In anticipation of the exhortation...this seems helpful

[CatherineM]

14 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

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

Hopefully able to have an adult conversation about the document. Also, to continue to be faithful Catholics called to obedience. I didn't like some things that Benedict did, but I never questioned his authority to do them. Francis is trying to teach us all the importance of mercy and not being judgemental. I think those are good things for us to learn. 

[Nihil Obstat]

2 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

Hopefully able to have an adult conversation about the document. Also, to continue to be faithful Catholics called to obedience. I didn't like some things that Benedict did, but I never questioned his authority to do them. Francis is trying to teach us all the importance of mercy and not being judgemental. I think those are good things for us to learn. 

If we want an adult conversation, perhaps we would be better off if you do not characterize "ultra-conservative" Catholics as not liking the exhortation simply because they do not like Pope Francis. It is a caricature and does not contribute to discussion.

[Gabriela]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

If we want an adult conversation, perhaps we would be better off if you do not characterize "ultra-conservative" Catholics as not liking the exhortation simply because they do not like Pope Francis. It is a caricature and does not contribute to discussion.

But Nihil, to what else could one ascribe a negative prediction about the exhortation before it's even published?

It's possible to protect the Truth without snark and hasty judgments. And there was judgment in that post: judgment that the exhortation would break with Church teaching. Why would the poster say that unless he already expects the worst from Pope Francis?

You know I love you, Nihil, and I have deep respect for your views because I know you're very educated in the Faith—much more than most of us—and I don't want you to feel ganged up on. But in this case I think your own position is blinding you to the unnecessary negative language in that post (the one you linked to, not your own!).

[CatherineM]

What I don't like is the idea that we may become as polarized as American politics. I didn't invent the titles of liberals and conservatives. We're not called by Christ to disunity. 

 

[Benedictus]

So will the annulment process be simplified and promoted or will it be undermined at parish/Bishop Conference level by pastoral responses influenced by this document? Hopefully this won't make things even more of a confusing mess in practice.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Benedictus

[Nihil Obstat]

50 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

But Nihil, to what else could one ascribe a negative prediction about the exhortation before it's even published?

It's possible to protect the Truth without snark and hasty judgments. And there was judgment in that post: judgment that the exhortation would break with Church teaching. Why would the poster say that unless he already expects the worst from Pope Francis?

You know I love you, Nihil, and I have deep respect for your views because I know you're very educated in the Faith—much more than most of us—and I don't want you to feel ganged up on. But in this case I think your own position is blinding you to the unnecessary negative language in that post (the one you linked to, not your own!).

Well first off I think it was a reasonable prediction that he made. He read the writing on the wall, so to speak. It is not like his assessment came out of nowhere. We had the documents of both synods first of all, plus Pope Francis' many, many comments on the subject, and the positions of those with whom Pope Francis consulted and wrote the exhortation itself. Knowing all these facts, he drew conclusions which I think he is relatively qualified to offer.

Secondly, and he explains why aptly, he considers the preliminary warning to have been justified and vindicated. He offers his own evidence. If we agree with him, or at least assume good faith on his part, it seems that he made a predictive warning which seemed to be justified, requiring at this point further defense of the truth.

I understand that many people do not agree with the so-called traditionalist interpretation of these facts, but if we are at the very least willing to assume good faith on the part of people like Pat Archbold, even Cardinal Burke (in his own way), etc., then it should at least be concluded that they are acting in ways which they consider to be necessary, which are reasonable based on that necessity, and which even in their disagreement, even in their deep disagreement with Pope Francis, remain charitable.

39 minutes ago, Benedictus said:

So will the annulment process be simplified and promoted or will it be undermined at parish/Bishop Conference level by pastoral responses influenced by this document? Hopefully this won't make things even more of a confusing mess in practice.

I believe that simplification has already been enacted, according to the framework that was published a couple months ago.

[Nihil Obstat]

Raymond Arroyo, for instance (about as mainstream a Catholic as you can find) sees some cause for concern.

In reference to footnote 351, Arroyo said: "This is the smoking footnote of #AmorisLaetitia, 351. Is this the embrace of the Kasper doctrine?"

[truthfinder]

13 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Raymond Arroyo, for instance (about as mainstream a Catholic as you can find) sees some cause for concern.

In reference to footnote 351, Arroyo said: "This is the smoking footnote of #AmorisLaetitia, 351. Is this the embrace of the Kasper doctrine?"

That footnote is so broad you can run a truck through it.  It can be interpreted either way - although honestly if interpreted in continuity with tradition, it shouldn't be seen as an adoption of the Kasperian principle.  When I read things like this from the Holy Father, I have to wonder if he had a mean confessor/novice master who liked to yell at him.  There's seems to be a frequent feeling that priests can be mean (and some of them are) and putting barriers where there shouldn't be. 

I'm probably not going to read through this whole document, mostly because the style of writing is just incredibly difficult/annoying. 

[Nihil Obstat]

12 minutes ago, truthfinder said:

That footnote is so broad you can run a truck through it.  It can be interpreted either way - although honestly if interpreted in continuity with tradition, it shouldn't be seen as an adoption of the Kasperian principle.  When I read things like this from the Holy Father, I have to wonder if he had a mean confessor/novice master who liked to yell at him.  There's seems to be a frequent feeling that priests can be mean (and some of them are) and putting barriers where there shouldn't be. 

I'm probably not going to read through this whole document, mostly because the style of writing is just incredibly difficult/annoying. 

I think that is the fundamental problem, is the ambivalence of interpretation. Yes you can interpret it in a relatively benign manner. If you are inclined to do so. But those people who were already in the 'Kasper camp' will find more than enough to do exactly as they had already planned on doing, using this footnote as an equally valid defense.

And yes, I thought that the reference to the confessional as a torture chamber was rather odd. Certainly does not line up with my own experience, anyway.

[Gabriela]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Well first off I think it was a reasonable prediction that he made. He read the writing on the wall, so to speak. It is not like his assessment came out of nowhere. We had the documents of both synods first of all, plus Pope Francis' many, many comments on the subject, and the positions of those with whom Pope Francis consulted and wrote the exhortation itself. Knowing all these facts, he drew conclusions which I think he is relatively qualified to offer.

Secondly, and he explains why aptly, he considers the preliminary warning to have been justified and vindicated. He offers his own evidence. If we agree with him, or at least assume good faith on his part, it seems that he made a predictive warning which seemed to be justified, requiring at this point further defense of the truth.

I understand that many people do not agree with the so-called traditionalist interpretation of these facts, but if we are at the very least willing to assume good faith on the part of people like Pat Archbold, even Cardinal Burke (in his own way), etc., then it should at least be concluded that they are acting in ways which they consider to be necessary, which are reasonable based on that necessity, and which even in their disagreement, even in their deep disagreement with Pope Francis, remain charitable.

I do see where you're coming from. But I think that "reading the writing on the wall" when it comes to breaking with Church tradition always needs an extra dose of charity. It seems to me that making any negative prediction before the document is published shows a lack of faith and hope. One may have ten thousand good reasons to believe that something bad will come, but wouldn't it be better for a Christian to say, "The signs are not looking good on this one. But I'm going to pray, and I'm going to hope that God will bring us something good"?

Plus, no matter how you look at it, language like this:
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.
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.

This stuff is the reason trads have a serious PR problem. You'd think it's not possible to speak the Truth kindly and gently, that you have to be sarcastic and put somebody down while you do it, and say it in the tone of an arrogant know-it-all. Who the hell wants that kind of Truth? If you can say the Truth, but say it in a way that's loving—which we owe to the Holy Father, at the very least—then why not do that?

I know some people think this is a "stylistic choice", but my point is it's an unchristian one. Sure, it's dramatic and gets attention because it's bombastic, but ultimately, it's ugly and angry and hateful and drives people away from the Truth. One can speak the Truth just as directly without all the sarcasm and put-downs. In fact, in my opinion, it would be more true that way!

I know you're not likely to stop reading such websites just because I say ^all this^, but really Nihil, ask yourself: Does reading this stuff make you more angry? Does it make you more hateful? Does it make you bitter about the state of the Church? Because I can't see how it wouldn't, and I don't think that's good for you or anyone. It would be better to find commentary that speaks the Truth in a way that isn't so spiteful.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Gabriela

[Era Might]

If the Pope were to issue a 1 pg. document that reads thus:

1. You'really all living in sin.

2. You know the law of the church.

3. End of story. Deal with it.

Maybe it would preserve the jot and tittle of the Law, but it wouldn't change anything. Everyone would go on doing what they'really doing, and probably just be more alienated from the church.

Instead, the Pope speaks with the ambiguity of a God who let's his sun shine on the just and the unjust, who welcomes prostitutes and tax collectors before scribes and pharisees, and who has chosen not to let the wheat and the tares grow separately.

I'm reminded of the Sadducees. "And afterward the woman also died." Whose wife will she be? Fools, Jesus says, do you not know that God is not trapped within your laws and customs, and there will not be left one stone upon the temple that you so jealously guard.

Also, just a reminder that the Pope happens to be Catholic, and has been a priest longer than most of us have been alive. He knows something about being Catholic, and especially confession, and not because he is Pope, but because he speaks from a lifetime of Catholic living.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Era Might

[Peace]

What exactly defines a Trad anyway? What distinguishes a Trad from a good old orthodox a Catholic such as Peace?

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

What exactly defines a Trad anyway? What distinguishes a Trad from a good old orthodox a Catholic such as Peace?

That depends on the person, really, but generally there are certain requirements: 1) you must love the EF, and at the very least prefer it over the OF, and 2) you must prefer traditional practices like praying the rosary in Latin, Gregorian chant, incense, etc. Some trads also put an extra requirement on the first one: you must not only prefer the EF, but think it is fundamentally better than the OF and that the OF is fundamentally broken. These are not rad trads, and they hold the OF is valid -- they simply think it's broken and needs to be scrapped.

5 hours ago, Gabriela said:

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?

This is where I can proudly tout knowing the answer to something for once.

The Pope is 100% right in this instance. Something can be objectively mortally sinful, but not subjectively to an individual person. For instance, if someone gossips and doesn't know gossip is a mortal sin. It's still an objective mortal sin, because it's still grave matter, and deliberate consent is being made. However, full knowledge of its gravity is missing, so for that person, it's not mortally sinful.

With this in mind, it is far too simplistic to say every divorced and remarried person (without an annulment) are in mortal sin, because we don't know what they know. They may have several mitigating circumstances which lower the culpability of their consciences.

Jimmy Akin, as always, is on the mark with the incredibly important details of the Exhortation: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/the-popes-new-document-on-marriage-12-things-to-know-and-share/#ixzz45FXviw8N

Quotes like the following are not being mentioned in many places, but they are quite clear:

"Given that gradualness is not in the law itself (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34), this discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church.

For this discernment to happen, the following conditions must necessarily be present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it.”

These attitudes are essential for avoiding the grave danger of misunderstandings, such as the notion that any priest can quickly grant “exceptions,” or that some people can obtain sacramental privileges in exchange for favors (AL 300)."

[Gabriela]

12 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

That depends on the person, really, but generally there are certain requirements: 1) you must love the EF, and at the very least prefer it over the OF, and 2) you must prefer traditional practices like praying the rosary in Latin, Gregorian chant, incense, etc. Some trads also put an extra requirement on the first one: you must not only prefer the EF, but think it is fundamentally better than the OF and that the OF is fundamentally broken. These are not rad trads, and they hold the OF is valid -- they simply think it's broken and needs to be scrapped.

This is where I can proudly tout knowing the answer to something for once.

The Pope is 100% right in this instance. Something can be objectively mortally sinful, but not subjectively to an individual person. For instance, if someone gossips and doesn't know gossip is a mortal sin. It's still an objective mortal sin, because it's still grave matter, and deliberate consent is being made. However, full knowledge of its gravity is missing, so for that person, it's not mortally sinful.

With this in mind, it is far too simplistic to say every divorced and remarried person (without an annulment) are in mortal sin, because we don't know what they know. They may have several mitigating circumstances which lower the culpability of their consciences.

Jimmy Akin, as always, is on the mark with the incredibly important details of the Exhortation: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/the-popes-new-document-on-marriage-12-things-to-know-and-share/#ixzz45FXviw8N

Quotes like the following are not being mentioned in many places, but they are quite clear:

"Given that gradualness is not in the law itself (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34), this discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church.

For this discernment to happen, the following conditions must necessarily be present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it.”

These attitudes are essential for avoiding the grave danger of misunderstandings, such as the notion that any priest can quickly grant “exceptions,” or that some people can obtain sacramental privileges in exchange for favors (AL 300)."

Okay, so he's saying that full knowledge is compromised. I can see how that would be. On the other hand, if you go back to the Church to receive pastoral care because you want communion, the second you do that, the pastor is going to give you full knowledge, and then you are in mortal sin unless you leave the relationship. I can see someone arguing, "Well, s/he doesn't really have full knowledge if s/he doesn't completely understand what mortal sin means or if s/he doesn't agree that s/he's in mortal sin because she fails to understand why cohabitation even is a sin... etc.", but if you let that kind of argument slide, then we don't know when anyone is in mortal sin, and arguably nobody ever is because really, who genuinely, FULLY understands what they're doing when they commit a sin? The whole thing becomes a big blurry mess.

What do you say to that, PhuturePriest?

12 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

The Pope is 100% right in this instance. Something can be objectively mortally sinful, but not subjectively to an individual person. For instance, if someone gossips and doesn't know gossip is a mortal sin. It's still an objective mortal sin, because it's still grave matter, and deliberate consent is being made. However, full knowledge of its gravity is missing, so for that person, it's not mortally sinful.

And btw, since when is gossip grave matter? I've never heard that in my life...

[BarbTherese]

2 hours ago, Gabriela said:

Okay, so he's saying that full knowledge is compromised. I can see how that would be. On the other hand, if you go back to the Church to receive pastoral care because you want communion, the second you do that, the pastor is going to give you full knowledge, and then you are in mortal sin unless you leave the relationship. I can see someone arguing, "Well, s/he doesn't really have full knowledge if s/he doesn't completely understand what mortal sin means or if s/he doesn't agree that s/he's in mortal sin because she fails to understand why cohabitation even is a sin... etc.", but if you let that kind of argument slide, then we don't know when anyone is in mortal sin, and arguably nobody ever is because really, who genuinely, FULLY understands what they're doing when they commit a sin? The whole thing becomes a big blurry mess.

Full knowledge may come to be present, or be present, but for mortal sin there is another condition required at the same time - and that is full consent:

 

Quote

 

Catholic Catechism #1860 (Vatican Website)

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

 

 

A person may consult a priest and arrive at full knowledge, but in his or her irregular marriage, there may be external pressures in force and the reason the person does not want to abandon the marriage - i.e.(for one only!) the welfare of children of the marriage including their Catholic upbringing.  When I became mentally ill (married in The Church), my once valued presence in the parish was compromised and I was pushed quite obviously to the fringes, even to the outside bringing me more grief at a time when I was grieving anyway. Also, my sons in a Catholic boys' college were given a hard time because of their mother - my son was accused of being on drugs when the fact of the matter was he could not sleep at times at night (tired and sleepy in college) worried about his Mum in a psychiatric hospital.  My son has never forgotten all this and hence remains hostile towards The Church even now, into his fifties - and he had been an altar boy considering the priesthood.  I mention this because it can illustrate how children can be adversely affected in a serious manner by actions that are regarded as "by The Church". 

Later in his thirties with a successful career, he ran into one of his lay teachers in a hotel.  The teacher asked him to admit now he was no longer in college that he had indeed been on drugs in school.  Not so!

Presupposing I had been in a marriage outside The Church and a priest informed me giving full knowledge, I would have been terribly conflicted about leaving the marriage due to potentially adverse affects on my children.

There are many variables potentially present certainly where full consent is absent or mitigated due to many possible reasons indeed.  This is where education, compassion and understanding (pastoral care) on the part of a consulted priest becomes paramount........also from what I have read, Pope Francis advocates also journeying with the person through a very difficult period.  Not a consult, advice given, see you later, and now you're on your own with your soul and salvation, type of situation.

Edited April 9, 2016 by BarbaraTherese