Pope vows he won’t be slowed down by ‘ultra-conservatives’

[CrossofChrist]

What do you mean when you say Amoris Laetitia has deepened is the theology about mitigating factors that are to be addressed on an individual basis regarding the divorced/remarried?

When you look at the requirements for a mortal sin, it has to be 1) grave matter 2) full knowledge/sufficient reflection 3) complete consent. There can also be mitigating factors that diminish or eliminate consent in some individual situations. All of that is in the Catechism. But I’m not aware of any document before Amoris Laetitia that looks at irregular situations while applying all of those factors. I’m thinking specifically of paragraphs 300-312 in Chapter 8, especially 301-306.

Would this not change the rules for them in some way? This has been discussed on this forum and no one seems to agree on what any of it really means. Maybe you could explain it from your understanding of it.

What rule specifically would be changed? No one can receive Communion if all 3 conditions for a mortal sin are met, and so that obviously includes the divorced/remarried. The objective situation they are in still makes it so they can’t receive Communion unless there is the possibility of avoiding scandal. If scandal can be avoided and the latter 2 conditions (full knowledge, complete consent) aren’t met, then Communion may be given.

Nothing new there.

What is new (at least as far as I understand it), and why Pope Francis said some new doors may be open for the divorced/remarried, is that there is increased attention on whether or not all 3 conditions are being met.

There’s more than “You have contracted a new civil marriage and aren’t staying chaste? No Communion.” As AL says, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision” and the CCC says “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” and “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. Discernment is needed.

I won’t try to address every single one of those things listed since that would take too long. But I will discuss (my understanding of) this phrase from Amoris Laetitia 301 that surprised me when I first read it: A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty
in understanding “its inherent values”. One might ask, “How can someone not realize after hearing what the Church teaches that what they are doing is wrong?” I’ll give a personal example. When I was a Protestant I had a tough time understanding what the Church meant by “merit” and “works”. I had read Church documents, not just a sentence taken out of context, and I still had a hard time understanding how it was not semi-pelagianism in some form; my understanding of justification was so influenced by my Protestant explanation of the issue that I failed to really grasp what the Church was saying even after reading about it. I believed wrongly about what God’s Word was saying, but I was sincere. I can imagine that in our world today other people might face a similar problem concerning marriage and the family.

 

[openmind77]

Maybe they are known, but it is not our place to speculate who he is talking about…especially when it is concerning people who he has praised, and even more when it is someone (Chaput) who he praised specifically in the context of the family.

OK then, lets not speculate about who these ‘ultra-conservative’ people at all . Anyway he was definitely not talking about someone like Archbishop Chaput, since he has praised him in the past.

That’s a very unnuanced view of the situation. The rules for divorced/remarried haven’t changed a bit. The Pope specifically said there were no canonical changes in Amoris Laetitia. What has deepened w/AL is the theology about mitigating factors, etc., which is supposed to be addressed on an individual basis. Perhaps Chaput could’ve explicitly talked about that, but he didn’t and I fail to see why how him not doing so puts him at odds with Pope Francis.

Sorry, I guess I missed the nuance, since he has, as you say, made exceptions in case of mitigating factors.

 

[CrossofChrist]

OK then, lets not speculate about who these ‘ultra-conservative’ people at all . Anyway he was definitely not talking about someone like Archbishop Chaput, since he has praised him in the past.

Sorry, I guess I missed the nuance, since he has, as you say, made exceptions in case of mitigating factors.

My understanding is that it’s not so much exceptions as much as something Canon Law doesn’t address.

From Amoris Laetitia 300:

For this discernment to happen, the following conditions must necessarily
be present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it”.338 These attitudes are essential for avoiding the grave danger of misunderstandings, such as the notion that any priest can grant “exceptions”

I’m not trying to nit-pick, just trying to clarify.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

I don’t think its helpful to make pronouncements like this.
Who are we to judge that former popes were LESS Christ-like than pope Francis?

It is really very easy. Look at the gospels and compare them to the things Popes have said and done. Francis hands down is the closest match.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Pope Francis is God’s choice and the next stage in developing our tradition

God doesn’t choose Popes cardinals do. God, according to Catholic teaching, protects the church from error regardless of who is chosen. Cardinal Ratzinger was very clear on that point before his elevation.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

Pope Francis has defeated the ultra-conservatives, but will he be ready to take on the MEGA CONSERVATIVES!?

Joking aside, I would be interested to know who these ultra-conservatives are. They are probably not the clergy, who are primarily not conservative, look at the voting totals from the two synods. He may be referring to hateful internet bloggers, or perhaps some faction that we aren’t even aware exists. Hopefully they understand that, regardless of whether they ‘like’ the Pope, it is necessary for our salvation that we remain in communion with the Vicar of Christ. Surely Pope Francis surely includes conservatives in the year of mercy as well!

 

[manygift1spirit]

Pope Francis has defeated the ultra-conservatives, but will he be ready to take on the MEGA CONSERVATIVES!?

Joking aside, I would be interested to know who these ultra-conservatives are. They are probably not the clergy, who are primarily not conservative, look at the voting totals from the two synods. He may be referring to hateful internet bloggers, or perhaps some faction that we aren’t even aware exists. Hopefully they understand that, regardless of whether they ‘like’ the Pope, it is necessary for our salvation that we remain in communion with the Vicar of Christ. Surely Pope Francis surely includes conservatives in the year of mercy as well!

If one trolls the internet, one can find folks who write publically how Catholic Answers is profusely heretical, who call the Pope “Unholy Father” on a public blog, think “Eye of the Tiber” is the most accurate catholic news outlet around, and other unsavory things. Most basically protest nearly everything Francis does. Without a doubt this is what he is referring to. And I completely agree.

. A big problem arises though, where some try to lump good orthodox sources like Catholic Answers in with those “NO”-saying types, as a tactic to undermine the faith. But this is a topic for another thread.

 

[JosieN]

When you look at the requirements for a mortal sin, it has to be 1) grave matter 2) full knowledge/sufficient reflection 3) complete consent. There can also be mitigating factors that diminish or eliminate consent in some individual situations. All of that is in the Catechism. But I’m not aware of any document before Amoris Laetitia that looks at irregular situations while applying all of those factors. I’m thinking specifically of paragraphs 300-312 in Chapter 8, especially 301-306.

What rule specifically would be changed? No one can receive Communion if all 3 conditions for a mortal sin are met, and so that obviously includes the divorced/remarried. The objective situation they are in still makes it so they can’t receive Communion unless there is the possibility of avoiding scandal. **If scandal can be avoided and the latter 2 conditions (full knowledge, complete consent) aren’t met, then Communion may be given.
**
Nothing new there.

What is new (at least as far as I understand it), and why Pope Francis said some new doors may be open for the divorced/remarried, is that** there is increased attention on whether or not all 3 conditions are** being met.

There’s more than “You have contracted a new civil marriage and aren’t staying chaste? No Communion.” As AL says,** “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision” and the CCC says “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” and “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. Discernment is needed.
**
I won’t try to address every single one of those things listed since that would take too long. But I will discuss (my understanding of) this phrase from Amoris Laetitia 301 that surprised me when I first read it: A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty
in understanding “its inherent values”. One might ask, “How can someone not realize after hearing what the Church teaches that what they are doing is wrong?” I’ll give a personal example. When I was a Protestant I had a tough time understanding what the Church meant by “merit” and “works”. I had read Church documents, not just a sentence taken out of context, and I still had a hard time understanding how it was not semi-pelagianism in some form; my understanding of justification was so influenced by my Protestant explanation of the issue that I failed to really grasp what the Church was saying even after reading about it. I believed wrongly about what God’s Word was saying, but I was sincere. I can imagine that in our world today other people might face a similar problem concerning marriage and the family.

I gather from this that the old rule was no Holy Communion for those who were divorced and remarried without getting an annulment, because they were believed to be living in mortal sin unless they were living as brother and sister. Now the rule is more open towards those divorced and remarried, because it is no longer thought of as living in mortal sin when it is believed that all three conditions for a mortal sin are not met, because a mortal sin is only mortal if it has all three of these

1. grave matter 2) full knowledge/sufficient reflection 3) complete consent. Am I understanding it correctly?

Aren’t these things sometimes difficult to prove? Do you think it is God’s will to open the door to as many as possible to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion, even when there is no way to prove there wasn’t full knowledge/sufficient reflection and complete consent? Maybe this is why the old rules stayed in place until now, because there is too much room for error in this way of doing things. There may be some who are not worthy to receive Holy Communion but will be allowed. What do you think?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Since the Pope’s statement about the ultra-conservatives, I have gone back to an old prayer that we used many decades ago in Latin. I provide it in English translation:

*V. Let us pray for our Pontiff N . . .
R. The Lord preserve him, and give him life, and bless him upon earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies.

O God, the Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful people, mercifully look upon Thy servant N., whom Thou hast chosen as the chief Shepherd to preside over Thy Church. We beg Thee to help him edify, both by word and example, those over whom he has charge, that he may reach everlasting life together with the flock entrusted to him. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Our Father. Hail Mary.*

 

[PatrickKennedy]

God doesn’t choose Popes cardinals do. God, according to Catholic teaching, protects the church from error regardless of who is chosen. Cardinal Ratzinger was very clear on that point before his elevation.

so to extrapolate they choose the right candidate guided by God (who has chosen the candidate)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

so to extrapolate they choose the right candidate guided by God (who has chosen the candidate)

No, God does not choose the pope. God protects the church no matter the pope.
This is easily seen in the history of the church. Though I will add that perhaps some popes like st Fabian may have been directly chosen not all were.
Some were not the best popes and some were killed or died days after election.

Now that popes are chosen through the college ( not always the case historically) they pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit, but to be fair I do the same thing with my fantasy team…:

 

[Don_Ruggero]

so to extrapolate they choose the right candidate guided by God (who has chosen the candidate)

To conclude an interview on European television in 1997 about the conclave to elect a pope, Cardinal Ratzinger was asked if the Holy Spirit chose the one elected. The Cardinal answered:

“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope…I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”

 

[pnewton]

OK then, lets not speculate about who these ‘ultra-conservative’ people at all

This would definitely be the course of prudent. What the Pope said really applied to him alone, as his own counsel is… his.

 

[zz912]

Pope Francis has defeated the ultra-conservatives, but will he be ready to take on the MEGA CONSERVATIVES!?

Joking aside, I would be interested to know who these ultra-conservatives are. **They are probably not the clergy, **who are primarily not conservative, look at the voting totals from the two synods. He may be referring to hateful internet bloggers, or perhaps some faction that we aren’t even aware exists. Hopefully they understand that, regardless of whether they ‘like’ the Pope, it is necessary for our salvation that we remain in communion with the Vicar of Christ. Surely Pope Francis surely includes conservatives in the year of mercy as well!

No, it meant clergy, specifically some bishops, because he mentioned waiting them out until retirement forced them out. Bishops are the only ones who have mandatory retirement age.

 

[zz912]

so to extrapolate they choose the right candidate guided by God (who has chosen the candidate)

Are you accusing God of selecting the few truly horrible popes we’ve had in history?

 

[KSU]

Pope Francis has defeated the ultra-conservatives, but will he be ready to take on the MEGA CONSERVATIVES!?

Now that’s funny

As you implied, the only person who knows what was meant by “ultra-conservatives” is the controversy-seeking journalist who coined that term.

Pope Francis saw the trap, and rather than embarrass the journalist, he simply said “they do their job and I do mine”. Although Francis refused to manufacture a controversy about it, there are more than enough folks who
have tried to do so.

 

[KSU]

When I was a Protestant I had a tough time understanding what the Church meant by “merit” and “works”… I can imagine that in our world today other people might face a similar problem concerning marriage and the family.

I’m glad that you found the Church, my friend. Your posts are examples of good works that gain merit.

 

[PatrickKennedy]

Are you accusing God of selecting the few truly horrible popes we’ve had in history?

I wouldn’t ‘accuse’ almighty God of anything. I’m surprised you could write a question couched in such bizzaire terms

 

[phil19034]

To conclude an interview on European television in 1997 about the conclave to elect a pope, Cardinal Ratzinger was asked if the Holy Spirit chose the one elected. The Cardinal answered:

“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope…I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”

Father - you should be a moderator here

I always learn much reading your posts.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I gather from this that the old rule was no Holy Communion for those who were divorced and remarried without getting an annulment, because they were believed to be living in mortal sin unless they were living as brother and sister.

Yes.

Now the rule is more open towards those divorced and remarried, because it is no longer thought of as living in mortal sin when it is believed that all three conditions for a mortal sin are not met, because a mortal sin is only mortal if it has all three of these

1. grave matter 2) full knowledge/sufficient reflection 3) complete consent. Am I understanding it correctly?

Well the rule itself did NOT change. I think the concern is whether or not some people are being affected by it when perhaps they shouldn’t be.

Aren’t these things sometimes difficult to prove? Do you think it is God’s will to open the door to as many as possible to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion, even when there is no way to prove there wasn’t full knowledge/sufficient reflection and complete consent? Maybe this is why the old rules stayed in place until now, because there is too much room for error in this way of doing things. There may be some who are not worthy to receive Holy Communion but will be allowed. What do you think?

This is why it is important to stay faithful to what the Church teaches, as AL 300 states.