Pope reacts to 'rigid' critics [CWN]

[Havard]

Father (Don Ruggero),

This affair is certainly a troubling situation for the laity. As a trained lawyer, I am always looking for the substance of the arguments of both sides, not caricatures, not slippery-slope sensationalism, and not externally-imputed motives. Just in the past week or so we’ve seen:

Cardinal Burke talks about a “tremendous division” and initiating a potential formal act of correction in regards to the AL. [Source]
The Holy Father refers to critics’ “legalism” and “black and white” thinking. [Source]
Cardinal Tobin calls Burke & co.'s letter “at best naive”. [Source]
Cardinal Farrell, now prelate of the laity/family dicastery, publicly criticizes Archbishop Chaput’s guidelines for implementing AL.[Source]
Archbishop Chaput questions whether Cardinal Farrell “actually read and understood” the Archd. of Phil.'s guidelines. [Source]

Perhaps most bizarre of all, Fr. Spadaro (who Catholic Herald’s Fr. Raymond de Souza referred to as a “mouthpiece of Pope Francis”) deleted a tweet in which he appears to have referred to Cardinal Burke & co. as a “witness worm”.

My concern is this, Father: it appears that by not directly discussing AL, an indirect dialogue taking its place, which is perhaps more unhelpful, especially for the laity. It does not appear (to me) that this issue is going in a positive direction.

Thank you in advance for any thoughts, and thank you for your service to the Church.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Yes, my friend–we are sadly aware that you find a lot of posts on a lot of threads with which you personally disagree “intolerable” or worse. But your disagreement with knowledgeable, orthodox posters and the public statements of high-ranking prelates and theologians around the world do not thereby invalidate what they say.

No one would object to, and probably would agree with, your calling out posts that truly are beyond the pale and violate Forum rules.

I was going to refrain from posting further on this thread, but this is over the top. You may not treat a priest with such outright disrespect on my clock. Reported.

 

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by kyrie03
The Dubia isn’t limited to seeking an answer as to whether or not a small number of divorced/remarried/non-annulled/sexual active persons can partake in the Eucharist or confession without repentance.

This is not one of the questions asked. Nothing in Amoris Laetitia states this.

It was question #1

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia n. 34 and Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

 

[billy15]

Father (Don Ruggero),

This affair is certainly a troubling situation for the laity. As a trained lawyer, I am always looking for the substance of the arguments of both sides, not caricatures, not slippery-slope sensationalism, and not externally-imputed motives. Just in the past week or so we’ve seen:

Cardinal Burke talks about a “tremendous division” and initiating a potential formal act of correction in regards to the AL. [Source]
The Holy Father refers to critics’ “legalism” and “black and white” thinking. [Source]
Cardinal Tobin calls Burke & co.'s letter “at best naive”. [Source]
Cardinal Farrell, now prelate of the laity/family dicastery, publicly criticizes Archbishop Chaput’s guidelines for implementing AL.[Source]
Archbishop Chaput questions whether Cardinal Farrell “actually read and understood” the Archd. of Phil.'s guidelines. [Source]

Perhaps most bizarre of all, Fr. Spadaro (who Catholic Herald’s Fr. Raymond de Souza referred to as a “mouthpiece of Pope Francis”) deleted a tweet in which he appears to have referred to Cardinal Burke & co. as a “witness worm”.

My concern is this, Father: it appears that by not directly discussing AL, an indirect dialogue taking its place, which is perhaps more unhelpful, especially for the laity. It does not appear (to me) that this issue is going in a positive direction.

Thank you in advance for any thoughts, and thank you for your service to the Church.

Oh wow… I was not aware of the recent statements by Cardinal-Designates Tobin and Farrell… or the tweets by Fr. Spadaro. I am truly troubled by all this. How could someone find something wrong in what Cardinal Chaput wrote in his guidelines? Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland had a great pastoral letter in the same vein as Archbishop Chaput’s, and it really clarified things for me regarding AL. If Cardinal Farrell is critical of Archbishop Chaput’s writings, then what must he think of regarding Archbishop Sample’s pastoral letter?

PASTORAL LETTER ON THE
READING OF AMORIS LAETITIA IN LIGHT OF CHURCH TEACHING
“A TRUE AND LIVING ICON”
OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF PORTLAND, OREGON
MOST REVEREND ALEXANDER K. SAMPLE

When I read your links Havard, the first thing I thought about was the message Our Lady of Akita ggave back in 1973:

“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops.”

We keep seeing more and more, all these cardinals and bishops fighting amongst themselves. it’s truly disheartening to see this. I pray that nothing worse happens and that our shepherds will be unified.

Also, I see lots of reports being made in this thread, perhaps a bit flippantly. I hope free discussion is allowed to continue by the moderators.

 

[KSU]

I was going to refrain from posting further on this thread, but this is over the top. You may not treat a priest with such outright disrespect on my clock. Reported.

Bearing false witness to the moderator is not a valid debating tactic and is against the rules.

 

[tseleehw]

Oh wow… I was not aware of the recent statements by Cardinal-Designates Tobin and Farrell… or the tweets by Fr. Spadaro. I am truly troubled by all this. How could someone find something wrong in what Cardinal Chaput wrote in his guidelines? Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland had a great pastoral letter in the same vein as Archbishop Chaput’s, and it really clarified things for me regarding AL. If Cardinal Farrell is critical of Archbishop Chaput’s writings, then what must he think of regarding Archbishop Sample’s pastoral letter?

PASTORAL LETTER ON THE
READING OF AMORIS LAETITIA IN LIGHT OF CHURCH TEACHING
“A TRUE AND LIVING ICON”
OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF PORTLAND, OREGON
MOST REVEREND ALEXANDER K. SAMPLE

When I read your links Havard, the first thing I thought about was the message Our Lady of Akita ggave back in 1973:

“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops.”

We keep seeing more and more, all these cardinals and bishops fighting amongst themselves. it’s truly disheartening to see this. I pray that nothing worse happens and that our shepherds will be unified.

Also, I see lots of reports being made in this thread, perhaps a bit flippantly. I hope free discussion is allowed to continue by the moderators.

I agree. No matter how some might try to spin it, it is clear based on the many public statements and reports that we have seen over the past year that the clergy are divided on this issue. I’m not sure they may never be able to reach any kind of agreement.

 

[pnewton]

It was question #1

The two are not the same question. A simple reading makes this clear. In fact, I see in your post exactly why some people are confused. It is hard enough to communicate when terms need to be defined. When one takes the liberty to exchange words and paraphrase, then we have posturing, not discussion.

Again, if you look at the two posts, they do not read the same. If you understand why they do not, and why the dubia question reads different than AL, I think you might understand why the Holy Father did not want to answer them.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Bearing false witness to the moderator is not a valid debating tactic and is against the rules.

Far from a bearing of false witness, it is a simply a declaration that there is an ugly and grotesque lack of respect to clergy on the part of certain posters.

 

[josh987654321]

To be fair, Josh, Father has a point here on this post. I think you are not using your language as particularly as you can be. There is nothing wrong, per se, with commemorating the reformation. But we should not be, as Catholic Christians (or even as Lutheran Christains, really) celebrating the reformation. I think that is more what you mean, right Josh? If that’s the case, then I totally agree with you; we should not be celebrating the Reformation which has led to fractures and divisions in the Body of Christ. Karl Keating here on CA said as much just a few weeks ago:

Commemorate:
recall and show respect for (someone or something).
“a wreath-laying ceremony to commemorate the war dead”
•mark or celebrate (an event or person) by doing or producing something.
“the victory was commemorated in songs”
synonyms: celebrate, pay tribute to, pay homage to, honour, salute, toast;

I agree we should absolutely not be celebrating it, I believe we also should not ‘pay tribute’ ‘pay homage’ ‘honour’ ‘salute’ or ‘toast’ it or any of those attributes other than mourn and feel sad for, which is nowhere to be seen in the definition of ‘commemorate’

So I totally understand your sentiments, Josh, but I think you just have to be a bit more precise with your language. Celebrating and commemorating are two different things.

Thank you, but celebrating and commemorating, while I agree are two different things, they are also very similar and strikes me as miles away from mourning and feeling sad about.

And to do it with the Lutherans, the Lutherans I’m sure don’t feel the same way about their founder otherwise they wouldn’t be Lutheran I believe.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I was going to refrain from posting further on this thread, but this is over the top. You may not treat a priest with such outright disrespect on my clock. Reported.

I believe there is a big difference between ‘disrespect’ and ‘disagreement’, I don’t believe it was disrespect, unless it was sarcasm like one of my earlier posts out of frustration which I apologies for.

‘Respect’ does not mean ‘agree’ with everything. I respect a lot of people and the position or title that they hold whom I may have very strong disagreements with.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Convert_in_99]

I believe there is a big difference between ‘disrespect’ and ‘disagreement’, I don’t believe it was disrespect, unless it was sarcasm like one of my earlier posts out of frustration which I apologies for.

‘Respect’ does not mean ‘agree’ with everything. I respect a lot of people and the position or title that they hold whom I may have very strong disagreements with.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

Josh, I assure you that It was not the disagreement I reported. His/her post seriously disrespected Don Ruggero as a priest. It was the whole disrespectful attitude and mocking tone which I reported. He/she wouldn’t speak to a secular authority figure as such, even more so we should respect our dear priests and Bishops.

 

[Convert_in_99]

To whom it may interest, I found a very balanced article on the topic of the Pope’s recent celebration with our Lutheran brothers and sisters:

cruxnow.com/church/2016/02/11/should-pope-francis-celebrate-the-reformation/

 

[irenaeus1]

This is not one of the questions asked. Nothing in Amoris Laetitia states this.

This is precisely one of the questions asked. In fact, it was the first question.

It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

This is a clarification that is badly needed, especially after the pope’s spokesman started name-calling on twitter, stating that the cardinals who are seeking such answers are ‘witless worms.’

If, as you say, “nothing in Amoris Laetitia states this,” then a simple answer of negative to both parts could be given, and the confusion and ambiguity goes away.

 

[irenaeus1]

The two are not the same question. A simple reading makes this clear. In fact, I see in your post exactly why some people are confused. It is hard enough to communicate when terms need to be defined. When one takes the liberty to exchange words and paraphrase, then we have posturing, not discussion.

Again, if you look at the two posts, they do not read the same. If you understand why they do not, and why the dubia question reads different than AL, I think you might understand why the Holy Father did not want to answer them.

How is this essentially a different question? 1) Divorced/remarried/non-annulled/sexual active persons refers to a person while bound by a valid marital bond, but lives together with a different person as ‘man and wife’ without having to fulfill the conditions of living as brother and sister; 2) can partake in the Eucharist refers to being admitted to Holy Communion; 3) confession without repentance refers to the possibility of absolution in the sacrament of penance without contrition and a firm purpose of amendment.

I guess I’m confused as to the difference other than the questions not being verbatim…

Actually, all five questions being answered would clear up much confusion regardless of the publication of AL, especially with some of the erroneous opinions being proclaimed regarding an individual’s conscience and topics around moral theology.

 

[Convert_in_99]

How is this essentially a different question? 1) Divorced/remarried/non-annulled/sexual active persons refers to a person while bound by a valid marital bond, but lives together with a different person as ‘man and wife’ without having to fulfill the conditions of living as brother and sister; 2) can partake in the Eucharist refers to being admitted to Holy Communion; 3) confession without repentance refers to the possibility of absolution in the sacrament of penance without contrition and a firm purpose of amendment.

I guess I’m confused as to the difference other than the questions not being verbatim…

Actually, all five questions being answered would clear up much confusion regardless of the publication of AL, especially with some of the erroneous opinions being proclaimed regarding an individual’s conscience and topics around moral theology.

The Pope stated it was up to the Priest in which situations he would grant this “dispensation” to, not the individual laiety.

He was clear about that.

 

[irenaeus1]

You know, you have a valid point, though some of the terms you used are not insults but general observations. Charity is always taught better by example than command. It is easier to react than to take the time to think like another, understanding with empathy the difference in another.

Regardless of whether deemed an insult or simply an observation, I wonder if the same individuals doing the name-calling would consider Pope John Paul II as being ‘rigid’, erroneously seeing things only as ‘black and white’, and ‘born with something missing’?

 

[irenaeus1]

The Pope stated it was up to the Priest in which situations he would grant this “dispensation” to, not the individual laiety.

He was clear about that.

I never heard the word dispensation used in this application. Second, neither question is claiming that a layperson is granting absolution to anyone.

 

[Convert_in_99]

I never heard the word dispensation used in this application. Second, neither question is claiming that a layperson is granting absolution to anyone.

Dispensation is this instance a descriptor word.

You had mentioned persons would get confused that it was up to an individual’s conscience. Hence my remark that it isn’t up to an individual, but a priest.

 

[irenaeus1]

You had mentioned persons would get confused that it was up to an individual’s conscience. Hence my remark that it isn’t up to an individual, but a priest.

Nope. I was referring to some of the erroneous opinions being promulgated regarding the role of a person’s conscience when it conflicts with absolute moral norms. This is why I said that responding to the questions would be useful and beneficial to the faithful and would help clear up much confusion . Specific to the role of conscience was #5 of the Dubia.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No.

John Fisher was executed in June 1535. Thomas More was executed in July 1535.

Thank you for catching my typo, Father. Good thing that the typo only was off by 2 years.