Pope reacts to 'rigid' critics [CWN]

[KSU]

I believe that the Pope is mistaken. He said in the interview that “Some people … still do not understand.” I believe that they do understand. They just don’t agree. And that is not the Pope’s problem. You will always have dissent in the Church. Dissenters will always have evidence to prove their points. There are whole websites citing evidence in church history, doctrine, the Bible, etc that undermine the Church’s position on abortion and female priests. Same thing here with these four cardinals.They have their evidence too. The Pope is right to ignore them. No sense in playing out another wilderness scene.

As others have said, the four Cardinals are not dissenters. Nor is it a case of just four Cardinals.

This thread has referenced thousands of faithful Cardinals, bishops, priests and theologians around the world, who have signed their names to pleas for clarification of A.L. to bring an end to the disunity and confusion in the Church. And that does make it the Pope’s problem because no other person can end the confusion.

Almost a year before A.L. was issued (it was not known if there would be an apostolic exhortation after the Synod), over 400,000 people petitioned the Holy Father for clarification:
lifesitenews.com/news/405000-people-104-bishops-sign-petition-to-pope-francis-asking-for-clarific

Obviously, those people also didn’t, and now, after A.L., still don’t understand (except regarding homosexual unions which has been clarified). They are not dissidents, and I don’t believe that the Holy Father considers them as such. He probably was sincere when he said, “Some people … still do not understand.”

 

[Paganus]

The Pope is right to ignore them.

That’s a novel thought - a Pope who ignores Catholics. What interesting times we live in!

 

[patricius79]

I believe that the Pope is mistaken. He said in the interview that “Some people … still do not understand.” I believe that they do understand. They just don’t agree. And that is not the Pope’s problem. You will always have dissent in the Church. Dissenters will always have evidence to prove their points. There are whole websites citing evidence in church history, doctrine, the Bible, etc that undermine the Church’s position on abortion and female priests. Same thing here with these four cardinals…

I certainly don’t want to be a dissenter, or to lack in love and respect for the Holy Father and the clergy. My understanding is that opposition to abortion and female priests are matters of constant Church teaching.

I’m trying to understand–with my very limited abilities–what is the constant Church teaching which Pope Francis is reaffirming as binding on all Catholics.

 

[Brendan]

The Pope has chosen not to respond directly to the cardinals and basically dismissed their concerns in a public interview. If they end up publicly correcting him, that’s their beef. It doesn’t mean he will agree or recant. I personally believe that our faith is a living and breathing faith. And apparently so does the Pope. We can’t be a universal church and a judgmental church. I think the Pope is correct in leaving the judgment of sins to God. “Who are we to judge” glorifies God. QUOTE]

How about when the Pope rightly speaks out against torture, or genocide. Is that not being a ‘judgmental’ Church, Are we not to be welcoming to those who torture or mass murders? Should we leave judgement of those sins to God?

I think you have an incorrect understanding of the role of the Magisterium in regards to moral choices. The Church was given a mandate by Christ to teach what is right and what is wrong, and to hold all of us to those standards.

I would encourage you to read Vertias Splendor, especially chapter 79
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

 

[pnewton]

It surprises me, too, how disregarding Church teaching isn’t considered impious …

Huh? Disregarding the Church’s teaching is not considered impious? Did you just make this up, or did anyone really hold this position?

 

[Thomas_White]

From footnote 329 in Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis appears to at least hint at that couples in irregular marriages need not abstain from all sexual activity. In the body of the exhortation #298, he says “The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious
reasons, such as the children’s upbringing,
a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.” He is quoting St John Paul II in this passage from the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris
Consortio. In such a situation where the couple cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio teaches that the couple must live in complete continence to approach the sacraments of confession and holy communion.

However, Pope Francis says in footnote 329 following the quote from #298 above "In such situations [where the couple cannot satisfy the obligation to separate for serious reasons], many people, knowing and accepting the possibility
of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them,
point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it
often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of
the children suffers.” Some cardinals, bishops, and priests interpret this to mean in conjunction with other passages and footnotes of AL that Pope Francis has opened some kind of door that not all couples in irregular marriages need abstain from all sexual activity to approach the sacraments which appears to be in contradiction to the Church’s prior teaching if not the gospel of Jesus Christ itself. See also the guidelines to Amoris Laetitia from the Argentine bishops which Pope Francis has given approval of in a private letter.

Recently, Bishop Marcello Semeraro, bishop of Albano, Italy, and secretary of the Council of 9 Cardinals chosen by Pope Francis to be his personal advisers, is reported to have said the following (in quotation marks) in a recent presentation of Amoris Laetitia in Spain:

Regarding the regulation for Catholics who have entered a second civil union after a prior sacramental marriage (and civil divorce) to live as brother and sister in order to receive the sacraments, Bishop Semeraro qualified: “What would it mean that people who have children live as brother and sister? The step forward of Amoris Laetitia, with respect to Familiaris Consortio, is that they [the civilly remarried] can express their affection in their situation, and this is where the accompaniment and guidance of the spiritual director would enter into play.” He added with more clarity: “It is not a brother and sister relationship but a conjugal relationship. They are people who have children and have responsibilities in their relationship.” (Source Lifesitenews: Papal advisor: Amoris Laetitia sees cohabitation as a ‘conjugal relationship’)

It would seem disingenuous to maintain that examples such as those quoted above do not result in confusion among the faithful concerning the implementation of AL. Are those in irregular marriages to be permitted to receive communion because “faithfulness is endangered”? Does this logic also apply to cohabitation? It would seem reasonable to conclude that the answer to both questions would be affirmative.

To this one might fairly ask: “What of Original Sin”? Did not Augustine maintain that mankind must, as the result of Original Sin, seek God’s grace lest he necessary fall pray to the sins of the flesh due to his corrupted nature?

Consequently, I would suggest it is not necessarily the case, in every instance, that those seeking clarification of AL are confused.

 

[OraLabora]

Are you suggesting the cardinals are dissenting with the Church and/or Pope Francis?
If so, what position of the Church and/or the Pope are they dissenting with?

The cardinals’ initiative, is entitled:** ‘Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in Amoris Laetitia.’** Read through the documentation (less than 8 pages long) and you might be surprised at what they are actually requesting.
ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia

Look forward to hearing back from you

Well, you figure it out. This is what they said:

The Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection and the discussion, calmly and with respect.

And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.

So they have elected to go public with their doubts, after the Holy Father declined to answer their query as is his sovereign right.

How would you interpret that act?

 

[Thomas_White]

Well, you figure it out. This is what they said:

So they have elected to go public with their doubts, after the Holy Father declined to answer their query as is his sovereign right.

How would you interpret that act?

As an attempt to continue the reflection and discussion.