Vicar for Rome issues strict guidelines for implementing Amoris Laetitia [CC]

[pnewton]

Better integration and accompaniment is one thing, but neither of those sections mention possible access to the sacraments, especially while remaining in an irregular union.

I guess we’ll see, but we are here, today, having this discussion on Amoris Laetitia. Time will tell, or time has told, depending on how you look at it.

I understand how you feel in the post above. Maintaining charity with people we disagree with is the only real test of charity. It is easy to get be nice and polite with people you agree with, post them the , and tell them how much you like their post. I have always found I learn the most from those that I do not agree with, at least initially. It makes no sense when people defend the Holy Father against the very type of insults they make about Bishop XYZ.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Clarifying my own remark…the document says: “This means a certain openness, as in the case in which there is the moral certainty that the first marriage was null but there are not the proofs to demonstrate this in a judicial setting…” It is this kind of use of the “internal forum” that I am talking about.

Why do you find it disturbing?

 

[Ender]

Wow! Really people? Such disrespect to our dear clergy. Sorry Father Ruggero!

Although it can surely be abused, there is a real benefit to the anonymity afforded by forums such as this: the less one knows about the person making an argument to more the argument itself matters, and the fewer there are of the form “I’m the expert therefore I’m right.” We should be sensitive to the argument, not the person making it. Major companies have gone to considerable expense to set up just such anonymous environments so discussions can be open, and not influenced by the pay grade of the person making the suggestion. If we believe an argument is flawed we should not be hesitant in pointing that out, regardless of who makes it.

Father Ruggero is correct we don’t need to apply this information as laity.

Clearly it will be the clergy alone who will apply…whatever gets implemented…but what is the argument that the laity shouldn’t have the guidelines even explained? How can that be appropriate? The clergy are the only ones who know what goes on within the confessional in individual cases, but we all know the general guidelines (or have access to them) so we know what to expect. How is this topic any different?

In any event “guidelines” will come out over time as first one diocese and then another publishes its own. If anything is inappropriate it would seem to be the disparity that has already appeared as to how this will be implemented. Some differences are to be expected even when different people are trying to implement the same approach, but when the understanding of what is called for at a doctrinal level differs, that would seem to be a serious problem.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Although it can surely be abused, there is a real benefit to the anonymity afforded by forums such as this: the less one knows about the person making an argument to more the argument itself matters, and the fewer there are of the form “I’m the expert therefore I’m right.” We should be sensitive to the argument, not the person making it.

Come on Ender, this observation seems a little self vested.
The above “argument” would make strong sense to someone who has none of the long pastoral experience, theological education and scholarly collegiality that Father Ruggero speaks of. Perhaps you are such a person…nothing to be ashamed of.
But it should, I would think, suggest humility and rethinking the likelihood of our personal knowledge/certainties when the professionals suggest other positions and conclusions.

Noone objects to a person contributing reasonable personal views despite a lack of the above bona fides.

But when extreme views are presented as mainstream or indeed, the only acceptable position/interpretation as alleged Church doctrine or applied moral principles…to say nothing of more complicated issues…we surely reasonably seek, appreciate and want to be influenced by a person’s authority/stature (or lack thereof)

Professionals who have done the hard graft, devoted many years of their lives to studying theology, teaching theology, or worked thanklessly in the difficult fields of the care of souls surely have something to say when they graciously choose to speak to us. They certainly are not infallible but they sure have a rarely heard perspective I for one am always keen to consider. Amateur autodidacts … not so much.

 

[Ender]

Professionals who have done the hard graft, devoted many years of their lives to studying theology, teaching theology, or worked thanklessly in the difficult fields of the care of souls surely have something to say when they graciously choose to speak to us. They certainly are not infallible but they sure have a rarely heard perspective I for one am always keen to consider. Amateur autodidacts … not so much.

Regardless of the source, an argument is either valid or it isn’t, and can either be defended or not, but it doesn’t become true simply because it was made by someone of note. The standard is “What is right?”, not “Who said it?”

Ender

 

[SyroMalankara]

I agree it is odd that “participation of the laity” keeps being emphasized, but when laity attempt to educate themselves or participate in non-sacerdotal areas - as they are repeated told they should - the response often is far more severe today than before VC2. Especially when the informed laity in general support the minority view of the day.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Regardless of the source, an argument is either valid or it isn’t, and can either be defended or not, but it doesn’t become true simply because it was made by someone of note. The standard is “What is right?”, not “Who said it?”

Ender

Such meaningless tautology. You seem to believe that absolute certainty is regularly available to the average person for the taking in most real world matters.

Given the inherent wounded nature of human reason and the finite knowledge we have of the world and the way the world works all of us only possess degrees of probability in any applied real world matter. Therefore a wise person will always consider the context and background of any person making unusual claims. The more unusual the claim the greater the “authority” needed for them to be considered seriously by reasonable person. Reason itself argues the truth of the rightful place of authority in disputations.

As Aquinas said, arguments based on authority alone are the weakest. But they ARE arguments…and they make claims allegedly based on reason either considerably stronger or weaker.

I do note a tendency on CAF where our autodidacts confuse the certainty of the speculative sciences (eg 6+7=13) with the probable truths of the applied sciences (eg Judas is burning in hell). These are very different types of “truth” (ie one is at root always certain, the other at root always a level of probable). It’s a typical category mistake of those who are gifted concrete thinkers but poor at at abstract thinking. It is also a typical blindspot for those amongst us with mild aspergers or high functioning autistic tendencies.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I agree it is odd that “participation of the laity” keeps being emphasized, but when laity attempt to educate themselves or participate in non-sacerdotal areas - as they are repeated told they should - the response often is far more severe today than before VC2. Especially when the informed laity in general support the minority view of the day.

The problem is that some very vocal self educated laity do not appear to have the circumspection to understand they are still beginners and try to punch above their weight in a fashion that would shock even prize fighters.

As my engineering CEO is often want to say to new recruits. Here your degree only means you have the raw material needed to begin your real training.

 

[Convert_in_99]

The problem is that some very vocal self educated laity do not appear to have the circumspection to understand they are still beginners and try to punch above their weight in a fashion that would shock even prize fighters.

As my engineering CEO is often want to say to new recruits. Here your degree only means you have the raw material needed to begin your real training.

How true!

 

[irenaeus1]

The problem is that some very vocal self educated laity do not appear to have the circumspection to understand they are still beginners and try to punch above their weight in a fashion that would shock even prize fighters.

As my engineering CEO is often want to say to new recruits. Here your degree only means you have the raw material needed to begin your real training.

I have also met some people who do not have formal degrees in engineering that could shame some who do hold the proper credentials. Here on CAF where one simply registers with a pseudomym as a user name, we have no idea of the credentials of any CAF forum member. We don’t know who really are clergy, theologians, canon lawyers, lay ecclesial ministers who may or may not have expertise in theology or some amount of formal training in theology, catechetis, or biblical studies, or just the average ‘pew sitter’ who regularly attends Mass.

I have met on CAF forums many educated and informed laity. But as has been demonstrated here on these forums numerous times (and as noted by Ender in #64), many attacks eventually come around to criticizing the limited credentials of certain posters rather than addressing the argument being presented. Simply address the argument, and one will fare much better with their own credibilty.

 

[dans0622]

Why do you find it disturbing?

It’s a can of worms. The circumstances where it could possibly be legitimate are so limited as to be nonexistent. But, since it’s now out there as an option…or, should I say, now that it’s out there again as an option, in an official statement of the Vicar (who, perhaps, has forgotten more about canon law than I’ve ever learned), pressure will be put on the priests to make use of it.

Dan

 

[Convert_in_99]

It’s a can of worms. The circumstances where it could possibly be legitimate are so limited as to be nonexistent. But, since it’s now out there as an option…or, should I say, now that it’s out there again as an option, in an official statement of the Vicar (who, perhaps, has forgotten more about canon law than I’ve ever learned), pressure will be put on the priests to make use of it.

Dan

Please don’t say that about Pope Francis. He has certainly not “forgotten cannon law!” Why would you say such a thing?

That’s the trouble with laity today. They try to be their own pope if they disagree with the current one. :sad_yes"

 

[graciew]

It’s a can of worms. The circumstances where it could possibly be legitimate are so limited as to be nonexistent. But, since it’s now out there as an option…or, should I say, now that it’s out there again as an option, in an official statement of the Vicar (who, perhaps, has forgotten more about canon law than I’ve ever learned), pressure will be put on the priests to make use of it.

Dan

Dan, there is no such pressure. There cannot be,we are talking about priests We have learnt what the conscience of a priest before God means .
I know I am not a priest, however it is something made very clear to us throughout the years.
And we do not want a priest to suffer that beforr God. It is as if we were speaking about strangers,but priest and their communities are close and we care for each other
The can of worms ends up being in our minds and hearts.We all have to deal with that at some point .
Just sharing ,and probably a useless opinion,but it is more of an experience.
So many times we move forward and so much in dire circumstances just for one…we have learnt that in very difficult times. And the value of one is huge.
There is so much emphasis on integration.
I know you know a lot,so take it as sharing ,Dan

 

[SyroMalankara]

It’s a can of worms. The circumstances where it could possibly be legitimate are so limited as to be nonexistent. But, since it’s now out there as an option…or, should I say, now that it’s out there again as an option, in an official statement of the Vicar (who, perhaps, has forgotten more about canon law than I’ve ever learned), pressure will be put on the priests to make use of it.

Dan

You are correct Dan, and depending on your bishop, your priest who disagrees may suffer severely for not using the ‘option’, just as the ‘option’ of celebrating the Novus Ordo ad orientem exists on paper and in theory, but use of it by the priest outside a few handful of bishops would result in the equivalent of ecclesiastical suicide.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The problem is that some very vocal self educated laity do not appear to have the circumspection to understand they are still beginners and try to punch above their weight in a fashion that would shock even prize fighters.

some do, some have taught the very clergy who think themselves heavy hitters but would be laughed out of a serious PhD program

As my engineering CEO is often want to say to new recruits. Here your degree only means you have the raw material needed to begin your real training.

True, some have simply raw material. Some have no material at all. Clerics included.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have also met some people who do not have formal degrees in engineering that could shame some who do hold the proper credentials. Here on CAF where one simply registers with a pseudomym as a user name, we have no idea of the credentials of any CAF forum member. We don’t know who really are clergy, theologians, canon lawyers, lay ecclesial ministers who may or may not have expertise in theology or some amount of formal training in theology, catechetis, or biblical studies, or just the average ‘pew sitter’ who regularly attends Mass.

I have met on CAF forums many educated and informed laity. But as has been demonstrated here on these forums numerous times (and as noted by Ender in #64), many attacks eventually come around to criticizing the limited credentials of certain posters rather than addressing the argument being presented. Simply address the argument, and one will fare much better with their own credibilty.

It is not a matter of either or but both and. There is a place for understanding the credentials of those who strongly assert that their interpretation of Church teaching is the only correct one. 9 times out of 10 the only contributors who act like this are the autodidacts. Those formally trained rarely pontificate… and when they are forced to their credentials usually turn out to be of the highest standard (eg Don Ruggero).

 

[Havard]

Please don’t say that about Pope Francis. He has certainly not “forgotten cannon law!” Why would you say such a thing?

That’s the trouble with laity today. They try to be their own pope if they disagree with the current one. :sad_yes"

Why would you read such a thing into his post? :blushing:

It seems to me that A) he’s referring to Cardinal Vallini, not the Pope, and B) his comment is both deferential and complimentary - not critical - in referring to Cardinal Vallini’s vastly greater knowledge of canon law.

 

[Havard]

[BTW, the wink and blush smilies in my above post are intended to indicate playful cheekiness. ]

 

[Ender]

I have also met some people who do not have formal degrees in engineering that could shame some who do hold the proper credentials.

In an argument between someone who is credentialed and someone who is not, especially if the position of the former is correct, one would expect the debate to be one sided and devastatingly short. When that is not the case, when the expert is having trouble defending his position, the most likely reason is that his claims are not valid. It is difficult to defend error, even for the uber-educated.

Ender

 

[Convert_in_99]

In an argument between someone who is credentialed and someone who is not, especially if the position of the former is correct, one would expect the debate to be one sided and devastatingly short. When that is not the case, when the expert is having trouble defending his position, the most likely reason is that his claims are not valid. It is difficult to defend error, even for the uber-educated.

Ender

Are you insinuating the Pope or Father Ruggero here? Either way they both have promoted nothing but the truth.