These words are reported by the site 1 Peter 5 as coming from the mouth of the Holy Father when asked to explain why he wanted some members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith removed from their posts. The full reported quotation is:
“And I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions. I have decided that they have to leave and they have to leave.”
We need to be careful here, not least in view of the epidemic of ‘fake news’ which assails us daily. What we call ‘fake news’ is often no more than the tendency we all have to live in echo chambers of our own devising. We read websites written by people with whose views we are already in sympathy, and those sites tend to focus on parts of the picture which confirm the views they have already formed. The site in question here has taken a critical view of Pope Francis from the beginning, and it must be admitted, even by his admirers, that he has given his critics a great deal of ammunition: his handling of the two Synods which resulted in his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia; his criticism of the Papal Curia; his criticism of his opponents as being over ‘rigid’; and his habit of speaking extempore on aircraft. Despite his claims to enjoy parrhesia, the Holy Father, like many of his temperament in authority, is happier dishing out the criticism than he is taking it.
On the whole, as regular readers will know, I have been inclined not to take the extremely critical view of the Pope that some readers here do, and I have been roundly criticised for it, and being a firm defender of the right to free speech, have not spared myself criticism from other Catholics here; we all have the right to a view, and when all is said and done, except to Sedevacantists, Francis is the Pope, and he, too, has the right to his views. Thus far he has not sought to pronounce Magisterially against the teaching of the Church, and it is perhaps significant that in the matter of the dubia he has avoided giving a straight answer, merely not contradicting his spokesman and others when they say the matter ‘is clear’. His own view seems clear enough:
Some still fail to grasp the point, “ Francis said, referring to certain criticisms directed at the “Amoris Laetitia”, “they see things as black or white, even though it is in the course of life that we are called to discern”. The Council told us this, but historians say that a century needs to pass before a Council is properly assimilated into the body of the Church… we are half way.”
The need for many shades of grey is what irritates his critics, but as he realises, the messiness of ‘real life’ is often not black and white. Which is why it is disappointing, if true, that he thinks he does not need to give reasons for removing people from their posts. It may well be true he does not have to, but it would speak more to the central themes of his papacy, humility and mercy, were he to do so in privately to those concerned. To quote some wise words:
“How many times do we in the Church hear these things: how many times! ‘But that priest, that man or that woman from the Catholic Action, that bishop, or that Pope tell us we must do this this way!’ and then they do the opposite. This is the scandal that wounds the people and prevents the people of God from growing and going forward. It doesn’t free them.”
That, of course, is a quotation from his own words.
It is easy, which is why it is done so often, to reinforce the voices in one’s own echo chamber and, as some have long done, to conclude that this Pope is a soixante-huitard bent on implementing a ‘spirit of Vatican II’ agenda. But many of those who have come to this conclusion, held it almost from the beginning, and reinforce it through the echo chamber. We are told by Leonardo Boff that the Pope is on his side and soon intends to give permission to the Brazilian bishops to have married priests. Commentators who would give no credence to Boff on anything else, report his words as though they are Gospel truth, not, of course, because they have suddenly decided that Boff is a reliable source, but because what he says fits with their picture of Francis. And so the echo chamber gets louder. In other news, Pope Francis still condemns abortion and gender ideology and supports the teaching of the Magisterium. But since this is not the sort of ‘news’ wanted in the Catholic culture wars, it is not ‘news’. David Cameron once got into a deal of trouble in the Commons when he told a woman MP to ‘calm down dear’, but despite that, I am tempted to think that on the subject of Pope Francis, that advice might not be bad advice.
Scoop said:
In regards to your present employment, I praise your courageous attempt to wrestle with these pressing problems for the faithful in these dire and confusing times, C.
That said, I am also a bit puzzled at your point and your apparent buying-in of the poop-gate remarks that our Vicar of Christ made; of course, simply an example of parrhesia. The statements which are factual such as those regarding abortion and gender ideology are rather minor and well known. Whether you believe all negative sources on the Pope as treachery or not, these facts have been duly noted by these very sources as well. To say something that is in agreement with Church teaching and then do things or say things that bring them into doubt can simply be marked by readers as an oversight or people reading too much into the words or actions of the Pope. I find that rather convenient an excuse for not being held to account for one’s own words and actions; including things which raise eyebrows on issues like news stories concering Cuba, China, Chili, Brazil, Protestant inter-Communion, dismissals and investigations of Traditional Catholics, support for the UN sustainable goals replete with contraception, his praise for a notorious abortionist in Italy, silence in the face of votes that pertain to abortion and gender ideology and a host of other things . . . for the list is itself legion.
Most Catholics did not want to believe what we have been hearing and seeing but in time a tidal wave of these odd but persistent utterings and actions take their toll. Something is dreadfully wrong . . . starting with the Galen Mafia, traversing the spectacle of a Pope Emeritus [whatever that is], all the way to the unanswered dubia and investigation of the firing of a leader of the ‘sovereign’ Knights of Malta for distributing condoms. He seems only interested in ‘details’ when it benefits his ideological motivations and if they do not, then such detail is merely rigidity to law or demonic. For his words have made it clear that he sees all opposition to anything he does as being fundamentally satanic. As for myself, I pray for the papacy and for the end of this ‘quiet’ persecution of Catholics who find themselves quite perplexed and tossed upon a raging sea where they are no longer sure of what the Church truly teaches anymore.
Indifference and remaining quiet is one option among two others but it is a statement nonetheless. Best consult your conscience, which the Pope likes to recommend for those in adulterous situations, on this one . . . for we all may be held to account for what we say or do, don’t say or don’t do.
Regarding Leonardo Boff [the laicized Catholic theologian] there is little doubt that his works were used by the Pope in Laudato si and that Kasper has Leonardo have long been on the same page. Why, should people doubt the truthfulness of his statements however? He was always forthright in his expressions of things where were heretical which got him in trouble with JPII and BXVI . . . or was that a lie too? I take a man at their word until they prove themselves to be a liar. Simply to speak openly in disagreement with the Church does not make the man untrustworthy as to his utterances . . . though we can doubt all men first. I much rather give the benefit of a doubt that even people who oppose the Church have at least the personal integrity of speaking truthfully. But that is me I guess.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You could well be right, but equally, most of the issues you raise have been raised in the same way by those who have always read him through a hermeneutic of suspicion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Many did not start off that way just as many gave Obama a benefit of a doubt. But the constant quizical mumblings and actions cannot be forever dismissed.
Just as the suspicion that the Pope is a soixante-huitard was not immediately diagnosed but delayed until it became apparent. The Jesuitical order had earned this reputation during the 20th and 21st century deservedly although there were members in their midst such as Fr. Fessio and others who were admirable. But the coziness with the Liberation Theologians and his pastoral [situational ethics] mindset have certainly put this Pope in the mainstream of Jesuit stereotypes. I don’t think it was malicious at all . . . just a process of getting to know him and his orientation. We do create our own images when we are judged on what we say and do . . . and he has done this all by himself . . . whilst others have only recorded what seems rather transparent.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Many did not, but many did, and in some quarters with this Pope, it began from the moment he was elected. What concerns me is that one side of the picture and the argument are presented by such people, and they dismiss, too often, those who disagree with them as though their motives are simply self-seeking. This concerns me. The Church has always had places for quite a wide variety of beliefs, and the difficulty with the ‘culture wars’ template is that it puts a halo around one’s own views and a pair of horns on those who hold other views. Its effect on our politics has been, to coin a word, deplorable, and I see it happening in the Church. He is the Pope, and unless one subscribes to the view that the vast majority of the bishops and Cardinals are some kind of scoundrel, then it seems to me unwise to go beyond where most of them are. That is certainly what a Protestant would do, and it concerns me that so many who take this line of going beyond where the bishops are, are converts and may be thinking with that mindset rather than with the mind of the Church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Well to paint all those who are critical as converts is a bit of over-kill in my estimation. Edward Peter whom I have come to respect for his journalism says that all these bishops and clergy that you seem to cast as the ‘vast majority’ are afraid to go on record with any criticism whatsoever. Now that is a real problem in my mind and though we hate things like ‘vati-leaks’ etc. we are used to having our bishops take a stand against any proposition that brings the teachings of the Faith into conflict with itself. And that is where we are now. If the Pope is not aware that his thoughts run counter to the thinking of the Church and documents from JPII and BXVI as well in Amoris Laetitia then he should answer legitimate questions concerning his thoughts on the same. If he holds a position counter to the teachings and defends them against 2000 years of teaching then he admits to what would be death to his papacy: the dreaded ‘h’ word. We need to know this. It is imperative for us to move forward. To go on like we have for this long is not good for the health of the Church or those who abide in the Church and Her teachings. The pope needs to lead us here and if he doesn’t then he might as well be pope emeritus the 2nd. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
But this, again, is where I have problems. Does Ed P actually know the ‘vast majority of bishops’ or is he talking about those whom he knows? If the latter, are we not back into the echo chamber? Ed knows bishops who are suspicious of the Pope, and he repays them by effectively calling them hirelings and time-servers? I wonder how many bishops he knows well enough to be certain of their motives? I would be unwilling to make such a criticism of the vast majority of the world’s bishops based on the musings of any journalist. I know two bishops reasonably well, and neither of them is the sort of chap to worry about the consequences of speaking their minds, and both are senior enough to know they are in their last job in the Church, so there’s not exactly much the Pope could do to them. The idea that the only reason they are not speaking out is moral cowardice would be laughable to anyone who knows either man. So why do they not speak out? Perhaps for the simple reason that they do not read the Pope’s actions through a hermeneutic of suspicion? I don’t know whether that is the case, but I do know I trust both men, and neither take the view that the Pope’s vocal critics take – and both know the Pope and have done for some time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Or is their silence due to the fact that the dubia has been produced and has as yet to be answered. Though lines are being drawn many are rather prudent about when to take a side until there is no other option. As to Ed P, he is not alone and many have stated that the morale of those in Rome is the worst that they can remember. Bishops who are far off from Rome and the immediate auspices of the Pope and his inner circle are not of much consequence at this point but at some point they will be . . . especially as this Pope divests power to the Congregations of individual countries etc.
As to your view it is all very nice and we await confirmation from the Pope. Even so, if you are right, it is still unprecedented to bypass the formal act of annulment before desecrating the sacrament of Sacraments.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I suspect that too much importance is attached to the dubia by those who wish to do that. You say lines are being drawn, but where is the evidence, outside the echo chambers of those on both sides who wish to portray it that way? Most Catholics I know take little or no interest in the dubia, and I do think there is a real danger that those who seem obsessed by it, are assuming others share that view.
I think you’ll end by finding that the Pope means what he says when he says it is clear enough. There will be no answer to the dubia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
I am not expecting an answer either though that is the primary job of the Pope . . . to quell theological uncertainty as it rages in the Church.
The dubia is important for the questions are the quintessential problems with Amoris. It opens the doors to theological questions long closed in the Church. Is there such a thing as objective evil? Can we receive Holy Communion while living in such a state? If so, is there any sin that is too severe to stop one from receiving if their conscience tells them to? After all, all sin in this life is messsy. It has always been messy and why is this time so different that we must change to reflect the particular messiness of our times? If that isn’t very important to people we know then they are not very astute at what this is all about or they haven’t spent much time trying to understand what all the fuss is about. It is fundamental to having any moral laws and/or consequences to them and to the sanctity of the Sacraments.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Again, I can’t help but feel this overstates the case.
The Church believes there is objective evil, and I can’t see that the Pope has contradicted that, or that he has said we can receive whilst in a state of sin. If he’d said either of those things then he would be contradicting what the Church teaches. What he is saying is that in our modern Western society the idea of marriage is so varied that to assume, as one used to be able to, that those going into it all had the same idea that the Church holds of marriage would be unwise. If you are saying we have lived in such a society before, which is what it would mean to say that the answers are clear and the past a certain guide, then I would doubt that. The current messiness is new, we have not before moved from a Christian view of marriage to a secular one, and it seems to me the Pope is porviding room for pastoral discernment of such matters. In much of the Church outside the West, the sort of tribunals which we have do not exist, so are people simply to wait for years until, perhaps, things change? That seems not very merciful, and not the sort of thing Our Lord did. It does seem the sort of thing Our Lord criticised in those who thought rules were all that mattered.
The view that the Pope is somehow going against what the Church teaches can be held, but it depends on putting that conclusion there in order to find it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
What the East does or does not do is of no consideration for me as I am a Roman Catholic and thereby my conscience was formed by that which the Roman Catholic Church teaches not the Eastern Catholic Churches. It was the pharisees that allowed divorce and treated marriage as though it were a secular arrangement. It was Christ that [in His mercy] clarified that institution as a Sacrament which we have honored ever since. To adopt the ways of the pharisees seems to be a rather hypocritical view of the 10 Commandments and the teachings of Our Lord and God. It is not as if we did not make some kind of accommodation for this when someone was not a believer when they became married and divorced. But once Catholic we are to be informed. The DRE’s that my wife meets with regularly in our diocese have had slews of people in all sorts of varying ‘irregular’ situations [that is to say living in mortal sin] approach them for full communion with the Church and access to the Blessed Sacrament. So it is not a hypothetical problem anymore as it is turning into a waithing line of whatever your favorite sin might be. Pandora’s box has been opened whether you want to accept that fact or not.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I didn’t, I think, mention the East. Christ’s main criticism of the pharisees is that they added yokes to people and thought rules mattered more than people. It is hard to escape that conclusion, and if one asks here who is insisting on black and white rules from the past applying to a modern situation where grey is the predominant shade, I don’t think the answer is the Pope.
it is wonderful that in the US and Europe there are many tribunals, it is a shame that this as a minority of the world’s Catholics. I don’t think we get to determine what happens in the majority of places where Catholics have no recourse to tribunals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
The Church never ‘added’ a yoke to the people. People yoke themselves to Christ and His teaching and people likewise ‘yoke’ themselves by vows to the priesthood, religious life or marriage. We honor that yoke and consider it inviolable and this is why a vow is required of each partner in this. The only grey appears when someone had no idea of what they were doing . . . in which case we need to teach them and investigate if their vow was valid or invalid at the time: then an annulment is given. There was no great ground swell to open this up . . . this was a darling of the modernist mindset.
Perhaps you don’t accept that the last battle that the Church is to fight will regard the family but if that is the prophecy then we best be fighting alongside the Church and not be deceived as to which side is which.
As to areas without tribunals I am sure their bishops have a way to discern these matters . . . and if they do not then is the consequence better or worse if one lives by the law of the Church or not? There is much pain in life in many things and living celibately is not the worst thing that one might encounter in life. In fact, if you would ask my old priest friends, God rest their souls, they would say that it was a gift. It can be that for a remarried couple in an irregular marriage as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
But that could equally have been the answer of the Pharisees, surely?
We return to the circumstances of marriage in the modern world. If people contracted a Catholic marriage fully cognizant of all that involved, then neither a Tribunal nor pastoral discernment can grant them an annulment. If they did not do that, then either via a Tribunal or pastoral discernment there is room for mercy. When you say ‘we’ need to investigate, you get to the heart of the matter for most Catholics who do not have tribunals. Bishops are now encouraged in a way they were not to exercise discernment. It is this which seems to enrage so many – the question of why puzzles me.
Yes, celibacy is a gift, but if you tell those who do not have it ‘tough’, that is making a very heavy yoke indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
You don’t say ‘tough’ you say that sadly they will either have to forego the sacrament of the Eucharist or they will have to live a continent life. Likewise they must know that the Sacrament of Reconcilliation is worthless unless they ammend their life. We are sorry that you made such a mess of your life but is there a way to undo somebody else’s sins and take them on your own back. Only Christ can do that and did but even then it was expectationt that we must go and sin no more. Now that sounds like a yoke to me . . . though one which our Lord will share the burden of during your walk with Him. This is simply a profound rendition of what conversion is for everyone. Not everyone feels the same discomfort and not everyone feels the same joy. We are all different and we all have our own particular crosses . . . some heavier and some lighter. But carry it you must.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Which is, in effect, saying ‘tough’ – accept a charism you don’t actually possess. That is adding a yoke, and there is no way it isn’t, however you dress it up. Yes, if they repent, and if their Bishop says their first marriage is annulled, then what’s the problem with anyone receiving communion? Has anyone, save Francis’ critics, suggested that anything else should happen?
If Christ had said that people must carry a heavier yoke in response to the Pharisees, your concluding position would seem more firmly based. Since he said the opposite, it seems to me that the Pope has it on this interpretation of the Lord’s intentions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
So it was harder on the people who could get a writ of divorce from the Pharisees than it was in the early Church when we did not accept the idea of a writ of divorce? How silly of me to think that divorce was easier than no divorce.
And if there is any equality in yokes or burdens between people it is only because Christ will carry that which you are unable to bear. Why is everyone so afraid of difficulties in their lives today. Our lives are million times better and more comfortable than they once were. I think we are still able to carry our crosses just like our forefathers did.
Not to mention those who do the right thing and carry their crosses and now look like the fool for doing so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
As I have written before, we are in new circumstances – unless you can point to a time in the early Church where we moved from a Christian idea of marriage in society to a new one owing everything to secular ways of thinking? What is ‘silly’ is to suppose that the Church has neither the power nor the ability to deal with these circumstances, and insist it acts as though circumstances had not changed dramatically.
It is easy to say ‘Christ will carry it’ but that is not the experience of many, and it imposes a one size fits all yoke – which is the heaviest of all yokes. Either Christ meant it about yokes, or he didn’t. It is, as I keep stressing, not just our confortable Western lives at stake here, but the lives of the majority of the world’s Catholics, which are not so comfortable. You seem to think that a Western model which developed in a certain set of circumstances is the only possible one, the Pope does not agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
You speak as if in the history of the Church most people were Catholic . . . in fact most people were pagans. But that did not stop the Church even under persecution by the pagan world to defend its beliefs and even die for them. I wonder if you are saying that pagans are easier to deal with than secualarized moderns.
The Church has the power to deal with anything in the Church as long as it does not overturn the teachings of the Church it inherited or the words of Christ. We are above all caretakers and stewards of the faith and its truths not the ‘makers’ of a new faith and new truths.
So Christ speaking about yokes preempts his teaching on divorce and therefore made it a modifiable teaching? It seems to me that you have made of Christ a modern Jesuit.
Have you read our friend Deacon Nick today? https://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/latest/riding-high-after-amoris-laetitia-the-progressives-have-plans-for-pope-francis-in-2017
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, I am. It is far easier to deal with a world where Christ’s words are new than with one in which they have been so swiftly abandoned. Now we have many coming to the field hospital with fresh wounds from new weapons, so we adapt, as we always have. After all there was a time when only the rich and powerful had access to trubunals.
I saw Nick’s comments, which seemed a good example if the echo chamber effect, alas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
We will not have long to wait to see who is right about these nefarious movements. A hermeneutic of suspicion is perhaps the only way anyone should read this pope after witnessing these past 3 years of upheaval and confusion. Seems to me that what was up is now down and vice versa.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
That would be more persuasive if that hermeneutic had not been in place so soon after his election.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Some are more perceptive than the rest of us. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Could well turn out to be the case 😔
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
In terms of Amoris Laeticia, it seems to me the Pope has made his position clear, which is that the messiness of modern life in the West in terms of marriage is without precedent, and that in order to deal with it, pastors need to be able to make their own discernment. Those who think one size fits all will continue to think that, those who recognised it doesn’t, won’t. Which bit of that has been unclear? I recall writing here to that effect after the Synods, and remain of the opinion that I was correct then in divining what the Pope intended. Those who insist that in allowing room for more pastoral discernment in unprecedented circumstances = heresy, will continue to be of that view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
I might also, with full understanding that this argument might be construed as playing the man [or men] rather than the ball, mention that the voices of those who ‘disagree’ with them and ‘agree’ with the Pope seem to be of a rather discredited group of theologians, bishops and priests. All of them, save a scant few who hid under the sheets while JPII and BXVI were Popes, are the ‘yes men’ of the left and purveyors of modernist theology and thinking. Most were on the outs a scant 5 or 10 years ago and now they have ‘legitimacy’ due to the Pope taking them under his wing or giving them the coveted red hat which makes of nobody’s suddenly somebody’s. Those who were ‘in’ are now out or on the peripheries while those who were ‘out’ are now in the inner circle. Politicization is, in fact taking place whether we like it or not; for this looks and sounds like politics in its most glaring ugliness. But it is what it is and we have to play the hand we are dealt as they say.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I don’t doubt that the ‘culture wars’ template leads me on both sides to play the man and not the ball. But I come back to that ‘vast majority’ of bishops and cardinals, who do not take that template as their example. There has always been room in the Church for a wide expression of opinion, and the Church has been at its worst when it treated men like Newman with suspicion because what he said was not in line with what Pio Nono wanted to hear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Agreed. And there is where Cardinal Burke and the others have done a service to the Church and have an entire cadre of the ‘ins’ calling them heretics, asking for their heads on a platter and telling them to shut up. Nice!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The problem with the ad hom approach, is the other side does the same. If you look at your own characterisation of those who support the Pope and then look at the way in which some on the other side choose to characterise their opponents, there’s a comparability – lots of opprobrious words about fellow Catholics which leave the observer to assume that those employing the words are the ‘real’ Catholics. Everyone involved is a real Catholic. I know some laicised priests whose doctrinal orthodoxy leaves me breathless and looking like a dreadful heretic – but nonetheless, they could not hold to their vows. Does that make me or them ‘bad Catholics’, or does it just make us all humans prone to err?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Well Christ made it rather clear that vows are pretty serious things. As to the Cardinals I would put their decorum up against any of the bishops who have raked them over the coals without, of course, answering the questions. From what I have read from the dubia Cardinals did not attack the man at all . . . they played the ball. That the detractors of the cardinals don’t want to play the ball is obvious. As to what journalists or bloggers do is of no consequence but it is not without value in understanding the human element in all of this.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, he did, and he also made it clear that man was made for the sabbath and not the other way round. And where is the Pope saying that vows are not serious? What he is saying is what we all know, which is that many people in our society enter into marriages without proper preparation and without thinking through what the vows mean. Our society is one which encourages rather than discouraging such thinking, and there is ‘always divorce’ if it doesn’t work out. Two generations ago, at least in the UK, that line of thinking was rare – now it is common. To equate vows now with vows then without allowing for pastoral discernment makes no sense.
The dubia Cardinals are, perhaps, not the men leaking comments about what the Pope says, but it would be better if their supporters also exercised the same decorum, as someone is leaking comments. I wish both sides would stop criticising the other and acting as though their own side was without sin. It is not an edifying spectacle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
And these folks are welcome to the Sabbath . . . just not to the Blessed Sacrament until their situation is fixed.
I understand how people think of divorce now. But is that a reason to evangelize or a reason to overturn our teachings? There was pastoral discernment before and always has been just not the type we see advancing in Germany under the Kasperite theology.
I don’t think that this is about which side is without sin. It is a straight forward theological precept that must be answered. If they won’t answer then the next Pope or the next Church Council will have to take this up and give the Church an answer that it desperately needs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
No one is denying that – that’s the problem with the hermeneutic of suspicion. what is at issue is how their situation is fixed. The Pope wants to allow more pastoral discernment, nowhere has he said anything else.
It isn’t how people think of divorce, it is how they think of marriage, surely? After all, as any tribunal will tell you, if you say you went into marriage thinking that if it didn’t work out you could always divorce, you went in with the wrong mindset, and most tribunals will find that was not a valid marriage. Pastoral discernment in most of the Catholic world is needed because of the want of tribunals, something you and the other critics simply fail to address. Do you really assume that Africa and Asia have the same facilities here as the USA?
The Church already has the answer, it is the one just offered. Those who want a black and white answer are, I fear, more like the Pharisees than they are like the Jesus who said his yoke was light and that it should not be made heavier.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Discernment without an annulment on theological grounds is not a fix.
So you have a Christ that spoke in terms of grey areas when it came to vows and a copy of the 10 Commandments which, if one of them seems too hard or we couldn’t quite grasp, is relegated to a suggestion that can be suspended due to the grey area of your clouded understanding. Seems we have come full circle. Now we use Christ’s Mercy to bludgeon the other teachings of Christ so that no matter what we do or how we live all is the same and without consequence. What in God’s name is the purpose for having a Church? We need not take our vows seriously because after all we don’t want to put a yoke on you. We had confession so you could ammend your life and gain forgiveness but now you need not bother with ammending your life . . . just live it out . . . after all it is a grey area and it doesn’t count. In such a case we might as well be a Bosco and seek our salvation by opening some door and supping with Jesus . . . no vows, no law, no discernment needed, no sacraments, no firm purpose of ammendments . . . just mercy. We are all going to heaven after all, yes? If not then perhaps in God’s mercy [the only thing that isn’t a grey area] our souls will be annihilated as Pope Francis has suggested.
As I say, all I can do during this Pontificate is read my catechism and believe by the Grace of God that the teachings of the Church are indeffectable. A new gospel I don’t need . . . the old one will suit me just fine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
The situation now is that Bishops can exercise judgment, which is entirely in keeping with the teaching of the Church. You won’t find a single Apostle mentioning Canon Law or a tribunal. I am very happy with the idea that the successors of the Apostles get to exercise their judgment in these matters; why is that a problem for you and others?
Again, outside of your hyperbole, who on earth has said we should abandon the teachings of Christ? All that has been said is that the successors of the Apostles should have the right to discern whether a valid marriage was contracted. No one is being bludgeoned – such language is neither proportionate nor accurate. Again, it is hyperbole which leads you to your other rhetorical questions. Nothing in Amoris Laeticia suggests that everyone goes to Heaven or that there are no consequences to sin. All these are things your bring in because you suspect they are intended.
No one is preaching a new Gospel. The Church develops its pastoral practice across the ages. Those who want it to stop mistake it for a museum I fear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
If the bishops had no time to do this in the past and had to get a tribunal to handle all the cases then what kind of discernment can a bishop make in these individual cases. He can’t and most priests are not prepared or well versed enough in Canon Law to provide an answer without the use of canon lawyers. There is no clear direction in AL and you know it. The answers are all over the place; from virtually nullifying all marriages because they were too young, too stupid, not Christians, etc. to the rare exception which is as yet undefined that makes it OK to live in adultery or made the first marriage invalid with no decree of nullity needed.
A change in practice is one thing, like no longer having meatless Friday’s, but to effectively create a means to heap mortal sin upon mortal sin as a change of practice is nonsensical. No firm purpose of ammendment needed: that is at this time an invalid confession and you recieve communion in mortal sin thereby adding sin upon sin.
But even here this does not effect me so why should I care? I care because we should all care that the Truths of the Church are going to have to be altered if this is going to become a reality.
I know you say that nothing has changed. Please write a fictional bio of who is this rarified couple and how they are accompanied to through Reconcilliation and to the Holy Sacrament. How does it work? How is their Confession valid and how are they in a state of grace for reception of the Holy Communion. I have a good idea how it will be in Germany but I wonder if you have thought what it might mean in the UK. But even so . . . do you not fear for the souls of the people in Germany?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Given that the whole point is to move away from a one size fits all model, I’m not sure that arguing that there can only be one model is very useful. This reforms allow dioceses to find their own solutions, and I’d suggest that our bishops and priests may just be smart enough to work out answers. Again, who but you is saying it is ‘OK to live in adultery’? You and others who think as you do keep saying it, and I assume it is because you fear it is what the Pope means – but it is not what he or anyone else has said, so is that not putting words in their mouths?
I am happy, unlike you, to leave it to the successors of the Apostles to work out the details in practice – and unlike you, it seems, I actually believe our bishops take their duty of care for souls seriously, so no, I am not fearful for the souls of the faithful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
No the exact opposite. This is the one size fits all model you are moving toward. That is why the tribunals were time consuming processes. More canon lawyers would have fit the bill far better than this confusion.
And if adultery is not OK then why AL? Why the departure from the words of Familiaris Consortia?
And as to what the Pope means . . . his silence is speaking volumes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Not at all, as I am not selecting any ‘model’. Why AL, for the reasons the Pope has constantly given – that modern marriages take place in a society very different from the one most of us grew up in. It is this refusal to acknowledge reality which worries me. He’s said this time and again, but those who don’t want to hear cannot be made to listen.
The fact is that four Cardinals and a few bishops have made public their doubts. The only two I know reasonably well are brave and intelligent men and they do not share the doubts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
And nobody listened as many a person faith cried out in the wilderness these past 50 years that we were no longer teaching the faith in our Churches. And then some have the gall to blame our predicament on secular society which we threw the doors wide open to accept. So now we have every vice that had entered into Protestant churches within our own: contraception, divorce, same sex unions, transgenderism et al.
So we are not only to acknowledge that society is different but we must make accommodations for their demands that we change. Seems to me that is the wrong approach. Shouldn’t we double down on the truths and stand firm in the face of the attacks on the family and Church? Seems we’ve given every lunatic agent for change cause for great hope in breaking the faith down to just another faith that changes with the tide. What the enemies of Christ could not destroy we will do so ourselves; as a sign of mercy of course.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That is not the line favoured by the Pope. Perhaps it should be, but we must deal with things as they are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
I think I will leave it there then. I enjoyed the jaw jaw with you C. I think we will all know the outcome to this fairly soon as the news just keeps on coming . . . more and more each day. At times you just can’t keep up for the quantity of stuff that is being generated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Indeed – and as ever, thank you for the serious and informed engagement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop said:
Dittos, my friend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
😄
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brother Burrito said:
Reblogged this on Burrito's Stable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
Act of Faith
O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in Three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.
Now, does this Act of Faith teach that I should believe all that each individual priest and bishop teach? Of course not. But Pope Francis does. The pope believes that each individual conscience defines truth. The pope believes that the mercy of Jesus Christ supersedes the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church for the last almost 2000 years. The pope believes that there is no distinction between any belief or religion on earth, all are worthy of entrance to heaven. He has even gone as far to state that proselytism is a sin of ecumenism, in direct defiance of Our Lord Jesus Christ who wanted us to go and make disciples of all nations.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Can you provide actual evidence that this is what the Holy Father thinks, or is this distilled wisdom from websites which oppose him?
Let me give an example. You say that the Pope says proselytism is a sin agains ecumenism, what did the Holy Father actually say in Georgia” He said that proselytism among the Orthodox was a sin against ecumenism https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-reminds-georgias-catholic-minority-great-wonders-god-works-small-things. If you think what you said is the same as what the Pope said, that suggests where the problem is. You are not reading what he is saying, you are reading what others, opposed to him and who call him an ‘anti-Pope’ want you to believe.
Ask one question. If you are right, then why are the bishops of the Church not up in arms against him? If I am right, then it is obvious why, but if you are it suggests that the whole episcopate is rotten, and if that is true, then the church is falling away – which Christ said it could not do.
The problem here seems to me to be people projecting their fears onto anything he says, reading the echoes of that on certain website, and then whipping up a panic. As I say, I know two bishops reasonably well, both old enough to have nothing to worry about in terms of their careers, both very forthright men, and if they thought as you do, they’d say so. They don’t think as you do, and that’s not because they are frightened or liberal or whatever explanation you want to offer, it is because as theologians and experienced priests (both have been priests from forty years) they see things are they actually are, not through the distorting lens of partisan website.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
First of all, how you can use the National Catholic Reporter to quote anything is a mystery to me. They have been condemned since the 60’s. This article will at least come closer to explaining my position. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-very-grave-sin-for-catholics-to-try-to-convert-orthodox
You see, I believe there is a Catholic God, which our pope does not, since the Catholic Church is the one and only church that Christ started and continues to bless.
Our current pope has fallen into a form of relativism that tries to please all, while at the same time destroys the faith. And the longer he remains pope the more the bishops will rise up against him, as the dubia proves.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
This is not the view of the Church, as you will see if you read Ut Unum Sint and Dominus Iesus, both of which support the Pope’s view. The Orthodox are in schism, not heretical, and if you read what both Magisterial documents say about the Orthodox you will be better informed, and if you understand them, wiser.
How four Cardinals and one dubia amount to a sign that the bishops are rising up against him can be understood, no doubt, only in the echo chamber. Meanwhile in the real world, the Church gets on with its jobs of saving souls.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
C, thanks for the advice, wiser would be nice. My echo chamber is growing larger by the day. Cardinals and bishops are joining the dubia cause. We shall see if anything comes of it. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/2016-the-year-pope-francis-finally-showed-his-hand
Pope Francis actions in 2016. Interesting. Do you think there is truth to any of it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Again, where is the evidence that any substantial numbers of Cardinals and Bishops are joining the Dubia? I have no idea what the Pope will do this year, but I doubt some of the things canvassed in that piece will happen.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
I know what the Holu father did this new yrs eve….he partied with the gay cabal in the Vatican.
Party….party. …like its 1999
Oh Rosco…dont touch me there.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I’m assuming you have evidence for this?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Is this the post I might be interested in? The Holy Father and his musings?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, it will be up tomorrow now.
LikeLike