The FSSP published a critique of Amoris Laetitia

[Nihil Obstat]

Translated by The Wanderer:

  Maike Hickson On the official website of the German section of the Fraternity of St. Peter, the head of the German District, Father Bernhard Gerstle has published a polite critique (http://petrusbruderschaft.de/pages/archiv/distriktsoberer/mai-2016—amoris-laetitia.php) of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. In his short 19 May commentary of one page, there are to be found some strong objections against the message of Amoris Laetitia which very well now could, in Gerstle’s eyes, give a doubtful opening toward the already wide-spread practice (praxis) of allowing “remarried” divorcees to receive Holy Communion. In the aftermath of this official statement, the Fraternity also has received permission to print and sell a more detailed critical commentary (http://petrusbruderschaft.de/pages/bakery/stellungnahme-zu-amoris-laetitia-63.php) written by Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana, Kazakhstan. With both of these publications the Fraternity of St. Peter makes it clear that it too has a gravely concerned view of this papal document because it might well endanger, at  least in its effects, the salvation of souls. In the following, I shall present some of Father Gerstle’s own words about Amoris Laetitia. After first benevolently saying that the papal text, “without doubt, contains many beautiful and precious thoughts about human love, marriage and the family,” Gerstle then addresses the grave issue of the “remarried” divorcees and their possible access to the Sacraments.Father Gerstle continues: “The Church has up to now always had a clear attitude [Haltung] in this question [of the “remarried” divorcees], even if there has developed, already for quite a while now, a practice of receiving Holy Communion that is in opposition to the objective norms of the Church.” Thus, says Gerstle, this current discussion is finally about receiving a “retrospective blessing” for a practice of disobedience about something that has heretofore been gravely forbidden by the Church. With regard toAmoris Laetitia, the German priest says: “In Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis now gives permission to the individual priests and pastors to examine each individual case with regard to the possibility of receiving the Sacraments (Penance and Holy Communion).” Thus, Pope Francis does not anymore, “in a general way, exclude those couples who live in an irregular situation (to include cohabiting couples) from the reception of the Sacraments.” Gerstle stresses that Pope Francis does not anymore demand from these couples the binding requirement to live in continence. He adds: “This is indeed a novelty and is thus being celebrated by the representatives of the liberal direction as being revolutionary and as constituting a landmark decision.” However, in Gerstle’s eyes, those who “feel bound to the valid teaching of the Church, and who fear the watering down of the indissolubility of marriage,” see a “justified reason for the great concern that now there will follow a complete breech of the levée.” With this new approach, Gerstle says, “the Church’s teaching – according to which the validity of the Sacrament of Confession is dependent upon a penitent’s true contrition and his firm purpose to avoid the near occasion of sin if possible – would be taken off the hinges.” [emphasis added] This would mean “a serious breech with the elementary principles of the Church’s moral teaching, as it had last been confirmed to be the irreformable teaching of the Church by St. John Paul II himself in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, as well as in his apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio.” Gerstle concludes: “Thus we have a great problem with the pope’s post-synodal text which provokes splits within the Church and which threatens the [visible] unity. The dilemma becomes even more clear – and in a sharp way – when we consider the words of Cardinal Gerhard Müller – the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – who now tries to limit the damage by saying that, if Pope Francis had had the intention to change the teaching of the Church, he would have had to say so in a clearer manner.” This representative of the Fraternity of St. Peter in Germany – where there is situated one of the two seminaries of the Fraternity – also points out that even a weakening of the Church’s discipline with regard to the “remarried” divorcees would also mean that those divorced Catholics who have led their lives according to the Church’s teaching – involving many personal sacrifices, such as abstaining from having a new partner and such as faithfully practicing sexual abstinence – might well now rightly feel betrayed for having loyally lived according to God’s laws. Father Gerstle concludes his comments with these piercing words: “We can only hope and pray that Pope Francis will respond with some subsequent clarifications, given the currently created confusion.” It is to be hoped that more and more informed Catholic voices will fittingly call upon Pope Francis to stop the spreading moral confusion. Such initiatives will thereby give additional signs of a faithful Catholic resistance and courageous witness.

[Peace]

It's kind of amazing how much attention has been given to a footnote, and how little attention has been given to the other 200 pages of the document.

[Maggyie]

44 minutes ago, Peace said:

It's kind of amazing how much attention has been given to a footnote, and how little attention has been given to the other 200 pages of the document.

I dunno, where else does the document break new ground? It kind of just says the nice profound things we already know. 

I often see memes with quotes from it and they say things like "parents are the first teachers of the faith" and "where Gods love is lacking, there will not be harmony." Uh, ok? All true things? But where's the beef? Answer: in the footnote. In fact all the platitudinous verbiage that makes up the rest of the document seems to exist mainly for the sake of being able to add the footnote. 

[Nihil Obstat]

There are some issues besides the infamous footnote, but the footnote seems to cover most of them very succinctly. You can find more comprehensive critiques if you look in the right places.

[Peace]

7 hours ago, Maggyie said:

I dunno, where else does the document break new ground? It kind of just says the nice profound things we already know. 

What is your definition of groundbreaking? I doubt that much of anything that any pope has written within the past 100 years would qualify as "new ground". They all base their teachings on the many other people that have come before them.

I thought that it was a pretty nice summary of what the Church has taught concerning marriage and the role fo the family in general, in a way that hasn't been so comphensively put together in a single document. But maybe it has.

And I thought that the pastoral approach that he generally advocates for in the 8th chapter was not something that I recall having seen before.

It is easy to call something "nice and profound" and something that "everybody knew already" after someone has put forth the effort to actually write it.  I feel the same way about veritatis splendor myself. Why did Pope John Paul II even waste the time writing it when everyone already knew it? So easy.

7 hours ago, Maggyie said:

I often see memes with quotes from it and they say things like "parents are the first teachers of the faith" and "where Gods love is lacking, there will not be harmony." Uh, ok? All true things? But where's the beef? Answer: in the footnote. In fact all the platitudinous verbiage that makes up the rest of the document seems to exist mainly for the sake of being able to add the footnote. 

Yes. That's right. The document is one big conspiracy to provide background for the footnote. I can't argue with that.

[Maggyie]

43 minutes ago, Peace said:

What is your definition of groundbreaking? I doubt that much of anything that any pope has written within the past 100 years would qualify as "new ground". They all base their teachings on the many other people that have come before them.

I thought that it was a pretty nice summary of what the Church has taught concerning marriage and the role fo the family in general, in a way that hasn't been so comphensively put together in a single document. But maybe it has.

And I thought that the pastoral approach that he generally advocates for in the 8th chapter was not something that I recall having seen before.

It is easy to call something "nice and profound" and something that "everybody knew already" after someone has put forth the effort to actually write it.  I feel the same way about veritatis splendor myself. Why did Pope John Paul II even waste the time writing it when everyone already knew it? So easy.

Yes. That's right. The document is one big conspiracy to provide background for the footnote. I can't argue with that.

Well to do Francis justice I hardly think he meant to just regurgitate. He really meant to do something new. However the resistance of some of the bishops made what he wanted impossible. His whole point in writing the encyclical I think was to "make a mess" as he puts it but unfortunately what he desired to do got smushed into a footnote as a result of challenges. 

[Papist]

On 7/13/2016 at 2:28 PM, Peace said:

It's kind of amazing how much attention has been given to a footnote, and how little attention has been given to the other 200 pages of the document.

Are you saying the footnote ought not be challenged or addressed? 

Here is the footnote and the text that reference's the footnote.

Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. 351

351 - In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).

[Papist]

I find it interesting he references his own encyclical.

[Peace]

39 minutes ago, Papist said:

Are you saying the footnote ought not be challenged or addressed?

I think that the entire document should be addressed, but generally speaking I think we should leave decisions and discussions concerning the administration of sacraments up to the leadership of the Church and follow their lead. They have holy orders. They have spent countless hours in seminary and giving pastoral care. I kind of think that here most laity need to step back and let the adults speak. I am not a big fan of criticizing Church authority but I guess I can see how some people see themselves as "defending the true teaching of the Church".

But that isn't to say that there is not a role for lay theologians.

[Papist]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

I think that the entire document should be addressed, but generally speaking I think we should leave decisions and discussions concerning the administration of sacraments up to the leadership of the Church and follow their lead. They have holy orders. They have spent countless hours in seminary and giving pastoral care. I kind of think that here most laity need to step back and let the adults speak. I am not a big fan of criticizing Church authority but I guess I can see how some people see themselves as "defending the true teaching of the Church".

But that isn't to say that there is not a role for lay theologians.

This is not about authority.  If there is something that is or is interpreted as contrary to traditional Church teaching, does everyone need to be silent b/c the speaker is in an authoritative position?   

[Peace]

4 hours ago, Papist said:

This is not about authority.  If there is something that is or is interpreted as contrary to traditional Church teaching, does everyone need to be silent b/c the speaker is in an authoritative position?   

I don't really know the answer to that, to be honest. Generally I think that we are under the authority of our bishops. If the bishop speaks I would generally think it is our time to STFU. If the bishop is wrong the Pope or another bishop will correct him.

Is there really precedent within the Church for laity validly criticizing bishops?  If there is any Church document that suggests that such a thing is OK I am not aware of it. But perhaps I just have not seen it.

If the laity have a right to criticize clergy because, based on their own analysis or opinion, the clergy has acted incorrectly, where exactly do you draw the line?  The laity can just have at the clergy on any point unless there is a dogmatic statement? I don't really see how you avoid the water rushing in once you open the dam.

I would think that if we saw something we thought was wrong, that we would want to report it to our bishop, and then let the bishop take it from there, and leave it at that. Perhaps some theoretical/intellectual discussion of what the Church teaches is OK too. But if we are just going to go around criticizing bishops that we feel are incorrect I really have trouble seeing what the practical distinction between the laity and the clergy is.

But I suppose that I should STFU myself. It is not like anybody forced me to participate in this thread. If other folks want to take on the clergy and I don't think that is cool, I can certainly just be quiet and choose not to participate in the thread. I guess that is what I should have just done here.

[KnightofChrist]

Transcript of life and family leaders’ pleas to the Pope

 

https://youtu.be/zR4xcStBARU

[<3 PopeFrancis]

On 7/12/2016 at 5:11 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

This would mean “a serious breech with the elementary principles of the Church’s moral teaching, as it had last been confirmed to be the irreformable teaching of the Church by St. John Paul II himself in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, as well as in his apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio.”

If this opinion of the author was what God intended for us, will the salvation of many souls be compromised anyway?  This is not rhetorical.

If the Traditionalists are right, then  it is the Church's fault the people have gone astray.  

Perhaps this is the Pope's way of making some kind of General Absolution.  I admire many of the Traditionalists views and lean towards Traditionalism myself, however, in my meek opinion this radicalism is needed in this crisis of the Church and family.  

Nihil Obstat, if the ramifications of renewing vows, finding former spouses who probably have families of their own are great, what to do?  In your opinion?

Thank you.

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

I actually don't think---if you read it from a "hermeneutic of continuity" (as in, reading it while presuming that everything that the Church has said about these issues before still applies now)---that the footnote in question is really problematic. 

For instance:

On 7/15/2016 at 7:00 AM, Papist said:

Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. 351

We've always known that there can be factors that mitigate the sinfulness of a situation. So of course it could be that there are factors which mitigate the sinfulness of an irregular marriage (which is certainly not to say that ALL irregular marriages now automatically have factors that would mitigate the couple's culpability!).

In such a case, the person in an irregular situation wouldn't be guilty of mortal sin, so it would follow that God's grace would be alive in their soul in at least some way.  If a couple in such a situation wanted to grow in grace, then of course the Church should help them do this (as the Church wants to help EVERYONE grow in grace and charity)---but naturally, this would eventually mean duly explaining the objective sinfulness of an irregular marriage and helping them resolve their situation in whatever ways were possible. 

On 7/15/2016 at 7:00 AM, Papist said:

351 - In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).

I honestly took "certain cases" to mean "cases where the couple is living as brother and sister." Again, it's nothing new to propose that an irregularly married couple who making is an effort to be chaste can receive the sacraments in some situations. 

Also, the confessional SHOULD be a positive encounter with God's mercy. I don't think that idea is controversial in any way. 

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

If this opinion of the author was what God intended for us, will the salvation of many souls be compromised anyway?  This is not rhetorical.

If the Traditionalists are right, then  it is the Church's fault the people have gone astray.  

Perhaps this is the Pope's way of making some kind of General Absolution.  I admire many of the Traditionalists views and lean towards Traditionalism myself, however, in my meek opinion this radicalism is needed in this crisis of the Church and family.  

Nihil Obstat, if the ramifications of renewing vows, finding former spouses who probably have families of their own are great, what to do?  In your opinion?

Thank you.

 

I do not understand what you are saying.