Vatican newspaper publishes defense of Amoris Laetitia [CC]

[Catholic_Press]

L’Osservatore Romano has published a defense of Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia by Rodrigo Guerra Lopez, a philosopher at the Center for Advanced Social Research in Queretaro, Mexico.

More…

 

[2PT3]

This is not an effective “defense” in my opinion.

Two things:

1. I have a hard time with the way the author (& Pope Francis?) deal with the “full knowledge” requirement for mortal sin. The author puts it this way: “If one is convinced in conscience that the act is not (gravely) evil, the action will be materially evil but not imputed to the person as a mortal sin.” AL states it this way: “More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values’…”. This exculpates everyone from mortal sin even if they “know full well” what the Church teaches, so long as they disbelieve it. For example: If know that the Church teaches that murder, or fornication, or abortion, or contraception, or cheating workers out of their wages are all gravely sinful acts, but I simply don’t believe it, my unbelief does not excuse me from culpability for the sin I commit.
2. The author gives himself away in that he says those who oppose this “opening” are blocking a means to prevent a great apostasy that is ongoing as a result of remarried people not raising their children in the Church. The implication is that he sees this “opening” not as an exception to the norm but as completely swallowing the norm.

 

[JimG]

This is not an effective “defense” in my opinion.

Two things:

1. I have a hard time with the way the author (& Pope Francis?) deal with the “full knowledge” requirement for mortal sin. The author puts it this way: “If one is convinced in conscience that the act is not (gravely) evil, the action will be materially evil but not imputed to the person as a mortal sin.” AL states it this way: “More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values’…”. This exculpates everyone from mortal sin even if they “know full well” what the Church teaches, so long as they disbelieve it. For example: If know that the Church teaches that murder, or fornication, or abortion, or contraception, or cheating workers out of their wages are all gravely sinful acts, but I simply don’t believe it, my unbelief does not excuse me from culpability for the sin I commit.
2. The author gives himself away in that he says those who oppose this “opening” are blocking a means to prevent a great apostasy that is ongoing as a result of remarried people not raising their children in the Church. The implication is that he sees this “opening” not as an exception to the norm but as completely swallowing the norm.

So then he sees the implicit change in doctrine as a way to keep people in the Church, at the expense of preserving the deposit of Faith intact?

 

[graciew]

This is not an effective “defense” in my opinion.

Two things:

1. I have a hard time with the way the author (& Pope Francis?) deal with the “full knowledge” requirement for mortal sin. The author puts it this way: “If one is convinced in conscience that the act is not (gravely) evil, the action will be materially evil but not imputed to the person as a mortal sin.” AL states it this way: “More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values’…”. This exculpates everyone from mortal sin even if they “know full well” what the Church teaches, so long as they disbelieve it. For example: If know that the Church teaches that murder, or fornication, or abortion, or contraception, or cheating workers out of their wages are all gravely sinful acts, but I simply don’t believe it, my unbelief does not excuse me from culpability for the sin I commit.
2. The author gives himself away in that he says those who oppose this “opening” are blocking a means to prevent a great apostasy that is ongoing as a result of remarried people not raising their children in the Church. The implication is that he sees this “opening” not as an exception to the norm but as completely swallowing the norm.

Sorry,no offense…it was kind of confusing to read the newspaper and it happens.but this you are describing is Buttiglione’ s article…not Rodrigo Guerra Lopez’ one…
The phrase you cited in 2.is in another article…
There isn t one In English to share,or at least I haven t found it…

 

[graciew]

So then he sees the implicit change in doctrine as a way to keep people in the Church, at the expense of preserving the deposit of Faith intact?

Not exactly,Jim.
I haven t been able to find a way to translate the articles …

 

[ichabode]

I am just sick and hurting. AL reads like a highschool debate where a student feels that can take or cherry pick this and that quote to support their topic with a complete disregard for truth. Also the same tactic of using ad hominem attacks and judging the hearts of those who would see the error of such nonsense is common place throughout this document.

“For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would be¬speak the closed heart of one used to hiding be¬hind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”.349 Along these same lines, the Inter¬national Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply person¬al process of making decisions”.”

Apparently pastors who uphold the dignity and sacrament of marriage are vicious monsters ready to stone to death the divorced and remarried couples. Really? How often do you read about that?

Jesus told his disciples to listen to those who sat on the chair of Moses!

The last sentence above “rather it is a source of objective inspiration”. Is he trying to say that the moral subject of “irregular” situations, i.e. divorcing a wife with 5 children and then marring your co-worker cannot be judge by the use of reason, but instead is source for pastors as inspiration from God. That is for those regenerated Christians and Pastors who are in God’s favor and not the reprobates of average so called Christians.

See section before the one listed, "every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsi¬ble and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace. "

 

[ichabode]

It is “objective” if it fits my needs and always limited. It is “subjective” when it fits my needs and always in abundance.

It would appear now more than ever we are calling evil good and good evil. I wonder how many Catholics will put away their wives now? or vice versa.

Concupiscence is the battle cry for the indifferent. How comical is that Pope Benedict the XVI wanted to combat indifferentism and now we work to make it law.

 

[graciew]

It is “objective” if it fits my needs and always limited. It is “subjective” when it fits my needs and always in abundance.

It would appear now more than ever we are calling evil good and good evil. I wonder how many Catholics will put away their wives now? or vice versa.

Concupiscence is the battle cry for the indifferent. How comical is that Pope Benedict the XVI wanted to combat indifferentism and now we work to make it law.

Has anybody read the article ?

The article was written by R. Guerra Lopez.
It is in italian. It can also be found in Spanish.It comes out as a PDF. presenting several pages of the newspaper.

Its title is " Dalla riflessione di Karol Wojtyła all’esortazione «Amoris laetitia»
Fedeltà creativa"

From the reflection of Karol Wojtyla to the exhortation " Amoris laetitia "
Creative fidelity"

This is his CV…
bioeticaweb.com/byline/rodrigo-guerra-lopez/

 

[johnnyc176]

‘creative fidelity’ Lol…promotion from tax collectors to tax accountants…looking for ways to say sin is not actually sin. A new type of ‘catholic’…loophole catholics.

 

[irenaeus1]

Does Rodrigo (or anyone else for that matter) actually go into any detail attempting to explain how the more controversial and ambiguous portions of AL are in continuity with Church teaching? I often hear that AL may offer development in certain aspects of doctrine, but that it is completely in line with Church teaching without specifically addressing how this is so. However, those who challenge AL typically offer concrete examples of problems or apparent errors in AL citing the specific portion that seems erroneous and comparing this to official Church teaching. This is what I would like to see specifically addressed from those who defend AL.

 

[RPRPsych]

‘creative fidelity’ Lol…promotion from tax collectors to tax accountants…looking for ways to say sin is not actually sin. A new type of ‘catholic’…loophole catholics.

Does Rodrigo (or anyone else for that matter) actually go into any detail attempting to explain how the more controversial and ambiguous portions of AL are in continuity with Church teaching? I often hear that AL may offer development in certain aspects of doctrine, but that it is completely in line with Church teaching without specifically addressing how this is so. However, those who challenge AL typically offer concrete examples of problems or apparent errors in AL citing the specific portion that seems erroneous and comparing this to official Church teaching. This is what I would like to see specifically addressed from those who defend AL.

It is “objective” if it fits my needs and always limited. It is “subjective” when it fits my needs and always in abundance.

It would appear now more than ever we are calling evil good and good evil. I wonder how many Catholics will put away their wives now? or vice versa.

Concupiscence is the battle cry for the indifferent. How comical is that Pope Benedict the XVI wanted to combat indifferentism and now we work to make it law.

Sometimes I think the real problem with Amoris Laetitia is that it makes evident certain attitudes in the Church that lay dormant under Pope Benedict XVI, but which seem to have taken the coming of Pope Francis as an “open season”. It’s sad.