I post Ron Conte's take on AL as it has given me food for thought: Certain few passages in Amoris Laetitia are being singled out for harsh criticism. Paragraph 298 298. The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”.[329] There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”. Another thing is a new union arising from a recent divorce, with all the suffering and confusion which this entails for children and entire families, or the case of someone who has consistently failed in his obligations to the family. It must remain clear that this is not the ideal which the Gospel proposes for marriage and the family. The Synod Fathers stated that the discernment of pastors must always take place “by adequately distinguishing”, with an approach which “carefully discerns situations”. We know that no “easy recipes” exist. The divorced and remarried are in various situations. I’ll give some examples: * Divorced and remarried but seeking an annulment for the first marriage. If the annulment is obtained, their new union can become the Sacrament of Marriage. * Divorced and remarried, and the first spouse passes away. Again, their new union may become a valid marriage. * Divorced and remarried, struggling to live as brothers and sisters, staying together for the sake of the children. If they fall into sin by having relations, they can go to Confession and then receive Communion — as long as they are repentant and trying not to sin. * Divorced and remarried, but now separated, while maintaining some friendship with their former partner and some shared responsibility for the children. * Divorced and remarried, but the first marriage (to an unbaptized person) was only a natural marriage. The Pauline privilege allows the first valid natural marriage to be dissolved, so that a second marriage, which is the full Sacrament of marriage, can take place. * Divorced and remarried, and unrepentant; they have rejected the Church’s teaching on marriage and chastity. Pastors should strive to bring this last category to repentance. The other situations are irregular, but if the persons are repentant, or if they are at least trying to give up these sins, they can have some participation in the Church’s life. Some commentators are objecting to this passage: “a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins.” The “proven fidelity” does not imply that the adulterous second union has marital fidelity. It means that, if the couple can obtain an annulment, they might form a successful marriage with their current partner. And notice that the Pope adds, in this example, that the couple have an understanding that their union is irregular, i.e. not a valid marriage, and that they have some sense of trying to avoid sin. This represents the type of couple that a pastor can encourage to greater faithfulness to Church teaching, to separate or to live as brother and sister. The “generous self-giving” and “Christian commitment” indicate that these persons are cooperating with actual graces, and therefore may more easily be brought to repentance. In the case of a spouse who is not divorced and remarried, but is divorced because of unjust actions on the part of the other spouse, such a person is not guilty of grave sin and should be welcome in the parish. In the case of a divorced and remarried, where the spouse is “subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”, obtaining an annulment may be possible. Then the new union can become a valid marriage. After discussion different irregular situations, which clearly may include some culpability for those persons, the Pope asserts clearly his support for traditional Church teaching on marriage: “It must remain clear that this is not the ideal which the Gospel proposes for marriage and the family.” Footnote 329 John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51). The situation discussed here (“in such situations”) is a divorced and remarried couple. The first thing the Pope says is that many of these couples know and accept the possibility of living without sexual relations. A divorced and remarried couple can remain together, refrain from relations, go to Confession, and then receive Communion. Then the Pope notes that some of these couples assert — their assertion, not his — that abstaining from sex is difficult. Yes, I’m sure that it is. One difficulty is faithfulness. We can anticipate that, in many cases, one spouse is more dedicated than the other to the teaching of the Church that they may not have sex since they do not have the valid Sacrament of marriage. So there is a problem of temptation to unfaithfulness of that other spouse. Another difficulty is that the couple might drift apart, might argue more, might have a worse relationship because of the difficulty of refraining. And this can adversely affect the children. Pope Francis loosely quotes Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, on the problems of danger to faithfulness and the disharmony to the family, when spouses do not have marital relations. Gaudium et Spes is speaking about valid marriages, where the couple does not have relations because they have serious reasons to avoid having any more children, at least for a time. But the concept still applies. It is a footnote about the difficulty faced by divorced and remarried couples, who have decided to repent and to live by the Church’s teachings. Why is this passage even a problem? Pope Francis did not say they should have sexual relations. He did not say that the Church should approve of their remarriage. He did not justify adultery for the sake of a harmonious non-marital union. His critics are drawing unwarranted and uncharitable conclusions. But I know from having had many discussions with my fellow Catholics online that if these critics themselves were treated the same way they are treating the Pope — drawing uncharitable conclusions from what they say — they would be outraged. Treat others as you would have them treat you. And treat the Pope at least as well as you yourself expect to be treated. Shouldn’t the Pope be treated with greater respect than you, since he is the Vicar of Christ? The arrogance of treating the Pope with such a lack of charity is astounding. Stop complaining about things that the Pope NEVER ACTUALLY SAID.
Continued Paragraph 301 301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can 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. 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. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”. The Pontiff is here discussing the distinction in moral theology between objective mortal sin and actual mortal sin (also called material sin and actual sin). Divorce and remarriage, absent an annulment, with sexual relations, implies adultery, if the first marriage was a valid Sacrament, and the second union is not. Therefore, sexual relations for that couple is objective mortal sin. However, actual mortal sin requires more than an objectively grave sin, it also requires full knowledge and full deliberation. It is ignorant and arrogant to assume that all persons who commit objective mortal sin, on a continuous basis without apparent repentance, are guilty of actual mortal sin and are not in a state of sanctifying grace. Now I would opine that the divorced and remarried should not receive Communion, because they are guilty of objective mortal sin. And the same rule should, in my view, apply to EVERYONE. If you are unrepentant from objective mortal sin, you should not receive Communion. And this includes the most popular sins today: sex outside of marriage, unnatural sexual acts in marriage, contraception, abortifacients, masturbation, pornography. It seems clear that many Mass-going Communion-receiving Catholics commit such sins, without repentance or Confession. In addition, adhering to heresy, or committing a sin of schism, are objective mortal sin. Very many Mass-going Communion-receiving Catholics are guilty, at least objectively, of adhering to heresy. And if they do not realize that these ideas are heretical, they are at least guilty of negligence in learning the Faith. Then, too, many Catholics go online to promote heretical ideas, while claiming that these ideas are Church teaching, or sound theology. And yet they receive Communion. Many Catholics are now objecting to Pope Francis, to the extent of the objective mortal sin of schism. And yet they receive Communion — while complaining that the divorced and remarried cannot receive due to objective mortal sin. Worse still, the vast majority of Mass-going Communion-receiving Catholics NEVER go to Confession. I can only conclude that the vast majority of Mass-going Communion-receiving Catholics should not be receiving Communion. So it is disturbing to me when I hear persons speaking as if only the divorced and remarried are sinning or erring by receiving Communion. Most of those making that complaint are themselves also disqualified from reception of Communion. [Matthew 7] {7:1} “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. {7:2} For with whatever judgment you judge, so shall you be judged; and with whatever measure you measure out, so shall it be measured back to you. {7:3} And how can you see the splinter in your brother’s eye, and not see the board in your own eye? {7:4} Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the splinter from your eye,’ while, behold, a board is in your own eye? {7:5} Hypocrite, first remove the board from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye. I see no substantial doctrinal errors in Amoris Laetitia, and nothing that contradicts any past infallible teaching. I also see no new definition of doctrine, so the contents present no newly-defined infallible teaching. Amoris Laetitia contains non-infallible teachings, as well as some discussion of possible decisions and general guidelines on discipline. Many conservative Catholics wish that Pope Francis had taken a harsher approach to the divorced and remarried. But he holds the keys, so he can decide as he sees fit. One cannot use one’s own interpretation and understanding of traditional Church teaching to play judge and jury over the Pope, and issue a sentence of condemnation. Your own understanding can err. The conservative Catholic subculture, in its majority opinions, can err. The Pope is the head of the Church on earth, and you do not have the role of judging him. Most of those criticizing Pope Francis are thoroughly ignorant of Church teaching and Catholic theology. They are not qualified to decide any questions of doctrine or discipline. And yet they arrogantly assume that whenever the Pope’s words are contrary to their own understanding, the only possibility is that the Pope has erred. Humility and prayer is the remedy here, not long explanations of each sentence spoken or written by the Pope. by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
I am afraid past experience with Ron 's opinions on a wide variety of topics does not cause me to value his opinons overmuch on any subject whatsoever.
Although what he says here seems very reasonable, Ronald L. Conte Jr. would not be a reliable theologian and directly contradicts Pope St. John Paul II and Archbishop Fulton Sheen in certain aspects of sexual moral theology. The problem for me is that Pope Francis has left us open to all this potential division, manifest in heated debate between the very good people on these pages, by his lack of clarity, leaving certain passages vulnerable to contradictory interpretation. All this could have been avoided by the use of brevity and unambiguous language. I think it is reasonable to question the motives for this-is the Pope simply somewhat incompetent or is it worse? This is not necessarily to be disloyal to the papacy. To remain silent might well be more disloyal. There have been foolish and wicked popes before, but God uses them for His Plans regardless.
Amoris Laetitia and the “Brinkmanship” of Pope Francis DEACON JIM RUSSELL The aftershocks continue after the ground-shaking April 8 release of Pope Francis’ post-synodal apostolic exhortation on the family, Amoris Laetitia. Extreme reactions vary from “we don’t have to talk about sin any more” and “conscience trumps everything” and “Communion for everybody” and “now we can contracept” all the way to “Francis is a heretic and a pernicious liar” to “the Pope just shot us in the back” to “how dare you defend the pretender Bergoglio.” All because, after two wild and wooly synods on the family, Pope Francis brought us all the way to the very edge of making a decision between the synod’s two conflicting episcopal views on Communion for the divorced and remarried (and not annulled)—and left all of us hanging. Why? Is pushing the panic button now justified on both sides of that issue? Not so fast, folks. What’s Up With Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia? Late last year, as the World Meeting of Families and the Synod concluded, I had occasion to give a talk on both important events. At that time, I pointed to a strong parallel that exists between those who once spoke of the Second Vatican Council as two things—a “council of the media” and “a council of the Fathers.” It struck me that this precise thing was happening to the two synods on the family. The “synod of the media” was all about the hot-button issues, with the top issue being Communion for divorced/remarried (not-annulled) Catholic. The real and all-important question was, and remains, what is the “synod of the Father”—the Holy Father—really focused on? With such a range of views and proposals emanating from two confusing synod processes, all of which has no official standing whatsoever, in terms of affecting the Church directly, what would the official conclusion—Pope Francis’ post-synodal apostolic exhortation—reveal to us? Well, the “synod of the media” was also the only synod encountered by many of the faithful. So, on April 8, the reception of Amoris Laetitia naturally continued to feed the erroneous view that this document would ultimately be all about resolving the media’s and many Catholics’ fixation on the question of Communion. And, of course, the exhortation, it turns out, wasn’t about that. At all. How frustrating for so many to have their expectations derailed, one way or the other. The synod of the Holy Father, it turns out, was different from the “synod of the media.” All the same, “interpretations” of the text came hurtling forth from all forms of armchair experts, such that the synod of the media continues to push aside Francis’ authentic voice and intention for his exhortation. A Form of Ecclesial “Brinkmanship”A political term comes to mind regarding how Pope Francis has navigated his way through the last two or more years of the synods and his final text—brinkmanship. Webster’s would define the term as “the practice of causing or allowing a situation to become extremely dangerous in order to get the results that you want.” Perhaps that’s not a bad description of what we have seen. I would assert that Francis has, all the while, deliberately left unresolved this crucial question of the “synod of the media” precisely so that he can continue to resolutely point the Church toward his synod, so to speak. This will, of course leave a huge number of Catholics of every ideological stripe greatly disappointed. But remember, this is the pope of “the mess”—getting out into the streets and into the mess in order to proclaim the Kingdom through personal encounter. Also remember the Fourth Commandment—please! I have seen so many violations of the Fourth Commandment in the comments of those who are wrapped up in the view that Pope Francis is harming the Church that they throw him completely under the bus and show his office as Vicar of Jesus Christ no respect whatever. We must continue to honor our father, fellow Catholics, even if we disagree. But, one might continue, respectfully, to disagree and say that the Pope’s “brinkmanship” on the question of Communion for the divorced-remarried (not-annulled) is wreaking havoc in both directions. Isn’t all this ambiguity really bad? I’m not convinced it is. Evidence of the Holy SpiritOne side note in all this is that “brinkmanship” is not necessarily a new phenomenon when it comes to the papacy. Indeed, it’s precisely the kind of thing one would expect to see in the office of the Papacy if it is really exercised under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who protects the Pope and the Church against universally teaching error in faith and morals. So, let’s assume for a moment that the “worst-case-scenario” here is true, taking the reactionary view that Pope Francis is totally dedicated to undermining the Church’s understanding of the crucial importance of worthily receiving Communion in a state of grace. If this were true, and if he had the courage of his convictions, he could just teach what he believes is true. After all, to whom does he answer? Well, to God, of course. To the Holy Spirit. Even in this worst case, guess what? A pope would indeed be somehow prevented from universally and formally teaching error. “Brinkmanship” is exactly as far as a Pope could ever go with this kind of error before running squarely into the Holy Spirit. The Schonborn Effect Yet, I don’t find the reactionary view of Francis persuasive at all, so even though it’s deeply important that Amoris Laetitia does not universally teach any error, I’ve been continuing to look for additional clues regarding the Holy Father’s “synod.” He gave us an absolutely vital clue during his recently concluded press conference on the papal plane returning this past weekend from Greece to Rome. Right on cue, the “synod of the media” was front and center as a reporter asked: For a Catholic who wants to know: are there new, concrete possibilities that didn’t exist before the publication of the exhortation or not? Pope Francis replied: I can say yes, many. But it would be an answer that is too small. I recommend that you read the presentation of Cardinal Schonborn, who is a great theologian. He was the secretary for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and he knows the doctrine of the faith well. In that presentation, your question will find an answer. This means we have to examine closely what Cardinal Schonborn said in his introduction of the papal exhortation. What Did Cardinal Schonborn Say?
(continued) There are several takeaways I wish to point out (paraphrased for the sake of brevity) from Cardinal Schonborn’s intervention that help us understand what Pope Francis intends: Francis is seeking to view both “regular” and “irregular” situations in marriage and family life with the eyes of Christ—eyes that acknowledge the truth of each situation while always welcoming and encouraging the persons to experience the “joy of love.” All persons are neither “cases” nor “categories” but are the subjects of “discernment” and “accompaniment”—tasks required of the Church for all persons regardless of whether their circumstances are “irregular” or not. “Only when this personal ‘discernment’ is mature is it also possible to arrive at ‘pastoral discernment,’” Schonborn says, “which is important especially in ‘those situations that fall short of what the Lord demands of us’ (AL 6).” (And this is wherethe all-important “eighth chapter” comes in, a chapter that won’t make sense in the absence of mature personal discernment.) Schonborn clearly states that this kind of discernment and accompaniment is “the key to correctly understanding Pope Francis’ intentions.” Yet, Schonborn also says that Chapter Eight is not what the Pope thinks is central. Rather, Schonborn says, “I should however mention that Pope Francis has described Chapters 4 and 5 as central, not only in terms of their position but also their content.” (These chapters are respectively titled “Love in Marriage” and “Love Made Fruitful.”) Regarding the vexing-for-some Chapter Eight, Schonborn says: “What we are speaking of is a process of accompaniment and discernment which ‘guides the faithful to an awareness of their situation before God.’ But Pope Francis also recalls that ‘this discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church.’” He says the Pope “mentions two erroneous positions”: one of “excessive rigor” and the other of neglecting the “full ideal of marriage.” Importantly, Schonborn explains what the Pope is thinking regarding “access to the sacraments for people who live in ‘irregular’ situations”: “Pope Benedict had already said that ‘easy recipes’ do not exist (AL 298, note 333). Pope Francis reiterates the need to discern carefully the situation, in keeping with St. John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio (84) (AL 298). ‘Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God’ ” (AL 305). Finally, the cardinal states: “In the sense of this ‘via caritatis’ (AL 306), the Pope affirms, in a humble and simple manner, in a note (351) that the help of the sacraments may also be given ‘in certain cases.’ “ Readers, did you notice that Schonborn clearly states that Francis intends all this “discernment” to be in keeping with Familiaris Consortio and its paragraph 84—the precise paragraph in which we read: “However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried”? And did you notice that the Holy Father himself says in the exhortation (AL 305) that this discernment is supposed to help find ways of spiritual growth “in the midst of limits”? What limits? One “limit” particularly comes to mind, doesn’t it? That footnote should now make a bit more sense, shouldn’t it? The kind of help he wants all to receive is what Francis is focusing on in the main text. The footnote is there to help make clear that the kind of help everyone else seems to want to focus on—specifically sacramental help, like Communion for the divorce-remarried-not-annulled—may apply but only “in certain cases.” Francis then intentionally avoids giving examples of these cases in the footnote. Why? He’s not interested in changing lenses at this point. He’s still looking at all of us, “regular” or “irregular,” with the loving and welcoming eyes of Jesus Christ. Choosing Not to Decide If you’ve read this far and still remain skeptical, then let’s return once again to Pope Francis’ weekend plane presser. Another reporter entrenched in the “synod of the media” asked him another question about this footnote (351), which elicited this incredibly revealing response from the Pontiff: One of the recent popes, speaking of the Council, said that there were two councils: the Second Vatican Council in the Basilica of St. Peter, and the other, the council of the media. When I convoked the first synod, the great concern of the majority of the media was communion for the divorced and remarried, and, since I am not a saint, this bothered me, and then made me sad. Because, thinking of those media who said, this, this and that, do you not realize that that is not the important problem? Don’t you realize that instead the family throughout the world is in crisis? Don’t we realize that the falling birth rate in Europe is enough to make one cry? And the family is the basis of society. Do you not realize that the youth don’t want to marry? Don’t you realize that the fall of the birth rate in Europe is to cry about? Don’t you realize that the lack of work or the little work (available) means that a mother has to get two jobs and the children grow up alone? These are the big problems. Here in the Pope’s own words I have found affirmation of my intuition from last year—the “two councils” image was just appropriated by Francis himself. Here at long last is a way to make sense of all the documentary evidence. Here is a wise father who is choosing not to decide anything new about a question he thinks is “too small.” He is not going to let either his own bishops or the media distract him from “the synod of the Holy Father,” which is so much richer and broader and deeper than the narrower question of Communion, which in Francis’ own words “is not the important problem.” In not deciding, Pope Francis leaves in place everything about that issue that has been previously taught and practiced by the Church. So, living as husband and wife and having sexual relations in an adulterous union will continue to result in those persons being prohibited from receiving Communion—how could it not, since Canon Law and Church discipline prior to Amoris Laetitiae remains identical more than a week later? But Francis, like a loving father, is exhorting us—literally—to not let “his synod” be reduced to such a small question in the midst of the immense work we need to do on all the other problems. This work can only be done by seeing through Pope Francis’ eyes, not ours. And how can the Church’s sons and daughters fail to respond to his selfless example? He’s merely showing us how to love each other as Christ loves us. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/amoris-laetitia-and-the-brinkmanship-of-pope-francis
Just as well this is a Year of Mercy or he might really have clobbered us. [And like you, I perceive myself as one of his targets. Ah well, long live Pope Francis].
Ron Conte normally has some weird and wonderful spins on Catholic teachings but the above is trully amazing! considering the insight and clarity!......way off his usual mark. Now that has me worried! Well actually; It just goes to show that we are all human and sometimes we can accidentally get it right!
Ha - always good to read a variety of interpretations. I am not too worried as God is in charge of all things. As one saint said - it is better to talk to God than about God. The more one prays the less anxious one becomes.
I have just watched another dawn service. This one was to mark the 100 day approach to the olympics. It took place on Cheltenham beach Auckland with the sun coming up behind the dormant volcano Rangitoto a couple of kilometres out to sea. A Maori troop welcomed the sun with the sound of the conch and then performed the Haka followed by the ceremonial and symbolic transfer of Mana (respect, status honour - difficult to translate) and the exchange of the kahu kiwi a ceremonial cloak worn by Chiefs. In the back ground the popular Maori melody Pokarekare Ana farewelled our athletes and Anticipated their victorious return. I wonder if we will ever see another Olympic Games. How will the Nations have changed in four years time? Will the great events of Tribulation, Warning, Miracle and yes even Chastisement have come and gone? Who knows. Not me. But the signs of the times strongly suggest we are near to a new darkness and a new dawn. May God bless us and give us strength to complete the race well.
Praying for during the night Joe and at mass tomorrow. The greater the Cross , the greater the saint.
'If God sends you many sufferings, it is a sign that He has great plans for you and certainly wants to make you a saint.' --St. Ignatius Loyola View attachment 4837
If that is the case God certainly has His work cut out with me. Thanks Padraig. I have just refreshed some memories about St Ignatius. Good short article on Ewtn site.
