In anticipation of the exhortation...this seems helpful

[Benedictus]

23 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

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

I had this PR policy first. It's mine I tell you

[Nihil Obstat]

12 minutes ago, Benedictus said:

I had this PR policy first. It's mine I tell you

Call the FBI.  

[Benedictus]

7 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Call the FBI.  

I won't bother hanging on hold with them. I'll send some money to the CIA and get it resolved swiftly

[Nihil Obstat]

2 minutes ago, Benedictus said:

I won't bother hanging on hold with them. I'll send some money to the CIA and get it resolved swiftly

[Peace]

54 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

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

It was released this morning.

Nihil "I have an opinion, but I ain't telling you what it is" Obstat.

[vee]

264 pages, yeah I dont have time to read that before work!

[Nihil Obstat]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Nihil "I have an opinion, but I ain't telling you what it is" Obstat.

I like to play my cards close to my chest. I think it allows me to be more precise and more clear when I do express my opinions.

[Peace]

3 minutes ago, vee said:

264 pages, yeah I dont have time to read that before work!

Just do this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj-qBUWOYfE

[Benedictus]

6 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

 If the CIA fails then the Vatican will obviously sort things out. It might cost me a bit more though

[Gabriela]

7 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

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.

 

I agree with this. It's uncharitable to judge the document before it's even been released.

Of course, now it is released, and there's no way I'm reading 246 pages. I can't imagine many other people will, either. That in and of itself is a problem. I think the Vatican needs to remember that people have jobs.

“Hence 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” (301).

If mortal sin assumes (1) grave matter, (2) full knowledge, and (3) deliberate consent, then which of these is Pope Francis saying is compromised in cases of civil re-marriage/cohabitation?

[Nihil Obstat]

31 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

I agree with this. It's uncharitable to judge the document before it's even been released.

 

Well let us get things straight here. Mr. Archbold was not judging anything. That would be ridiculous. He was quite clear that he was making a prediction as to how the document would turn out when it was released.

[Gabriela]

1 minute ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Well let us get things straight here. Mr. Archbold was not judging anything. That would be ridiculous. He was quite clear that he was making a prediction as to how the document would turn out when it was released.

Okay, but it was an uncharitable prediction. While I can see how one might be given to expect the worst from Pope Francis after some of the "unfortunate" things he has let slip, we have a duty as Christians—and as his flock—to give him the benefit of the doubt. And not 7 times, but 70 times 7 times. I know patience is wearing thin in some Catholic crowds, but we must remember that Pope Francis is our shepherd and we owe him charity just as much, if not more, than anybody else.

I read both the articles that PhuturePriest posted and the document looks pretty alright to me. But there is some concerning language in places, like that I highlighted. Is it possible to make a charitable, orthodox interpretation of this? That's what I'd like to know.

[Nihil Obstat]

6 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Okay, but it was an uncharitable prediction. While I can see how one might be given to expect the worst from Pope Francis after some of the "unfortunate" things he has let slip, we have a duty as Christians—and as his flock—to give him the benefit of the doubt. And not 7 times, but 70 times 7 times. I know patience is wearing thin in some Catholic crowds, but we must remember that Pope Francis is our shepherd and we owe him charity just as much, if not more, than anybody else.

I read both the articles that PhuturePriest posted and the document looks pretty alright to me. But there is some concerning language in places, like that I highlighted. Is it possible to make a charitable, orthodox interpretation of this? That's what I'd like to know.

"If it turns out I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it and praise God for my foolishness."

I do not think it was uncharitable. Just concerned more than anything about protecting the Truth, doing whatever that entails. Whatever one's opinion is of Pope Francis, witnessing the Truth of Catholic teaching cannot be in any way opposed to exercising true charity towards the Holy Father.

In the interest of completeness, Mr. Archbold himself believes his initial predictions were proven true.

[CatherineM]

I could have predicted that the ultra conservatives would hate it because they don't care for much of what Pope Francis says. 

[Nihil Obstat]

22 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

I could have predicted that the ultra conservatives would hate it because they don't care for much of what Pope Francis says. 

I could have predicted that you would say that. Where does that leave us?