Analysis of Amoris Laetitia

[PhuturePriest]

16 hours ago, Ark said:

Sure, but one Pope citing another demonstrated continuity, it also allowed the reader to look into further detail for a topic, but the encyclicals themselves were clear. They elucidated doctrine and ways of life, not obscure them. Amoris is a 300 page document that doesn't shed light on anything. One feels the Pope is itching to go right out and say it's ok for the remarried to receive communion but he can't do it outright so he does it in a round about way, relegating its supposed licitness to a footnote. When have popes produced 300 page documents where the fundamental teaching is in a foot note? It's time to wake up folks, things aren't dandy in the Catholic Church. Minor chastisement is upon us.

l

Such a thing has not happened before, and it still has not happened. The fundamental teaching of Amoris Laetitia is not communion for public adulterers. If it were, it would not be in a footnote. I agree the wording is problematic and it can be interpreted to allow people to do what they will, and personally I would either revise it or scrap the footnote completely. But you can hardly say one footnote out of a 240 page Exhortation is the fundamental teaching. The Exhortation is largely about the beauty of marriage, the beauty of children, a very firm rejection of abortion, homosexual unions and transgenderism, and a smashing reaffirmation of Humane Vitae.

This is a large Exhortation, and we can't afford miss the forest for the trees. At a time where people are calling for the Church to draw firm lines of rejection of secularism's attacks on marriage and the dignity of the human person, Pope Francis answered that call very admirably. I don't like every detail and I think some things are too vague, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is moot or that it can all be defined by a footnote. Sometimes we have to be grateful when the Holy Father does what we ask, even if he doesn't do it in the exact way we want. No one in the media can sincerely go on insisting he supports secularist heresies like support for LGBTQ issues, contraception, transgenderism, etc. The Exhortation has clarified his past remarks that led some to question his viewpoint on Church doctrine ("Who am I to judge?"). I think we should be happy about that, even if certain things are ambiguous.

Edited April 18, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[Nihil Obstat]

It should not matter whether or not it is a "fundamental teaching" of the document. For it to be there at all is a serious issue, and the fact is that now, footnote or not, faithful pastors and bishops the world over have to deal with the fallout.

[Nihil Obstat]

http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111900_tametsi-futura-prospicientibus.html

Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, Pope Leo XIII, 1900

 

6. It is surely unnecessary to prove, what experience constantly shows and what each individual feels in himself, even in the very midst of all temporal prosperity - that in God alone can the human will find absolute and perfect peace. God is the only end of man. All our life on earth is the truthful and exact image of a pilgrimage. Now Christ is the "Way," for we can never reach God, the supreme and ultimate good, by this toilsome and doubtful road of mortal life, except with Christ as our leader and guide. How so? Firstly and chiefly by His grace; but this would remain "void" in man if the precepts of His law were neglected. For, as was necessarily the case after Jesus Christ had won our salvation, He left behind Him His Law for the protection and welfare of the human race, under the guidance of which men, converted from evil life, might safely tend towards God. "Going, teach ye all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew XXVIII., 19-20). "Keep my commandments" (John XIV., 15). Hence it will be understood that in the Christian religion the first and most necessary condition is docility to the precepts of Jesus Christ, absolute loyalty of will towards Him as Lord and King. A serious duty, and one which oftentimes calls for strenuous labour, earnest endeavour, and perseverance! For although by Our Redeemer's grace human nature hath been regenerated, still there remains in each individual a certain debility and tendency to evil. Various natural appetites attract man on one side and the other; the allurements of the material world impel his soul to follow after what is pleasant rather than the law of Christ. Still we must strive our best and resist our natural inclinations with all our strength "unto the obedience of Christ." For unless they obey reason they become our masters, and carrying the whole man away from Christ, make him their slave. "Men of corrupt mind, who have made shipwreck of the faith, cannot help being slaves. . . They are slaves to a threefold concupiscence: of will, of pride, or of outward show" (St. Augustine, De Vera Religione, 37). In this contest every man must be prepared to undergo hardships and troubles for Christ's sake. It is difficult to reject what so powerfully entices and delights. It is hard and painful to despise the supposed goods of the senses and of fortune for the will and precepts of Christ our Lord. But the Christian is absolutely obliged to be firm, and patient in suffering, if he wish to lead a Christian life. Have we forgotten of what Body and of what Head we are the members? "Having joy set before Him, He endured the Cross," and He bade us deny ourselves. The very dignity of human nature depends upon this disposition of mind. For, as even the ancient Pagan philosophy perceived, to be master of oneself and to make the lower part of the soul, obey the superior part, is so far from being a weakness of will that it is really a noble power, in consonance with right reason and most worthy of a man. Moreover, to bear and to suffer is the ordinary condition of man. Man can no more create for himself a life free from suffering and filled with all happiness that he can abrogate the decrees of his Divine Maker, who has willed that the consequences of original sin should be perpetual. It is reasonable, therefore, not to expect an end to troubles in this world, but rather to steel one's soul to bear troubles, by which we are taught to look forward with certainty to supreme happiness. Christ has not promised eternal bliss in heaven to riches, nor to a life of ease, to honours or to power, but to long-suffering and to tears, to the love of justice and to cleanness of heart.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Nihil Obstat

[little2add]

 

This document is not really about LGBTQ or divorce issues, it's focus is how to love your spouse and children and the practice of true forgiveness 

iE:  under chapter 4

113.  Married couples joined by love speak well of each other; they try to show their spouse’s good side, not their weakness and faults. In any event, they keep silent rather than speak ill of them. This is not merely a way of acting in front of others; it springs from an interior attitude. Far from ingenuously claiming not to see the problems and weaknesses of others, it sees those weaknesses and faults in a wider context. It recognizes that these failings are a part of a bigger picture. We have to realize that all of us are a complex mixture of light and shadows. The other person is much more than the sum of the little things that annoy me. Love does not have to be perfect for us to value it. The other person loves me as best they can, with all their limits, but the fact that love is imperfect does not mean that it is untrue or unreal. It is real, albeit limited and earthly. If I expect too much, the other person will let me know, for he or she can neither play God nor serve all my needs. Love coexists with imperfection. It “bears all things” and can hold its peace before the limitations of the loved one.

[Nihil Obstat]

Casti Connubi:

No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted.

[BarbTherese]

20 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Casti Connubi:

No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted.

Scuse me butting in ..............Absolutely and spot on!  But then how far do I, how far do you and all of us, fall short of some ideal or ideals?  I know for sure that I very often (and daily) fall far short of ideals.  Therefore, who am I to throw stones, to sit in judgement on others for "I too am a sinner".   And as St Paul has told us (see below) and paraphrased - all The Law does for us is tell us that we are indeed sinners, convicted by The Law and therefore under God's Judgement from which none can escape under The Law.  We are never justified by The Law - impossible !  Justification is God's Gracious and Undeserved Gift won for us by The Life and Death of Jesus for all who would have Faith in and follow Him.  We cannot have Faith in Jesus and then refuse to follow Him.

You might have some notion, Nihil, of what Pope Francis is "itching to say"(some sort of secret informed knowledge of the thoughts of Pope Francis) ........... but are you sure it is not your own bias on which that notion is founded/drawn?  I certainly have no such notion, such as I am.  I certainly do grasp, I think and hope, what Pope Francis is conveying and nothing of it changes The Gospel, Church Teaching nor Scripture - rather quite absolutely to the contrary.  A footnote something might be, but it remains a part of the Document and a quite valid part.  I would have oodles of footnotes in my story that pointed out some aspect of Law and Obligations on which I have failed.  Footnotes they might be, but failure in Law and Obligations nonetheless and yet quite valid to my story and intrinsic to it, my story at fault without the footnotes.

Somewhere in some post I read "adulterous marriages" or the like.  Here is what Pope Francis has to say:

# 301"For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain "irregular" situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. 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." 

If I judge a marriage adulterous, then I have sat in judgement on that marriage contrary to what Jesus has told us and that is not to judge.  We are in absolutely no position to judge and sit in judgement on others and their eternal; salvation or lack of it - as we do not (for one) have access in full to their own story, pressures and problems, psychological processes etc.  God does.

Paragraph 49 of Amoris Laetitia:

the Church must be particularly concerned to offer understanding, comfort and acceptance, rather than imposing straightaway a set of rules that only lead people to feel judged and abandoned by the very Mother called to show them God’s mercy. Rather than offering the healing power of grace and the light of the Gospel message, some would "indoctrinate" that message, turning it into "dead stones to be hurled at others"

Paul to Romans Chapter 3:

      [19] Now we know, that what things soever the law speaketh, it speaketh to them that are in the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be made subject to God. [20] Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin.

[Nihil Obstat]

15 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Scuse me butting in ..............Absolutely and spot on!  But then how far do I, how far do you and all of us, fall short of some ideal or ideals?

Frequently, of course. Few of us cooperate well with the grace offered us by God. But offered it is. So Pius shows us. But as the Church has always taught, we are to expect suffering and hardship as we follow Christ and take up our crosses. 

  I know for sure that I very often (and daily) fall far short of ideals.  Therefore, who am I to throw stones, to sit in judgement on others for "I too am a sinner".   And as St Paul has told us (see below) and paraphrased - all The Law does for us is tell us that we are indeed sinners, convicted by The Law and therefore under God's Judgement from which none can escape under The Law.  We are never justified by The Law - impossible !  Justification is God's Gracious and Undeserved Gift won for us by The Life and Death of Jesus for all who would have Faith in and follow Him.  We cannot have Faith in Jesus and then refuse to follow Him.

You might have some notion, Nihil, of what Pope Francis is "itching to say"(some sort of secret informed knowledge of the thoughts of Pope Francis) ...........

I cannot imagine why you think so. Like you, I only read what Francis has written, as well as what those before him have written. When it is in agreement, then well and good. When we see tension, we study.

Perhaps you have some notion of what I am "itching to say"! Please tell me if you do.

but are you sure it is not your own bias on which that notion is founded/drawn?  I certainly have no such notion, such as I am.

Of course, just like you, I have no such notion. I have only what we have been given.

  I certainly do grasp, I think and hope, what Pope Francis is conveying and nothing of it changes The Gospel, Church Teaching nor Scripture - rather quite absolutely to the contrary.

I do not see how such a change in a true sense would be possible, without falling from the chair of Peter and from membership in the Church of Christ.

  A footnote something might be, but it remains a part of the Document and a quite valid part.  I would have oodles of footnotes in my story that pointed out some aspect of Law and Obligations on which I have failed.  Footnotes they might be, but failure in Law and Obligations nonetheless and yet quite valid to my story and intrinsic to it, my story at fault without the footnotes.

Indeed. A.L. cannot be read without its footnotes. They are not unimportant.

Somewhere in some post I read "adulterous marriages" or the like.  Here is what Pope Francis has to say:

 

If I judge a marriage adulterous, then I have sat in judgement on that marriage contrary to what Jesus has told us and that is not to judge.  We are in absolutely no position to judge and sit in judgement on others and their eternal; salvation or lack of it - as we do not (for one) have access in full to their own story, pressures and problems, psychological processes etc.  God does.

All I have is what has already been given to us. Like, for instance, Casti Connubii and the Council of Trent, which speak of adulterous unions. Perhaps you were not thinking about those times. 

(88. Let that solemn pronouncement of the Council of Trent be recalled to mind in which, under the stigma of anathema, it condemned these errors: "If anyone should say that on account of heresy or the hardships of cohabitation or a deliberate abuse of one party by the other the marriage tie may be loosened, let him be anathema;"[66] and again: "If anyone should say that the Church errs in having taught or in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of marriage cannot be loosed because of the sin of adultery of either party; or that neither party, even though he be innocent, having given no cause for the sin of adultery, can contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other; and that he commits adultery who marries another after putting away his adulterous wife, and likewise that she commits adultery who puts away her husband and marries another: let him be anathemae."[67])

 

I have responded in green text.

[BarbTherese]

Thank you for the response, Nihil, which I do appreciate   I will reply asap - occupation just now calls me elsewhere..........as you can see from the latter emoticon, duty calls, and my response is far from the ideal - very far.

 the emoticon illustrates my pride and lack of grasping my own reality and illustrates a lack of humility in my above response - for I like to think I can do better than in reality I am able. 

[BarbTherese]

3 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

  3 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Scuse me butting in ..............Absolutely and spot on!  But then how far do I, how far do you and all of us, fall short of some ideal or ideals?

Frequently, of course. Few of us cooperate well with the grace offered us by God. But offered it is. So Pius shows us. But as the Church has always taught, we are to expect suffering and hardship as we follow Christ and take up our crosses. 

Hi again Nihil,

What you have to say above is, of course, spot on absolutely.  We do have to take up our cross and follow Jesus assured that God and His Grace is with us all the way.  I guess I have understood that most all my adult life anyway - but actually living it out in the day by day when the cross is indeed exceptionally heavy as many do know it (and I certainly did in the past), is not so easy to do as to write.  To carry those heavy crosses can demand of every fibre of one's weak and broken being.  The Church also teaches and can quote the CCC if necessary that exceptionally heavy crosses way well not provide one of the factors necessary (there are three factors of course and at the same time) for grave matter to become mortal sin.  Rather than shoving The Law down a person's throat leaving them to flounder on their own, we need to have that Merciful Compassionate Understanding of Jesus and help them to carry that cross rather than lay more weight upon it.  This is what I think that Pope Francis is on about in parts of A.L. (Amoris Laetitia).  I think when Jesus told us that God lets His sun and rain fall on both good and bad both without exception, that is what He is communicating to us..........that as God extends and offers abundantly His Love, Mercy, Understanding and Compassion to all without exemption, we too must do likewise.

  I know for sure that I very often (and daily) fall far short of ideals.  Therefore, who am I to throw stones, to sit in judgement on others for "I too am a sinner".   And as St Paul has told us (see below) and paraphrased - all The Law does for us is tell us that we are indeed sinners, convicted by The Law and therefore under God's Judgement from which none can escape under The Law.  We are never justified by The Law - impossible !  Justification is God's Gracious and Undeserved Gift won for us by The Life and Death of Jesus for all who would have Faith in and follow Him.  We cannot have Faith in Jesus and then refuse to follow Him.

You might have some notion, Nihil, of what Pope Francis is "itching to say"(some sort of secret informed knowledge of the thoughts of Pope Francis) ...........

I cannot imagine why you think so. Like you, I only read what Francis has written, as well as what those before him have written. When it is in agreement, then well and good. When we see tension, we study.  I have no doubts at all that you can identify tensions and so you study.  Not my cuppa tea nor my call and vocation - not that skilled nor educated I am afraid.  But if what The Church has to teach can only be grasped by the skilled and educated - this a massive problem in The Church for sure.

Perhaps you have some notion of what I am "itching to say"! Please tell me if you do.To quote your words and not what you are itching to state but what you feel Pope Francis is in your Post HERE and to quote that Post:  "One feels the Pope is itching to go right out and say it's ok for the remarried to receive communion but he can't do it outright so he does it in a round about way, relegating its supposed licitness to a footnote."

I certainly do not have any access to Pope Francis's thoughts especially if those thoughts are to contradict The Law and such a notion I would unhesitatingly state is absolutely false and mischief making.

A.L. is not so much a Document to underscore The Law according to The Gospel, The Church and Scripture, although it never contradicts any of these.............it is all about Love in The Family (AL) in a more pastoral context.  And The Church, at least ideally in one aspect, is One Big United Loving and Merciful, Forgiving, Family.

but are you sure it is not your own bias on which that notion is founded/drawn?  I certainly have no such notion, such as I am.

Of course, just like you, I have no such notion. I have only what we have been given. We all come from our own bias unless we identify them and attempt correction.  My bias is that I think Pope Francis is the best, A1+ - and just what we, The Church, needed.  All Glory and thanksgiving to God abundantly.  That is my bias and no reason whatsoever to me to attempt to correct it.

  I certainly do grasp, I think and hope, what Pope Francis is conveying and nothing of it changes The Gospel, Church Teaching nor Scripture - rather quite absolutely to the contrary.

I do not see how such a change in a true sense would be possible, without falling from the chair of Peter and from membership in the Church of Christ. I agree and so A.L. has not in any way changed The Gospel, Church Teaching nor Scripture, rather has Pope Francis underscored them putting them into the overall context of them all - and one has not to go far into any of them to hear words of Love, Mercy, Understanding, Compassion and Forgiveness.

  A footnote something might be, but it remains a part of the Document and a quite valid part.  I would have oodles of footnotes in my story that pointed out some aspect of Law and Obligations on which I have failed.  Footnotes they might be, but failure in Law and Obligations nonetheless and yet quite valid to my story and intrinsic to it, my story at fault without the footnotes.

Indeed. A.L. cannot be read without its footnotes. They are not unimportant. And so we agree.  Nothing wrong with a footnote to me - to me it says that in the context of all that is stated, The Law is still absolutely valid.

Somewhere in some post I read "adulterous marriages" or the like.  Here is what Pope Francis has to say:

 

If I judge a marriage adulterous, then I have sat in judgement on that marriage contrary to what Jesus has told us and that is not to judge.  We are in absolutely no position to judge and sit in judgement on others and their eternal; salvation or lack of it - as we do not (for one) have access in full to their own story, pressures and problems, psychological processes etc.  God does.

All I have is what has already been given to us. Like, for instance, Casti Connubii and the Council of Trent, which speak of adulterous unions. Perhaps you were not thinking about those times. 

(88. Let that solemn pronouncement of the Council of Trent be recalled to mind in which, under the stigma of anathema, it condemned these errors: "If anyone should say that on account of heresy or the hardships of cohabitation or a deliberate abuse of one party by the other the marriage tie may be loosened, let him be anathema;"[66] and again: "If anyone should say that the Church errs in having taught or in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of marriage cannot be loosed because of the sin of adultery of either party; or that neither party, even though he be innocent, having given no cause for the sin of adultery, can contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other; and that he commits adultery who marries another after putting away his adulterous wife, and likewise that she commits adultery who puts away her husband and marries another: let him be anathemae."[67])

Nothing Pope Francis had to say contradicted the above in my book. What the above is in fact stating is that we cannot contradict The Law of God and His Church because if we do "let him be anathemae".  Pope Francis is not and did not contradictThe Law - rather he is putting things into a pastoral context in line with The Gospel ie are called not to judge (putting The Law into the full context of what Jesus said to us about judging); therefore, tossing around derogatory terms like "adultery, adulterous etc. willy nilly as it were " is judging and not paying attention I think to what the CCC has to state about the three conditions necessary for mortal sin i.e. a context.  Adultery, adulterous etc. are certainly sinful and constitute grave matter.  As I said in my post quoting Pope Francis in A.L. "The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. 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." 

My responses are in red such as they are.  Thank you, Nihil, for taking the time to respond to my post.  It is appreciated

This softwear causes me more problems than I care to have.  But not the softwear problem, rather operator problem.

3 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I owe you an apology, Nihil.  You did not mention "itching" in relation to Pope Francis and his thoughts.  It was Ark.

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

My apologies again, Nihil.  Just to underscore.  It was not your Post mentioning what Pope Francis was "itching" to state, it was a post by Ark.

This softwear gives me headaches for sure - operator problem.

[BarbTherese]

All The Law ever does for me, day in day out, is tell me that I am a sinner and sinful, if not here, then over there.  If not to this degree, then to that degree.  And I cannot escape The Law which is continually accusing me.  I cannot accuse others even if I do not commit the sin that they do, for I commit the sin quite possibly that they do not do. 

What I can do for others in relation to The Law is point out The Law and my problem with it and He who has rescued me from The Law and its condemnation of me.  For me, I am deemed by The Law as sinner and sinful, but I have been RE-deemed as no longer under the Judgement of The Law by Jesus and His Life and Death and so to Him I cling in Hope.  I have my Faith in Him and so I try to follow Him, confident that whenever I fail, no matter the degree of my sin or sins that I have full pardon in The Sacrament of Confession, and I am freed from my sin and its consequences to begin all over again as if I had never sinned in the first place.  And Jesus, who has forgiven me in Confession providing I am sincere and resolve to do all I can to not sin again, forgets my sin or sins completely.  God's Forgiveness is not like human forgiveness - God not only totally forgives but He also totally forgets in the forgiving and not once, but every single time ad infinitum.

For Jesus has not left us but remains totally and fully with us in a totally different way to His human self (to human senses) while He was on earth.  In The Catholic Church, He remains with us in our seven sacraments in a very special way and just as fully present as He was while on earth.

I can tell others that re The Law for one.

All formatting in the below is mine.

Romans Chapter 7 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PYV.HTM

For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it put me to death.So then the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

 Did the good, then, become death for me? Of course not! Sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin, worked death in me through the good, so that sin might become sinful beyond measure through the commandment.

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold into slavery to sin. What I do, I do not understand.

For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I concur that the law is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not.

For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want.

Now if (I) do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand. For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self, but I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

⁵Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body?Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with my mind, serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin.

 

[Ark]

On April 18, 2016 at 3:45:23 PM, PhuturePriest said:

Such a thing has not happened before, and it still has not happened. The fundamental teaching of Amoris Laetitia is not communion for public adulterers. If it were, it would not be in a footnote. I agree the wording is problematic and it can be interpreted to allow people to do what they will, and personally I would either revise it or scrap the footnote completely. But you can hardly say one footnote out of a 240 page Exhortation is the fundamental teaching. The Exhortation is largely about the beauty of marriage, the beauty of children, a very firm rejection of abortion, homosexual unions and transgenderism, and a smashing reaffirmation of Humane Vitae.

This is a large Exhortation, and we can't afford miss the forest for the trees. At a time where people are calling for the Church to draw firm lines of rejection of secularism's attacks on marriage and the dignity of the human person, Pope Francis answered that call very admirably. I don't like every detail and I think some things are too vague, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is moot or that it can all be defined by a footnote. Sometimes we have to be grateful when the Holy Father does what we ask, even if he doesn't do it in the exact way we want. No one in the media can sincerely go on insisting he supports secularist heresies like support for LGBTQ issues, contraception, transgenderism, etc. The Exhortation has clarified his past remarks that led some to question his viewpoint on Church doctrine ("Who am I to judge?"). I think we should be happy about that, even if certain things are ambiguous.

Of course the fundamental teaching is not about communion for adulterers, that would cause too much scandal. Instead, you have a bomb embedded in a 300 page document, in a foot note no less, but it's there. Small enough to be overlooked by good Catholics who can praise for what is good in the document, but deadly enough to stir revolution by those who know how to use it. The bomb was in the suitcase with all the clothes and memorabilia, and unfortunately it's passed the security and is now on the plane. Will you calm me down by telling me at least most of the stuff in the suitcase is clothes?

[little2add]

 

[Peace]

I think it is good to read this one in conjunction with veritatis splendor. Pope Francis seems to try to tackle the practical problem of how to get all of us in line with the absolute moral norms while we are so far from them.