently and gravely wrong. Just like the Maltese. Just like the Germans.”
 
As Pope Francis himself has stated and what AL states, divorced and remarried Catholics can not receive the sacraments without going through the process of annulment.

AL merely specifies the rare cases that require pastoral care when one of the person’s trying to return to the Church, does not have access to nullification of the first marriage.

Jim
 
Here’s made it pretty clear already what his position is by declaring the letter to the Argentinian bishops as magisterium.
 
Dr. Peters is right.

And any Catholic before the disastrous confusion occasioned by AL would have agreed with him without reserve.
 
Yes, whether you agree with the Holy Father or not, how can anyone still insist he hasn’t made his own position clear?! The Holy See has said that his clarification to the Argentine bishops was part of his magisterial teaching… the letter makes his position 100% clear.
 
Nothing more than an appeal to authority, and it’s one reason why it is going to damage the Church.

Also, I really hope you’re not just saying that because you think Pope Francis is a “liberal”.
 
JimG said:
Here is one quote from Dr. Peter’s comments at the linked article:

“It doesn’t matter what reasons might be offered by the storied Archdiocese of Braga for its plan to authorize the administering of holy Communion to basic divorced-and-remarried Catholics. If that is, as reported in the Catholic Herald, their plan, they are wrong. Patently and gravely wrong. Just like the Maltese. Just like the Germans.”
Click to expand...
Phillip_Rolfes said:
The ghostwriter himself has no authority to officially interpret the text. That’s the job, first and foremost, of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. There are plenty of bishops who agree that the document can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the Church’s universal teaching, including the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Those are the bishops and interpretations we should be paying attention to.
Click to expand...
I cannot advise anyone to move against their conscience and receive Communion and write it off as “gee, I think it’s in AL” without spiritual direction.
 
People need clarity. They don’t profit from vaguely worded talk of “gray areas”.

It is obvious there are some in the Church…clergy as well as laity, including, yes, bishops…who are just fine with Communion for the divorced and remarried, at least under certain conditions.

In the face of that, thankfully we have those voices raised in defense of the perennial teaching of the Church. And all those voices are doing is teaching what was handed down. No novelty. No “gray areas”. Simply the unadulterated (no pun intended) truth.
 
KMG said:
People need clarity. They don’t profit from vaguely worded talk of “gray areas”.
Click to expand...
It is not the “bottom line” of AL on this point about communion for remarried that requires much clarification. The Pope has been quite clear by the endorsements he has provided eg for the Argentinian bishops.

What are not clear are matters such as:
  • how can AL stand along side FC?
  • is the communion restriction merely a matter of a discipline?
  • what if the questions raised by way of Dubia?
These go more to seeking clarification of how AL arrived at its conclusion, rather than what that conclusion is. [The latter point was unclear initially, but no longer.]
 
Last edited:
I’m curious to know if anyone commenting on AL - here on the forums, in the news sources, and even various bishops and clergy - have actually carefully read the document cover-to-cover. If you do, one of the first things you’ll notice is that Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried is hardly discussed at all, and when it is it’s set within the context of a path of conversion to the full truth of the “Gospel of the Family.” There’s no attempt to soften the Church’s teaching on marriage at all. In fact, the Church’s teaching on marriage is explicitly upheld throughout the document.

What I’ve found by both reading the document and following the news sources, is that generally people are making two mistakes when they discuss the document. First they fail to situate the discussion on Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried (in certain circumstances) within the context of conversion. The presumption is that the Church is just offering Communion to anyone and everyone willy-nilly regardless of their objective spiritual state. Such a reading would be in flat-out contradiction to the text of AL itself, not to mention the rest of Church teaching.

The second mistake I see is a failure to make the distinction between “grave sin” and “mortal sin.” As most of us on here understand, there are three conditions that must be met before a sin (including adultery) can be considered mortal:
  1. grave matter
  2. sufficient knowledge
  3. full intent of the will
Grave sin is objective; it is always grave. But grave sin and mortal sin are not the same thing. Mortal sin is subjective in the sense that there are two subjective conditions (sufficient knowledge and full intent of the will) that must be met before a person living in grave sin can be said to be living in a state of mortal sin. I may be wrong on this, but the only thing I remember from my Baltimore Catechism days that can cut us off from Communion is being in a state of mortal sin, not grave sin.

This is the “gray area” that AL has brought us into, and, again if you carefully read the text, it creates a great deal more “work” for bishops and parish priests. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it forces bishops and parish priests to actually be spiritual fathers to their flock and to get intimately involved in the lives of their spiritual children, rather than just caring for the small percentage of their children who are good upstanding Catholic citizens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top