Pope reacts to 'rigid' critics [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ISTM that if a bishop discerns that the costs outweigh the benefits, e.g there is too great of a risk for abuses to occur by allowing those in an irregular situation (who don’t meet all 3 criteria for a mortal sin) to receive the sacraments, then he could issue different and seemingly conflicting guidelines compared to another bishop who discerns the benefits outweigh the costs (e.g greater integration in the Church with less risk of abuses or misunderstanding the nature of marriage).

I have my own question, which is whether or not Amoris Laetitia does away with this declaration, so that canon 915 no longer applies to the divorced and remarried? Of course, this is question is probably best suited to be asked to someone with great knowledge like a priest rather than most CAF posters, but anyway…

My preliminary thoughts are that depends on what guidelines the bishop of a diocese issues. AL 300 says “If we consider the immense variety of concrete situations such as those I have mentioned, it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases…Priests have the duty to “accompany [the divorced and remarried] in helping them to understand their situation according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop.” If the bishop allows those in irregular situations to receive the sacraments on a strictly regulated case-by-case basis as is the case in the Diocese of Rome, then canon 915 would not apply. If the bishop does not allow those in irregular situations to receive the sacraments, as with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, then canon 915 and the declaration would still apply.
 
patricius79 said:
Just another thought on this to situate this issue. . . tacitly approving of countless people living in sin by regularly practicing contraception, and allowing them to receive Communion without confessing. .
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s off topic, BUT I do think there is a difference.

The difference is that the 'we" approving is the priests and this is a problem ONLY if they know for sure that a given person is currently in the state of mortal sin AND gives them communion anyway.

Just because there are (supposedly, by statistics) countless people living in sin who receive without confessing (usually because they don’t think they’re doing anything wrong, or that they’ve already confessed in their heart, or because they try not to think of it at all) does not mean that the CHURCH has ‘given tacit permission’. In fact, as St. Paul reminds us they (and any others who receive the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin) are objectively eating and drinking their own condemnation.

The point is that both the contracepting couples and the divorced/remarried couples, or the fornicating couples and the ‘civilly married but without decree of nullity’ couples, and the ‘pick any mortal sin that you are habitually engaged in and haven’t confessed’ and the divorced/remarried couples, are ALL going against Church teachings.

And it is possible, it appears to me, that AL is attempting to remove, in the case of the civilly married without decree of nullity couples, the actual definition of the mortal sin being that of the remarriage and thus the adulterous relations therein, by redefining that second marriage on a ‘case by case’ basis and attempting to make THAT marriage the ‘valid one’ without actually following the established teachings of the Church for millennia, based on the words of Jesus Christ Himself, and all under the guise of being ‘sensitive, pastoral, meeting people where they are, not expecting perfection, following one’s conscience’ etc.

Now admittedly I’m one of those pesky INTJ people. I don’t do well with fuzzy things (unless it’s yarn. Please send me all your yarn). I don’t really think that things are all that complicated when push comes to shove. I think we are drowning in a sea of ‘feelings, whoa whoa whoa’ that have over the last few decades, when combined with a breakdown in morals and a huge increase in the availability of all kinds of perversions, and an attack on the family unit itself, have swamped us in an atmosphere whereby the only ‘sin’ is not being attentive to the needs of the other, whether those needs are morally good or not. We keep being told how ‘complicated’ situations are, how we need to judge everything ‘individually’, not be ‘rigid’, etc. etc.

Truly, much more of this and we will not have a Catholic Church on earth. We will have the culmination of the Unitarian Universalist ‘gathering’ of that great big tent and its seamless garment, where everything is rooted in the cosmic of god and nothing need be done except ‘love’. . .love meaning, “do what any given person wants and celebrate their wonderfulness”.

Now I think God has His plan. He promised us the gates would prevail. But He didn’t say they wouldn’t be strained, or that they might not be standing but that the hordes of evil would get inside them as well as outside. Still, I trust Him. And it’s precisely because I trust Him that I do speak out, and I try to be careful that I don’t use any words but His. I’m not the one that is ‘tweaking’ Catholic doctrine here (please be aware that I am not saying that any person, let alone any cleric, has done so. I am merely saying that what I am proclaiming is, as far as I know it, solely what the CHURCH is claiming as part of the Deposit of Faith. ) Now if I mess up, because I’m human, I make typos, when I am trying to convey unless I’m cut and pasting from the catechism I might make an error, and please let me know if THAT is so. But if what I am saying is what the Church is saying, and I do feel that absent normal human chance for error it IS, then shouldn’t we be trying not to argue about it, but to proclaim it and, if something seems to be contradicting it, shouldn’t we be extra careful to be sure, not that “The Church” conforms to the contradiction, but that the contradiction should be something that is either corrected to authentic teaching or is actually not a contradiction, because what it was thought to claim wasn’t really that contradiction? IOW we should be trying to say not, “Well, if Father X says this is OK, it must be even if the Catechism or other priest say it is NOT” but rather, “in a spirit of obedience to God, we must ask for clarification when we are confused, and if there are two good ‘authorities’ and they are claiming two different things, the one that matches the Catechism and tradition and teaching is what we should go by until or unless the ‘differing’ authority itself either has the authority to declare the differing teaching has superseded the first, or that authority in fact on reflection acknowledges that the true authority is the first one.”
 
Oneofthewomen said:
Really?! 🤷

It was not “specifically” addressed to lay people alone, and if you read what Don Ruggero has to say, and take my experience at face value- most normal lay people do not have the background to understand the text.

But I forget, CAF is filled with people who are smarter & more competent than the majority of the Catholic clergy (who BTW, approved this document). :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe that lay persons cannot know what was obvious to all our forefathers in the Faith? That they are excused if they choose to have the various opinions of prelates tell them whether or not an action (prohibited for 2,000 years) is no longer offensive to God?

Are you concerned enough about the possible scandal to our children and fellow members of the Body of Christ, and especially the sacrilege possibly unwittingly encouraged to the Precious Body and Blood, to join your prayers and petitions with those of the 4 Cardinals to respectfully beg Our Holy Father to “confirm us in the truth”?

How likely is our children’s faith to remain intact if we are satisfied with mediocre, confusing, & varying opinions we complacently accept and banter about as if our ignorance about the truth isn’t all that important?

Please pray for the pope, the bishops, and all mankind, through the prayers of the Theotokos!
 
Tantum_ergo said:
… we must ask for clarification when we are confused, and if there are two good ‘authorities’ and they are claiming two different things, the one that matches the Catechism and tradition and teaching is what we should go by until or unless the ‘differing’ authority itself either has the authority to declare the differing teaching has superseded the first, or that authority in fact on reflection acknowledges that the true authority is the first one."
Click to expand...
Yes I agree, but Cardinal Burke and a whole slew of theologians others did just that, they asked, and then Burke was called a “witless worm” by the alleged spokesman of the Pope. Then they are accused of legalism. Then others say we are too dumb to understand any of this because apparently we don’t know how to read.

But my gosh, were is the clarity of answers to the questions? Or I guess, I may be one of those (shall I say it) “witless worms”? If I am one of those, then maybe I should just become an atheist, because obviously I am not intelligent enough to be a catholic.
 
Chipper said:
Yes I agree, but Cardinal Burke and a whole slew of theologians others did just that, they asked, and then Burke was called a “witless worm” by the alleged spokesman of the Pope. Then they are accused of legalism. Then others say we are too dumb to understand any of this because apparently we don’t know how to read.

But my gosh, were is the clarity of answers to the questions? Or I guess, I may be one of those (shall I say it) “witless worms”? If I am one of those, then maybe I should just become an atheist, because obviously I am not intelligent enough to be a catholic.
Click to expand...
I know you’re saying this with a grain or two of sarcasm (I’m the Queen of sarcasm myself and have to watch out for that tendency) but I don’t think the posters were really thinking through themselves and certainly would not really call their fellow Catholics less than intelligent.

But I agree with you on clarity.

And this is something that I’m struggling with. It seems as if many in the Church are trying to be extra helpful to their flock (something that is praiseworthy of course). Thus we are hearing all the time about how we need to be more helpful, not to be dismissive, not to look down on others. . .but there seems to be a group of people who are as you note trying to understand something that they find unclear and worrisome.

So, where is the ‘help’ to these people?

It appears sometimes that if you are part of certain groups, then everything possible is done to help you understand, feel welcome, be met ‘where you are’ and all that. .

but if you’re not part of those groups, if you are part of certain groups (and one of them appears to be people who are just trying to understand why what they have been taught as truth and what the Church has taught as truth seems to be changing --and they aren’t even rejecting it) but when they are given explanations at all, the explanations don’t really explain, and the whole tone is so condemning for them even asking, and many of their devotions which have been part of the Church for centuries are mocked or condemned as being ‘divisive’ or ‘unworthy’ and just to even want to do them is seen as unhealthy!–where, oh where, is the pastoral sensitivity and the care for these people?? If they’re sinners for their ‘old ways’, if they’re sinners for ‘not accepting’, how come they’re not treated the same way that other sinners are? If other sinners need special accommodations, why aren’t these ‘ossified manualists’ or whatever helped with special accommodations too?

It seems like there’s a kind of double standard and a kind of ‘class society’ (and I don’t mean priests/laity which is fine) I mean “those who are part of the ‘in crowd’ and 'those who aren’t.” (Again, this is a perception).
 
Chipper said:
Yes I agree, but Cardinal Burke and a whole slew of theologians others did just that, they asked, and then Burke was called a “witless worm” by the alleged spokesman of the Pope. Then they are accused of legalism. Then others say we are too dumb to understand any of this because apparently we don’t know how to read.

But my gosh, were is the clarity of answers to the questions? Or I guess, I may be one of those (shall I say it) “witless worms”? If I am one of those, then maybe I should just become an atheist, because obviously I am not intelligent enough to be a catholic.
Click to expand...
Code: 
No...we all learn.  Comes with it. It is life.
We are not perfect nor claim to be.
Full of bruises,that is what we are. And hopefully full of friends to celebrate life as it goes.
As for me today, sad cause my 15 year old dog died two days ago.
Have a very nice day,and I mean well,Chipper.
 
graciew said:
No…we all learn. Comes with it. It is life.
We are not perfect nor claim to be.
Full of bruises,that is what we are. And hopefully full of friends to celebrate life as it goes.
As for me today, sad cause my 15 year old dog died two days ago.
Have a very nice day,and I mean well,Chipper.
Click to expand...
Gosh, Gracie, I’m sorry to hear about your dog. Losing a much loved companion is heartbreaking. I hope God will send you comfort and peace.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
If other sinners need special accommodations, why aren’t these ‘ossified manualists’ or whatever helped with special accommodations too?

It seems like there’s a kind of double standard and a kind of ‘class society’ (and I don’t mean priests/laity which is fine) I mean “those who are part of the ‘in crowd’ and 'those who aren’t.” (Again, this is a perception).
Click to expand...
First let me say, that all you said was “Well Said”.

However, I am more interested in the Truth, than with special accommodations.

But, still, thank you very much for your reply.
 
graciew said:
No…we all learn. Comes with it. It is life.
We are not perfect nor claim to be.
Full of bruises,that is what we are. And hopefully full of friends to celebrate life as it goes.
As for me today, sad cause my 15 year old dog died two days ago.
Have a very nice day,and I mean well,Chipper.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear about the doggie. We lost one a few years ago, it surprised me and the wife when we suddenly felt like we lost a member of the family.
 
Chipper said:
Sorry to hear about the doggie. We lost one a few years ago, it surprised me and the wife when we suddenly felt like we lost a member of the family.
Click to expand...
Yes…I cried a lot. Thank you so much,Chipper!
 
graciew said:
No…we all learn. Comes with it. It is life.
We are not perfect nor claim to be.
Full of bruises,that is what we are. And hopefully full of friends to celebrate life as it goes.
As for me today, sad cause my 15 year old dog died two days ago.
Have a very nice day,and I mean well,Chipper.
Click to expand...
Very sorry about your dog.
 
Thomas_White said:
Of course there are those lay people who can understand the text:

"(4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers…"

–DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965
Click to expand...
👍👍 Al was addressed to and written for both clergy and the laity. Simply reading the text, even Chapter Eight, makes that clear.

Moreover, Pope Francis considers himself to be above all else a champion of the little guy and is critical of clergy who are not of that ilk. He does not abide the pompous and arrogant.

“This is hypocrisy that is the result of clericalism, which is one of the worst evils,” Francis was quoted as saying, returning to the issue of clericalism — or a certain cronyism and careerism among the men of the cloth — that he has frequently criticized.
usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/04/pope-francis-priests-vatican/4316775/
 
graciew said:
No…we all learn. Comes with it. It is life.
We are not perfect nor claim to be.
Full of bruises,that is what we are. And hopefully full of friends to celebrate life as it goes.
As for me today, sad cause my 15 year old dog died two days ago.
Have a very nice day,and I mean well,Chipper.
Click to expand...
So sorry about your dog, Gracie.

And no, we are not perfect, not at all, but we learn a bit…
 
Thomas_White said:
So sorry about your dog, Gracie.

And no, we are not perfect, not at all, but we learn a bit…
Click to expand...
Thank you,Thomas! And I owe you another thank you for a welcome you gave me In a thread that was closed. So very kind of you!
 
Havard said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is an indirect dialog and it is being discussed feverishly in my mens theology discussion group. I’m quite certain that Fr Ruggero would be absolutely astonished at sentiment being shared by some of the men. It is somthing that I have never experience in the nearly two decades of being a member of this particular group. Mostly because in my lifetime I have never seen such an indirect public discussion by such high ranking and/or well known prelates. The division is the elephant in the room…I assure you there is a very silent majority of Catholics out there and murmurings are beginning to get a bit louder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top