In anticipation of the exhortation...this seems helpful

[DameAgnes]

http://aleteia.org/2016/04/06/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-marriage-and-annulments-but-were-afraid-to-ask/

[Maggyie]

It's all helpful unless the pope changes it tomorrow. Then this priest is going to have to back pedal. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

A post-synodal exhortation isn't the type of document used to change the Church's law or legal procedures, though. 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Has anyone else read Pat Archbold's predictions for this document?

[Gabriela]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Has anyone else read Pat Archbold's predictions for this document?

Link?

[Nihil Obstat]

Right here.

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2016/04/how-to-read-exhortation-of-desolation.html

Some excerpts:

"First, know this. The document will contain:
2% Actual Catholic teaching on marriage and the rest. This will provide all the cover necessary for the "everything is amesome" toadies to crow about how beautiful and orthodox it is. "I mean, did you read the second paragraph on page 98, that almost sounds like Pope Pius X. All is well." It will be a load of croutons, but there will be those who just eat it up and call it ice cream.

97% Jesuitical blather and pious sounding non-sequiturs. How do I know? 200 pages.

And then 1% will be where all the action and all the danger will be. Buried deep within the text will be the cryptic marching orders. Clear to those who have eyes to see, these marching orders will be done in such a way as to give plausible deniability. But the damage will be done and all will go from there. The wise will point to these paragraphs as the danger they truly represent, but the Catholic mainstream media and the defenders of the status quo will ignore them or criticize those who point out the dangers."

[...]

"In conclusion, either the synod itself or perhaps the Pope himself in a following document may make a request for local Bishops and Bishops’ conferences to explore ways for the divorced and remarried to be better integrated into parish life.
With those vague statements giving plausible deniability to the hierarchy, several Bishops’ conferences starting with Germany will issue norms allowing the divorced and remarried to receive communion after confession or some such other nonsense, which they are already likely allowing.
And the Church will do nothing. And then the practice will spread like wildfire. Think Communion in the hand. With the barn door left open, the horses are gone.
After the practice has spread globally, the Vatican will issue some weak statements about avoiding potential abuses, but essentially allowing the practice. That is when the real misery begins."

[PhuturePriest]

I think Pat Archbold's interpretation is wholly unfair and inappropriate, given that the Exhortation hadn't even been published. Here are two articles I've read written in response to actually having read it which say the Holy Father unequivocally affirms Church teaching:

http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/first-thoughts-on-amoris-laetitia/5134/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/04/amoris-laetitia-pope-francis-1968-moment.html

But I don't think it's free from issue. There are indeed certain ambiguities which can and likely will be abused by dissenters who hear what they want. But whether these are a special Da Vinci-like code, a secret "marching order" by the Holy Father to his legions of Satanic, truth-hating liberals who foam at the mouth and spit acid when approached with writings containing Latin and hymns written before 1972, is something far past bordering the ridiculous and melodramatic.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

I think Pat Archbold's anticipation was more or less correct.

[Peace]

15 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I think Pat Archbold's anticipation was more or less correct.

So you think that it is 97% blather that should be ignored?

[Nihil Obstat]

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

So you think that it is 97% blather that should be ignored?

 This is why I do not like posting controversial links on this site. "More or less" agreeing with something does not bind me to agree with every little opinion or every single throwaway turn-of-phrase that Mr. Archbold used. He wrote it, not me. I think he was "more or less" correct in his expectations.

[Amppax]

I think everyone is going to read into this document what they think will be there. Largely that's proving to be the case so far. 

[Peace]

5 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

 This is why I do not like posting controversial links on this site. "More or less" agreeing with something does not bind me to agree with every little opinion or every single throwaway turn-of-phrase that Mr. Archbold used. He wrote it, not me. I think he was "more or less" correct in his expectations.

You do realize that this leaves the reader with no way of determining what parts you actually agree with and disagree with.

[Not A Real Name]

19 minutes ago, Amppax said:

I think everyone is going to read into this document what they think will be there. Largely that's proving to be the case so far. 

And it hasn't even been published yet! 

[Nihil Obstat]

46 minutes ago, Peace said:

You do realize that this leaves the reader with no way of determining what parts you actually agree with and disagree with.

Yes, that is how personal opinions work. You do now know what they are unless I tell you.  And I like it this way.

41 minutes ago, Not A Real Name said:

And it hasn't even been published yet! 

It was released this morning.

[Not A Real Name]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

 

It was released this morning.

Well in that case...