The true meaning of Amoris Laetitia?

[otjm]

I think not. Civil divorce does not end a valid marriage. There are valid reasons why a couple may no longer cohabitate, adultery being one of them. However the 2nd problem is she didn’t commit adultery after the marriage according to your, now, somewhat beginning-to-unravel-as-possible-real-life scenario. So no Canon lawyer is going to let that hidden crossed fingers behind the back card play (even if the father was still alive to testify) if the wife was a good girl that way and she left him for other reasons.

Actually, it comes directly from a Canon lawyer.

The legal presumption on the wedding day is that the person wills what he or she says. Common sense dictates that the person mean the vows they puiblicly exchange. Canon 1101.1.

However, if a person excludes an essential element or property of the marriage on the day of the wedding, then that person’s consent is defective and the marriage is invalid. Canon 1101.2.

This scenario focuses on an intention against a property of a marriage, namely perpetuity, a lifelong commitment. Canon 1056.

What you actually set up doesn’t do this sorry.

Due to space, I have not detailed every last part of the issue, but that is what I am positing - someone who on the wedding day makes a statement (and most people do not know Canon law who have an issue against perpetuity and so don’t make “law detailed” statements) It suffices for my example.

It continues to undermine the credibility of your “story” ever being real in practice. I have never been a fan of “thought experiments” because it assumes they are possible in the real world when in fact they may not be. A sort of begging of the question.

It is not a “thought question”. The details are very similar to what a Canon lawyer was explaining.

Of course it doesn’t. It is the role of a Tribunal to make such public findings.
The DP makes no public findings about the status of the first marriage at all.

you and I both know that; others reading this dialogue clearly don’t. On occasion I post something for the other readers.

No. Not in the example you have provided. And even if you could come up with a more likely scenario if there are no witnesses then you are not God and cannot possibly know with any objective certainty to counter the Tribunal. If one of the couple themselves was a witness that is not enough to make a public objective finding by a Tribunal. However it may be enough to allow a DP priest to allow access to Communion. He cannot possibly make any formal or objective public finding on the objective status of the first marriage regardless. That is the jurisdiction of the Tribunal not the DP priest.

I am not going to get into an argument with you over the process an advocate and others involved in presenting a case to a tribunal do, nor what they may see as clear cut evidence, but I am familiar enough with it that there are cases which more clear cut than others.

You may not like what I positied and that is fine; this is not a class in ecclesiastical jurisprudence, but rather a conversation among non-Canon lawyers concerning whether or not AL could provide a secondary means of resolving issues with someone in a “second marriage”. You may or may not like my scenario; but all the focus has been on irregular second marriages where there is no defective consent in the first marriage, and thus the irregular marriage fits within the long accepted definition of adultery. I am trying to point out a very possible scenario where there is defective consent.

The conversation is one that would best be done in person, as it can get very long. I appreciate your comments, but this format (the blog) tends toward short, rather than long conversations.

No he has not said that. Neither AL nor any endorsed Guidelines I am aware of has ever clearly suggested that it would be good for a couple who believed their first marriage was valid would be encouraged to receive Communion while sexually active.

I understand; however, there seem to be a whole lot of people who are reading it differently (and I am including those who are not practicing in this, meaning laity, as well as a whole lot of bishops). Wish I have a transcript of all that was said in the two sessions of the synod.

I don’t think so. It is not the DP’s priest role to make a formal decision on the status of the first marriage. However, if he believes the Tribunal has let the couple down for technical reasons this may introduce enough uncertainty over the putative validity of the first marriage to effectively treat them, for the purposes of Confession and Communion, as if the first marriage did in fact not exist.

Yep.

 

[Rau]

Otjm, I think it obvious to all that invalid first marriages might never be declared such at the Tribunal, despite the truth of the matter.

However, from what I recall, AL does not rely on invalidity or even the likelihood of it.

There has been a progression of accommodations for persons suffering a failed marriage and who have remarried:

• the existence of the Tribunal;
• the allowance to live together, but as brother and sister, and receive;
• and now, the allowance to live together while “not being able” to live as brother and sister, and receive.

AL does not rely on the fact of or probability of invalidity. It is an interesting question as to whether the discernment process could propose communion for a person who did not question the validity of their first marriage, yet “cannot live as brother and sister”. I suspect after a marriage breakdown, one routinely suspects there was a defect from the start.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

AFAIK, this freedom to adopt AL process that you state above - in particular the path to communion - is not stated anywhere. Do you infer it from the manner of expression of AL or know it from something else?

Where in the Canon Law changes/rollout instruction of AL changes does it require local Ordinaries to conform to the letter of the law? My understanding has always been that Pope Francis left it to local Ordinaries to draw up the Guidelines for their own areas themselves.

Some have accordingly interpreted AL conservatively while others liberally - a delegated freedom Pope Francis’s intentional ambiguity allowed for. In his liberality he isn’t a micromanager - unlike some prior Popes who were micromanaging conservatives.

The Pope is a complex personality.
Don’t underestimate him like the 4-1 Cardinals.

But if you think either the conservative or the liberal Ordinaries do not have freedom to implement AL their own way I would be interested in whatever docs you can dig out.

Who do you think is being disobedient, the Old-Spice Ordinaries or the brimstone smelling Maltese conference?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually, it comes directly from a Canon lawyer.

Unfortunately not the way you wrote it sorry.

The legal presumption on the wedding day is that the person wills what he or she says. Common sense dictates that the person mean the vows they puiblicly exchange. Canon 1101.1.

However, if a person excludes an essential element or property of the marriage on the day of the wedding, then that person’s consent is defective and the marriage is invalid. Canon 1101.2.

This scenario focuses on an intention against a property of a marriage, namely perpetuity, a lifelong commitment. Canon 1056.

My point may have gone over your head.
Saying you may one day “divorce” (ie separate) is very different from saying “I will remarry”.
The former does not deny the permanence of marriage, the second does.

It is not a “thought question”. The details are very similar to what a Canon lawyer was explaining.

Not the way you wrote it.

you and I both know that; others reading this dialogue clearly don’t. On occasion I post something for the other readers.

OK, I am not going to debate this one further with you, trying to understand what you really mean is doing my head in.

You may not like what I positied and that is fine; this is not a class in ecclesiastical jurisprudence, but rather a conversation among non-Canon lawyers concerning whether or not AL could provide a secondary means of resolving issues with someone in a “second marriage”.

Ok lets talk about quantum Physics without using Maths .

You may or may not like my scenario; but all the focus has been on irregular second marriages where there is no defective consent in the first marriage…

You just sidelined a very important aspect which justifies AL. Namely, the likely failure of a Tribunal to objectively discover the true status of the first marriage.
Most of the cases worthy of Communion will be exactly those where at least one spouse believes in her heart their never was a first marriage regardless of what others conclude (because they weren’t there and no one knows the evidence except me and my unhelpful ex).

" the irregular marriage fits within the long accepted definition of adultery".

If you look at history you will in fact find multiple meanings of adultery and it is very likely that what Jesus was concerned about re sin was not the uncontaminated hydrolics of it which many on CAF are into.

 

[JimG]

Archbishop Fernandez defends Amoris Laetitia here. But I’m wondering if “discreetly” trying to change pastoral practice will also discreetly undermine doctrine.

 

[e_c]

Quite right, and he has clarified and applied the principles of our unchanging Faith for new times never seen by either Aquinas or Bellarmine .

Why would you with your lay status, lack of theology and pastoral experience (to say nothing of the charism possessed by Pope Francis) dare to personally and publicly judge otherwise?

I think the papacy and moral law remain the same in essence as in past ages…

You are free to speculate on my qualifications or lack thereof. I prefer to stick with arguments about the facts, not about who is arguing.

This thread is enough to show how deeply problematic AL is (the CDF also found AL deeply problematic, by the way). There is no way around the words of Our Lord on divorce and remarriage… and there is no way around the Cross for one who wants to be a disciple.

The case of a petitioner without witnesses (which I believe otjm mentioned) is the one decent issue at stake. I would be interested in a thread on just that topic. Everything else is hard to live and preach but is simple in theory.

 

[otjm]

Otjm, I think it obvious to all that invalid first marriages might never be declared such at the Tribunal, despite the truth of the matter.

However, from what I recall, AL does not rely on invalidity or even the likelihood of it.

There has been a progression of accommodations for persons suffering a failed marriage and who have remarried:

• the existence of the Tribunal;
• the allowance to live together, but as brother and sister, and receive;
• and now, the allowance to live together while “not being able” to live as brother and sister, and receive.

AL does not rely on the fact of or probability of invalidity. It is an interesting question as to whether the discernment process could propose communion for a person who did not question the validity of their first marriage, yet “cannot live as brother and sister”. I suspect after a marriage breakdown, one routinely suspects there was a defect from the start.

If I recall, my comments started with E.C., and I was replying concerning a possibility that did not require any “change of doctrine”, which is what the current fuss is about.

As far as the current fuss: I remain on the sidelines, and choose to sit and watch, rather than say Pope Francis is right (and at least by implication, not “changing” doctrine) or say that Pope Francis is causing a major rift in the Church, one potentially leading to schism (as some have stated and others implied).

I am just the mouse, in the room watching the elephants roar.

That, and I have not heard, but it appears Benedict 16 is sitting on the sidelines too.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think the papacy and moral law remain the same in essence as in past ages…

But you dont actually on this topic.
You believe bishops may be in heresy in their Guidelines and Pope Francis an innovator which means he is wrong.

You are free to speculate on my qualifications or lack thereof. I prefer to stick with arguments about the facts, not about who is arguing.

I am politely observing your arguments are meaningless rhetoric and at best can only monkey mimic a real theologian, but prove inflexible in a debate at lay hands because monkeys dont really understand the principles behind the theologian’s set pieces and cannot well adapt them to different questions or contexts which is always the case in a discussion.
It is accepted as rediculous for laymen to dogmatically debate the discussions of rocket scientists and suggest someone is in error or cannot assert this or that. Yet inept laity feel their baptism, a quick reading of the CCC, secondary school RE lessons and divine inspiration somehow qualifies them to swing lead even a Dominican Professor would fear to rope out.

 

[Rau]

Objective indissolubility has always been, to me, the main issue to me also - however 99% of persons for and against understand “adultery” to mean sex sex sex. Yet in the Bible, and even in the NT, adultery has also always encompassed unfaithfulness. Unfaithfulness is much more than sex with another, it can be platonic as well - like simply being objectively civilly married to another.

While unfaithfulness is broader than sex, CCC2380 does highlight the sex.

Simply being married to another does not mean formal unfaithfulness is present…

Marrying another is either the pinnacle of unfaithfulness, or the act of one who believed they owe/owed no duty of faithfulness.

But that is not itself enough to intrinsically deny Communion in all cases.

FC defined one decision tree, AL another. In each case, there may have been unfaithfulness on the part of the person(s) in the new union.

For a start even Divorce alone, even if freely (and therefore formally) chosen, objectively contradicts Jesus’s teaching also. That to is a mild form of unfaithfulness and therefore “adultery” in the wider Biblical sense. This is how a man divorcing his wife also makes her an “adulterer” even if she does not remarry.

The CCC presents divorce and adultery distinctly. The former can involve no moral offence (2383) but adultery always does.

This is the knub of AL I believe. So:
(3) If sexually active, and grace is reasonably judged to be at work, and at this time abstention is very unwise to impose, then the same wisdom present in the Vademecum (re allowing contraception) looks to apply in Pope Francis’s mind. This seems to pave the possible way for (hopefully) private Communion regardless. Inability to abstain is not in itself an indication of no firm intent to amend as the naysayers always howl. Sacramental confession is still possible.

This appears to be as “conservative” a take as I’ve heard you express, as it entails acceptance of the “deficiencies” of the current union, and acceptance of the FC formula as the right course.

In the contraception case, one party “yields” to the pro-contraceptive party, and it is the former who is given a “pass”. to do so. In a more liberal view of AL than you express in (3) above, it would appear that the party getting the “pass” could be the one personally unable/unwilling to be abstinence.

 

[Rau]

…My understanding has always been that Pope Francis left it to local Ordinaries to draw up the Guidelines for their own areas themselves.

“Draw up guidelines” - certainly. Thus, in your understanding, a perfectly reasonably set of guidelines might say: “In this diocese, D&R only have access to the Eucharist where they have resolved to live as brother and sister”. To my mind, that’s not a bishop putting his (name removed by moderator)ut into the guidelines, it’s a bishop rejecting the Pope’s proposition.

Some have accordingly interpreted AL conservatively while others liberally - a delegated freedom Pope Francis’s intentional ambiguity allowed for.

I don’t regard sticking with FC (Familiaris Consortio) as a conservative interpretation of AL. It would be denying it says what is says, or rejecting what it says.

 

[Rau]

…Most of the cases worthy of Communion will be exactly those where at least one spouse believes in her heart their never was a first marriage regardless of what others conclude…

I would like to think that too, but I don’t see much in AL to suggest that. Re-reading AL300-310 again, I’m not sure it’s a first order consideration. The Argentinian bishops seem to rely on diminished responsibility and reduced culpability which was also the focus for discussion in AL. Of course, to the extent that there is an examination of conscience in the discernment process, we might presume this point may arise.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“Draw up guidelines” - certainly. Thus, in your understanding, a perfectly reasonably set of guidelines might say: “In this diocese, D&R only have access to the Eucharist where they have resolved to live as brother and sister”. To my mind, that’s not a bishop putting his (name removed by moderator)ut into the guidelines, it’s a bishop rejecting the Pope’s proposition.

I don’t regard sticking with FC (Familiaris Consortio) as a conservative interpretation of AL. It would be denying it says what is says, or rejecting what it says.

It doesn’t really matter what the Ordinaries intend by their Guidelines does it?
Surely it is what the Pope intended and why he is not upset that not everybody is “cooperating”?

It has always been clear to me he is not a fascist micromanager wrt Episcopal Collegiality.
He believes in a considerable degree of decentralisation and local autonomy (compared to previous Papal regimes) and, if mem serves me correctly, has said so in a number of contexts both before and outside of AL.

That doesn’t mean he cant be a fascist when he needs to be - but not on the AL changes rollout. Its all part of the “discussion”.

I would not be surprised if he reverses the DP thing if in 5-20 or whatever years consensus strongly goes against or implementation ends in tears.

It wont worry me either way, doctrine or wise disciplines in changing times rarely have 20/20 clarity to begin with.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I would like to think that too, but I don’t see much in AL to suggest that. Re-reading AL300-310 again, I’m not sure it’s a first order consideration. The Argentinian bishops seem to rely on diminished responsibility and reduced culpability which was also the focus for discussion in AL. Of course, to the extent that there is an examination of conscience in the discernment process, we might presume this point may arise.

I don’t deny technical failure of the Tribunal is the only basis,… however it is the one that the previous two Popes always said still needed to be worked on. And given that I believe in Magisterial harmony (unlike some here) it would be a natural interpretation of AL that this is also Pope Francis’s primary inspiration.

However, it is also clear that he does not limit himself to this pastoral basis.
He is also very cogniscant of people being caught up in situations beyond their present control in which the best thing given the current objective situation (irretrievable prior marriage, the moral better choice of maintaining the stability of the current irregularity for the sake of the kids rather than break off) is to remain irregular regardless of the state of the first marriage…which is what you seem to be referring to.

I really think the incidence of the latter type of problem is quite low. If someone really believes their first marriage was valid (but is now irretrievable) far fewer would be desperate for Communion as compared to those who really believe they were never married. If I was an irregular who felt my first marriage was valid, and I need to stay in my 2nd one for the sake of the kids and my own sanity/living, then I would be prepared to abstain for Communion if I was desperate. If my partner was sincerely unable to agree I would of course not refuse the marital debt (that has to be respected even in a 2nd marriage if one is seriously giving it a go) but would gladly accept not receiving Communion as a consequence. I would know it is enough that the Church in its generosity allows me to stay in this active cohabitation without formal sin even though I know my first irretrievable marriage was valid.

However, if the Ordinary’s Guidelines allowed my DP priest to approve me going to Communion that would also be wonderful. Afterall, if I am not abstaining it is not because I do not want to but rather only doing so because of the weakness of my partner - he/she did not agree to a platonic relationship when he made his/her civil vows to me. Technically it is a tolerated “cooperation in evil” which could be confessed if necessary and I do not see why it could not be a true intent to amend…though, with the Church’s approval, it is just not possible at this time due to reasons beyond my control.

That I believe is the other approach that Pope Francis is taking. Which I believe is what you speak of?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

While unfaithfulness is broader than sex, CCC2380 does highlight the sex.

Yes, its a basic Catechism not a Moral Theology treatise which is what is needed on this very complex topic.

The issue is what Jesus taught and said. Jesus clearly saw more than hydraulics at work in his use of the word “adultery” and “divorce”.

Marrying another is either the pinnacle of unfaithfulness, or the act of one who believed they owe/owed no duty of faithfulness.

That’s a strange thing to say.
Neither phrase is self evident.
Further, if you were correct then you must reject JPII’s innovation which finally broke with the “tradition” that you assert - that is, remarried couples who do not have sex may receive Communion. If what you say was intrinsically true of the very act of marriage (or cohabitation) then there could be no grounds for Communion at all. But there are.
Likewise with divorce. Divorce is also a form of unfaithfulness (admittedly not the Pinnacle) at the objective level. A married couple living apart is not witnessing to two becoming one. the love of God for His Church, and caring for one another for life come thick or thin.

The issue of course is that “unfaithfulness” is ultimately about the soul not the body.
THAT is the true pinnacle of unfaithfulness, not technical carnal adultery necesssarily.
That is why Pope Francis talks about those in a 2nd marriage still being able to grow in grace. If that is happening, and the first marriage is irretrievable anyways, then I disagree with you that the simple fact of carnal adultery (or a 2nd marriage) is the pinnacle of unfaithfulness. It is obviously a disordered situation, but it is not the pinnacle of unfaithfulness per se. Nor is it what many would say Jesus was actually spotlighting in his teachings re divorce and adultery.

The CCC presents divorce and adultery distinctly. The former can involve no moral offence (2383) but adultery always does.

You have misunderstood the phrase “moral offence”.
Grave objective disorder is not incompatible with that absence of “moral offence”.
Moral offence means “personal sin” at a face reading. Clearly an innocent passive party in a divorce (even if they allowed it) has not sinned either venially or mortally.
However it is objectively serious matter regardless - it wounds/contradicts Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage which involves becoming one body and staying together for life. That commitment has clearly ruptured.

This appears to be as “conservative” a take as I’ve heard you express, as it entails acceptance of the “deficiencies” of the current union, and acceptance of the FC formula as the right course.

I have never denied the objective disorder of both 2nd marriages and divorce regardless of whether or not there is no ongoing “moral offence” (ie personal mortal or venial sin).
How can that be denied?

In the contraception case, one party “yields” to the pro-contraceptive party, and it is the former who is given a “pass”. to do so. In a more liberal view of AL than you express in (3) above, it would appear that the party getting the “pass” could be the one personally unable/unwilling to be abstinence.

You mean a more conservative view would think the yielding one is in fact jumping in head first?

That is for the DP priest to judge, not prejudiced nay-sayers. The objective grounds are relatively easy to discern by discussions with both partners, especially if one partner is not a Catholic it becomes fairly obvious what is objectively in play. So long as the yielding party manifests no attitude of eagnerness they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Just as we do with a home owner who kills his home invader saying it was the only way he could have defended his family. Do we take conservative versus liberal views on such a thing? No. We looks at the objective situation and if the defender is not manifesting a suspect attitude we give them the benefit of any doubt if the objective indicators are OK.

 

[MaryT777]

I think the Pope is trying to use a Pastoral approach to a real problem in the Church; divorce and remarriage without an annulment.

The annulment process is lengthy and was expensive back in the day. Mine took two years. Now I have read the process is free in many dioceses which I think is a good thing. The mantra of pay what you can is not always so true in some places; there is pressure to pay the whole fee.

Also, the process is not infallible meaning the Tribunal can and does make mistakes. The First and Second Instant Courts can actually DISAGREE. How horrifying is this should you be one of the unlucky persons who has this happen. To the credit of the marriage Tribunal they tell you that up front; this is not infallible in hopes you can gather enough witnesses and “evidence” regarding your marriage and its validity.

It’s a complex process involving trying to find witnesses that can attest to the validity of the marriage. Witnesses, Catholic and non Catholic have problems with this as witnesses want to write about what happened after the vows; adultery, abuse both mental and physical, alcohol, drug problems etc. Of course these could have been indicators the marriage was in trouble in the beginning. I don’t think many applying really have a good understanding of the process little lone the witnesses. I have heard there are now some parishes offering annulment meetings to explain the process. I think this is a good thing.

I think it’s easy to discuss the theological meaning of AL but the issue is I think the Pope knows the process is not easy. Some people, especially those that divorced years and years after their wedding can have a hard time finding witnesses and it makes the process difficult.

My marriage was annulled. I withhold my comments about the process because they are all negative. I just want to point out there are real people behind these issues that have struggled and have valid concerns about the current process.

There are people struggling who have had reasons to not have their marriage examined: lack of witnesses, lack of participation by an ex spouse who has long hit the road and can’t be found (Yes that’s not supposed to be an impediment to the procedure but it doesn’t help) etc.

There are people with children who were abandoned so husbands or wives could move on to a new marriage with no valid reason to do so.

My friend is an example of one such situation. After 25 years of marriage her husband left her for a younger co-worker. She was told by the priest she would have a difficult time getting an annulment given her particular situation and was dissuaded from even doing so. There is pressure I think on priests to dissuade those that “seem” to have a valid marriage to not even go through the process because it takes so long as it is now AND it’s a lot of work filing papers, etc. It’s a tremendous amount of work for a priest, at least that was what I was told to help a person with the process.

We don’t have a lot of priests with tons of time on their hands.

She is now Lutheran. The truth is she found a man who loves her and was willing to help raise her 4 children. The X split town, became self employed , paid near nothing in taxes on his tax return and never sent her a dime. Without the support financially and emotionally from this man who became her husband, this family would be as she says in poverty. Single parent families don’t fare well.

Should we compromise the words of Christ. NEVER, but the way we do annulments was never infallibly proclaimed by any Pope. The process itself could be changed without undermining the doctrine.

I had a Canon attorney help me with my case and he told me in his heart he believes that all marriages that fail were invalid from the beginning after working for years doing pro bono work for the Church. I also believe this as well.

Thank you Pope Francis for caring for we divorced in the Church hoping to work through the paper maze work of obtaining an annulment and the reality of life alone with kids with no financial help for many that can’t obtain their annulment. .I appreciate all those here as well that don’t want to compromise the words of Christ but I think Christ might have a more pastoral approach than we have going on now.

It’s always good to discuss theology but there are people behind the issues.

Peace in Christ,
Mary.

 

[e_c]

But you dont actually on this topic.
You believe bishops may be in heresy in their Guidelines and Pope Francis an innovator which means he is wrong.

I am politely observing your arguments are meaningless rhetoric and at best can only monkey mimic a real theologian, but prove inflexible in a debate at lay hands because monkeys dont really understand the principles behind the theologian’s set pieces and cannot well adapt them to different questions or contexts which is always the case in a discussion.
It is accepted as rediculous for laymen to dogmatically debate the discussions of rocket scientists and suggest someone is in error or cannot assert this or that. Yet inept laity feel their baptism, a quick reading of the CCC, secondary school RE lessons and divine inspiration somehow qualifies them to swing lead even a Dominican Professor would fear to rope out.

The death throes of rational debate… “I don’t think you are qualified!” Even if you were right about my qualifications, the same arguments stand… Arguments which are not only mine, but ones being put forth globally. You might take a look at the recent Aidan Nichols speech for the latest. (Who just so happens to be one of those Dominican professors you are talking about.)

Bishops have frequently fallen into grave error throughout the history of the Church. The moral law now is not different from the moral law in the 12th or 16th centuries. The papacy is still the same in essence too.

 

[dans0622]

… I had a Canon attorney help me with my case and he told me in his heart he believes that all marriages that fail were invalid from the beginning after working for years doing pro bono work for the Church. …

Fascinating and disturbing. I can confidently say that such an opinion would be in the distinct minority among canon lawyers.

… It’s always good to discuss theology but there are people behind the issues. …

Indeed.

Dan

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The death throes of rational debate… “I don’t think you are qualified!” Even if you were right about my qualifications, the same arguments stand… Arguments which are not only mine, but ones being put forth globally. You might take a look at the recent Aidan Nichols speech for the latest. (Who just so happens to be one of those Dominican professors you are talking about.)

Bishops have frequently fallen into grave error throughout the history of the Church. The moral law now is not different from the moral law in the 12th or 16th centuries. The papacy is still the same in essence too.

To suggest Pope Francis is an innovator and therefore in heresy because of AL is an incredulous thing for a layman to opine in public .

There are plenty of other good faith alternative views of what is going on that a humble lay person loyal to the Church could suggest.

No credible amateur would publicly oppose an Einstein or a Fermi in their chosen fields in this way yet nervous spirit filled lay Catholics somehow think it is their duty to do so with Pope Francis and its just foolish .

You either see it or you dont.

 

[PJM]

Quite right, and he has clarified and applied the principles of our unchanging Faith for new times never seen by either Aquinas or Bellarmine .

Why would you with your lay status, lack of theology and pastoral experience (to say nothing of the charism possessed by Pope Francis) dare to personally and publicly judge otherwise?

My FRIEND, even the POPE cannot change Christ Truths!

God will as GOD Must judge each Soul on what HE HAS MADE POSSIBLE for that soul to know, accept and live. THIS APPLIES TO EVERY HUMAN SOUL.

Never has rank or a title on it’s merits prevented a sinner from sinning.

God Bless you
Patrick

 

[PJM]

What a load of airy fairy nonsense.

Lets start with “the plain understanding of the 6th commandment.”

Do you think that US soldiers daily contradict the plain understanding of 5th?

What a load of airy fairy nonsense.

Lets start with “the plain understanding of the 6th commandment.”

Do you think that US soldiers daily contradict the plain understanding of 5th?

FRIEND, your position is subjective and illogical

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraphs 2302-2317, authoritatively teaches what constitutes the just defense of a nation against an aggressor. Called the Just War Doctrine, it was first enunciated by St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD). Over the centuries it was taught by Doctors of the Church, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, and formally embraced by the Magisterium, which has also adapted it to the situation of modern warfare. The following explanation of Just War Doctrine follows the schema given in the Catechism. “

ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

What a load of airy fairy nonsense.

Lets start with “the plain understanding of the 6th commandment.”

Do you think that US soldiers daily contradict the plain understanding of 5th?

FRIEND, your position is subjective and illogical

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraphs 2302-2317, authoritatively teaches what constitutes the just defense of a nation against an aggressor. Called the Just War Doctrine, it was first enunciated by St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD). Over the centuries it was taught by Doctors of the Church, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, and formally embraced by the Magisterium, which has also adapted it to the situation of modern warfare. The following explanation of Just War Doctrine follows the schema given in the Catechism. “
ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

“For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” [Romans 2:13]