CNS: A prominent German philosopher has warned that Pope Francis has endangered the unity of the Church by contradicting the teachings of his predecessors in Amoris Laetita.
"Chaos was raised to a principle by the stroke of a pen,” said Robert Spaemann, an influential scholar who is close to Pope-emeritus Benedict XVI, in an interview with the Catholic News Agency.
Full text: Interview with Robert Spaemann on Amoris Laetitia
Robert Spaemann before the obelisk in front of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome. Credit: Paul Badde/EWTN.
Professor Spaemann, you have accompanied the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI with your philosophy. Many believers are now asking, whether and how Pope Francis’ post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia should be read in continuity with the teachings of the Church and these previous Popes. How do you see this?
For the most part, it is possible, although the direction allows for consequences which cannot be made compatible with the teaching of the Church. Article 305 together with footnote 351 – in which it is stated that believers can be allowed to the sacraments “in an objective situation of sin” “because of mitigating factors” – directly contradicts article 84 of Pope John Paul II’s exhortation Familiaris consortio.
What then is Pope John Paul II’s exhortation about?
John Paul II explains human sexuality as a “real symbol for the giving of the whole person,” and namely, “without every temporal or other limitation.” He thus formulates very clearly in article 84 that remarried divorcés must refrain from sex if they want to go to communion. A change in the practice of the administration of the sacraments would therefore be no “further development of Familiaris consortio,” as Cardinal Kasper said, but rather a breach in her essential anthropological and theological teaching on marriage and human sexuality. The Church has no authority, without prior conversion, to approve disordered sexual relationships through the administration of the sacraments, thereby anticipating God’s mercy - regardless of how these situations are to be judged on a human and moral level. The door here – as with the ordination of women to the priesthood – is closed.
Couldn’t someone object that the anthropological and theological reflections you mentioned are indeed correct – that God’s mercy is not, however, bound to such limits, but it is linked to the concrete situation of the individual person?
God’s mercy concerns the heart of the Christian faith in the Incarnation and Redemption. Of course, God has each individual person in his or her own situation in view. He knows each person better than they know themselves. The Christian life, however, is not a pedagogical event in which marriage is aimed for as an ideal, as Amoris laetitia appears to suggest in many places. The whole realm of relationships, especially sexual relationships, concerns the dignity of the human person, his or her personhood and freedom. It has to do with the body as a “Temple of God” (1 Cor 6:19). Every violation to this realm, even if it were to occur often, is, therefore, also a violation of one’s relationship to God - to which Christians know they are called – a sin against God’s holiness, and always in need purification and conversion.
God’s mercy consists in always allowing this conversion anew. Of course, it is not bound to definite limits, but the Church on her part requires a proclamation of conversion and does not have the authority to overstep established boundaries by administering the sacraments, and to abuse God’s mercy. That would be imprudent. Therefore clergy, who comply with the existing order, judge no-one; rather, they take into consideration and announce these boundaries of God’s holiness – a salvific promulgation. I don’t want to comment any further to insinuate that they would “hide behind the Church’s teachings” and “sit on the chair of Moses” so as to throw “stones … at people’s lives” (AL, 305). It may be noted that the respective verses in the Gospel are alluded to mistakenly. Jesus indeed says that the Pharisees and scribes sit on the chair of Moses, but he expressly emphasizes that the disciples should adhere to what they say. They should not, however, live like them (Matt 23:2).
Pope Francis has stressed that we should not focus on only single sentences of his teachings; rather the whole should be kept in mind.
Concentrating on the stated passages is fully justified in my eyes. It cannot be expected in a papal exhortation that people will rejoice in a pleasant text and ignore decisive sentences, which change the teachings of the Church. There is actually only a clear yes or no decision: to give Communion or not. There is no intermediary between them.
The Holy Father emphasizes in his exhortation that nobody may be allowed to be condemned forever.
I find it difficult to understand, what he means there. That the Church is not allowed to condemn anyone personally – of course not forever, what she cannot do, thank God – is clear. When it concerns sexual relationships which objectively contradict the Christian way of life, I would like to know from the Pope, after what time and under which circumstances is objectively sinful conduct changed into conduct pleasing to God.
Is it, in your perspective, actually an issue of a breach with the teaching tradition of the Church?
That it is an issue of a breach emerges doubtlessly for every thinking person, who knows the respective texts.
Regardless whether or not one agrees with this assessment: the question arises as to how it came to this.
It was already apparent that Francis views his predecessor Pope John Paul II from a critical distance when he canonized him together with John XXIII, even though a second required miracle was not attributed to the latter. Many felt this to be manipulative. It seemed as if the Pope wanted to relativize the importance of John Paul II.
The actual problem is an influential movement in moral theology, which holds a purely situational ethics, and which can be found as early as the 17th century among the Jesuits. The quotes from Thomas Aquinas, which the Pope cited in Amoris laetitia, appear to support this direction. Here it will be overlooked, however, that Thomas knows objectively sinful actions for which there are no exceptions. Among them is all sexually disordered conduct. John Paul II rejected situational ethics and condemned it in his encyclical Veritatis splendor – as did Karl Rahner before him, in an essay in the 1950s that contained all of these essential and presently valid arguments. Amoris laetitia also challenges Veritatis splendor. With all of this, we cannot forget that it was John Paul II who centered his pontificate on the subject of divine mercy – his second encyclical was devoted to it, the diary of Sister Faustina was discovered in Krakow, and he later named her a saint. He is her authentic interpreter.
What consequences do you see for the Church?
The consequences are already foreseeable: uncertainty and confusion, from the bishops' conferences to the small parishes in the middle of nowhere. A few days ago, a priest from the Congo expressed to me his perplexity in light of this new papal document and the lack of clear precedents. According to the respective passages from Amoris laetitia, not only remarried divorcés but also everyone living in some certain “irregular situation” could, by further nondescript “mitigating circumstances”, be allowed to confess other sins and receive Communion even without trying to abandon their sexual conduct - that means without confession and conversion. Each priest who adheres to the until-now valid discipline of the sacraments, could be mobbed by the faithful and be put under pressure from his bishop. Rome can now make the stipulation that only “merciful” bishops will be named, who are ready to soften the existing discipline. Chaos was raised to a principle by the stroke of a pen. The Pope must have known that he would split the Church with such a step and lead toward a schism – a schism that would not be settled on the peripheries, but rather in the heart of the Church. May God forbid that from happening.
One thing, however, seems clear to me: the concern of this Pope – that the Church should overcome her own self-referencing in order to be able to free-heartedly approach persons – has been destroyed by this papal document for an unforeseeable amount of time. A secularizing push and the further decrease in the number of priests in many parts of the world are also to be expected. It has been able to be observed for quite some time that bishops and diocese with a clear stance on faith and morality have the greatest increase in priests. We must remember the words of St. Paul in the Letter to the Corinthians: “If the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?” (1 Cor. 14:8).
In your opinion, where do we go from here?
Every single cardinal, but also every bishop and priest, is called upon to preserve uprightly the Catholic discipline of the sacraments within his realm of responsibility and to confess it publicly. In case the Pope is not ready to make corrections, it remains reserved for a later Pope to officially make things right.
Translation by Richard Andrew Krema.
53 comments:
Some of us have been saying this for over two years now.
Thank you for posting this, Father. I fear Mr. Spaemann is right.
Father McDonald said..."YIKES, THIS ISN'T GOOD AT ALL--SERIOUS MINDED ACADEMIC FEARS POPE FRANCIS IS CAUSING SCHISM..."
Should we attach any greater importance to Robert Spaemann's comments on Amoris Laetitia than various Cardinals and bishops, who have been authorized by Jesus Christ to govern, teach, and sanctify the People of God, and, in turn, have insisted that Amoris Laetitia is 100 percent orthodox?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mercy and Justice:
Jesus told Sister Faustina, the apostle of Divine Mercy for her to "unite myself continually with my agonizing Heart and make reparation to My justice". He also told her to "tell souls about this great mercy of Mine, because the awful day, the day of My justice is near"
That the faithful of the Body suffer, this we know;
For the faithless who wander sinful, to and fro.
Mark, anyone who says Amoris Laetitia is 100% orthodox should not be taken seriously.
Mark Thomas, for goodness sake wake up - name one conservative or traditionalist bishop who "have insisted that Amoris Laetitia is 100 percent orthodox"? The bottom line of what they are saying is that Pope Francis does not have the authority to change already settled Church teaching - that is all. But your statement that "Amoris Laetitia is 100 percent orthodox" is so far from the truth it is beyond a laughing matter. The Church has been split in two for some time - Amoris Laetitia has just made that chasm a lot wider as confirmed by Robert Spaemann's comments.
Mark Thomas, the decisive element of Robert Spaemann's comments about Amoris Laetitia (AL) aren't necessarily that they were made by him, but reside in the specific content and logic of what he says. His theological stature lends a certain credibility to what he states, but it is the accuracy and content of his assessment within the Church's tradition and prior writings that ultimately rings true.
If Amoris Laetitia is 100% orthodox, why did Cardinal Kaspar, and those who think as he does, celebrate a "new openness" within the Church through AL, in the very manner that Robert Spaemann discusses? There are times when perfect clarity cannot be achieved in theology, but, with respect to this issue, one can surmise that a lack of clarity, and a certain ambiguity with respect to reception of the Eucharist, as demonstrated in footnote 351, was not without a purpose. Cardinal Kaspar, and others, seems to have seized on this "opportunity."
That this ambiguity contradicts prior Church teaching seems to be a very reasonable interpretation of the intent and meaning of certain portions of the text of AL.
St Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 - what could be called the Jesuitical Imperative
"Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible.To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law—though I myself am not under the law—to win over those under the law. To those outside the law I became like one outside the law—though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ—to win over those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some.
Matteo Ricci was Jesuit scholar and missionary, well educated in various disciplines. He was one of the first missionaries to China, where he adopted the dress and customs of that country as well as becoming proficient in the language. However, in his zeal to convert the people there, he accomodated his teachings to allow for the acceptance of ancestor worship and Confucian ceremonial rites. His position on these was that they were social and political in nature and could therefore be practiced by converts. This was too much for the Franciscan and Dominican missionaries who followed after Matteo Ricci. They believed that he went too far in his acommodation and so convinced the Vatican to outlaw his approach.
Matteo Ricci was not an indifferentist; in his exuberance to incorporate inculturation to convert others however, he went to far.
@ Mark
You are right. I used to appeal to MT's rational mind, but it was a waste of time.
There are people who would sell Jesus all over again, only to think of themselves as good Catholics. They really don't see how distasteful morally and intellectually this attitude is.
It is never an argument about the consistency of the Pope's teaching with the Word of God. Who cares if the Pope openly disregards God, if bishops don't mind?
Jan said..."Mark Thomas, for goodness sake wake up - name one conservative or traditionalist bishop who "have insisted that Amoris Laetitia is 100 percent orthodox"?"
Jan, here is one such bishop. The very TLM-friendly Bishop Philip Egan, Diocese of Portsmouth, England, last weekend heaped praise upon Amoris Laetitia.
Bishop Egan said...
"Pope Francis has just published Amoris Laetitia about love, Christian marriage and family life. It is a magnificent document. Breath-taking in scope, it offers a fresh presentation of Catholic doctrine with many indications for pastoral practice. On behalf of the Diocese of Portsmouth, I wish to welcome this document and to thank the Holy Father."
"Has the Church’s teaching changed with Amoris Laetitia? No."
"Amoris Laetitia is totally consistent with Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, with Familiaris Consortio of St. John Paul II and with the teaching of emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, and Francis frequently cites them. There has been no change in canon law."
"Does the Pope say the divorced and civilly remarried may now be readmitted
to Holy Communion? No."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anonymous at 9:01 p.m. said..."...one can surmise that a lack of clarity, and a certain ambiguity with respect to reception of the Eucharist, as demonstrated in footnote 351..."
Cardinal Schönborn said that that footnote 351 refers to the Holy Sacrament on Penance. He said that the footnote was clear in its reference to Confession. That is what he said. If Cardinal Kasper has said otherwise, then he has contradicted Cardinal Schönborn.
Pope Francis referred us to Cardinal Schönborn in regard to understanding Amoris Laetitia. In turn, Cardinal Schönborn has informed us that footnote 351 refers to Confession. Therefore, if we wish to understand footnote 351, we can turn simply to Cardinal Schönborn's statement about the footnote. Footnote 351 concerns the Sacrament of Confession.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Regarding orthodoxy, or rather a rejection thereof, I encourage the reader of this comment to listen to the testimony of Celtic Anglican Bishop Tony Palmer (tragically killed in a motorcycle accident), who called pope Francis his friend and spiritual father, an interview I link below.
I suggest that we have had enough evidence of the true goals and beliefs of the Bishop of Rome, to at least begin facing reality.
Should you not have enough time to listen to the whole interview, even the few minutes starting at 52 minutes into the interview should be revealing. There are plenty of photographs, articles and videos on the internet which support all the claims Tony Palmer had made. Furthermore, they are consistent with Jorge Bergoglio's many actions and words spoken against the teaching and Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church.
http://www.trunews.com/wednesday-may-21-2014-bishop-anthony-palmer/
This is where J. Bergoglio is taking the Church, as we pretend that we have no idea. I know many are traumatized, but time for wilful blindness and excuses should be over now. Accepting what we see in front of us will be useful to us all.
Anonymous said..."If Amoris Laetitia is 100% orthodox, why did Cardinal Kaspar, and those who think as he does, celebrate a "new openness" within the Church through AL, in the very manner that Robert Spaemann discusses?"
Why should we determine Amoris Laetitia's orthodoxy based upon Cardinal Kasper's claims about the document? The are Churchmen who have interpreted Vatican II to justify the destruction of the Roman Liturgy, churches, and Holy Tradition. Does that mean that their interpretation of Vatican II proves that Vatican II is unorthodox?
People sometimes misinterpret, via ignorance or knowingly, things.
Is the Holy Bible 100 percent orthodox? If yes, then why are there non-Catholics who claim that the Holy Bible "proves" that the Catholic Church is a false Church?
Why do various non-Catholics insist that the Holy Bible "proves" that Saint Peter was never in Rome, that sacred images are not permitted to be placed within churches, or that sodomy is not a sin?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
How sad to see the Catholic Church under this Papacy being led down the same road to perdition and irrelevance that the mainstream Protestant churches have been following for decades. I had thought the Catholic Church had more solid foundations. Hopefully this or a future Pope will change course, because it sure seems to me the Gates of Hell are prevailing.
Mark Thomas, Bishop Egan has "asked the priest to take extra care while interpreting individual situations described in Amoris Laetitia. “Otherwise, a lack of coherence and clarity will easily lead to confusion among the faithful, with the risk of injustice and even scandal,” he added".
If AL was 100% orthodox, as you claim, there would be no need for Bishop Egan to state that.
As stated in the Robert Spaemann interview:
"The Holy Father emphasizes in his exhortation that nobody may be allowed to be condemned forever.
I find it difficult to understand, what he means there. That the Church is not allowed to condemn anyone personally – of course not forever, what she cannot do, thank God – is clear. When it concerns sexual relationships which objectively contradict the Christian way of life, I would like to know from the Pope, after what time and under which circumstances is objectively sinful conduct changed into conduct pleasing to God."
That is it in a nutshell and that is what Pope Francis needs to clarify. In the meantime, as Robert Spaemann says:
"Every single cardinal, but also every bishop and priest, is called upon to preserve uprightly the Catholic discipline of the sacraments within his realm of responsibility and to confess it publicly."
That is what I see Bishop Egan is doing - not saying that AL is 100% orthodox because it isn't and everyone, bar you, Mark, knows that and admits it.
Anyone who says Marc is 100% orthodox should not be taken seriously.
A bold statement from someone too cowardly to use a name other than Anonymous. My feelings are so hurt!
A question to those, who want to belie e in the orthodoxy of "Amoris Laetitia".
If a father saw his children running around and braking into the houses of neighbours, and if concerned adults came to him and asked him to do something to stop it, would it be considered a loving and responsible approach for the father to say: I am not teaching them to steal and to burglar! -?
If in addition the children said: "But daddy, it is true you always talk about the virtues of unlimited love, and once you mentioned that no one is really condemned forever, and there are circumstances, when braking in and stealing could be seen as a choice leading gradually to a fuller compliance with the law of the land, and since you said it, nothing was the same for us ever again",
and the father responded:
"I have no patience for those who blow out of proportion some footnotes I ma have made (I don't remember), when the bulk of my teaching is so beautiful!"
- would you still not register the odour of falsity coming from the father?
There are more problems with AL than the footnote. This "Father" promotes Kinsey (paedophile) inspired sex indoctrination in all schools globally. He switches between the primary and the secondary goals of marriage. He calls the God-ordained norm (a normal marriage) an ideal few can achieve. He doesn't openly condemn sodomy as a grave sin.
It is plain view, covered up by a lot of unorthodox, modernistic talk of luuuve. He doesn't stress that playing with body parts upon an urging from the loins (and possibly - sex ed deprived mind stimulated by new emerging contexts, such as media and entertainment he doesn't condemn) has nothing to do with love and God's design for family.
@ Mark Thomas
If you are reading this, please consider the effect you may have on many others, reading your posts everywhere.
I do not recall you reaching to the Word of God to argue for the orthodoxy of the fruits of daily activities of the Bishop of Rome.
It is clear that the ability (with a lot of bending and stretching, and denying and wilfully ignoring) to squeeze this destroyer, who - as all can see and he himself claims openly - has come to perform a fundamental transformation, and who is viciously opposed to those who call on him to do his duty and preserve and uphold, is paramount to you.
Should I asked you, if you were a troll employed by somebody, were you a troll, you would deny it. I am not going to ask then.
If you are not a troll, you are very disturbed, and I think you need help.
Jesus Christ is the Saviour. Every Catholic should know this. If anyone should be infallible, it would be God, not any man (or pope). And their words are conflicting.
The Truth is not established by the great numbers of bishops and cardinals who beat around the bush or are honestly deluded. The Truth is established by God and remains the Truth, even when everybody believes and claims a lie as truth.
You said once (insincerely, I judge) that you are a nobody. You sure say a lot for a nobody. You seem to be everywhere!
You want to be effective, go to the Word of God, and do not go to cowards and deceivers for Truth. Maybe see a doctor, if you can't deal with reality.
If you are a paid troll, may God forgive you.
Jan said..."That is what I see Bishop Egan is doing - not saying that AL is 100% orthodox because it isn't and everyone, bar you, Mark, knows that and admits it."
Jan, in black and white on his diocese's Web page, Bishop Egan declared most definitely that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox.
I again quote Bishop Philip Egan:
"Dear Friends, Pope Francis has just published Amoris Laetitia about love, Christian marriage and family life. This document authoritatively concludes the two recent Synods of Bishops on this topic. It is a magnificent document.
"Breath-taking in scope, it offers a fresh presentation of Catholic doctrine with many indications for pastoral practice."
"Time and again, the Holy Father repeats the traditional teaching of the Church on
chastity, marriage, sexuality and family life, but he does so in a fresh way. He
acknowledges with sympathy and compassion the difficulties and challenges
many face today. Like Jesus with the woman caught in adultery (John 8: 1-11),
Pope Francis urges us, whilst acknowledging the reality of sin, to shew care
and concern for sinners, not condemnation."
"Has the Church’s teaching changed with Amoris Laetitia? No. It is important
to read this, and all papal documents, with a ‘hermeneutic of continuity and
reform’ not a ‘hermeneutic of rupture.’
*******"Amoris Laetitia is totally consistent with Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, with Familiaris Consortio of St. John Paul II and with the teaching of emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, and Francis frequently cites them. There has been no change in canon law."*******
"Does the Pope say the divorced and civilly remarried may now be readmitted
to Holy Communion? No."
========================================================================
Jan, there it is from Bishop Egan and in plain, clear English. Bishop Egan declared that Amoris Laetitia is...
-- "A magnificent document."
-- "Time and again, the Holy Father repeats the traditional teaching of the Church on chastity, marriage, sexuality and family life".
-- "Has the Church’s teaching changed with Amoris Laetitia? No."
-- "Amoris Laetitia is totally consistent with Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, with Familiaris Consortio of St. John Paul II and with the teaching of emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, and Francis frequently cites them. There has been no change in canon law."
-- "Does the Pope say the divorced and civilly remarried may now be readmitted
to Holy Communion? No."
Amoris Laetitia is "totally consistent" with the Church's teachings on family and marriage and has not opened the door to Communion for unrepentant divorced and "remarried" Catholics.
Those are the clear and undeniable words of the very TLM-friendly Bishop Philip Egan.
The Catholic Church in Portsmouth, England, has accepted Amoris Laetitia as a "magnificent" document that is "totally consistent" with orthodox teachings.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said... Why should we determine Amoris Laetitia's orthodoxy based upon Cardinal Kasper's claims about the document? The are Churchmen who have interpreted Vatican II to justify the destruction of the Roman Liturgy, churches, and Holy Tradition. Does that mean that their interpretation of Vatican II proves that Vatican II is unorthodox? People sometimes misinterpret, via ignorance or knowingly, things.
Like Vatican II, the document is being interpreted by people in diametrically opposed ways, while the person who actually can definitively give us the meaning knows without doubt, because it has now been publicly brought to his attention, that people are confused as to the meaning, yet he refuses to issue any personal clarification whatsoever.
His response for clarification was to point to Cardinal Schönborn, but Cardinal Schonborn is just as ambiguous about the matter.
I will be surprised if the pope clarifies this. It doesn't appear to be his style.
That was disclosed the day of the pope's election by a prominent Catholic who lived under his jurisdiction in Argentina.
The pope says/does something ambiguous, causes confusion, never clarifies, then moves on.
There is a de facto schism in the Church, and nowhere can it be more evident than the border between Germany and Poland.
One side says/does one thing, and the other side says/does the opposite.
The pope is under a duty before God to teach and govern. If he allows both things to go on, and he knows it is going on, that's a tacit admission that he sides with the Germans.
DJR
Anonymous said... Anyone who says Marc is 100% orthodox should not be taken seriously.
Marc said... A bold statement from someone too cowardly to use a name other than Anonymous. My feelings are so hurt!
Well, if he's not 100% orthodox, at least he has quite a bit of company.
The overwhelming majority of Catholics, laity and hierarchy alike, fall into that category.
Perhaps he doesn't want to be left out? After all, doesn't "catholic" mean "universal"?
DJR
Mark Thomas:
I warned you on an earlier thread that you were in trouble now. And so it has proven to be the case. Now you are a troll and/or in need of psychiatric help for daring to suggest (with evidence) that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox and that it requires a discerning reader (an increasingly endangered species nowadays) to be properly understood. Stalin would be pleased.
And to those who find the document doubleplusungood and who respond to reasoned argument with such intemperate invective: One wonders sometimes who it is who actually needs psychiatric help.
As for Robert Spaemann, can the document be read in the way he suggests? Yes, of course it can. It can also be read in the way Pope Francis no doubt intended it. This has been true of many of Pope Francis’s statements. You have to read them in proper context and you have to read them with a discerning spirit. I read this document and do not find an excuse for my own sinfulness. On the contrary, I read it as making me even more aware of that sinfulness but also as an encouragement not to give up and to keep on trying to do better. So let me ask those who are so condemnatory of the document: How do_you_read it with respect to_your_sinfulness?
DJR said..."Like Vatican II, the document is being interpreted by people in diametrically opposed ways, while the person who actually can definitively give us the meaning knows without doubt, because it has now been publicly brought to his attention, that people are confused as to the meaning, yet he refuses to issue any personal clarification whatsoever."
DJR, I agree that His Holiness Pope Francis must go beyond his insistence that we turn simply to Cardinal Schönborn to receive the proper understanding of Amoris Laetitia.
Now, in fairness to Pope Francis, he made it clear during his press conference that he's tired of talking about whether (unrepentant) divorced and "remarried" Catholics are free today to receive Holy Communion.
In Pope Francis' mind, he answered the question as he believes that Cardinal Schönborn's presentation of Amoris Laetitia sufficed to explain the Exhortation.
However, there is at least one Cardinal and some bishops who have insisted that the Exhortation has opened the door to that which the Church had forbidden.
We cannot have, for example, as you indicated, the Catholic Church in Poland and Germany teaching different Faiths. Pope Francis must respond publicly to the controversy that has engulfed his Exhortation.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR said..."Like Vatican II, the document is being interpreted by people in diametrically opposed ways, while the person who actually can definitively give us the meaning knows without doubt, because it has now been publicly brought to his attention, that people are confused as to the meaning, yet he refuses to issue any personal clarification whatsoever."
DJR made an interesting point about Vatican II and Amoris Laetitia. The Exhortation, well, in effect, Catholic marriage and family, is on the verge of becoming another Vatican II.
That is, as DJR noted, "interpreted by people in diametrically opposed ways..." That is a great point.
To follow up on DJR's comment, Vatican II could be interpreted "definitively". However, Rome will not grant us, as Bishop Schneider has suggested, a new Syllabus related to Vatican II. In the same way, Amoris Laetitia could be interpreted definitively, However, Rome will not grant us that word. Therefore, as Churchmen interpret and implement Vatican II in ways that differ radically from each other, Amoris Laetitia risks falling to that fate.
Do we want Catholic marriage and family life to experience the same chaotic, collapsed fate as Vatican II?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anonymous 2 said... As for Robert Spaemann, can the document be read in the way he suggests? Yes, of course it can. It can also be read in the way Pope Francis no doubt intended it.
But there's the rub. That's the whole point.
Your words "no doubt" are your private interpretation of Pope Francis' intent.
But he never told you what his intent was, and it can't be gleaned from the document.
So, if you're wrong, and the pope does not intend to say what you infer, then we must draw logical conclusions from that.
Why do you insist that there's "no doubt" that the pope intended it to be read in a certain way?
There absolutely IS doubt. Tons of it.
How do we know there is doubt? We know this because the German bishops disagree with your assessment as to what the pope meant, so do several American bishops, so do several Filipino bishops.
And the pope has yet to clarify it.
DJR
Anoymous 2 said..."As for Robert Spaemann, can the document be read in the way he suggests? Yes, of course it can. It can also be read in the way Pope Francis no doubt intended it."
That is the key. Pope Francis has time and again upheld the Church's teachings on family marriage. That is the to read the document.
The thing is that from Cardinal Kasper to Robert Spaemann, we have influential Catholics who have undermined the Pope's document. They read things into the document that one bishop after another, who have pronounced the Exhortation as orthodox, have not read.
Certain elements of the right and left have created confusion in regard to the Exhortation. They threaten to hijack and misrepresent the Exhortation akin to the manner in which Vatican II was hijacked and misrepresented. I feel bad for Pope Francis in that regard. His much-needed document on the family is under siege by various liberals and conservatives/traditionalists.
Therefore, only he can calm the waters. I believe that he has to set the record straight on Amoris Laetitia. He referred us to Cardinal Schonborn to help grasp the document's meaning. However, certain influential Catholics have rejected that and offered their interpretations.
Therefore, Pope Francis has to respond to those folks who have misrepresented the Exhortation.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"Anonymous" is no more anonymous than "Marc."
The post wasn't made to hurt anyone's feelings, but to serve as a warning to those who might mistake your ardor for interpretive authority or doctrinal accuracy.
I'm sure that posting an anonymous, snide one-liner is the best way to accomplish that goal, Anonymous. Now everyone is sure not to take my snide one-liner as an authoritative doctrinal statement. I'm totally thwarted.
Anonymous DJR:
Mark Thomas provides the answer, and the answer is of course context—the context provided by the whole document and by other statements both of Pope Francis and of others beyond the document (including the consistent teaching of the Church). And this is the way it is with many documents—you have to read them in context, which requires discerning readers. But in this dumbed down era of soundbites, sloganeering, and internet tribalism, discerning readers who are able, or indeed willing, to employ a reasonable and reasoned hermeneutic are a dwindling species.
So, let me dumb it down to match the times. If the Prince says of the three sisters: “Man, two of those sisters are really ugly but that Cindarella is gorgeous” and then on a later occasion says “two of the sisters are really ugly but the third one is gorgeous,” it is not a fair reading of the latter statement—in context, and I repeat in context – for one of the ugly ones to suggest that she is the third gorgeous one because the Prince’s second statement_could_be read in that way, no matter how strong a desire or an incentive she may have to do so. The whole context eliminates the ambiguity that otherwise would exist. There is nothing private about this interpretation—such a suggestion is just another silly move made typically by relativists (of which I assume you are not one).
Now, perhaps we are so dumbed down that it would indeed be plusgood or indeed even doubleplusgood for Pope Francis to clarify his meaning. Personally I would prefer for people to learn how to read properly.
And—let’s not lose sight of the central point here. Francis opponents and haters (yes, there are some actual haters by their own admission, including on this blog) were on the prowl for anything with which to beat the man up again in accordance with their preferred narrative about him, and guess what—they found it. If one wanted to get really Machiavellian about it and if one were paranoid (which so many today seem to be) one could even entertain the thought that perhaps the footnote was planted by a Francis hater for this very purpose. I’ll let you have fun with that one.
And because they found what they were looking for, out goes the baby with the bathwater on the theory that both baby and bathwater have been “poisoned” by one footnote about which we can now spend all our time obsessing while ignoring the rest (now, where have I heard that kind of thought before?). One wonders what they would have found had there been no infamous footnote 351, because undoubtedly they would have found something; the logic of the narrative requires it.
I notice that no-one has answered the question I posed at the end of my last post. So let me repeat and expand it: How do_you_read the document (including footnote 351, read in context) with respect to_your_sinfulness?
Anonymous 2,
There are all sorts of problems with your 3:56 analysis. The problems stem from you dumbing things down so much that your hypothetical doesn't accurately reflect the actual circumstances.
First, your hypothetical consists of much more simple language than the troublesome statements in issue. The language in Amoris Laetitia is more vague than in your hypothetical. (Among other things, those vaguenesses don't syntactically parallel prior statements of Francis, unlike your hypothetical with their highly similar structures, thus making your analogy a very poor one.)
Second, you assume in your hypothetical that the language of the second statement is, nevertheless, clarified by the prior statement (i.e., context). Indeed, the simplicity of the hypothetical clearly leads one in that direction in terms of the parallel language and minor differences between the two statements.
In contrast, the language of Amoris laetitia (e.g., the first sentence of para. 350) is such that the better analogy might reasonably be that the Prince's second statement is actually "Man, I've changed my mind--all three of those sisters are really ugly."
Your only defense against that, it seems to me, is that the troublesome statements _must_ be read in context of Francis's earlier statements. But that begs the question. Is there not at least a linguistic possibility that this is not the case? And might there also be a theological possibility as well (yes, I'm suggesting that the pope has stated something contrary to doctrine--popes have been heretical before.)
Third, even if your analysis is absolutely correct, does not Francis's language allow modernist bishops and priests to interpret it, despite its (arguably) orthodox meaning, in heterodox ways (i.e., expressly allowing, even encouraging, a person in mortal sin to receive Communion)?
Alter Anonymous:
Of course my hypothetical was much simpler. I was dumbing things down. Thank you for agreeing that we can no longer handle anything much more complex than my simple hypothetical.
Pope Francis’s earlier statements are not my only defense. I also draw upon the context provided by other language in Amoris Laetitia itself.
I notice that you have not answered my question. Indeed, no-one has. I wonder why. Could it be that when tested against the actual concrete circumstances I propose, namely the concrete circumstances of our own lives, the doubts disappear? Tell me it isn’t so. Do you really feel Pope Francis has now given you carte blanche for guiltless indulgence in whatever sin(s) is/are your particular burden? I know I don’t.
The bottom line in all this for me is that Pope Francis does not appear to be saying anything different from what good confessors such as Father McDonald are already doing when addressing the concrete circumstances of individual penitents. What so many of the Pope’s critics seem to be missing is not only this point but that Pope Francis has now communicated effectively to the entire world the pastoral practice of the Church and not just the objective moral laws that all of us – you, me, Father McDonald, Pope Francis – fail to observe to a greater or lesser extent because of our imperfect natures. It is, after all, the Year of Mercy. The Church has shared its theoretical wisdom in the form of Judgment under the objective moral law often enough with the world. It is time now for the world to hear the Church’s practical wisdom of Mercy. Perhaps the Pope’s critics (and indeed all those who would misread him) need to get with the program.
But if his critics want to continue their hardhearted stone throwing instead, then that is up to them I suppose.
Anon 2: With respect: Dumbing down is fine for explanatory purposes, but when the it's so dumbed down that it misrepresents the problem it is supposed to clarify, it is worse than useless.
With regard to your para beginning "The bottom line": I think you're missing the point. Of course none of us is perfect. That is an entirely different proposition from saying that a person in mortal sin may licitly receive Communion (and obtain any spiritual benefit thereby, incidentally).
Also in that para., the question isn't whether, due to Francis's problematical language, I may or may not "feel" that I can indulge guiltlessly in my own preferred brand of sin. The question is whether they are objectively sins at all. If the pope has officially contradicted magisterial teaching, then there is a serious possibility that the whole magisterium is worthless. Thus, if I still feel guilty when sinning, I shouldn't do so merely because the Magisterium tells me to.
Finally, with respect to Fr. McDonald: If he _has_, in the confessional, been telling people in an objective state of mortal sin due to irregular putative marriages, that they may receive Communion, I cannot see that a) he has authority to do so or that b) it does the penitent any spiritual good whatsoever (quite the contrary) to act upon such counsel.
Re context: You persist in saying, in effect, that the context _must_ control. But, given that prior popses have both said and done heretical things, why _must_ that be? And even if it does, then I repeat: what is to prevent modernists from reading the language to the contrary, given that it's a reasonable reading?
You continue to insist that there's no problem with this language. But if there's truly no problem, how is it that many intellegent people, including some canon lawyers and brilliant theologians, say that there is? Are we all just pushing tad agendas? Is it truly impossible to read AL in a reasonable way that differs from your reading?
Mark Thomas, sure, Bishop Egan has made those statements but that is not saying the exhortation is orthodox because if it were he would not be clarifying that priests are not to misread it. Since when, Mark Thomas, has any orthodox document had to be clarified in those terms?
Also, when Bishop Egan says "Has the Church’s teaching changed with Amoris Laetitia? No." He is quite right because, as Cardinal Burke points out, this document is not part of the Magisterium and the Pope has no authority to change Church teaching. Neither Bishop Egan nor Cardinal Burke are saying that AL is orthodox. They are merely trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse and trying to put a right spin on what Robert Spaemann highlights is a serious business where he says: "as Article 305 together with footnote 351 – in which it is stated that believers can be allowed to the sacraments “in an objective situation of sin” “because of mitigating factors” – directly contradicts article 84 of Pope John Paul II’s exhortation Familiaris consortio."
Mark, as an avid apologist for Pope Francis you are not going to change the reality of the situation, which everyone else knows but you seem not to be able to understand. The word "obtuse" readily springs to mind.
Jan said..."Neither Bishop Egan nor Cardinal Burke are saying that AL is orthodox."
Okay...let me see. I will read again Bishop Egan's words. Jan, here is what Bishop Egan said in regard to Amoris Laetitia, a document that you claim that he did not declare orthodox.
=================================================================================
1. Bishop Egan said..."Dear Friends, Pope Francis has just published Amoris Laetitia about love, Christian marriage and family life."
Okay...Bishop Egan referenced Amoris Laetitia. I just wish to ensure that that is the document he addressed.
=================================================================================
2. Bishop Egan said..."It is a magnificent document. Breath-taking in scope, it offers a fresh presentation of Catholic doctrine with many indications for pastoral practice."
Okay...Bishop Egan said that Amoris Laetita is "magnificent" and presents "Catholic doctrine..."
Jan, please correct me if I'm wrong, but Bishop Egan said that the document that you claim presents unorthodox teachings, presents, in fact, "Catholic doctrine". The last time that I checked, a Papal document that presents "Catholic doctrine" means that the document presents orthodox doctrine.
===============================================================================
3. Okay...Bishop Egan said..."Time and again, the Holy Father repeats the traditional teaching of the Church on chastity, marriage, sexuality and family life, but he does so in a fresh way.
Jan, correct me if I'm wrong, but Bishop Egan declared that "time and again, the Holy Father repeats the traditional teaching of the Church on chastity, marriage, sexuality and family life."
Jan, I believe that "the traditional teaching of the Church on chastity, marriage, sexuality and family life" is orthodox. I believe that that is correct.
=================================================================================
4. Okay...Bishop Egan said that "Amoris Laetitia is totally consistent with Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, with Familiaris Consortio of St. John Paul II and with the teaching of emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, and Francis frequently cites them. There has been no change in canon law."
Jan, correct me if I'm wrong, but as Amoris Laetitia is "totally consistent with" Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, Pope Saint John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio and the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI, doesn't that make Amoris Laetitia orthodox?
===============================================================================
5. Okay...Bishop Egan said, "Has the Church’s teaching changed with Amoris Laetitia? No. Does the Pope say the divorced and civilly remarried may now be readmitted to Holy Communion? No."
=============================================================================
Hold on! Stop the presses! Jan, I guess that you are correct and I'm wrong. As I read again all of the above, I realize that Bishop Egan stated clearly that Amoris is unorthodox, is not totally consistent with Amoris Laetitia, Humanae Vitae, and permits divorced and "remarried" Catholics to receive Holy Communion.
Yes, Bishop Egan declared clearly that Amoris Laetitia is an horrific document that teaches heresy. Now, how could I possibly have missed that?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jan said..."Mark Thomas, sure, Bishop Egan has made those statements but that is not saying the exhortation is orthodox because if it were he would not be clarifying that priests are not to misread it. Since when, Mark Thomas, has any orthodox document had to be clarified in those terms?"
Hmmm...let me see...ummm...oh, I know...the Holy Bible. There you go. The Holy Bible itself. The Catholic Church teaches that to avoid misinterpreting Sacred Scripture, the Holy Bible must be read with extreme care, and only in the light of Church teaching.
Hmmm...I wonder why? Why must me exercise the same caution in regard to the Holy Bible that we must exercise in regard to Amoris Laetitia? Oh, yeah...because there are people who misinterpret even the clearest of things.
That explains why there are great Biblical scholars and theologians who claim, for example, that the Holy Bible "proves" that the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph had several children together. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin Mary is not Ever-virgin. That explains why certain great Biblical scholars and theologians claim the Sacred Host is not truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Ahh...no wonder the Church teaches that we must read Her writings and documents with tremendous care and only in light of Her Magisterium.
Bishop Egan repeated simply the Church's principle in regard to the only proper way to read and comprehend a Church document, namely, Amoris Laetitia.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jan (and Others):
Why should we accept uncritically Robert Spaemann’s assertion that “Article 305 together with footnote 351 . . . directly contradicts article 84 of Pope John Paul II’s exhortation Familiaris consortio” and that this results from Pope Francis’s “critical distance” from Pope John Paul II and his desire to “relativize” him? Surely it does no such thing – unless you interpret the text to allow access to the Eucharist for divorced and remarried Catholics who have not committed themselves to a life of abstinence from the conjugal act. But the text does not have to be read that way at all. Instead, it can be read perfectly consistently with article 84 of Familiaris consortio.
Based on some research this evening into prior pronouncements of Robert Spaemann, it seems that it is Professor Spaemann who has maintained a “critical distance” from, and who wants to “relativize,” Pope Francis. Here is one such example, in an interview last year:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/famed-german-catholic-philosopher-makes-waves-for-criticizing-pope-francis
So, are Professor Spaemann’s comments leading this thread legitimate criticism or personal agenda (or both)?
Mark Thomas, it is a bit rich comparing AL with the bible which requires bible scholars to interpret it. Bishop Egan may think the document is magnificent and many others - including traditionalists - have praised parts of it. Nevertheless, Bishop Egan himself is warning his priests BECAUSE HE OBVIOUSLY RECOGNISES THAT the document is open to the interpretation of people in irregular situations requesting and receiving communion from priests. Bishop Egan is saying "no" to that in his diocese. But what are other Bishops going to say in their dioceses? The answer is obvious, given the fact that this document is open to the interpretation that communion may be given to people who are divorced and civilly remarried as Cardinal Kasper says. He is not alone, Bishop Schneider and many others - not just traditionalists - take that interpretation from it as well. Therefore, in no way can this document be said to be orthodox.
Catholic World Report: Five Serious Problems with AL: "The most controversial section of Pope Francis' apostolic exhortation is fraught with problematic arguments and dubious moral theology—and gives the German bishops all they want."
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4740/five_serious_problems_with_chapter_8_of_iamoris_laetitiai.aspx
Raymond Arroyo - hardly a traditionalist - his programme had this to say:
"Raymond Arroyo has noticed problems in Amoris Laetitia and asks some good questions on getting to the truth. Watch how Robert Royal and Fr. Gerald Murray squirm in answering. One key quote:
Fr. Gerald Murray: This is the effort I think all of us who are concerned want to see happen, which is to tell the pope that flattery would mean we keep our mouths closed and say nothing, but gospel frankness, remember that word he used in the Synod, “parrhesia,” the gospel frankness calls upon us to say, “Holy Father either you been poorly advised or you have an incomplete conception of this issue. We know that we can share some information with you.” But the thirteen or so Cardinals who wrote to the Pope at the beginning of the last Synod, I mean that’s the perfect kind of example I think is going to happen. Also you know canon 220 – all the faithful have the right to express their opinions about matters in Church life. This is good that this be debated and brought forward in the press. … St. Thomas is used in Chapter eight to justify this new approach. I can’t believe that a good group of Thomists won’t be having a response to that I don’t want to criticize the pope. … I don’t judge, but what I will say is when you do something in public THAT CONTRADICTS WHAT YOUR PREDECESSOR DID, there has to be an accounting for it and a responsibility to upholding the gospel and I think that’s what many bishops, Cardinals and priests will call for."
Anonymous 2 - as you can see from my last post, it is not just Robert Spaemann who is criticising AL. There are many others who are critical of parts of AL who say that it contradicts both what Pope Benedict has stated and St John Paul II The Great. They are calling upon the Pope to clarify what his meaning is. The answer is quite simple really: if Francis does not intend that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics should receive Communion, in contravention of Church teachings, then he can easily remove those paragraphs and the footnote. That is by far the simple solution and would quell any further criticism. I wait with baited breath to see if he does that ...
A2: Perhaps it can, arguendo, be read the way you suggest. It can also be read in heterodox fashion. That is what is troubling. In particular, the troubling things about it are
1) If it is to be read as you suggest, why was it so sloppily/vaguely written? (Yes, the pope has a million things to do and many people were involved in this. I submit in response that _nothing_ a pope does is more crucial than to safeguard the deposit of the faith and to prevent opportunities for misunderstanding of that faith or the teaching of error. So no matter how busy Francis was, that can be no excuse.)
2) What was the intent behind such vagueness? was there intent, or merely (gross) negligence?
3) Was there no realization that vagueness would permit dissidents within the clergy to be able to claim, with some legitimacy, that communion for those in mortal sin was now licit? Was this failure so great that Francis couldn't even recall, when pressed, the troublesome language? Does this not suggest at least the possibility that the Vatican is seeking plausible deniability while attempting to subvert doctrine?
4) With respect, you are arguing that some people are being too critical of AL and of Francis, but is it not possible--have you not considered the possibility--that you aren't being critical enough? Will you at least admit the possibility that you are wrong and that there is something gravely wrong with this papacy, or at least this document?
Jan said..."Mark Thomas, it is a bit rich comparing AL with the bible which requires bible scholars to interpret it."
Jan, your premise is that orthodox teaching is clear, precise, recognizable, and not in need of having to be read carefully. Therefore, in your world, it is unnecessary to be required to read Amoris Laetitia carefully. If the Exhortation were orthodox, then we would not have 1,001 different interpretations of the document. But due to so many different interpretations of what this or that part of Amoris Laetitia says, the "confusion" about the Exhortation "proves" that the document is unorthodox. That is your premise.
Well, your premise doesn't stand the test of the Holy Bible. Sorry, but it's not a bit rich for me to have compared the situation of Amoris Laetitia to that of the Holy Bible.
If anything, the Holy Bible, which is God's very Word, and contains His Truth, and was written under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, should be the one...the absolute one "document" on earth that does not require any careful reading. However, the Holy Bible requires precise, extremely careful reading, and only through the lens of the Magisterium, to be understood properly.
Jan, why is that? After all, you insist that orthodox documents do not require careful reading. The bottom line is that everything that anybody says or does is open to misinterpretation. That is why Holy Church insists that Her teachings and documents must be read very carefully and only in the light of Holy Traditon. Otherwise, even the most seemingly obvious orthodox document could be misinterpreted.
Again, anything may be misinterpreted. Example: I say..."Good morning, Jan. I hope that you are well."
You, or anybody else could claim..."It's sooooo obvious that Mark Thomas was being nasty and sarcastic to Jan. "Good morning, Jan. I hope that you are well." He didn't really mean that in a nice way. He argues with Jan on this blog. You really think that he wishes her well? Really? What nonsense!"
Good morning, Jan. I hope that you are well.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jan, we must add Cardinal Brandmüller's name to the lengthy list of Cardinals and bishops who have declared that Amoris Laetitia has not changed the Church's teaching on Communion for divorced and "remarried" Catholics.
http://www.kath.net/news/55036
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, when these churchmen make the claim that Amoris Laetitia has not changed the Church's teaching, they are not thereby claiming that the document is orthodox. Cardinals Burke and Brandmuller are arguing for an orthodox hermeneutic to be applied to the document by, essentially, paying no mind to those bits that appear to change the Church's teaching. They are arguing that based on the premise that the Church's teaching cannot change.
For example, if a pope were to publish a document saying that the Blessed Virgin Mary is to be considered the Fourth Person in the Holy Quadrility, these sorts of cardinals would propose an orthodox hermeneutic that would simply say that such a statement needs to be read in the light of settled teaching since the pope cannot change the teaching.
Note that such statements do not mean the same thing as saying that the statement itself is orthodox. This is a subtle point, but an important one.
Now, carry on with copying and pasting quotations and links.
Alter Anonymous:
I will tell you what I will_not_do – I will not impugn Pope Francis’s motives, either explicitly or by implication. That people (including several on this blog) seem willing to do so is what exercises me about the entire episode (and other episodes) more than anything else.
Mark Thomas, Marc is correct and his point has been made numerous times but it seems to go over your head. It is the same argument used by some cardinals and bishops to attempt to overcome the obvious break with tradition of some of the Vatican II documents by saying that they must be read in the light of the traditional teaching of the Church. But that does not make what is said in parts of those documents or AL orthodox.
If you wish to keep liking AL to the Bible, then I guess you must think that Francis' AL contains parables or allegories. I am sure that if Francis stood in the midst of a rain storm and shouted, "See how the sun shines today" you would find an argument to prove that what he said was correct and didn't defy logic. I hope that the sun shines on you today, Mark, and that you didn't come down in the last shower.
Edward Pentin has a good article on Bishop Schneider's statement about AL, in which Bishop Schneider: "Also in his reflection, Bishop Schneider makes a specific call on the laity to fight to protect the Church and her teaching. And quoting Dominican Bishop Melchior Cano from the Council of Trent, he also chastises those who flatter the Pope, “close their eyes to the facts” and indiscriminately defend every papal decision. Such people, Bishop Schneider quotes Cano as saying, “contribute most to undermining the authority of the Holy See. They destroy its foundations instead of strengthening them.”
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/bishop-schneider-amoris-laetitia-demands-clarification/#ixzz47gDLI2Tv
Marc said..."Mark, when these churchmen make the claim that Amoris Laetitia has not changed the Church's teaching, they are not thereby claiming that the document is orthodox. Now, carry on with copying and pasting quotations and links."
I will most certainly carry on with copying, pasting quotations and links as I go directly to bishops who have made it clear that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox. I don't place words into their mouths.
It is untenable to maintain, for example, that Bishop Egan does not maintain that AL is orthodox when he stated that AL is "a magnificent document...time and again, the Holy Father repeats the traditional teaching of the Church on chastity, marriage, sexuality and family life...has the Church’s teaching changed with Amoris Laetitia? No....Amoris Laetitia is totally consistent with Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, with Familiaris Consortio of St. John Paul II and with the teaching of emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, and Francis frequently cites them."
An unorthodox document would not be labeled "magnificent"...would not repeat "the traditional teaching of the Church...", would not "be consistent with Humanae Vitae, with Familiaris Consortio..."
One bishop after another has declared AL orthodox. The bishops will implement AL throughout the Church. AL is here to stay.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, what does it mean that "bishops will implement AL throughout the Church"? If the document is orthodox, as you claim, then it requires no implementation since it is just be a recitation of the existing practice.
Mm-hmm, Mark Thomas, maybe Bishop Schneider has read your comments. I certainly would include you among those who: “close their eyes to the facts” and indiscriminately defend every papal decision. Such people, Bishop Schneider quotes Cano as saying, “contribute most to undermining the authority of the Holy See. They destroy its foundations instead of strengthening them.”
I also agree with Marc that if AL was orthodox, as you claim, then there would be no need for the bishops to implement AL throughout the Church as according to you it is only reiterating existing practice. I also second Marc's query: what are the bishops going to be implementing in the Church???
Marc said..."Mark, what does it mean that "bishops will implement AL throughout the Church"? If the document is orthodox, as you claim, then it requires no implementation since it is just be a recitation of the existing practice."
Marc, that notion doesn't make sense. Is Familiaris Consortio orthodox? If the answer is "yes", then why did Pope Saint John Paul II's Exhortation require implementation throughout the Church?
Here is what we find in Familiaris Consortion.
"2. A sign of this profound interest of the church in the family was the last Synod of Bishops, held in Rome from Sept. 26 to Oct. 25, 1980. At the close of their assembly, the synod fathers presented me with a long list of proposals in which they had gathered the fruits of their reflections, which had matured over intense days of work, and they asked me unanimously to be a spokesman before humanity of the church's lively care for the family and to give suitable indications for renewed pastoral effort in this fundamental sector of the life of man and of the church."
Pope Saint John Paul II, via Familiaris Consortio, implemented various proposals offered to him in 1980 A.D. by the Synod Fathers. In regard to the current, His Holiness Pope Francis followed the process that Pope Saint John Paul II followed.
1. Pope Saint John Paul II convoked a Synod.
2. The Synod Fathers offered proposals to Pope Saint John Paul II.
3. Pope Saint John Paul II took various proposals to heart.
4. Pope Saint John Paul II implemented said proposals via his Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio.
Again, that is the same pattern that Pope Francis followed.
Therefore, Marc, based upon your comment, the orthodoxy of Familiaris Consortio must be called into question. After all, to borrow from your words, "if Familiaris Consortio is orthodox, then it required no implementation since it was just a recitation of the existing practice".
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas, the only way that bishops can implement AL throughout the Church is to give communion to the divorced and remarried under the guise of mercy, which is what this document is all about. That is why the document is not orthodox and departs from Church teaching contained in Familiaris Consortio.
Mark, since its first Friday, let's make reparation for all the sacrilege that has occurred and will occur as the bishops implement the pope's exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!
Post a Comment