Pope reacts to 'rigid' critics [CWN]

[patricius79]

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

According to the Catechism, there are subjective factors which can strongly mitigate culpability.

 

[patricius79]

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?

Only if they have firmly resolved to live in complete continence. But that’s what I don’t get about A.L. The Pope says that people objectively living in sin may not be culpable–or not fully culpable. I get that. But once they have talked to the priest who explains the truth to them in love, wouldn’t they become culpable for any future acts?

Maybe the Pope is saying that even after talking to the priest, SOME people, in SOME cases, might–due to subjective factors, like habitual attachment to sex–be unable to integrate what they are hearing for while… And the Pope wants them to be able to receive in the meantime.

 

[patricius79]

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”. "

I think a lot of people are concerned about that. The three people I trust in my personal life all agree that the Pope is confusing people. I submit myself to all the Church teaches (being under the Pope), and to the Pope’s supreme disciplinary authority.

But I tend–at least sometimes–to see A.L. in the context of the larger crisis in the Church , where pastors seem–in my opinion–afraid to address major crises (such as the moral issues I’ve mentioned, and failure to Confess) which are harming their flocks severely; and in the context where more and more Catholics seem to not know the faith, or to be choosing to dissent from it.

It seems to me that those are the real root issues which need to be addressed, under the leadership of the clergy. For example, really catechizing the flock from the pulpit, etc, about the Sacrament of Matrimony, divorce, remarriage, contraception, pornography, Confession, the Rosary, the Eucharist, etc

On the one hand A.L, is apparently saying what a mess we’re in. But if you go into a Catholic Church today, I feel like pastors are often preaching as if things are going okay…

 

[bilop]

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?

Unless his teachings were to conflict with established doctrine of the Church. The Pope can not change a discipline in such a way that it conflicts with doctrine.

God Bless

 

[patricius79]

Unless his teachings were to conflict with established doctrine of the Church. The Pope can not change a discipline in such a way that it conflicts with doctrine.

God Bless

I find this issue very confusing to a simpleton like me. But I’m not sure that the Holy Father is changing a discipline in such a way that it conflicts with doctrine. I think it is possible, as the Pope says, that some people are living objectively in sin but are not very culpable for this, and as such may be in a state of grace. And I guess I still don’t understand how this differs much from the related crisis of contraception, where priests must know that many of their parishioners are regularly practicing this intrinsic evil act, yet say nothing about how they need to refrain from Communion until they’re repented and confessed. This strikes me as tacit approval, especially if–as often happens–they are never preaching about contraception. In both cases, it might take people some time to adjust to the truth before they become fully culpable for their adulterous or contracepted–or adulterous AND contracepted–sexual relations. Maybe that’s what the Pope is saying…?

 

[KSU]

patricius79, your recent posts raise the problem of gradualism:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=10690

 

[patricius79]

patricius79, your recent posts raise the problem of gradualism:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=10690

Perhaps so. I’m just wrestling with it all and trying to understand the issues.

I like in the article you linked to where it says:

However, the prevalence of “universalism” (the unbiblical view that all are saved in the end no matter what) in the Church has led to a profound lack of urgency. Very few in pastoral leadership today have a strong sense of concern about the fact that so many people are confused, are in darkness, and are living in serious, unrepentant sin. In the midst of a great moral crisis, many pulpits remain strangely silent and most parishes seem more focused on the next chicken dinner or the upcoming fundraiser than about how to reach out to those who live in darkness.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=10690

This is my perception also. If I’m getting into some kind of error, it seems–with due respect-- like most of the clergy and laity are in the same error.

The article you link to also appears to approve of gradualism at the one-on-one pastoral level (not at the homiletic level). And isn’t that the context of Pope Francis’s new approach?

Here’s what your article says:

*The better approach is that reputed of St. John Vianney: the Church should be clear in the pulpit and work quietly and in stages with people who struggle to meet the norms (and that is all of us, really). *
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=10690

It sure would be refreshing to hear clear, catechetical homilies about the Sacrament of Matrimony, openness to fertility, indissolubility, etc.

 

[KSU]

Perhaps so. I’m just wrestling with it all and trying to understand the issues.

I like in the article you linked to where it says:

*However, the prevalence of “universalism” (the unbiblical view that all are saved in the end no matter what) in the Church has led to a profound lack of urgency. Very few in pastoral leadership today have a strong sense of concern about the fact that so many people are confused, are in darkness, and are living in serious, unrepentant sin. In the midst of a great moral crisis, many pulpits remain strangely silent *and most parishes seem more focused on the next chicken dinner or the upcoming fundraiser than about how to reach out to those who live in darkness.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=10690

This is my perception also. If I’m getting into some kind of error, it seems–with due respect-- like most of the clergy and laity are in the same error.

The article you link to also appears to approve of gradualism at the one-on-one pastoral level (not at the homiletic level). And isn’t that the context of Pope Francis’s new approach?

Here’s what your article says:

*The better approach is that reputed of St. John Vianney: the Church should be clear in the pulpit and work quietly and in stages with people who struggle to meet the norms (and that is all of us, really). *
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=10690

It sure would be refreshing to hear clear, catechetical homilies about the Sacrament of Matrimony, openness to fertility, indissolubility, etc.

Agreed.

catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=900

 

[Brendan]

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?

Each and every person who approaches the Church is to be accepted and, as you state, be given counsel on how to deepen their relationship with Christ.

For some, that might mean RCIA and eventually Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Communion…

In the case you mention, if they have the intent of ending their sexual activity, they may receive Holy Communion, as per the same conditions as everyone else.

If they do not have that intent, they are to refrain from receiving Holy Communion. That was made clear in Famiaris Consortio, and I have not seen anything in A.L that would remove that requirement.

 

[patricius79]

Agreed.

catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=900

And even on a one-on-one level, shouldn’t a pastor be clear that a person must be trying to follow the whole moral law if they want to receive Communion?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

And even on a one-on-one level, shouldn’t a pastor be clear that a person must be trying to follow the whole moral law if they want to receive Communion?

The care of souls rests with the Bishop and with the priest to whom the Bishop has given cura animarum.

The pastoral accompaniment that is to occur is then between the priest and the person or couple. It is not a matter for speculation on the part of others.

There is a reason why the guidelines that have been completed or in the process of being completed is done behind closed doors and without the writers giving interviews about them beyond very superficial statements.

The implementation of guidelines belongs to the bishop of the diocese and to his prebyterate. And it stops there.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

With all the decades that I have passed, I doubt I would be astonished. I have heard quite a lot in my span. Only a fraction of what people say have I found to have any merit, on the other hand.

The fact that people say things does not make the thing said appropriate or in any way proper.

Indeed, as the level of expertise and understanding declines, the more stupid and foolish are the things that are often said…as any professor can readily tell you.

 

[KSU]

And even on a one-on-one level, shouldn’t a pastor be clear that a person must be trying to follow the whole moral law if they want to receive Communion?

One would think so.

 

[Convert_in_99]

The care of souls rests with the Bishop and with the priest to whom the Bishop has given cura animarum.

The pastoral accompaniment that is to occur is then between the priest and the person or couple. It is not a matter for speculation on the part of others.

There is a reason why the guidelines that have been completed or in the process of being completed is done behind closed doors and without the writers giving interviews about them beyond very superficial statements.

The implementation of guidelines belongs to the bishop of the diocese and to his prebyterate. And it stops there.

Yes, exactly! Our job (not including yourself Father ) as laity is to follow, not lead. Why we are discussing the morality of this document endlessly when we are lowest on the “totem pole” so to speak is beyond me. Even if you don’t agree, nothing will change sitting here bad-mouthing the Pope and other clergy. We don’t have the authority in the first place.

 

[patricius79]

Each and every person who approaches the Church is to be accepted and, as you state, be given counsel on how to deepen their relationship with Christ.

For some, that might mean RCIA and eventually Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Communion…

In the case you mention, if they have the intent of ending their sexual activity, they may receive Holy Communion, as per the same conditions as everyone else.

If they do not have that intent, they are to refrain from receiving Holy Communion. That was made clear in Famiaris Consortio, and I have not seen anything in A.L that would remove that requirement.

As I understand it, without being able to read the document (so correct me where I’m ignorant), A.L. does not affirm that they must have the intention of ending sexual activity in order to receive Communion. It also says that a person in objective state of sin may receive help, including, in some cases, the sacraments.

 

[Convert_in_99]

As I understand it, without being able to read the document (so correct me where I’m ignorant), A.L. does not affirm that they must have the intention of ending sexual activity in order to receive Communion. It also says that a person in objective state of sin may receive help, including, in some cases, the sacraments.

If you haven’t even read the document, why on earth are you even commenting on it?

 

[patricius79]

The care of souls rests with the Bishop and with the priest to whom the Bishop has given cura animarum.

The pastoral accompaniment that is to occur is then between the priest and the person or couple. It is not a matter for speculation on the part of others.

There is a reason why the guidelines that have been completed or in the process of being completed is done behind closed doors and without the writers giving interviews about them beyond very superficial statements.

The implementation of guidelines belongs to the bishop of the diocese and to his prebyterate. And it stops there.

Hi Father. Does this mean that those who have no intention of following the whole moral law may receive Communion?

 

[patricius79]

If you haven’t even read the document, why on earth are you even commenting on it?

I’m not commenting on anything as if I’m able to read it. I’m only trying to understand what I’ve read from the document and from what others are saying, because that’s how I learn.

Right now, I’m trying to understand if Pope Francis affirms that one must have the intention of following the whole moral law–including the intention of abstaining from all adulterous relations–in order to receive Communion.

 

[kyrie03]

Yes, exactly! Our job (not including yourself Father ) as laity is to follow, not lead. Why we are discussing the morality of this document endlessly when we are lowest on the “totem pole” so to speak is beyond me. Even if you don’t agree, nothing will change sitting here bad-mouthing the Pope and other clergy. We don’t have the authority in the first place.

Even the lowliest can join prayers with those of our forefathers in the Faith who undoubtedly are interceding on our behalf before the throne of the Lamb. You can ALSO help the unity and stability of the Catholic Church by signing the petition to His Holiness respectfully requesting clarity on AL. lifepetitions.com/petition/pope-francis-i-support-the-4-cardinals-letter-pleading-for-clarity-on-amoris-laetitia

Posts on this thread and others illustrate how divisive and potentially destructive the various interpretations of AL are having on our brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ.

What do you say? Ready to help put an end to what you describe as “bad mouthing the Pope and other clergy”?

 

[Convert_in_99]

Even the lowliest can join prayers with those of our forefathers in the Faith who undoubtedly are interceding on our behalf before the throne of the Lamb. You can ALSO help the unity and stability of the Catholic Church by signing the petition to His Holiness respectfully requesting clarity on AL. lifepetitions.com/petition/pope-francis-i-support-the-4-cardinals-letter-pleading-for-clarity-on-amoris-laetitia

Posts on this thread and others illustrate how divisive and potentially destructive the various interpretations of AL are having on our brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ.

What do you say? Ready to help put an end to what you describe as “bad mouthing the Pope and other clergy”?

Nope why would I stop defending our chosen leaders against disrespectful and/or judgemental laity? (Not saying you personally, but rather the general theme of the laity who have posted in this thread.)