Pope gives new name, new focus to John Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family

  • Thread starter Thread starter I_trust
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because this isn’t just a matter of mere opinion. Souls are at stake. And plenty of those souls are now being misled into thinking that thanks to Amoris Laetitia, those who divorced and remarried may receive Communion even if they do not stop having sexual relations with their “spouse.” This is a real crisis in the Church, and the responsibility for it is entirely Pope Bergoglio’s.
 
TMC said:
It used to be. Not so much lately
Click to expand...
Good Catholics are confused and disoriented by the actions of Pope Francis. This is still a Catholic website; it’s just better now - it’s better because people are free to debate and ask questions. In the past, many topics were banned; now, people have the freedom to discuss the issues without being punished by the thought police.
 
Vadne said:
Because this isn’t just a matter of mere opinion. Souls are at stake. And plenty of those souls are now being misled into thinking that thanks to Amoris Laetitia, those who divorced and remarried may receive Communion even if they do not stop having sexual relations with their “spouse.” This is a real crisis in the Church, and the responsibility for it is entirely Pope Bergoglio’s.
Click to expand...
You seem to think you’re smarter than the Pope and a lot of the bishops on what needs to happen in order to save souls. Sorry, not buying it.
 
Has nothing to do with being smart. Has everything to do with knowing the perennial teaching of the Church, and knowing that not everything a pope says is right.
 
Vadne said:
Has nothing to do with being smart. Has everything to do with knowing the perennial teaching of the Church, and knowing that not everything a pope says is right.
Click to expand...
You’ll be vindicated in the future when a future Pope issues the necessary corrections to Amoris Laetitia. The current situation will not last forever. The modernists feel confident under the current pontificate but God is in control. The Immaculate Heart will triumph.
 
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
No, we’re talking 3 decades here. My parents, my husbands parents, and many of my friends who have raised children into adulthood speak of the vast differences that I face as a mother of young ones than they or their children faced.
Click to expand...
Yes, all of the things you mention have an effect on family life and marriage. There are many new challenges, and many new dangers to marriage and family. What doesn’t change is Church doctrine or Jesus’ command about the permanence of marriage. I hope the Institute will do all it can to strengthen family and marriage against these new challenges.

One worrisome interpretation of Amoris Laetitia which I have heard relates to the circumstances of a second invalid marriage. It has been argued that since the second marriage involves children and perhaps a non-Catholic spouse, that continued sexual relations are not only the mitigated in culpability but may be even be a positive good under the circumstances.

This circumstantial reasoning worries me, because similar arguments could be advanced in favor of maintaining same sex unions, or cohabitation. Basic moral theology in many areas could be undermined by such reasoning.

So I hope the new or revised Institute will recognize the new dangers facing the family and marriage, and warn us away from them.
 
JimG said:
So I hope the new or revised Institute will recognize the new dangers facing the family and marriage, and warn us away from them.
Click to expand...
I hope the new Institute does these things but I worry that it’ll spread the Kaperite virus and tell ‘remarried’ Catholics they can receive Communion while continuing to live in a state of adultery.

I find it highly suspicious that this new Institute was launched so soon after Caffara’s death; it definitely sends a message that the teaching of Familiaris Consortio is under attack.
 
JimG said:
moris Laetitia which I have heard relates to the circumstances of a second invalid marriage. It has been argued that since the second marriage involves children and perhaps a non-Catholic spouse, that continued sexual relations are not only the mitigated in culpability but may be even be a positive good under the circumstances.

This circumstantial reasoning worries me, because similar arguments could be advanced in favor of maintaining same sex unions, or cohabitation. Basic moral theology in many areas could be undermined by such reasoning.
Click to expand...
Still, that is as lay people and people with ill prerogatives try to untangle things.

One major issue is how to handle the divorced and remarried who do return to the church. You cannot normalize this behavior, yet you must act with the utmost kindness and mercy so you do not shame people into leaving.

Remember, it was not so long ago that the Church, both lay and clergy, treated women who were justly divorced badly. I went to a Bible study with a woman who had divorced an unfaithful and abusive spouse. She took her young son, who had been caught stealing, to the priest to help him go man to man and instruct him on what was sinful explaining he had no male role model. The priest told her that he’d be happy to help with the boy, but that “he’d deal with her sins later”.

It took her years to return.

While parts of the document may cause confusion, they do enforce the absolute tenant of mercy. Grave damage has been done to the dignity of many persons through sin that is no fault of their own. If the Church chose to make a statement that remarriage would not be tolerated under any circumstances, that would leave little room for people to return to the church. This proclamation, while troubling when faulty logic is applied, at least confirms that the church is a place for sinners, not only those who abide by church law.
 
Saxum said:
I find it highly suspicious that this new Institute was launched so soon after Caffara’s death; it definitely sends a message that the teaching of Familiaris Consortio is under attack.
Click to expand...
It’s not necessary to read sinister things into the timing. Cardinal Caffarra died two weeks ago. I imagine this was in the pipeline for a lot longer than two weeks.
 
Joe_5859 said:
It’s not necessary to read sinister things into the timing. Cardinal Caffarra died two weeks ago. I imagine this was in the pipeline for a lot longer than two weeks.
Click to expand...
I hope you’re right, Joe. And you’re right that I should give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt. Mea culpa!

That said, I just wish Pope Francis would answer the dubia and resolve the doubts. Poland says that remarried cannot receive communion and Argentina says they can. Who’s right? I think Poland. I love ‘my Pope’ - John Paul II. He was the Pope of my youth and it really saddens me that his teachings seem to be under attack.
 
Wrong: Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. And he has spoken:
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Matthew 19:
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
 
Well put, but I’d footnote the ‘sexual immorality’ and explain that it does NOT mean, as has been narrowly defined in modern times, "in the case of adultery’ --as if that means a man or woman whose spouse ‘cheats on them’ can divorce and then remarry because the first marriage was invalid. What happens ‘after the vows’ has nothing to do with the validity of a marriage; that validity is postulated on the couple’s ability to give valid consent at the time of the vows.

What is meant in ‘sexual immorality’ goes right back to Jesus’ words to the Pharisees, "Moses allowed divorce’. There were many people present who were on their second, third, or more ‘spouse’. Those people, the ones who had divorced a validly married ‘first wife’ or ‘first husband’, those were the people who were guilty of sexual immorality. Those were the people who were permitted or even compelled to seek divorce–divorce from the invalidly married later spouses.

Context is everything here.
 
Here is a good rule of thumb to distinguish bashing from criticizing. It works well for me with President Trump. Is everything done criticized, assuming the worst and jumping to conclusions. Yes this move is likely a reflection of Amoris Laetitia. However, the vast majority of Amoris Laetitia has caused zero controversy and has been praised even by those who disagree with the one controversial point.

Does anyone here really think that families do not need to be strengthened, that they are the foundation of society? Yet when the Pope makes a move to add curriculum to this Institute, rename it in honor of St. John Paul who brought us the Theology of the Body, he is still criticized. This is how I determine that the criticism is based on personal enmity, not intellectual disagreement. In a word, bashing.

The best way to handle the issue of divorce is to strengthen families so there is no divorce.
 
Last edited:
Good rule of thumb. 👍 If I am tempted to react without knowing all the facts, I know that my preconceptions are calling the shots. That’s when it’s a good time to take a step back and try to gather more information before shooting off my opinions.

I think a lot of turmoil could be avoided if we just stopped to think before reacting, and if we gave the other person the benefit of the doubt. Even more so in the case of our Holy Father.

I love John Paul II. I love Benedict XVI. And I love Pope Francis. Are any of them beyond criticism? No. I can think of things that each of them did (or did not do) that could warrant criticism. Do I feel particularly compelled to criticize any of them at every turn? No. I think that hinders rather than helps.
 
Last edited:
Excellent post. Families today are an endangered species. I know of only a handful of faithful “normative” Catholic (mother, father, children) families who respect the Church today. (that goes both ways)

The issues get complicated after that. You have a mother whose husband has left her trying to navigate the church that, to this day, can be quite unfriendly to divorcees. You have a man whose wife was previously married but has discovered the faith and wishes to bring his children, but whose spouses ex-refuses to admit that getting married at 18 was a bad idea. Life has gotten so messy. To not address any of these issues, to glaze over them would have been highly neglectful of the leader of the flock.

Yet so many are still throwing tantrums regarding the fact that these issues were brought up at all.
 
This pope is not divine and should not be treated as such. Not every word coming out of his mouth is gospel truth.
 
Saxum said:
Good Catholics are confused and disoriented by the actions of Pope Francis. This is still a Catholic website; it’s just better now - it’s better because people are free to debate and ask questions. In the past, many topics were banned; now, people have the freedom to discuss the issues without being punished by the thought police.
Click to expand...
Pope Francis is a Good Catholic, and so are those that follow him.

As to the forum, it now features fundamentalist threads, openly anti-Pope threads, Islamophobic threads, and is beginning to embrace the likes of Voris and Most Holy Family Monastery. I don’t find any of those things to be improvements.
 
Blanket statements like, the pope is a good Catholic and so are those who “follow him” are unhelpful. Nobody said the pope is not “good”…that’s quite the generalization and thus difficult to question…and “following” the pope is an equally vague and unhelpful comment.
 
I for one am happy this forum didn’t exist in the 14th century. We’d be hearing how popes like Urban VI and Boniface VIII commanded our obedience without question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top