Pope reacts to 'rigid' critics [CWN]

[Giuseppesiri58]

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.

Archbishop chaput is exptremely popular. If you want him to come and speak you need an arena. Recently in the midwest 15000 people bought tickets to hear him speak at a conference.

 

[Convert_in_99]

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.

Why are you discussing what Father Ruggero would think behind his back?

I don’t care which side of the argument you are on, but you don’t disrespect a priest regardless!

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

It seems to me there are parallel divisive (political) trends in both the U.S. and the world generally. Is this both an historical and spiritual inevitability? It is disconcerting.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

You would think that pastors should be “pastorally sensitive” but you and I both know that is not/has not always been the case.

The whole document is about pastoral guidelines. That’s what the whole Synod was about.

The document was written for Bishops & Priests, not lay people. They know the rules of the Church, there is no reason for this document to restate them.

So, again, where is the confusion?

Or is it just that this particular document is not “black & white” enough for some people.
The Holy Father did call for his Bishops & Priests to know their sheep, and to get right in there with them, getting dirty if needed.
Is this the problem? Some of the “Princes” don’t want to get their hands dirty?

Well said. AL is so positive, and beautifully written. It’s encouraging to a sinful world to see the Holy Father has not forgotten us. There are a lot of people who want help in their spiritual life but are unaware of the help that is available to them because of preconceived notions they may have about how they will be treated; this is true for addiction, abortion, killing, or even just a lifelong indifference to God, not just adultry.

 

[TMC]

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.

With all respect, the SSPX are a tiny fraction of the Church (<0.1%). And I do not see any “silent majority” out there in the broader Church. What I see is a very vocal (and small) minority that are complaining about the Pope. The great majority of the Church is with the Pope.

 

[patricius79]

Maybe I’m missing it. I would still like to understand what are some cases where it would make sense to give Communion to someone living in adultery, and who has sought the guidance of a priest. That would help me to see this issue more concretely.

I don’t understand why the role of the priest wouldn’t be to simply help the person to understand the beauty of marriage and chastity, so that they can get to the place where they will confess their sin, commit to lively in complete continence, and licitly receive Communion.

I’m also still unclear about whether inviting persons living in adultery to receive Communion is only a disciplinary issue, or whether it is a doctrinal issue as well.

 

[Convert_in_99]

With all respect, the SSPX are a tiny fraction of the Church (<0.1%). And I do not see any “silent majority” out there in the broader Church. What I see is a very vocal (and small) minority that are complaining about the Pope. The great majority of the Church is with the Pope.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Maybe I’m missing it. I would still like to understand what are some cases where it would make sense to give Communion to someone living in adultery, and who has sought the guidance of a priest. That would help me to see this issue more concretely.

I don’t understand why the role of the priest wouldn’t be to simply help the person to understand the beauty of marriage and chastity, so that they can get to the place where they will confess their sin, commit to lively in complete continence, and licitly receive Communion.

I’m also still unclear about whether inviting persons living in adultery to receive Communion is only a disciplinary issue, or whether it is a doctrinal issue as well.

Well here’s a possibility. What if the two in the new married union were TRYING to be chaste, but they mess up, sin, and need frequent mercy from confession, but still wish to Communicate.

 

[patricius79]

With all respect, the SSPX are a tiny fraction of the Church (<0.1%). And I do not see any “silent majority” out there in the broader Church. What I see is a very vocal (and small) minority that are complaining about the Pope. The great majority of the Church is with the Pope.

Is the great majority of the Church also dissenting from the Magisterium on doctrinal or moral issues, like contraception? In either case, I don’t see how that settles the issue of Communion for those living in adultery, since, of course, the Church is not a democracy.

 

[patricius79]

Well here’s a possibility. What if the two in the new married union were TRYING to be chaste, but they mess up, sin, and need frequent mercy from confession, but still wish to Communicate.

But if they confess their sin with a firm resolution to not repeat it, then they wouldn’t be living in adultery.

But is the Pope saying that a person without such repentance, confession, and firm resolution, could still be permitted to receive Communion?

If so, what situations would that be appropriate for?

 

[Convert_in_99]

Is the great majority of the Church also dissenting from the Magisterium on doctrinal or moral issues, like contraception? In either case, I don’t see how that settles the issue of Communion for those living in adultery, since, of course, the Church is not a democracy.

Wow. Let’s not be judgmental here. We are all sinners. Some don’t care, but many do care. Many try, but fail frequently. Some just are taught poorly or misinformed. Let’s not group then all together as dissenting from the Church’s teachings.

 

[Convert_in_99]

But if they confess their sin with a firm resolution to not repeat it, then they wouldn’t be living in adultery.

But is the Pope saying that a person without such repentance, confession, and firm resolution, could still be permitted to receive Communion?

Yes I can see your concern here. If there is not repentance or confession, they should refrain from Communion.

Hmm…what about a couple in the second marriage trying to be chaste, sinning, needing confession BUT can’t for a serious reason but still want to communicate. The Church allows such if a person has perfect contrition and the intention to confess as soon as able.

 

[patricius79]

Wow. Let’s not be judgmental here. We are all sinners. Some don’t care, but many do care. Many try, but fail frequently. Some just are taught poorly or misinformed. Let’s not group then all together as dissenting from the Church’s teachings.

So, all Catholics are sinners, some don’t care what the Church teaches, and some do care, but fail frequently, and some are poorly or misinformed… so then why would this issue be determined by the opinions of Catholics?

 

[Convert_in_99]

So, all Catholics are sinners, some don’t care what the Church teaches, and some do care, but fail frequently, and some are poorly or misinformed… so then why would this issue be determined by the opinions of Catholics?

It isn’t. The Pope determines this issue. We as good sheep are to follow obediently our Dear Shepherd.

 

[patricius79]

Yes I can see your concern here. If there is not repentance or confession, they should refrain from Communion.

Hmm…what about a couple in the second marriage trying to be chaste, sinning, needing confession BUT can’t for a serious reason but still want to communicate. The Church allows such if a person has perfect contrition and the intention to confess as soon as able.

Interesting. And I like how you are talking about how the person is trying to be chaste, and that they are perfectly contrite. But why couldn’t they wait until they confess to the priest? Aren’t we always supposed to do that when we’ve fallen seriously, unless there is a grave reason (like we’re in danger of death)?

 

[patricius79]

It isn’t. The Pope determines this issue. We as good sheep are to follow obediently our Dear Shepherd.

Correct. Even in disciplinary matters, and even if we think the Pope is wrong about such, we are to obey. What I’m no clear on is, for example, this: is the idea that a person conscious of mortal sin is not to receive Communion… is that idea only a matter of discipline, or of doctrine?

 

[Brendan]

What I’m no clear on is, for example, this: is the idea that a person conscious of mortal sin is not to receive Communion… is that idea only a matter of discipline, or of doctrine?

Doctrine.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Well here’s a possibility. What if the two in the new married union were TRYING to be chaste, but they mess up, sin, and need frequent mercy from confession, but still wish to Communicate.

Strange example … a couple who “recently” rejected the Sacrament of Marriage but now want to participate in the Blessed Sacrament?

 

[patricius79]

Doctrine.

So then, if someone is living in adultery and is going to the priest for counsel, how–if at all–could they not become aware of the grave immorality of adulterous relations (i.e. sex in their irregular marriage)?

And if they do become aware of this, how could they ever be counseled to receive Communion unless they have a firm intention to avoid future sex within that relationship?

And if they never can be so counseled, then did Pope Francis make that clear in Amoris Laetitia?

 

[giuseppeTO]

So then, if someone is living in adultery and is going to the priest for counsel, how–if at all–could they not become aware of the grave immorality of adulterous relations (i.e. sex in their irregular marriage)?

And if they do become aware of this, how could they ever be counseled to receive Communion unless they have a firm intention to avoid future sex within that relationship?

And if they never can be so counseled, then did Pope Francis make that clear in Amoris Laetitia?

Part of the validity of one’s Confession is his sincerity in reforming and/or avoiding the near occasion of sin. Can the Confessions of those living in adultery even be effective?