1John5918
Long-awaited papal text to be released on April 8 (Catholic Herald)
I thought it might be worth starting a dedicated thread for Amoris Laetitia. Here we are.
Edited to add: Francis' widely anticipated document on family life to be published April 8 (NCR)
I thought it might be worth starting a dedicated thread for Amoris Laetitia. Here we are.
Edited to add: Francis' widely anticipated document on family life to be published April 8 (NCR)
3hf22
The first to, ah, finesse the embargo (http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/04/in-advance-of-the-big-letter-amoris-laetitia/).
I will not violate the embargo by quoting specific texts, but I can say that the document is not a theological disaster, as some have predicted
Which, given the source, suggests a document which stays within the limits provided by the Final Synod Report.
I will not violate the embargo by quoting specific texts, but I can say that the document is not a theological disaster, as some have predicted
Which, given the source, suggests a document which stays within the limits provided by the Final Synod Report.
4hf22
Another early summary, though I am not sure who wrote it, surely not Rorate Caeli as it does not fit their tone / take (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/summary-of-amoris-laetitia.html). But it appears clear Communion for the remarried is not provided for explicitly, though discernment of subjective situations would presumably eliminate the old blanket interpretation of "manifest" grave sin re Canon 915.
5John5918
Six things to look for in 'Amoris Laetitia' (NCR)
Edited to add: And here's the Grauniad's prediction:
Pope Francis to dismay reformists with 'modern families' document
First, remember that most Catholics live in the global South, so what does this document say to them? Is the exhortation concerned only about European and North American issues, or does it have something to say to the millions of Catholics in the South...
Second, what does the exhortation say about families suffering from poverty and marginalization?...
Third, look for a pastoral tone...
Fourth, how does he speak about women?...
Fifth, what will he say and not say about birth control?...
Sixth, will Francis go beyond what the October 2015 synod on the family said about divorced and remarried Catholics?...
Edited to add: And here's the Grauniad's prediction:
Pope Francis to dismay reformists with 'modern families' document
6hf22
And the Vatican Q&A (http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2416:amoris-laetitia-the-joy-of-love-on-love-in-the-family):
3. Much of the controversy around the Synod was about Catholics who are divorced and remarried civilly receiving Holy Communion. But AL does not pronounce definitively on the issue. Why not?
The Synod discovered that arguments with winners and losers were not productive. What was productive was a deep, respectful and compassionate examination of family life, marriage, and the People of God as they strive to live out their vocation in troubled and complex times. Chapter Eight, “Accompanying, Discerning and Integrating Weakness,” offers a very profound look at how general rules do not apply straightforwardly to every particular situation. And so there is need to take the complexity of each situation into account. The Pope acknowledges that everyone should feel challenged by Chapter Eight. It certainly calls pastors and those working in family apostolates to listen sensitively to anyone who feels wounded, and to help them experience God’s unconditional love.
3. Much of the controversy around the Synod was about Catholics who are divorced and remarried civilly receiving Holy Communion. But AL does not pronounce definitively on the issue. Why not?
The Synod discovered that arguments with winners and losers were not productive. What was productive was a deep, respectful and compassionate examination of family life, marriage, and the People of God as they strive to live out their vocation in troubled and complex times. Chapter Eight, “Accompanying, Discerning and Integrating Weakness,” offers a very profound look at how general rules do not apply straightforwardly to every particular situation. And so there is need to take the complexity of each situation into account. The Pope acknowledges that everyone should feel challenged by Chapter Eight. It certainly calls pastors and those working in family apostolates to listen sensitively to anyone who feels wounded, and to help them experience God’s unconditional love.
7hf22
>5 John5918:
Oddly enough, the first hot take of "reformists" (or whatever) does seem to be dismay, though to be honest from a pastoral POV they really should be happy (i.e. as the old blanket ban based on objective gravity, and unfair singling out of the remarried, appears to be superseded discernment of subjective factors). But I suppose for many of those theological change is more important than the pastoral matters which are the Pope's focus.
But overall, in answer to Fr. Reese's point 6, it does not appear to go beyond what the Synod said on the remarried. And thus extreme traditionalists and progressives first reaction is strongly negative, but conservatives like me are reasonably happy. Happy doctrine appears to be preserved, happy practice will retain its required connection to doctrine, and happy the remarried will no longer be picked on more than other sinners.
Oddly enough, the first hot take of "reformists" (or whatever) does seem to be dismay, though to be honest from a pastoral POV they really should be happy (i.e. as the old blanket ban based on objective gravity, and unfair singling out of the remarried, appears to be superseded discernment of subjective factors). But I suppose for many of those theological change is more important than the pastoral matters which are the Pope's focus.
But overall, in answer to Fr. Reese's point 6, it does not appear to go beyond what the Synod said on the remarried. And thus extreme traditionalists and progressives first reaction is strongly negative, but conservatives like me are reasonably happy. Happy doctrine appears to be preserved, happy practice will retain its required connection to doctrine, and happy the remarried will no longer be picked on more than other sinners.
8John5918
Some reactions:
Pope Francis, Urging Less Judgment, Signals Path for Divorced on Communion (NYT)
“ ‘Amoris Laetitia’ is a quietly revolutionary document,” said the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit who is editor at large for America magazine. “It restores the role of personal conscience and reminds pastors to meet people where they are. It will be a great encouragement especially to divorced and remarried Catholics and anyone who feels they have been unwelcome in the church. The message is: Welcome...”
“It is a classic example of the organic development of doctrine,” Cardinal Schönborn said. “There is innovation and continuity...”
Amoris Laetitia: Five key passages you need to read (Catholic Herald)
'Amoris Laetitia,' start with Chapter 4 (NCR)
NCR gives a short summary.
And, last but not least, the document itself. It'll take me a while to work my way through it.
AMORIS LAETITIA
Pope Francis, Urging Less Judgment, Signals Path for Divorced on Communion (NYT)
“ ‘Amoris Laetitia’ is a quietly revolutionary document,” said the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit who is editor at large for America magazine. “It restores the role of personal conscience and reminds pastors to meet people where they are. It will be a great encouragement especially to divorced and remarried Catholics and anyone who feels they have been unwelcome in the church. The message is: Welcome...”
“It is a classic example of the organic development of doctrine,” Cardinal Schönborn said. “There is innovation and continuity...”
Amoris Laetitia: Five key passages you need to read (Catholic Herald)
'Amoris Laetitia,' start with Chapter 4 (NCR)
NCR gives a short summary.
And, last but not least, the document itself. It'll take me a while to work my way through it.
AMORIS LAETITIA
9hf22
I would like to hark back to October 2014, and paragraph 54 of the 2014 final synod report, which is where AL approach to the remarried / communion issue was first preferred to the Kasper proposal. My comment at the time on this forum was:
This paragraph appears to focus on the subjective state of sin, such that while adultery is a serious matter, the culpability for it might be low in specific circumstances. In which case, the specific individuals might only be guilty of venial sin (which does not disbar from Communion), rather than mortal sin (which does). I.e. the cited CCC 1735 is about imputability and responsibility.
And if we dispense with the idea of such grave and public matters causing scandal, which we can because as a factual matter it is not particularly public, the proposal set out by this paragraph seems doctrinally acceptable.
Which remains as true now as then. St. Alphonsus Liguori etc and all that.
Actually it is affirming to me that the Church has been able to replace an erroneous proposal with an orthodox one. The process worked - The Holy Spirit was present. No Kasper proposal, no economia etc. Christ is risen!
This paragraph appears to focus on the subjective state of sin, such that while adultery is a serious matter, the culpability for it might be low in specific circumstances. In which case, the specific individuals might only be guilty of venial sin (which does not disbar from Communion), rather than mortal sin (which does). I.e. the cited CCC 1735 is about imputability and responsibility.
And if we dispense with the idea of such grave and public matters causing scandal, which we can because as a factual matter it is not particularly public, the proposal set out by this paragraph seems doctrinally acceptable.
Which remains as true now as then. St. Alphonsus Liguori etc and all that.
Actually it is affirming to me that the Church has been able to replace an erroneous proposal with an orthodox one. The process worked - The Holy Spirit was present. No Kasper proposal, no economia etc. Christ is risen!
10margd
Hope the Holy Spirit is present when the first brave couples present themselves to bishop or priests in their diocese in this year of mercy... My summer church is overseen by a conservative who wrote much during the Synod that would discourage me from approaching him. There is a sympathetic priest in town where we winter, but his bishop didn't bother to circulate pre-synod survey and is a fire-breathing doctrinaire as far as I can tell... Then there are the sniffy K of C types who apparently didn't judge my husband worthy of passing the plate. (He was asked by a nice Knight and agreed to help. Didn't volunteer. Our sons helped with collection and nice K needed one extra hand.) It will take time before the Joy of Love asserts itself, I think. A start.
ETA: Pastor in my summer church remains unmoved--triumphant, even--judging by tone of his written response to AL.
ETA: Pastor in my summer church remains unmoved--triumphant, even--judging by tone of his written response to AL.
11John5918
>10 margd:
Such different experiences of Church. I'm sorry to hear that you are surrounded by such discouraging people and practices. I pray that they will experience conversion, and that you will find some of the more open-minded Catholics, who I truly believe to be the majority.
Such different experiences of Church. I'm sorry to hear that you are surrounded by such discouraging people and practices. I pray that they will experience conversion, and that you will find some of the more open-minded Catholics, who I truly believe to be the majority.
12hf22
And just to show the doctrinal soundness of AL re the method of opening Communion to some remarried, a history of the post Humanae Vitae magisterial approach to Communion for those using artifical contraception (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.bioethicsperth.org.au/Upload%255CHV%2520II%2520The%2520Church%2520Teaches%2520on%2520Conscience.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj_g_fkx4HMAhXFmJQKHYaGBIEQFggjMAM&usg=AFQjCNGJu-pnIZ8vDADeXU0zTAtIkZwxoQ&sig2=sIrcPov-LOBTftBlaJviBw).
Once the deeming of remarriage to be a public / manifest cause of scandal is put aside#, and that aspect is instead judged on the relevant facts, this opening is not doctrinally barred. Indeed, as it is how we treat every other sin, AL actually gets rid of a contradiction.
# This actually means AL para 299 about scandal, rather than AL Footnote 351, is the authority for allowing some remarried to receive. To do this we must assume it is superseding the 2000 PCLT document referred to at AL Footnote 345. Which it does not quite achieve, but I think that will be the effect, as national decisions to treat it as superseded are not opposed by the Papacy.
Once the deeming of remarriage to be a public / manifest cause of scandal is put aside#, and that aspect is instead judged on the relevant facts, this opening is not doctrinally barred. Indeed, as it is how we treat every other sin, AL actually gets rid of a contradiction.
# This actually means AL para 299 about scandal, rather than AL Footnote 351, is the authority for allowing some remarried to receive. To do this we must assume it is superseding the 2000 PCLT document referred to at AL Footnote 345. Which it does not quite achieve, but I think that will be the effect, as national decisions to treat it as superseded are not opposed by the Papacy.
13hf22
The publication of AL has, unfortunately, shown a lack of Catholic doctrinal and theological understanding from those who would like to think of themselves as its defenders. For my own purposes, I would just like to set out some of these misinformed criticisms.
Not Magisterial
From Cardinal Burke (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-and-the-constant-teaching-and-practice-of-the-church/), we get the response that AL "is not an act of the magisterium".
However the Magisterium is the "giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God" (CCC 85), the teaching of doctrinal and theological matters. And therefore AL, which does these things, is under traditional Catholic teaching an act of the ordinary Papal Magistrium and owed the usual respect that entails.
Tact
From Matthew Schmitz (https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/04/always-fear-always-love), we get the criticism that AL commends "discretion, being restrained and tactful".
However the very thing that has caused the remarried to be barred absolutely from communion is scandal, public scandal. And tact is precisely what avoids public scandal, and therefore required under traditional Catholic teaching.
Cultural Difference
From Robert Royal (https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/04/08/beautiful-moving-and-divisive/), we get the argument that "Both readings may be possible, but the consequences, in this instance and others, are impossible. On one side of a border between two countries, Communion for the divorced and remarried would now become a sign of a new outpouring of God’s mercy and forgiveness. On the other side, giving Communion to someone in “irregular” circumstances remains infidelity to Christ’s words and, potentially, a sacrilege.".
However, while truth cannot be different across a border, what causes scandal very often is different. Because what is public differs between legal systems and cultures - It is not a divine truth but a contingent matter. And it is scandal which, under traditional Catholic teaching, is at question here.
Subjective Factors
From R. R. Reno (http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/04/a-stubborn-givenness), we get a rejection of the subjective factors " In this Apostolic Exhortation, when faced with the theological limitations to his vision of mercy-inspired evangelization, he employs the hyper-subjective logic of modernity".
But that mortal sin takes more than objective grave sin, a serious matter, is straight out of the pre Vatican II moral manuals. "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent". (CCC 1857).
This is not modernity - It is straight from a moral approach which found its culmination in St Alphonsus Liguori!
Canon Law
From Dr. Edward Peters (https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/the-law-before-amoris-is-the-law-after/), we get the view that "whatever Canon 915 directed before Amoris, it directs after, including that holy Communion may not generally be administered to Catholics living in irregular marriages."
But Canon 915 does not need to change in order to change the position regarding the remarried. Its application to the remarried, is based on a paperwork based interpretation of what is "manifest", found in the 2000 Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html).
But AL offers a different interpretation of what is manifest - One based on the pastoral facts and the real knowledge of other members of the community. At AL299 - " I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed that “the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal"".
And again at AL297 "Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17).".
And here is an authentic interpretation, in whose light Canon Law must be interpreted, such as it was previously interpreted in light of that other post Synod Papal document Familiaris Consortio.
Pastoral Arguments
From Ross Douthat (http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/the-defense-of-catholic-marriage/), we get what is ultimately a pastoral argument, that " Because a church that tells people that no protections for their possibly-sacramental first marriage are necessary so long as they are tactful in their request, real in their regrets, and respectable in their new life, a church that does not provide any real safeguard for what it claims is an absolute and cosmic reality, an icon of Christ and his bride … can such a church be said to really believe any longer in the indissolubility of marriage, no matter what kind of flowery language its high officials use?"
This pastoral argument has, of course, the support of Familiaris Consortio 84 ("There is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage."). But it cannot be considered a killer pastoral argument, given we don't apply it in defence of any other aspect of morality.
But pastoral arguments are not doctrinal objections. And if the authority of the Pope and the Bishops means anything, it means they get to make pastoral decisions, even if personally a member of the faithful would counsel otherwise.
Doctrine has Been Developed
Not quite a conservative these days, but from Cardinal Schönborn (http://aleteia.org/2016/04/08/true-innovations-but-not-ruptures-cardinal-christoph-schonborn-presents-amoris-laetitia/) we get a claim of an “organic development of doctrine”.
But not every novelty is a doctrinal novelty. And there is a novelty, best identified by Archbishop Mark Coleridge when he says "The Pope has taken the Catholic process that often occurs in private and he's articulating it publicly".
That is, while St Alphonsus Liguori could say "Be a lion in the pulpit, but a lamb in the confessional", Pope Francis would extend that confessional approach to the pulpit. A real change, but a change incapable of being doctrinal, and thus a development of doctrine.
Not Magisterial
From Cardinal Burke (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-and-the-constant-teaching-and-practice-of-the-church/), we get the response that AL "is not an act of the magisterium".
However the Magisterium is the "giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God" (CCC 85), the teaching of doctrinal and theological matters. And therefore AL, which does these things, is under traditional Catholic teaching an act of the ordinary Papal Magistrium and owed the usual respect that entails.
Tact
From Matthew Schmitz (https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/04/always-fear-always-love), we get the criticism that AL commends "discretion, being restrained and tactful".
However the very thing that has caused the remarried to be barred absolutely from communion is scandal, public scandal. And tact is precisely what avoids public scandal, and therefore required under traditional Catholic teaching.
Cultural Difference
From Robert Royal (https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/04/08/beautiful-moving-and-divisive/), we get the argument that "Both readings may be possible, but the consequences, in this instance and others, are impossible. On one side of a border between two countries, Communion for the divorced and remarried would now become a sign of a new outpouring of God’s mercy and forgiveness. On the other side, giving Communion to someone in “irregular” circumstances remains infidelity to Christ’s words and, potentially, a sacrilege.".
However, while truth cannot be different across a border, what causes scandal very often is different. Because what is public differs between legal systems and cultures - It is not a divine truth but a contingent matter. And it is scandal which, under traditional Catholic teaching, is at question here.
Subjective Factors
From R. R. Reno (http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/04/a-stubborn-givenness), we get a rejection of the subjective factors " In this Apostolic Exhortation, when faced with the theological limitations to his vision of mercy-inspired evangelization, he employs the hyper-subjective logic of modernity".
But that mortal sin takes more than objective grave sin, a serious matter, is straight out of the pre Vatican II moral manuals. "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent". (CCC 1857).
This is not modernity - It is straight from a moral approach which found its culmination in St Alphonsus Liguori!
Canon Law
From Dr. Edward Peters (https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/the-law-before-amoris-is-the-law-after/), we get the view that "whatever Canon 915 directed before Amoris, it directs after, including that holy Communion may not generally be administered to Catholics living in irregular marriages."
But Canon 915 does not need to change in order to change the position regarding the remarried. Its application to the remarried, is based on a paperwork based interpretation of what is "manifest", found in the 2000 Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html).
But AL offers a different interpretation of what is manifest - One based on the pastoral facts and the real knowledge of other members of the community. At AL299 - " I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed that “the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal"".
And again at AL297 "Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17).".
And here is an authentic interpretation, in whose light Canon Law must be interpreted, such as it was previously interpreted in light of that other post Synod Papal document Familiaris Consortio.
Pastoral Arguments
From Ross Douthat (http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/the-defense-of-catholic-marriage/), we get what is ultimately a pastoral argument, that " Because a church that tells people that no protections for their possibly-sacramental first marriage are necessary so long as they are tactful in their request, real in their regrets, and respectable in their new life, a church that does not provide any real safeguard for what it claims is an absolute and cosmic reality, an icon of Christ and his bride … can such a church be said to really believe any longer in the indissolubility of marriage, no matter what kind of flowery language its high officials use?"
This pastoral argument has, of course, the support of Familiaris Consortio 84 ("There is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage."). But it cannot be considered a killer pastoral argument, given we don't apply it in defence of any other aspect of morality.
But pastoral arguments are not doctrinal objections. And if the authority of the Pope and the Bishops means anything, it means they get to make pastoral decisions, even if personally a member of the faithful would counsel otherwise.
Doctrine has Been Developed
Not quite a conservative these days, but from Cardinal Schönborn (http://aleteia.org/2016/04/08/true-innovations-but-not-ruptures-cardinal-christoph-schonborn-presents-amoris-laetitia/) we get a claim of an “organic development of doctrine”.
But not every novelty is a doctrinal novelty. And there is a novelty, best identified by Archbishop Mark Coleridge when he says "The Pope has taken the Catholic process that often occurs in private and he's articulating it publicly".
That is, while St Alphonsus Liguori could say "Be a lion in the pulpit, but a lamb in the confessional", Pope Francis would extend that confessional approach to the pulpit. A real change, but a change incapable of being doctrinal, and thus a development of doctrine.
14hf22
And on the plane, the Pope punts (http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/4727/pope_francis_amoris_laetitia_opens_up_many_new_possibilities_for_divorced_remarried_catholics.aspx).
Two problems. It seems disingenuous to blame the media for focusing on the remarried, when it was the Pope who made that the issue.
And there is no way a wink and nudge approach is going to survive until Christmas. Already Bishop Conferences are starting to draw up guidelines. Some are going to take the c.915 suggestions made in AL and run with them. And they will have to be tolerated or not by Rome.
Two problems. It seems disingenuous to blame the media for focusing on the remarried, when it was the Pope who made that the issue.
And there is no way a wink and nudge approach is going to survive until Christmas. Already Bishop Conferences are starting to draw up guidelines. Some are going to take the c.915 suggestions made in AL and run with them. And they will have to be tolerated or not by Rome.
15hf22
>14 hf22:
Or on rereading maybe it was supposed to be a clear yes, rather than a non-answer (i.e. a non-answer being yes there are new opportunities for the remarried, but not saying its Communion or not).
Pundits seem spilt based on pre-existing positions. Surely it should not be this hard.
He found a way to address the doctrinal problems while getting the desired pastoral outcome. Threaded the needle nicely. Why confuse the matter unnecessarily.
Or on rereading maybe it was supposed to be a clear yes, rather than a non-answer (i.e. a non-answer being yes there are new opportunities for the remarried, but not saying its Communion or not).
Pundits seem spilt based on pre-existing positions. Surely it should not be this hard.
He found a way to address the doctrinal problems while getting the desired pastoral outcome. Threaded the needle nicely. Why confuse the matter unnecessarily.
18hf22
Not very bright Tablet writer rambles incoherently about AL. Blames Pope (http://www.thetablet.co.uk/blogs/1/919/0/amoris-laetitia-pope-francis-has-created-confusion-where-we-needed-clarity).
19hf22
Commonweal editors forget what a sacrament is, and verbal Pope with their ignorance (https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/some-exceptions-may-apply).
20hf22
Cardinal Wurl states AL has an undefined continuity with JPII because of footnotes (http://cardinalsblog.adw.org/2016/04/the-magisterial-continuity-of-amoris-laetitia/).
Even as someone who agrees AL is in continuity, and in fact does not develop doctrine even in an allowable way, I find that underwhelming.
Even as someone who agrees AL is in continuity, and in fact does not develop doctrine even in an allowable way, I find that underwhelming.
21hf22
Ross Douthat is confused (http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/douthat/2016/04/19/the-confusion-of-conservative-catholics/?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com.au/).
I would suggest his confusion comes from winning the doctrinal argument, but losing the argument on the best pastoral approach. But if a Pope does not have the authority to make pastoral decisions we disagree with, he could hardly be the universal pastor.
I would suggest his confusion comes from winning the doctrinal argument, but losing the argument on the best pastoral approach. But if a Pope does not have the authority to make pastoral decisions we disagree with, he could hardly be the universal pastor.
23LesMiserables
Surely now all can see our (legitimate) Pope as a (legitimate) heretic. The very worst kind of heretic who gives a generally Catholic sounding exhortation but implants within it the evil that we see in AL on 'exceptions' and 'careful discernment'. No Pope has ever willingly succeeded in causing so much confusion and the risk to souls as this Pope.
This is an absolute rebellion against Divine Law and the 6th Commandment.
This is an absolute rebellion against Divine Law and the 6th Commandment.
24John5918
>23 LesMiserables:
Good to see you back on the Catholic Tradition group, Stephen, even though we disagree!
Good to see you back on the Catholic Tradition group, Stephen, even though we disagree!
25LesMiserables
>24 John5918:
Thank you John. I couldn't in all conscience allow the document to go without condemnation, in my own little way.
Thank you John. I couldn't in all conscience allow the document to go without condemnation, in my own little way.
26hf22
Cardinal Müller: Amoris Laetitia is in line with previous teaching on Communion (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-mller-magisterium-unchanged-by-amoris-laetitia). A contribution in line with those under the heading of Canon Law in my comment >13 hf22:.
27hf22
>23 LesMiserables:
St Alphonsus Liguori rebelled against the 6th Commandment? Subjective factors distinguishing between mortal and venial sin, and therefore access to the Sacrament under 1 Corinthians 11:29 etc is not new, it is the tradition of the Church. And deciding if things are manifest / public based on pastoral reality, rather than legal documentation, is also not a novelty (though in the closer communities of times past, they would have more often given the same results).
Look, there is a fair argument that AL will be pastorally harmful, and put souls at risk. Pope St John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and others would certainly object to it on pastoral grounds - It deals publically with complexity which traditionally would have be reserved for the confessional. "Be a lion in the pulpit, but a lamb in the confessional", as St Alphonsus Liguori is said to have taught, and for good pastoral reason.
But pastoral arguments are not doctrinal objections. And if the authority of the Pope and the Bishops means anything, it means they get to make pastoral decisions, even if personally a member of the faithful would counsel otherwise.
St Alphonsus Liguori rebelled against the 6th Commandment? Subjective factors distinguishing between mortal and venial sin, and therefore access to the Sacrament under 1 Corinthians 11:29 etc is not new, it is the tradition of the Church. And deciding if things are manifest / public based on pastoral reality, rather than legal documentation, is also not a novelty (though in the closer communities of times past, they would have more often given the same results).
Look, there is a fair argument that AL will be pastorally harmful, and put souls at risk. Pope St John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and others would certainly object to it on pastoral grounds - It deals publically with complexity which traditionally would have be reserved for the confessional. "Be a lion in the pulpit, but a lamb in the confessional", as St Alphonsus Liguori is said to have taught, and for good pastoral reason.
But pastoral arguments are not doctrinal objections. And if the authority of the Pope and the Bishops means anything, it means they get to make pastoral decisions, even if personally a member of the faithful would counsel otherwise.
28LesMiserables
Enough to Make One Weep
Declaration of the Society of St. Pius X concerning the post-synodal Exhortation Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis (March 19, 2016)
“This is an apostolic exhortation entitled The Joy of Love, but it makes us weep.”
Sermon by Bishop Fellay in Puy-en-Velay, April 10, 2016
Among the many opinions, explanations, and commentaries that have been published on the subject of Amoris Laetitia, three studies made by priests of our Society have recently appeared: “Amoris Laetitia: A Triumph of Subjectivism” by Father Matthias Gaudron; “Brief Considerations on Chapter 8 of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia” by Father Jean-Michel Gleize; and “After the Synod: Indissolubility Called into Question” by Father Christian Thouvenot. The General House approves of these essays and gives its complete support to them. They complement one another harmoniously and give an overall view of the papal document.
The procedure followed during the two synods and the circumstances surrounding them have already raised numerous questions. At the Extraordinary Consistory in February 2014, only Cardinal Walter Kasper was invited to specify the theme of the Synod, whereas for years he has been recognized as a militant supporter of suppressing the divine law’s prohibition of giving the Body of Christ to public sinners. The interim report (Relatio post disceptationem), published in October 2014 during the Extraordinary Synod, gives information not in accord with the results of the discussions. Then certain topics were incorporated into the Final Report which had not been approved by the Synod. Just before the Ordinary Synod, the Pope published two motu proprio letters dealing precisely with the subject of the Synod and facilitating the canonical procedure for declarations of marriage annulments. And a confidential letter from thirteen cardinals expressing fears about the outcome of the Synod was publicly described as a “conspiracy”.
The question concerning admission of divorced-and-“remarried” persons to Holy Communion has already been addressed several times by the Church, whose clear answer has been repeated even recently.1 A new discussion of the Church’s constant teaching and practice could therefore only be detrimental and likely to confuse matters instead of clarifying them. And that is what happened.
In a papal document one expects to find a clear presentation of the Church’s magisterial teaching and the Christian manner of living. Now, as others have correctly noted, Amoris Laetitia is rather “a treatise on psychology, pedagogy, moral and pastoral theology and spirituality”. The Church has the mission of proclaiming the teaching of Jesus Christ in season and out of season and of drawing from it the necessary conclusions, all for the good of souls. It is incumbent upon her to remind men of God’s Law and not to minimize it or explain how it might not apply in some cases. The Church has the obligation of stating principles, the concrete application of which she leaves to pastors of souls, to confessors, and also to the conscience that has been enlightened by faith, the proximate rule of human action.
Because of its search for a pastoral practice based on mercy, the document is in some places marred by subjectivism and moral relativism. Objective rules are replaced, in Protestant fashion, by the individual’s conscience. This poison is in part attributable to personalism, which, in the matter of pastoral care of families, no longer places the gift of life and the good of the family first and foremost, but rather the personal fulfillment and spiritual development of the spouses. On this subject we can only deplore once again the inversion of the ends of marriage sketched out in the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes of the Second Vatican Council, an inversion that is found again in Amoris Laetitia. The so-called “law of gradualness” turns Catholic morality upside down.
The consequences of Amoris Laetitia are already making themselves felt in the Church: one parish priest, in keeping with his duty, refuses the Body of Christ to public sinners, while another invites everyone to Holy Communion. The President of the Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines has declared that Amoris Laetitia will be put into practice immediately in his country and that consequently, in certain cases, divorced-and-“remarried” persons will receive Communion.2 A deep division is forming within the episcopate and the Sacred College of Cardinals. The faithful are bewildered; the whole Church is suffering from this rift. Calling into question the obligation to observe in all cases God’s commandments, particularly the commandment of marital fidelity, means surrendering to the dictates of current practice and the spirit of the age. In many countries—Germany for example—what is required by divine law has already been trampled underfoot for a long time. Instead of raising what is to the level of what ought to be, they are lowering what ought to be to what is; that is, to the permissive morality of modernists and progressives. Catholics whose marriages have failed but who, given the situation, have very virtuously and sometimes heroically remained faithful to the promise they made before the altar, feel betrayed. It is enough to make one weep.
We humbly but firmly implore the Holy Father to revise the exhortation Amoris Laetitia, and most especially chapter 8. As with the documents of Vatican II, what is ambiguous must be interpreted in a clear manner, and what contradicts the constant doctrine and practice of the Church must be retracted, for the glory of God, for the good of the whole Church, and for the salvation of souls, especially those in danger of being deceived by the guise of a false mercy.
Menzingen, May 2, 2016
Feast of Saint Athanasius
http://fsspx.org/en/SSPX-Official-Declaration-Amoris-laetitia
Declaration of the Society of St. Pius X concerning the post-synodal Exhortation Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis (March 19, 2016)
“This is an apostolic exhortation entitled The Joy of Love, but it makes us weep.”
Sermon by Bishop Fellay in Puy-en-Velay, April 10, 2016
Among the many opinions, explanations, and commentaries that have been published on the subject of Amoris Laetitia, three studies made by priests of our Society have recently appeared: “Amoris Laetitia: A Triumph of Subjectivism” by Father Matthias Gaudron; “Brief Considerations on Chapter 8 of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia” by Father Jean-Michel Gleize; and “After the Synod: Indissolubility Called into Question” by Father Christian Thouvenot. The General House approves of these essays and gives its complete support to them. They complement one another harmoniously and give an overall view of the papal document.
The procedure followed during the two synods and the circumstances surrounding them have already raised numerous questions. At the Extraordinary Consistory in February 2014, only Cardinal Walter Kasper was invited to specify the theme of the Synod, whereas for years he has been recognized as a militant supporter of suppressing the divine law’s prohibition of giving the Body of Christ to public sinners. The interim report (Relatio post disceptationem), published in October 2014 during the Extraordinary Synod, gives information not in accord with the results of the discussions. Then certain topics were incorporated into the Final Report which had not been approved by the Synod. Just before the Ordinary Synod, the Pope published two motu proprio letters dealing precisely with the subject of the Synod and facilitating the canonical procedure for declarations of marriage annulments. And a confidential letter from thirteen cardinals expressing fears about the outcome of the Synod was publicly described as a “conspiracy”.
The question concerning admission of divorced-and-“remarried” persons to Holy Communion has already been addressed several times by the Church, whose clear answer has been repeated even recently.1 A new discussion of the Church’s constant teaching and practice could therefore only be detrimental and likely to confuse matters instead of clarifying them. And that is what happened.
In a papal document one expects to find a clear presentation of the Church’s magisterial teaching and the Christian manner of living. Now, as others have correctly noted, Amoris Laetitia is rather “a treatise on psychology, pedagogy, moral and pastoral theology and spirituality”. The Church has the mission of proclaiming the teaching of Jesus Christ in season and out of season and of drawing from it the necessary conclusions, all for the good of souls. It is incumbent upon her to remind men of God’s Law and not to minimize it or explain how it might not apply in some cases. The Church has the obligation of stating principles, the concrete application of which she leaves to pastors of souls, to confessors, and also to the conscience that has been enlightened by faith, the proximate rule of human action.
Because of its search for a pastoral practice based on mercy, the document is in some places marred by subjectivism and moral relativism. Objective rules are replaced, in Protestant fashion, by the individual’s conscience. This poison is in part attributable to personalism, which, in the matter of pastoral care of families, no longer places the gift of life and the good of the family first and foremost, but rather the personal fulfillment and spiritual development of the spouses. On this subject we can only deplore once again the inversion of the ends of marriage sketched out in the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes of the Second Vatican Council, an inversion that is found again in Amoris Laetitia. The so-called “law of gradualness” turns Catholic morality upside down.
The consequences of Amoris Laetitia are already making themselves felt in the Church: one parish priest, in keeping with his duty, refuses the Body of Christ to public sinners, while another invites everyone to Holy Communion. The President of the Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines has declared that Amoris Laetitia will be put into practice immediately in his country and that consequently, in certain cases, divorced-and-“remarried” persons will receive Communion.2 A deep division is forming within the episcopate and the Sacred College of Cardinals. The faithful are bewildered; the whole Church is suffering from this rift. Calling into question the obligation to observe in all cases God’s commandments, particularly the commandment of marital fidelity, means surrendering to the dictates of current practice and the spirit of the age. In many countries—Germany for example—what is required by divine law has already been trampled underfoot for a long time. Instead of raising what is to the level of what ought to be, they are lowering what ought to be to what is; that is, to the permissive morality of modernists and progressives. Catholics whose marriages have failed but who, given the situation, have very virtuously and sometimes heroically remained faithful to the promise they made before the altar, feel betrayed. It is enough to make one weep.
We humbly but firmly implore the Holy Father to revise the exhortation Amoris Laetitia, and most especially chapter 8. As with the documents of Vatican II, what is ambiguous must be interpreted in a clear manner, and what contradicts the constant doctrine and practice of the Church must be retracted, for the glory of God, for the good of the whole Church, and for the salvation of souls, especially those in danger of being deceived by the guise of a false mercy.
Menzingen, May 2, 2016
Feast of Saint Athanasius
http://fsspx.org/en/SSPX-Official-Declaration-Amoris-laetitia
29hf22
>28 LesMiserables:
That, again, seems to me mostly a pastoral objection (i.e. that in public the Church should set out objective truths, and only in private should pastors address subjective culpability etc).
BTW, I note the SSPX and the Pope appear about to effect a reconciliation, so presumably even the SSPX does not think AL is a further retreat from their doctrinal views.
That, again, seems to me mostly a pastoral objection (i.e. that in public the Church should set out objective truths, and only in private should pastors address subjective culpability etc).
BTW, I note the SSPX and the Pope appear about to effect a reconciliation, so presumably even the SSPX does not think AL is a further retreat from their doctrinal views.
30LesMiserables
>29 hf22:
BTW, I note the SSPX and the Pope appear about to effect a reconciliation, so presumably even the SSPX does not think AL is a further retreat from their doctrinal views.
No, on the contrary. Bishop Fellay There are scandalous things that happen these days, it is true, for what we see now is a situation of growing confusion, a more and more chaotic situation.
And yes this Pope seems to want reconciliation and it has been made clear to the SSPX through certain channels in Rome that the major sticking point of accepting Vatican II has been removed. See here http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bp-fellay-pivoting-point-church-history-1557... And in our relations with Rome, there are even more astonishing things that seem to result from this chaotic situation. Recently, for the very first time, we were told in Rome that we are no longer required to accept the Council. Do you realize? This is huge! We were told: “You have the right to uphold this opinion.” It is not yet: “We were wrong,” it is not yet: “the Council was bad”, but it is: “the Council cannot be obligatory.” We cannot oblige someone to accept the Council in order to be Catholic. And yet that was what they had been telling us until now. Until two years ago, it was: “If you wish to be Catholic, you have to accept the Council, you have to accept the goodness of the new Mass.” And now they are telling us: “No, you do not have to, because it does not have that degree of obligation;” they use terms that are not precise enough. They tell us: “It is not doctrinal, it is pastoral.” Which is what we have been saying ourselves: “This Council is pastoral and did not wish to be obligatory.” And suddenly now they are granting us this: “It is true, this Council did not wish to be obligatory.”
BTW, I note the SSPX and the Pope appear about to effect a reconciliation, so presumably even the SSPX does not think AL is a further retreat from their doctrinal views.
No, on the contrary. Bishop Fellay There are scandalous things that happen these days, it is true, for what we see now is a situation of growing confusion, a more and more chaotic situation.
And yes this Pope seems to want reconciliation and it has been made clear to the SSPX through certain channels in Rome that the major sticking point of accepting Vatican II has been removed. See here http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bp-fellay-pivoting-point-church-history-1557... And in our relations with Rome, there are even more astonishing things that seem to result from this chaotic situation. Recently, for the very first time, we were told in Rome that we are no longer required to accept the Council. Do you realize? This is huge! We were told: “You have the right to uphold this opinion.” It is not yet: “We were wrong,” it is not yet: “the Council was bad”, but it is: “the Council cannot be obligatory.” We cannot oblige someone to accept the Council in order to be Catholic. And yet that was what they had been telling us until now. Until two years ago, it was: “If you wish to be Catholic, you have to accept the Council, you have to accept the goodness of the new Mass.” And now they are telling us: “No, you do not have to, because it does not have that degree of obligation;” they use terms that are not precise enough. They tell us: “It is not doctrinal, it is pastoral.” Which is what we have been saying ourselves: “This Council is pastoral and did not wish to be obligatory.” And suddenly now they are granting us this: “It is true, this Council did not wish to be obligatory.”
31hf22
>30 LesMiserables:
It seems to me that, in this case, the scandalous things he identifies are pastoral not doctrinal.
And yes dropping VII as a doctrinal requirement is a massive thing, regardless of if it is considered good or bad. It may well in the long run be the most important legacy of Pope Francis, long after the rest is forgotten.
It is not a development I am overly pleased with, but its significance and the approval of historical SSPX positions it provides have not escaped me.
It seems to me that, in this case, the scandalous things he identifies are pastoral not doctrinal.
And yes dropping VII as a doctrinal requirement is a massive thing, regardless of if it is considered good or bad. It may well in the long run be the most important legacy of Pope Francis, long after the rest is forgotten.
It is not a development I am overly pleased with, but its significance and the approval of historical SSPX positions it provides have not escaped me.
32justanotherjohn
I don't understand. If Vatican II represents the authoritative teaching of the church, how can a pope say that an irregular group can be reconciled with the church if they don't accept it?
33hf22
>32 justanotherjohn:
The idea is that VII is just a pastoral and contingent application of Church doctrine. Say like priestly celibacy, rather than like the male only priesthood.
Therefore something like religious liberty could be opposed on the basis that it is the wrong application of perennial Church doctrine in our time.
Not saying it is a good idea, but from the Pope's representatatives that is the idea being put about.
The idea is that VII is just a pastoral and contingent application of Church doctrine. Say like priestly celibacy, rather than like the male only priesthood.
Therefore something like religious liberty could be opposed on the basis that it is the wrong application of perennial Church doctrine in our time.
Not saying it is a good idea, but from the Pope's representatatives that is the idea being put about.
34LesMiserables
>33 hf22:
Precisely and although I note your disappointment, VII was a pastoral council. That is the danger. The laity just don't understand that these are non-binding and many abuses by agenda driven clerics take place and become permanent. Communion in the hand, granted only as a dispensation in exceptional circumstances, quickly took root as the norm, driven by liberal bishops, zealously driven by anything that was fashionable.
I note the irony in what >32 justanotherjohn: calls an irregular group. In light of my paragraph above, the SPPX and other Catholic Orders are precisely regular. The irony is maintained when you consider that our current Pope, being so keen through his merciful agenda to reconcile heretics outside of the Church (Protestants, Orthodox, Muslims) to a shared Faith, that many of the most obdurate liberals continue to embrace those yet attack loyal catholic Groups like the SSPX.
God's plans are unknown to us.
Precisely and although I note your disappointment, VII was a pastoral council. That is the danger. The laity just don't understand that these are non-binding and many abuses by agenda driven clerics take place and become permanent. Communion in the hand, granted only as a dispensation in exceptional circumstances, quickly took root as the norm, driven by liberal bishops, zealously driven by anything that was fashionable.
I note the irony in what >32 justanotherjohn: calls an irregular group. In light of my paragraph above, the SPPX and other Catholic Orders are precisely regular. The irony is maintained when you consider that our current Pope, being so keen through his merciful agenda to reconcile heretics outside of the Church (Protestants, Orthodox, Muslims) to a shared Faith, that many of the most obdurate liberals continue to embrace those yet attack loyal catholic Groups like the SSPX.
God's plans are unknown to us.
35hf22
>34 LesMiserables:
VII was a pastoral council.
That has certainly been the SSPX's view, and now apparently that of Pope Francis. It is not, in fairness, without basis or coherence. And it is in my opinion open to the Pope to take and indeed impose that view.
It just has consequences which need to be considered (i.e. for religious freedom, human dignity, liturgy, ecumenism etc), as it basically denies Vatican II developed doctrine in any meaningful way, but rather just applied doctrine to contingent circumstances.
I note your disappointment
More confused perhaps. It changes things, in a way that supports your / the SSPX views, over some I have preferred (and Pope Benedict preferred). Which is fine, in that it just batters what I thought was the better view, rather than crossing any certain doctrinal red lines. But it requires and deserves some rethinking on my part, at least if the new canonical structure for the SSPX comes to pass.
Integrity and fairness require that concession from me, to both the SSPX and yourself.
the SPPX and other Catholic Orders are precisely regular.
Well, are about to be regularised. But I suppose that is a nitpick at this point, and I will not insist upon it.
VII was a pastoral council.
That has certainly been the SSPX's view, and now apparently that of Pope Francis. It is not, in fairness, without basis or coherence. And it is in my opinion open to the Pope to take and indeed impose that view.
It just has consequences which need to be considered (i.e. for religious freedom, human dignity, liturgy, ecumenism etc), as it basically denies Vatican II developed doctrine in any meaningful way, but rather just applied doctrine to contingent circumstances.
I note your disappointment
More confused perhaps. It changes things, in a way that supports your / the SSPX views, over some I have preferred (and Pope Benedict preferred). Which is fine, in that it just batters what I thought was the better view, rather than crossing any certain doctrinal red lines. But it requires and deserves some rethinking on my part, at least if the new canonical structure for the SSPX comes to pass.
Integrity and fairness require that concession from me, to both the SSPX and yourself.
the SPPX and other Catholic Orders are precisely regular.
Well, are about to be regularised. But I suppose that is a nitpick at this point, and I will not insist upon it.
36hf22
A conservative defense of AL's doctrinal probity, if not its pastoral approach (http://www.lastampa.it/2016/05/30/vaticaninsider/eng/inquiries-and-interviews/amoris-laetitia-takes-a-step-in-the-direction-marked-by-wojtyla-ZdNeNqIoSgzMgt438ELD2J/pagina.html).
Conservatives won the doctrinal debate, but lost the pastoral debate, basically. I view with which I agree.
Conservatives won the doctrinal debate, but lost the pastoral debate, basically. I view with which I agree.
38John5918
Theologians: Amoris Laetitia needs clarification against ‘heretical’ interpretations (Catholic Herald)
"the signatories have not yet disclosed their names, though they may do at a future date. The only signatory to have come forward publicly is Dr Joseph Shaw, who teaches philosophy at the University of Oxford and is chairman of the Latin Mass Society..."
Hm...
"the signatories have not yet disclosed their names, though they may do at a future date. The only signatory to have come forward publicly is Dr Joseph Shaw, who teaches philosophy at the University of Oxford and is chairman of the Latin Mass Society..."
Hm...
40timspalding
That was a nasty bit of leaking. It reveals what we would expect—this wasn't exactly the A-team.
42timspalding
More important people.
44John5918
When I saw the list, I was struck by the fact that (a) none of them seem to be particularly known as experts, nor indeed well-known at all, and (b) that those whose affiliations are listed appear to come from a particular wing of the church so their opinions are not unexpected.
46timspalding
>45 LesMiserables:
Many were no more than priests--of which there are 400,000 in the world. You could get a ten times as many priests to sign a petition to allow Slim Jims on Good Friday.
More to the point, hundreds of thousands—in some cases even majorities—took issue with some of the statements and letters of Pope Benedict or John Paul II. A few even signed petitions. None flung around words like "heretic."
Now, let's see if any of these guys are removed from office, have their mandata withdrawn, etc. I suspect none will be. Which speaks volumes about the difference between Pope Francis and recent pontificates.
Many were no more than priests--of which there are 400,000 in the world. You could get a ten times as many priests to sign a petition to allow Slim Jims on Good Friday.
More to the point, hundreds of thousands—in some cases even majorities—took issue with some of the statements and letters of Pope Benedict or John Paul II. A few even signed petitions. None flung around words like "heretic."
Now, let's see if any of these guys are removed from office, have their mandata withdrawn, etc. I suspect none will be. Which speaks volumes about the difference between Pope Francis and recent pontificates.
47LesMiserables
>46 timspalding:
No idea what a Slim Jim is but you're probably correct, and in being so tells us something about the state of the liberal clergy.
Material heretics are pretty common currency in the Vatican I'm afraid.
If Francis was removed from office, that would be a start.
No idea what a Slim Jim is but you're probably correct, and in being so tells us something about the state of the liberal clergy.
Material heretics are pretty common currency in the Vatican I'm afraid.
If Francis was removed from office, that would be a start.
48timspalding
If Francis was removed from office, that would be a start.
Indeed. One wonders which you'd prefer--all the Muslims removed from Europe or Francis removed from the Papacy. Or the Masons removed from the lodges?
Indeed. One wonders which you'd prefer--all the Muslims removed from Europe or Francis removed from the Papacy. Or the Masons removed from the lodges?
49LesMiserables
>48 timspalding:
Well arguably Francis has been the most damaging Pope to have sat on the Chair.
All dangerous Muslims yes.
Simultaneously would do.
Well arguably Francis has been the most damaging Pope to have sat on the Chair.
All dangerous Muslims yes.
Simultaneously would do.
50John5918
>49 LesMiserables: arguably Francis has been the most damaging Pope to have sat on the Chair
Well, just about anything is "arguable", but it's only a tiny minority of Catholics who would argue thus.
All dangerous Muslims
Why only dangerous Muslims? Europe has got jails full of dangerous people - murderers, rapists, armed robbers, drug dealers, arms dealers, people traffickers, paedophiles, terrorists, even mass murderers and war criminals tried at the Hague. Some of them are Muslim, some are Christian, some are atheist, some are probably Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Rastafarian, whatever. Most are European citizens. Where shall we send them? Australia, like we used to a couple of centuries ago? Is it really practical to suggest that every country just remove its dangerous criminals to somewhere else?
Well, just about anything is "arguable", but it's only a tiny minority of Catholics who would argue thus.
All dangerous Muslims
Why only dangerous Muslims? Europe has got jails full of dangerous people - murderers, rapists, armed robbers, drug dealers, arms dealers, people traffickers, paedophiles, terrorists, even mass murderers and war criminals tried at the Hague. Some of them are Muslim, some are Christian, some are atheist, some are probably Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Rastafarian, whatever. Most are European citizens. Where shall we send them? Australia, like we used to a couple of centuries ago? Is it really practical to suggest that every country just remove its dangerous criminals to somewhere else?
51LesMiserables
>51 LesMiserables:
Well, just about anything is "arguable",
Cop out.
Why only dangerous Muslims?
Islam is producing increasingly radicalised terrorism. Only a fool would say otherwise. The evidence is widespread and undeniable.
Unless of course you are a bleeding heart lefty.
Well, just about anything is "arguable",
Cop out.
Why only dangerous Muslims?
Islam is producing increasingly radicalised terrorism. Only a fool would say otherwise. The evidence is widespread and undeniable.
Unless of course you are a bleeding heart lefty.
52John5918
>51 LesMiserables:
Invading and bombing Arab and Muslim countries, and marginalising Muslims in western countries, is producing increasingly radicalised terrorism. Only a fool would say otherwise. The evidence is widespread and undeniable.*
The world is producing increasingly disturbed young people, mostly men. For some of them, Islam is a convenient ideology to justify their dysfunctional and violent behaviour. For others the ideology might be racial, or nationalist, or ethnic, or political, or class-oriented, or Judaism, or Christianity, or Hinduism, even Buddhism.
Not sure what is "lefty" about that pragmatic analysis, as violently radicalised young men come from both left and right (ask the Norwegians or the Oklahomans, for example), but to be called "bleeding heart" is a compliment for a Christian, I would think. I grew up surrounded by pictures of Jesus with a bleeding heart.
* Edited to add: In other words, there are different narratives, and only a fool would say that his is the only undeniable one. Clearly there are many people who do not accept yours or mine as the only undeniable one.
Invading and bombing Arab and Muslim countries, and marginalising Muslims in western countries, is producing increasingly radicalised terrorism. Only a fool would say otherwise. The evidence is widespread and undeniable.*
The world is producing increasingly disturbed young people, mostly men. For some of them, Islam is a convenient ideology to justify their dysfunctional and violent behaviour. For others the ideology might be racial, or nationalist, or ethnic, or political, or class-oriented, or Judaism, or Christianity, or Hinduism, even Buddhism.
Not sure what is "lefty" about that pragmatic analysis, as violently radicalised young men come from both left and right (ask the Norwegians or the Oklahomans, for example), but to be called "bleeding heart" is a compliment for a Christian, I would think. I grew up surrounded by pictures of Jesus with a bleeding heart.
* Edited to add: In other words, there are different narratives, and only a fool would say that his is the only undeniable one. Clearly there are many people who do not accept yours or mine as the only undeniable one.
53LesMiserables
>52 John5918:
Invading and bombing Arab and Muslim countries, and marginalising Muslims in western countries, is producing increasingly radicalised terrorism. Only a fool would say otherwise. The evidence is widespread and undeniable.
Opening borders to allow all and sundry in is realising terrorism.
Invading and bombing Arab and Muslim countries, and marginalising Muslims in western countries, is producing increasingly radicalised terrorism. Only a fool would say otherwise. The evidence is widespread and undeniable.
Opening borders to allow all and sundry in is realising terrorism.
54John5918
>53 LesMiserables:
As I say, there are different narratives. But you spoke of "removing" "dangerous" Muslims. I think you forget how many Muslims are European citizens, born and bred there, with as much right to be there as I have. To where would you propose removing the "dangerous" ones? And why should we export our European criminals to some other poor country for them to deal with?
As I say, there are different narratives. But you spoke of "removing" "dangerous" Muslims. I think you forget how many Muslims are European citizens, born and bred there, with as much right to be there as I have. To where would you propose removing the "dangerous" ones? And why should we export our European criminals to some other poor country for them to deal with?
55timspalding
>52 John5918:
You can put me on the fool list there.
The invasion of Iraq--and the premature withdrawal--was certainly a factor, but many other factors are internal. We pointedly didn't intervene in Syria, yet it is at the center of the problem. Egypt's had a problem with Islamic radicalism for decades, and by no means created by the West. Salafism, the core religious ideology underneath the ISIS ideology, is Saudi state policy, originating in the early 19th century, with root far earlier. Saudi Arabia has been spreading it around the Sunni world for half a century--leading a long, slow and retreat from more open and tolerant forms of Islam across the region.
The impetus to arguments like yours is a noble one. The West has indeed mistreated parts of the Muslim world. And in this globalized world, our actions can have unintended effects. But the result is far from progressive--by putting ourselves at the center of the matter we deprive others of their rightful agency; Muslims are not bit players in our dramas. And we risk drawing the wrong lessons. We have barely intervened in Syria, hoping--in part--not to stir up more anger against the West. The result has been not only a humanitarian disaster--acceptance of genocide, legalized rape of "war slaves" and so forth--but an objective failure. By thinking about ISIS as somehow about "us," we missed how it looked to itself and those who might join it. By it's own ideology, the continued success of the Islamic State proves its legitimacy--God is on its side. God protects this hardly little band of "true Muslims" against the combined efforts of the US, Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran and the Gulf States. No wonder pious Salafis who were 75% of the way to ISIS ideology already, and angry disaffected youth with access to that ideology, have flocked to it.
To be honest about this is not to go to the racism and bigotry of LM's comments. "Islam" is no more to blame for ISIS than "Christianity" is to blame for the actions of a small and aberrant community that calls itself Christian. Nor does it have any necessary implications for immigration policy--except perhaps that we should be sympathetic to the Syrians and Iraqis trying to escape ISIS and its horrible ideology. They aren't bit players in our drama either.
You can put me on the fool list there.
The invasion of Iraq--and the premature withdrawal--was certainly a factor, but many other factors are internal. We pointedly didn't intervene in Syria, yet it is at the center of the problem. Egypt's had a problem with Islamic radicalism for decades, and by no means created by the West. Salafism, the core religious ideology underneath the ISIS ideology, is Saudi state policy, originating in the early 19th century, with root far earlier. Saudi Arabia has been spreading it around the Sunni world for half a century--leading a long, slow and retreat from more open and tolerant forms of Islam across the region.
The impetus to arguments like yours is a noble one. The West has indeed mistreated parts of the Muslim world. And in this globalized world, our actions can have unintended effects. But the result is far from progressive--by putting ourselves at the center of the matter we deprive others of their rightful agency; Muslims are not bit players in our dramas. And we risk drawing the wrong lessons. We have barely intervened in Syria, hoping--in part--not to stir up more anger against the West. The result has been not only a humanitarian disaster--acceptance of genocide, legalized rape of "war slaves" and so forth--but an objective failure. By thinking about ISIS as somehow about "us," we missed how it looked to itself and those who might join it. By it's own ideology, the continued success of the Islamic State proves its legitimacy--God is on its side. God protects this hardly little band of "true Muslims" against the combined efforts of the US, Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran and the Gulf States. No wonder pious Salafis who were 75% of the way to ISIS ideology already, and angry disaffected youth with access to that ideology, have flocked to it.
To be honest about this is not to go to the racism and bigotry of LM's comments. "Islam" is no more to blame for ISIS than "Christianity" is to blame for the actions of a small and aberrant community that calls itself Christian. Nor does it have any necessary implications for immigration policy--except perhaps that we should be sympathetic to the Syrians and Iraqis trying to escape ISIS and its horrible ideology. They aren't bit players in our drama either.
56John5918
>55 timspalding:
Tim, there's certainly truth in what you say - as I said, there is no single narrative and anyone who thinks there is is wrong.
But I think you underplay western agency here. The Balfour Declaration, the division of the Middle East between Britain and France, the mistreatment of Jews in Europe for centuries and the Holocaust which seems to have given a final impetus to the push for a Jewish homeland, the UN decision to take away the Palestinians' land and give it to someone else, France's colonial policies in the Maghreb, the west's longstanding and uncritical support for one party in the Israel-Palestine conflict, the UN's failure to act on Israel's frequent flouting of UN Security Council Resolutions but apparent keenness to impose sanctions on Arab and Muslim countries, Israel's treatment of Palestinians, including "collective punishment" policies (eg bulldozing family houses, etc), which is a war crime, incidentally - much of this was western agency, and is an important backdrop to the current situation. More recently, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were both perceived as anti-Islam, despite whatever excuses western leaders made, and both resulted in huge civilian casualties and suffering. The continued drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan kill far more civilians than fighters. I wouldn't say we have "barely intervened" in Syria - western air forces have been bombing Syria for the last two years, and the west has been giving military support to various factions.
Add to all that the perceived marginalisation, discrimination and poverty of many Muslims living in Europe, not only new immigrants but many who have been born there and are citizens. Add to that further the anti-Muslim rhetoric from many western politicians, including one of your presidential candidates.
Then step away from the Muslim world completely and recognise that we appear to have an increasing number of disturbed individuals in the world (often young men), including the western world, who apparently have easy access to weapons, and who find all sorts of excuses to justify their urge to go and kill people. You have plenty in the USA from white and black non-Muslim communities. Is it surprising that there are rather a large number of such disaffected young men in Muslim communities in the west, and that they find an ideology to justify their actions, just as a white Norwegian would use a different ideology? I would suggest that many of these killers from all communities are traumatised, which partly explains their actions.
As for Muslim men in various countries which have been invaded (including Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine), most of these chaps are just resisting the occupying forces, using whatever means of asymmetrical warfare come to hand. When young Frenchmen did the same in World War II we called them heroes. When the modern resistance decides to demoralise the enemy population by taking the bombs to civilians on their home ground, we call them terrorists; when Britain and the USA decided to do the same thing by carpet bombing German cities, we gave the killers medals.
So I think it is rather more complicated than you suggest.
As a matter of interest, how many people on the US mainland have been killed by Muslim "terrorists" in the last, say, ten years, compared to the number of people killed by domestic mass shooters, or black men killed by policemen, or people killed in gang- or drug-related feuds, or just people shot in gun accidents? I don't have the figures, but I'm guessing that US citizens with guns are far more dangerous to the average US citizen than the average Muslim is.
Tim, there's certainly truth in what you say - as I said, there is no single narrative and anyone who thinks there is is wrong.
But I think you underplay western agency here. The Balfour Declaration, the division of the Middle East between Britain and France, the mistreatment of Jews in Europe for centuries and the Holocaust which seems to have given a final impetus to the push for a Jewish homeland, the UN decision to take away the Palestinians' land and give it to someone else, France's colonial policies in the Maghreb, the west's longstanding and uncritical support for one party in the Israel-Palestine conflict, the UN's failure to act on Israel's frequent flouting of UN Security Council Resolutions but apparent keenness to impose sanctions on Arab and Muslim countries, Israel's treatment of Palestinians, including "collective punishment" policies (eg bulldozing family houses, etc), which is a war crime, incidentally - much of this was western agency, and is an important backdrop to the current situation. More recently, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were both perceived as anti-Islam, despite whatever excuses western leaders made, and both resulted in huge civilian casualties and suffering. The continued drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan kill far more civilians than fighters. I wouldn't say we have "barely intervened" in Syria - western air forces have been bombing Syria for the last two years, and the west has been giving military support to various factions.
Add to all that the perceived marginalisation, discrimination and poverty of many Muslims living in Europe, not only new immigrants but many who have been born there and are citizens. Add to that further the anti-Muslim rhetoric from many western politicians, including one of your presidential candidates.
Then step away from the Muslim world completely and recognise that we appear to have an increasing number of disturbed individuals in the world (often young men), including the western world, who apparently have easy access to weapons, and who find all sorts of excuses to justify their urge to go and kill people. You have plenty in the USA from white and black non-Muslim communities. Is it surprising that there are rather a large number of such disaffected young men in Muslim communities in the west, and that they find an ideology to justify their actions, just as a white Norwegian would use a different ideology? I would suggest that many of these killers from all communities are traumatised, which partly explains their actions.
As for Muslim men in various countries which have been invaded (including Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine), most of these chaps are just resisting the occupying forces, using whatever means of asymmetrical warfare come to hand. When young Frenchmen did the same in World War II we called them heroes. When the modern resistance decides to demoralise the enemy population by taking the bombs to civilians on their home ground, we call them terrorists; when Britain and the USA decided to do the same thing by carpet bombing German cities, we gave the killers medals.
So I think it is rather more complicated than you suggest.
As a matter of interest, how many people on the US mainland have been killed by Muslim "terrorists" in the last, say, ten years, compared to the number of people killed by domestic mass shooters, or black men killed by policemen, or people killed in gang- or drug-related feuds, or just people shot in gun accidents? I don't have the figures, but I'm guessing that US citizens with guns are far more dangerous to the average US citizen than the average Muslim is.
57John5918
Incidentally, I have no real interest in discussing radical Islamism on a thread about Amoris Laetitia. My apologies if I was complicit in starting this off-topic diversion, but I'm quite happy to leave it here and get back to the main topic.
58LesMiserables
>55 timspalding:
"Islam" is no more to blame for ISIS
You should have stuck to being a Protestant. What a completely stupid thing to say.
"Islam" is no more to blame for ISIS
You should have stuck to being a Protestant. What a completely stupid thing to say.
60John5918
>56 John5918:
School mates described Kermiche as “easily influenced” and a “buffoon” who never took to learning... since the age of six he had shown signs of “psychological troubles” for which he was regularly hospitalised... (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/27/teenager-who-murdered-french-priest-was-like-a-ticking-time-bomb)
I would rather see us paying more attention to troubled young men than to which particular ideology they end up being "easily influenced" by.
School mates described Kermiche as “easily influenced” and a “buffoon” who never took to learning... since the age of six he had shown signs of “psychological troubles” for which he was regularly hospitalised... (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/27/teenager-who-murdered-french-priest-was-like-a-ticking-time-bomb)
I would rather see us paying more attention to troubled young men than to which particular ideology they end up being "easily influenced" by.
62John5918
Deleted my post in favour of a new thread at http://www.librarything.com/topic/286592
63John5918
Italian bishops face blowback for opening to divorced/remarried Catholics (Crux)
Two Italian bishops are making waves after issuing public statements allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the sacraments, with one apologizing for having “ignored” these couples in parish life and insisting that their decisions are in line with Pope Francis’s 2016 document on the family Amoris Laetitia...
Two Italian bishops are making waves after issuing public statements allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the sacraments, with one apologizing for having “ignored” these couples in parish life and insisting that their decisions are in line with Pope Francis’s 2016 document on the family Amoris Laetitia...
65John5918
Pope Francis announces a yearlong reflection on ‘Amoris Laetitia’ and family (America Magazine)
As the fifth anniversary of his apostolic exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" approaches, Pope Francis announced that the Catholic Church will dedicate more than a year to focusing on the family and conjugal love...
66John5918
Pope Francis launches "Amoris Laetitia Family" year (Vatican News)
Five years after the publication of Pope Francis’ post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris laetita, the Vatican inaugurates the “Amoris Laetitia Family” Year. Marking the beginning of the year-long celebration, Pope Francis sent a message on Friday to participants in a webinar on the theme “Our Daily Love”...
67John5918
Communion for the divorced and remarried, papal critics and family life: Pope Francis’ ‘Amoris Laetitia’ at 5 years (American Magazine)
Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” was released five years ago today, on April 8, 2016... The document marked a shift away from an exclusive emphasis on the church’s idealistic image of family life, one that had often felt out of reach for ordinary Catholics. “At times we have also proposed a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families,” Pope Francis wrote. “This excessive idealization, especially when we have failed to inspire trust in God’s grace, has not helped to make marriage more desirable and attractive, but quite the opposite.” While still encouraging Catholics to live up to the church’s ideal for marriage, Pope Francis said, pastors must find ways to welcome the many Catholics living in relationships deemed “irregular” in church teaching...
In light of the church’s “solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations,” the pope wrote, “it 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.” Instead, the document instructs pastors to work with such couples to examine their consciences for what God is calling them to do and to discern “with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response that can be given to God,” keeping in mind that the answer may not be the same for everyone. In a now-famous and controversial footnote, Pope Francis noted that in some cases, people whose relationships were not blessed by the church may find themselves called to return to the sacraments. Previously, divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who did not receive an annulment were considered to be “persevering in manifest grave sin” and were barred from receiving Communion...
69margd
Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law...
70John5918
>68 brone:
Canon law 915 pertains to "those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin". Why do you think we should get rid of it, and why do you make that suggestion in the context of this thread?
Canon law 915 pertains to "those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin". Why do you think we should get rid of it, and why do you make that suggestion in the context of this thread?
71brone
915 is a law binding the ministers of communion rewritten in 1983 from the less ambiguous version written in 1917.
72John5918
>71 brone:
Yes, I know that, and I actually looked up and quoted the canon in question, but my questions in >70 John5918: still stand unanswered.
Yes, I know that, and I actually looked up and quoted the canon in question, but my questions in >70 John5918: still stand unanswered.
73John5918
Amoris laetitia: Church renews her vocation to nearness (Vatican News)
In 10 episodes, one each month... a video with the Pope’s reflections and first-hand testimonies of families from across the world on the theme of the family. The initiative, a joint collaboration between the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life, and Vatican News, and aims to ‘re-read’ Amoris laetitia, with the aid of downloadable material prepared for personal and community reflection. Because, as Pope Francis reminds us: being a family is always “primarily an opportunity”...
76John5918
Interview: The future of Catholic teaching on sexuality and family life (America Magazine)
Many themes cropped up at the recent conference on moral theology and “Amoris Laetitia,” but, according to Lisa Sowle Cahill—an ethicist and professor of moral theology at Boston College—one that stood out was “the gap between received church teaching and the experiences of families”... in the church’s teaching in past decades one can see “very rigid and static ideals that are missing some of the good things that are going on in the lives of married couples and families.” Speaking from her decades-long experience of married life, she said, “I see families can involve struggle; there’s pain, there’s disappointment. But in and through all of that there’s still survival, there’s love, there are family bonds, and I think that is the original standpoint of ‘Amoris Laetitia.’” She noted that “what the church in the past tended to look at was irregularity or sin or what is not acceptable.” “Amoris Laetitia,” in contrast, “is about authentic faithfulness, courage, perseverance, real fidelity and authenticity that is still present in families”...
In “Amoris Laetitia,” Francis “makes a radical return to an old idea but revivifies it in today’s context. He takes the idea from Aquinas that all moral knowledge is practical knowledge and that it always arises in a context,” Dr. Cahill said. “But discernment of what the context requires is necessary before knowledge is authentic and true. And so, in Chapter 8, he quotes Aquinas in saying that if you can have knowledge of a rule or knowledge of a practical reality, it’s the knowledge of the practical reality that is more important than the knowledge of the rule in terms of making a correct discernment, an authentic discernment, of what is required in a situation.” “This is not something that Pope Francis has just invented,” Ms. Cahill said. “It goes back in the tradition. But it does present quite a significant and fundamental challenge to the assumptions that many people have about what moral theology is, and how it works, and also how—at the practical level—knowledge of what is right and wrong arises.” “It’s not that rules are no longer important,” she said, referring to the teachings in “Amoris Laetitia.” “But they have to be constantly retested in the light of the realities and regenerated, re-energized, reformulated, re-appropriated in light of the experience. To me that’s really huge!”...
77brone
Rules have to be constantly retested, we are smarter then those old guys baloney, Should Cahill have this rule retested. "And I say to you, whoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication,and shall marry another, commits adultery". This encycle and the synod are going to interpret this passage the same way the protestants do, the key word put away does not mean divorce it means one can separate from but not divorce, supporting this doctrine is MK 10:11, LK 16:18, 1 Cor 7:10-11....JMJ....Queen of All Saints Pray for US.
Únete para publicar
