As I have written before, Amoris Laetitia is basically a very good and orthodox pastoral teaching. That being the case, why then was there such pushback by so many in all parts of the world, while, others, in all parts of the world, thought it was the best thing since microwave ovens?
Let’s focus on the most controversial and confusing aspects of Pope Francis’ written words:
Copied from the Pillar with my commentary embedded in red:
The apostolic exhortation says in paragraph 305 that “a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in ‘irregular’ situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives.” (I don’t know of any bishops, priests and deacons who throw moral laws around as though these are stones to injure people and their feelings. I think that pointing out irregularities and sinfulness in order to accompany people in sinful situations to live grace-filled lives is an act of charity, a strong medicine. Keep in mind that field hospitals not only render comfort to those who are injured, but give them powerful medicines that are painful and often have to do amputations. Sometimes sin has to be amputated and the bishop or priest in Confession is the surgeon.)
The paragraph adds that “because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.” (Yes, there are a lot of good and great people who commit sins but for them it isn’t a mortal sin since they are ignorant that what they are doing is sinful. But most people are teachable and can be easily made aware that what they are doing is sinful. They aren’t invincibly ignorant! This section of AL seems to be very condescending toward lay people learning to recognize their sin and then to repent. The Church’s ministry is to educate and lead people to repentance and reconciliation, no?)
A footnote to the paragraph says that such help “can include the help of the sacraments” and adds that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.” (A footnote is no way to explain how the internal forum works. That needs an apostolic letter in and of itself and needs to set the parameters of such. I know that many priests have accompanied people towards and internal forum solution to returning to Confession and Holy Communion, but there are parameters for this and it would have been better for a clear and concise document on this!)
2 comments:
Who determined that Amoris Pontificum is controversial?
Perhaps a committee determines when a Pope, whom God has chosen to teach, govern, and sanctify His Holy People, has inflicted supposed "controversy" upon the Church.
Is that the committee who determined that Summorum Pontificum had proved controversial?
Humanae Vitae is "controversial."
Vatican II is "controversial."
Pope Leo XIV is "controversial."
Jesus Christ is "controversial."
"Controversy" exists in the eye of the beholder.
Amoris Laetitia is not controversial to folks who believe the following from Pope Pius X:
The Pope is "the guardian of dogma and of morals...he represents God Himself..."
"Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough...we do not place his orders in doubt..."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
What is Amoris Pontificum?
Post a Comment