two grave and deeply serious claims in this new papal document which were not discussed during the previous two Synod sessions in the manner in which they appear in the exhortation. Each represents a deviation from the Catholic Church’s traditional moral teaching, thereby effectively departing from the Universal Magisterium of the Church (emphasis in original).
First:
those who are living in the objective state of adultery (since they are still sacramentally and validly married to their real spouse, not the person they are living with) and have children from this second “marriage” are essentially bound to stay in this relationship, living as husband and wife (which they are not) and continuing to engage in acts proper only to spouses, and thus, adulterous in nature. Otherwise, the pope reasons, their new relationship – and the welfare of the children involved – could be put at risk! In this, Pope Francis undermines Catholic moral teaching at its core, and puts supposed practical concerns over the higher concern of the salvation of souls (emphasis in original).
Second:
The second grave scandal comes in paragraph 301. In the context of the question of “discernment” for those “irregular” relationships, Pope Francis does away with the claim that those who do not live according to God’s law are living in the state of mortal sin! He says:
Hence it is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” [to include homosexual relationships?] situations are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. 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” [?], or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.Among other mitigating factors in this regard, the pope mentions “affective immaturity” and “force of acquired habit” and “conditions of anxiety,” as well as other “psychological or social factors” that would alleviate a person’s culpability.
This statement of the pope seems to do away with any moral foundation on the question of marriage and divorce. It breaks apart the very basis of moral law, and opens the door to a lax and relativistic approach to the sanctity of marriage (emphasis in original).
The conclusion:
Taken together, we see that the pope is claiming that “remarried” couples who have children should continue to live as “husband” and “wife” and should not live “as brother and sister” and that all “irregular” relationships which are not in accordance with God’s laws do not, in his estimation, necessarily mean that persons in such situations are living in a state of sin. Thereby, the pope also indirectly opens the door to the admittance of all these persons to the sacraments, and, at the same time, undermines not just one, but three sacraments: the Sacrament of Marriage, the Sacrament of Penance, and the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. …
on the basis of these points alone, we see the potential for serious danger to the souls of the faithful who would follow the advice laid out herein.
So it seems as if it’s time for some serious soul searching. Maybe even time for a little “resist this pope”, eh?
Delightful post, John, but what is a conservative Catholic to do (besides becoming a Protestant): even if not declared with his badonkdadonk plopped upon the Throne of Peter, who gets to tell Bergie that he's out of line, and by what authority?
ReplyDeleteKirk, I think there may be some cardinals and bishops who pull him aside, with some canon lawyers maybe, and explain to him what he's doing. In the end, I don't think they have any recourse. Schonborn has said it ... "we are developing". That's been the Catholic apologetic for years.
DeleteMaybe Muller can rebuke him and offer him fraternal correction. But again Francis is known not to like cardianls and bishops who oppose or resist him. He has gone so far as threatened those cardinals who speak out against and has removed many of them from key positions like Burke to name one of many conservatives who shared his fate. If you don't believe that Francis is an autocratic and dictatorial tyrant then read this link from one peter five:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.onepeterfive.com/did-pope-francis-threaten-the-authors-of-the-13-cardinals-letter/
What we have to realize is that behnd Francis's smiling face is one of the most tyrannical popes in history. There is a reason members within the curia are hesitant to confront him face to face, they are terrified of him! In many ways the situtaion the conservatives within Rome find themselves today is parellel to the situation Luther found himself in when he had to go up against Pope Leo X.
Napoleon said something to the effect of, "never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake". It is in that spirit that I wish "Pope Francis" a long and happy pontificate.
Delete1 Peter 5 is to accurate Catholic reporting as the Daily Kos is to accurate political reporting about the Republican party. It is nothing but a biased blog which slants everything to fit within their mind view. I would strongly suggest you inform yourself with better sources of information.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless.
What sources do you recommend for "accurate Catholic reporting"?
DeleteOff the top of my head, I'd recommend National Catholic Register, Catholic News Agency, Catholic News Service, Vatican Information Service, Zenit. These are all concerned with making an accurate explanation of events happening in the Church.
DeleteWho is Steve Skojec that I should interpret Amoris according to his Private Interpretation? The Cardinal who eddied the CCC doesn't agree with him so i should listen to Skojec's claim why? Also Canon Lawyer Edward Peters says different.
ReplyDeletehttps://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/the-law-before-amoris-is-the-law-after/
Deletehttp://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4696/in_iamoris_laetitiai_who_is_admonishing_whom.aspx
The burden of the Pope’s final discussion on marital problems—such as divorce, living together, and unfaithfulness—is to picture the Church, not as a judge or bureaucratic organization, but as a compassionate mother willing to listen and to stay with someone through his trials. It would be difficult to know what else to call this section but an exercise in sophisticated casuistry. Every effort is made to excuse or understand how one who is in such a situation is not really responsible for it. There was ignorance, or passion, or confusion. We are admonished not to judge anyone. And we are to welcome anyone and make every effort to make him feel at home in Church and as a neighbor. Attention is paid to victims of divorce who are treated unfairly, and especially children. But the prime interest is in mercy and compassion. God already forgives everything and so should we. The intellectual precision that the Holy Father uses to excuse or lessen guilt is cause for some reflection. The law cannot change but the “gradual” leading up to understanding this failure to observe the law takes time and patience.
But when we add it all up, it often seems that the effect of this approach is to lead us to conclude that no “sin” has ever occurred. Everything has an excusing cause. If this conclusion is correct, we really have no need for mercy, which has no meaning apart from actual sin and its free recognition. One goes away from this approach not being sorry for his sins but relieved in realizing that he has never really sinned at all.
Same question...why should i accept this interpretation? I still choose to accept Cardinal Schönborn's contrary one and that of Edward Peters & that of the President of the Pontifical Institute at the Vatican.
DeleteI am not a Protestant. i do not believe in the lie that is Sola Scriptura so why should I believe in Sola Amoris? In my judgement all these negative and heterodox interpretations of the Popes document flow from taking Amoris as the sole rule of Faith for Catholic doctrine divorced from the body of teaching that has come before and by some special Gnosticism try to discern the Pope's secret motives for what he has written here and published instead of reading it with the Mind of the Church and Tradition.
That all having been said.
1. I have no reason from this article to believe the Pope has engaged in "sophisticated casuistry". I see no philosophical argument or argument from the norms of scholastic theology as to the existence of this "sophisticated casuistry"? That may be the authors learned opinion but I am sure I can come up with someone with a different one.
2. I have no reason to believe the Pope is trying too "excuse or lessen guilt". The potential for abuse of this document to lead to a gradual "failure to observe the law" does not negate a proper use to get a person to gradually accept the law and leave their troublesome situations.
Anything can be abused. No doubt you Protestant heretics here think we Catholics abuse John 6 for our belief in the Eucharist or Matt 16:18 coupled with Isaiah 22:20-23 to justify our belief in the Papacy. But that does not negate those verses "correct" interpretation for whatever horse hockey Calvin or Luther made up threw which you interpret these verses "correctly".
3. I see no reason to believe the Pope has taught us in Amoris too "conclude that no “sin” has ever occurred. Everything has an excusing cause."
This article gives you like from above from Catholic World Report doesn't make the case. Fr. Schall gives use the reflections and conclusions of his analysis but I am by no means bound to accept them. He after all is not the final interpreter of Francis.
PS please forgive my spelling and grammar errors. I am so spoiled by comments boxes & Facebook with edit functions.
DeleteOh and God bless.
Oh in case nobody read Canon Lawyer Edward Peters
DeleteHere are the fun bits.
, if Francis had wanted to authorize the administration of holy Communion to divorced-and-remarried Catholics (and he did not want to repudiate CCC 2384, 1650, etc.) he would have had to have wrought a change in the law contained in Canon 915.
To legislate for the Church popes usually employ certain types of documents (e.g., apostolic constitutions, motu proprios, ‘authentic interpretations’) or they use certain kinds of language (e.g., ‘I direct’ or ‘I approve in forma specifica’). Amoris laetitiae, an “apostolic exhortation”, is not a legislative document, it contains no legislative or authentic interpretative language, and it does not discuss Canon 915. The conclusion follows: whatever Canon 915 directed before Amoris, it directs after, including that holy Communion may not generally be administered to Catholics living in irregular marriages.
To this conclusion, however—and recalling that the burden of proving that the law changed is on those who claimed that it changed, not on others to prove that it hasn’t—I can anticipate at least three rejoinders.
The first is easily dismissed.
1. Pope Francis wrote that “Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs.” AL 3, and 199, 207. But of course developing local approaches to proclaiming universal truths is a hallmark of “pastoral theology” (when that concept is properly understood and not offered as cover for avoiding the demands of Christian doctrine). Church documents often encourage local initiatives, but they never authorize dilution, let alone betrayal, of the universal teachings of Christ and his Church. Amoris might well have left itself open to regional manipulation (as Robert Royal has explained) but Catholics committed to thinking with the Church will not develop particular approaches to ministry among the divorced that betray the common truth about the permanence of marriage.
A second rejoinder is, however, more complex.
2. In AL 301 Francis writes: “Hence it is can [sic] no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.” This presents a more substantial objection to my conclusion above for, at first glance, Francis seems to attack the very idea that the irregular situation usually produced by a post-divorce civil remarriage is gravely sinful. We need to consider this possibility carefully.
DeleteSetting aside whether any Church document ever ‘simply said’ what Francis implies above, one can agree that it would be wrong to assert that “all” people living in “any” irregular situation are necessarily “living in a state of mortal sin”. If even one person living in an irregular marriage situation does so with no suggestion of sin—and I can think of many*—Francis’ point, narrowly and literally read, stands.
But Francis’ assertion here could mean something more contentious, namely: that we can no longer assert that any individual living in an irregular union could be “living in a state of mortal sin”—an assertion that would, I suggest, place Francis in opposition to Church tradition. Let’s consider this possibility more closely:
A) The phrase “living in a state of mortal sin” could be understood as a short-hand way to describe many morally wrong living situations, one that summarizes Church teaching that all Catholics must, on pain of committing grave sin, abide by certain laws and teachings regarding marriage and sexual activity. That is how all of the canonists, moral theologians, and clergy whom I know, and most of the lay Catholics in my circle, use the term. I think it consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But,
B) The phrase “living in a state of mortal sin” could also be taken as judging the state of another’s soul based on their living arrangement. Whether speaking from ill-will or from inaccurate catechesis, Catholics who describe others (let alone all others) living in irregular marriage situations as “living in a state of mortal sin”—meaning by that phrase that such persons have necessarily incurred the guilt of grave sin—should indeed cease thinking and speaking that way.
So, if the pope was thinking about those who use the phrase “living in a state of mortal sin” to imply an ability to read souls, then his admonition that one must not speak this way is quite sound, it does nothing to detract from the Church’s view that post-divorce civil marriage is an aggravated form of adultery, and it impacts not one jot or tittle of Canon 915. But to construe the pope’s words here as denying that freely living in an irregular marriage situation can be, as the Catechism holds, gravely sinful, and that therefore Canon 915 is not applicable to such cases, would be to attribute to the pope a conclusion at odds with Church moral and sacramental teaching. That accusation should not be casually made.
Finally, however, let’s assume that, however he expressed himself, the pope somehow really believes that few Catholics, perhaps none, living in irregular marriages are subjectively culpable for their state. Even that conclusion on his part would have no bearing whatsoever on the operation of Canon 915 because, as noted above, Canon 915 does not (and cannot!) operate at the level of interior, subjective responsibility, but rather, it responds to externally cognizable facts concerning observable conduct.
Yet a third possible rejoinder relies another eisegetical reading of Francis’ words.
Delete3. Some think that AL fn. 351 and its accompanying text authorize holy Communion for Catholics in irregular marriages. I would ask, recalling that a matter of law is at issue, where does Francis do this? The pope says that Catholics in irregular unions need the help of the sacraments (which of course they do), but he does not say ALL of the sacraments, and especially, not sacraments for which they are ineligible. He says that the confessional is not a ‘torture chamber’ (a trite remark but not an erroneous one). And he observes that the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect (thank God), but a powerful spiritual medicine, which it is—unless it is taken unworthily or in violation of law, a caveat one may assume all Catholics, and certainly popes, know without having to say it.
Bottom line: sacramental rules are made of words, not surmises. Those who think Amoris has cleared a path to the Communion rail for Catholics in irregular marriages are hearing words that the pope (whatever might be his personal inclinations) simply did not say.
* Example: One who was baptized Catholic but raised without knowledge of that fact, is (incredibly) bound by canonical form and thus, if married outside of form, he or she would be, by definition, living in an irregular union. It would be ludicrous to refer to such a person as “living in sin”. I can offer a dozen more fact patterns that would duplicate this point.
Yeah, "Son of Ya'Kov", I read him. The "words that the pope ... simply did not say" do not matter. There were enough words simply that he did say that permit the nuance that the progressives wanted.
DeleteYou asked: why should i accept this interpretation?
The good thing is, you don't have to -- you can take away from this document anything that you want to take away from it. The folks at Rorate and OnePeterFive, by the way, are still on the "inside" of Roman Catholicism, and they certainly may feel free to accept their own interpretation.
That's the beauty of "Rome's Divided Mind" -- Whatever they say leaves open the door to multiple "interpretations". There is beautiful flowery language that oozes with Catholic doctrine and teaching, all the way around. The German Cardinals and Bishops, Cardinals and Bishops all, rallying around this pope, will accept the "interpretation" that is clearly offered to the effect that there is no "pastoral" situation where some excuse can't be made, basically, to allow these (and other) Bishops to give communion to the "divorced-and-remarried". That people will come away with multiple "interpretations" is the stated intention of the document:
I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. […] Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/04/excerpts-from-post-synodal-exhortation.html
I've written extensively about this practice:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/09/romes-divided-mind.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/10/ratzinger-for-every-statement-advanced.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-roman-catholic-view-of-nature-and_26.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/03/pope-francis-is-on-verge-of-creating.html
And see especially this one:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/01/machen-pope-francis-and-hermeneutic-of.html
But there are subtle differences, and it is those subtle differences where the equivocation occurs. And these equivocations, via a new kind of “hermeutic”, become the new dogma.
And of course, Schönborn (among others) has already called this document "development", in such a way that some future pope may take this issue even further, perhaps nuancing this "dogma" or some other "dogma" to accommodate some future "urgent need" in the Church.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/04/bergoglios-gig-siding-with-progressives.html
Actually, the words of the Pope need to be interpreted as he intends them to be understood. Not as 1P5 or German bishops think they mean. Throughout the history of Christianity, we have had groups seek to twist meanings to justify what they wanted to do anyway. But their twisting was not what the Church taught. The same applies here. If one's interpretation of the Pope's words are false, the interpretation has no value. So when people ask you why we should accept your preferred interpretation, we are asking you why you think this interpretation is true.
DeleteDavid W: Actually, the words of the Pope need to be interpreted as he intends them to be understood.
DeleteI'm sure you'd like this to be the case. Of course you are aware that Rome writes its official documents in ways such that multiple "interpretations" can be taken away. To quote Joseph Ratzinger, they “leave interpretations open in both directions”.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/09/romes-divided-mind.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/10/ratzinger-for-every-statement-advanced.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/01/machen-pope-francis-and-hermeneutic-of.html
>Yeah, "Son of Ya'Kov", I read him. The "words that the pope ... simply did not say" do not matter. There were enough words simply that he did say that permit the nuance that the progressives wanted.
DeleteIt really doesn't matter what Progressives want anymore then it matters what the Reformed or the Lutherans want. Pope Francis has the controlling vote and the Holy Spirit protected His Church & restrained him from that vote. 100 years from now when whatever Conservative Reformed denomination you now belong too is ordaining Lesbian Ministers we will still have an all male Priesthood and Our doctrine on marriage will remain unchanged.
>You asked: why should i accept this interpretation?
The good thing is, you don't have to -- you can take away from this document anything that you want to take away from it. The folks at Rorate and OnePeterFive, by the way, are still on the "inside" of Roman Catholicism, and they certainly may feel free to accept their own interpretation.
Which shows their Protestant mentality. Which granted to you is a virtue but not to us.
>That's the beauty of "Rome's Divided Mind" -- Whatever they say leaves open the door to multiple "interpretations".
Which implies Rome can close the door. Which shows at least by having a Pope as taught by Matt 16:18 & Isaiah 22:20-23 gives us a mechanism to settle disputes. Even if that mechanism isn't used it's still there.
>There is beautiful flowery language that oozes with Catholic doctrine and teaching, all the way around. The German Cardinals and Bishops, Cardinals and Bishops all, rallying around this pope, will accept the "interpretation" that is clearly offered to the effect that there is no "pastoral" situation where some excuse can't be made, basically, to allow these (and other) Bishops to give communion to the "divorced-and-remarried". That people will come away with multiple "interpretations" is the stated intention of the document:
To bad the Pope has already said regarding divorced and remarried couples, "Integrating into the life of the Church doesn't mean receiving Communion." He adds that to do so "would be an injury also to marriage, to the couple, because it wouldn't allow them to proceed on this path of integration."
Nice try thought.
Also Cardinal Burke is against Rorate and OnePeterFive and they are not too happy about it. Well at least OneLutherFive is I haven't checked yet to see if Roraete is freaking out too.
see here.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-and-the-constant-teaching-and-practice-of-the-church/#ixzz45XGnzrFy0
Rorate and OnePeterFive are in essence like you Prot people except they are a bit more "High Church" then you lot. But you are all Protestants to me.
>And of course, Schönborn (among others) has already called this document "development", in such a way that some future pope may take this issue even further, perhaps nuancing this "dogma" or some other "dogma" to accommodate some future "urgent need" in the Church.
How do I know that is what he really means? I mean I can't get you Protestant heretic types to present the proper doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass (you lot are forever calling it a "re-sacrifice" where Our Lord dies "again" which is then added to Christ's once and for all sacrifice instead the actual Catholic view the Mass is a representation of Christ's once and for call sacrifice and is the same sacrifice under a different form) why should I trust you to explain Schönborn to me?
BTW I don't mind if you share the mentality of OneLutherFive and Rorete. You are a good Protestant and just doing what you do. However for those guys to do it makes them bad Catholics much light the naughty liberals.
In your disdain for your fellow Roman Catholics (Rorate and OnePeterFive), you show your true colors. We, here at Triablogue don't seek to misrepresent Roman Catholicism in any way -- there is no desire to knock down a straw man -- so I purposely have chosen to cite some of the most knowledgeable and honest and devout Roman Catholics I could find.
DeleteSo in that regard, regarding those Protestants who misrepresent Catholicism, I agree with you -- I work very hard to help Protestants to understand Roman Catholicism correctly, because correctly understood, in its various manifestations, it is still a huge affront to and bastardization of Biblical Christianity.
There is the source of "constant teaching" of Christ and the Apostles.
Burke is the coward. He still wants a job, and he has taken refuge in the weasel-language that was provided in this document. Kasper and his German bishops will continue to invoke this document as he continues to admit civilly divorced and remarried Roman Catholics to communion. That is a practice (along with its Bergoglioan sister practice of no-fault annulments) that will become more widespread throughout the world, and soon all of this will be brushed under the carpet.
Except now there is a mechanism for "effecting development" that is in place to enable and sanction virtually every sin under the sun. So good luck with that in 100 years.