FILIAL CORRECTION of Pope Francis

[havok579257]

as it pertains to the letter, i don't understand where the pope has said "In particular, the pope has directly or indirectly countenanced the beliefs that obedience to God’s Law can be impossible or undesirable, and that the Church should sometimes accept adultery as compatible with being a practising Catholic" in the article.  Maybe I am missing something but I am not seeing it.

 

also are they trying to say Pope Francis is a supporter of Martin Luther's ideas and follows his views?  I'm confused.

 

also who are these priests, bishops and/or cardinals who have rebuked marital law and natural law and been favored by Francis as the letter states?

[McM RSCJ]

To Truthfinder:

Thank you. 

Actually I see the significance between receiving a list signatories versus a list of authors differently than you do. While you are correct that we don't receive a published list of those Staffers who worked with Pope Francis on the text of Amoris Laetitia, or Laudato Si, or Evangelii Gaudium, we don't need such a list because Pope Francis publicly proclaims himself the author.  (It is also easily possible to get a list of the Staffers who work on a particular document.)  

This text of "Filial Correction" does not proclaim any author (that I can see).  You might be correct that the Signatories are themselves the authors but:  1) It is really hard to write a group text; 2) If the Signatories are intending to claim authorship, then it does not make sense they are now asking others to sign on, after the authoring is complete.

So, for me, the text reads as anonymous.  And I never think I am obligated to read--never mind take seriously-- the words of a person or group of persons who won't stand up and take credit for his/her/their text. 

 

To Knight of Christ:

I did read the text however.  And, naturally, like any reader with an active intellect, I take in what I read while engaging what I read.  So--perhaps in error--I conclude this author, or these authors, is/are unduly invested in counteracting "modernism" and any appreciation whatsoever for Martin Luther (in this 500th year anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.  I have no idea why he/she/they decided this "Elucidation" belongs in a criticism of Amoris Laetitia.  I know you want "discussion" of the text, but since I am not able to follow the logic of including this elucidation, my "discussion" is limited to acknowledging that.  Perhaps the unknown author(s) think they made the links clear in the text.  

As for the claims made in the text before the "Elucidation," I already said I find the passages quoted from Amoris Laetitia sing out the Gospel.  The passages the author(s) want me to find so troubling actually lift up my heart.

I believe Jesus, in the Gospel, sets before us the ideal of faithful and indissoluble marriage.  I also believe God is Love and Mercy, while all of us are sinners.  So I do not believe that God excludes from Mercy and Communion those who falter in the ideal.  When Jesus in the Gospel proclaims that what God has joined together no human being should put asunder (Matt 19:6), he is "protecting" a couple from those who would interfere, including parents, or religion teachers, or those with class or property or race or national interests at heart or one spouse who bewails infertility. . . etc.  And that's critically important.  But I do not think it follows that those who enter into a marriage and then fail at it are thereby "unforgivable" and excluded from the Sacraments.   Nor do I think that one when spouse abandons the other, the abandoned one must live in solitary misery in order to remain a full communicant in the Church.  

Think of all the priests who were ordained "forever" in the Order of Melchisidek who left their priesthood.  They are not excluded from the Eucharist or the Church.  Think of all the women and men Religious who leave after Perpetual Profession.  They are not excluded from Eucharist or the Church.  Why is it that celibate Priests lay this heavy burden on young marrieds who often do not know what they are getting into.  Why not, as Pope Francis, says in AL, accompany those young persons as they make sense of what happened in their lives and how they are to move forward in life and in love and in commitment. Why would "pastors" be all too willing to lay on them the cross of living without family?  And when a new love and new life comes into the wounded sinner's story, why not begin by assuming God has been at work in this blessing?  

And finally I believe that the Spirit of God acts in all times and all places.  "Lo, I am doing something new?  Can you not perceive it?"  Isaiah 43.   So I, at least, perceive the Spirit acting in the Synod and in Amoris Laetitia.   You don't?  

The anonymous author or authors of this text disagree with me.  I do not accept, however, that I am thereby a "heretic," because I do not accept their dictat of what a Catholic trying to follow Jesus Christ must believe about revelation being closed and complete in the way they think that must be understood.  

Fyi, I am not anonymous on this website.  Those are my initials and my Religious Order.  

[havok579257]

47 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

To Truthfinder:

Thank you. 

Actually I see the significance between receiving a list signatories versus a list of authors differently than you do. While you are correct that we don't receive a published list of those Staffers who worked with Pope Francis on the text of Amoris Laetitia, or Laudato Si, or Evangelii Gaudium, we don't need such a list because Pope Francis publicly proclaims himself the author.  (It is also easily possible to get a list of the Staffers who work on a particular document.)  

This text of "Filial Correction" does not proclaim any author (that I can see).  You might be correct that the Signatories are themselves the authors but:  1) It is really hard to write a group text; 2) If the Signatories are intending to claim authorship, then it does not make sense they are now asking others to sign on, after the authoring is complete.

So, for me, the text reads as anonymous.  And I never think I am obligated to read--never mind take seriously-- the words of a person or group of persons who won't stand up and take credit for his/her/their text. 

 

To Knight of Christ:

I did read the text however.  And, naturally, like any reader with an active intellect, I take in what I read while engaging what I read.  So--perhaps in error--I conclude this author, or these authors, is/are unduly invested in counteracting "modernism" and any appreciation whatsoever for Martin Luther (in this 500th year anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.  I have no idea why he/she/they decided this "Elucidation" belongs in a criticism of Amoris Laetitia.  I know you want "discussion" of the text, but since I am not able to follow the logic of including this elucidation, my "discussion" is limited to acknowledging that.  Perhaps the unknown author(s) think they made the links clear in the text.  

As for the claims made in the text before the "Elucidation," I already said I find the passages quoted from Amoris Laetitia sing out the Gospel.  The passages the author(s) want me to find so troubling actually lift up my heart.

I believe Jesus, in the Gospel, sets before us the ideal of faithful and indissoluble marriage.  I also believe God is Love and Mercy, while all of us are sinners.  So I do not believe that God excludes from Mercy and Communion those who falter in the ideal.  When Jesus in the Gospel proclaims that what God has joined together no human being should put asunder (Matt 19:6), he is "protecting" a couple from those who would interfere, including parents, or religion teachers, or those with class or property or race or national interests at heart or one spouse who bewails infertility. . . etc.  And that's critically important.  But I do not think it follows that those who enter into a marriage and then fail at it are thereby "unforgivable" and excluded from the Sacraments.   Nor do I think that one when spouse abandons the other, the abandoned one must live in solitary misery in order to remain a full communicant in the Church.  

Think of all the priests who were ordained "forever" in the Order of Melchisidek who left their priesthood.  They are not excluded from the Eucharist or the Church.  Think of all the women and men Religious who leave after Perpetual Profession.  They are not excluded from Eucharist or the Church.  Why is it that celibate Priests lay this heavy burden on young marrieds who often do not know what they are getting into.  Why not, as Pope Francis, says in AL, accompany those young persons as they make sense of what happened in their lives and how they are to move forward in life and in love and in commitment. Why would "pastors" be all too willing to lay on them the cross of living without family?  And when a new love and new life comes into the wounded sinner's story, why not begin by assuming God has been at work in this blessing?  

And finally I believe that the Spirit of God acts in all times and all places.  "Lo, I am doing something new?  Can you not perceive it?"  Isaiah 43.   So I, at least, perceive the Spirit acting in the Synod and in Amoris Laetitia.   You don't?  

The anonymous author or authors of this text disagree with me.  I do not accept, however, that I am thereby a "heretic," because I do not accept their dictat of what a Catholic trying to follow Jesus Christ must believe about revelation being closed and complete in the way they think that must be understood.  

Fyi, I am not anonymous on this website.  Those are my initials and my Religious Order.  

are you saying you believe against the church doctrine that its mortally sinful to divorce and remarry someone?  maybe i misinterpreted what you wrote above but that is how i am reading it.  i am confused by what your saying.

[McM RSCJ]

I am speaking about Christ's desire and the Church's power to forgive grievous sin.

[Seven77]

6 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

I am speaking about Christ's desire and the Church's power to forgive grievous sin.

But forgiveness is not the same as making something unlawful lawful. Correct? 

[havok579257]

10 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

I am speaking about Christ's desire and the Church's power to forgive grievous sin.

i understand that, but i was under the impression the issue with AL was with it being misunderstood by some that the Pope was saying divorced and remarried catholic's can receive communion. are you in agreement that if the Pope had said this he would be in error?  obviously the issue seems to be someone people think the Pope was insinuating this and others don't think the Pope was insinuating this.  cause i am confused about the point your trying to make beside the author point you made which I understand that point. 

[Laurie]

20 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

SUMMARY OF THE “FILIAL CORRECTION”

A 25-page letter signed by 40 Catholic clergy and lay scholars was delivered to Pope Francis on August 11th. Since no answer was received from the Holy Father, it is being made public today, 24th September, Feast of Our Lady of Ransom and of Our Lady of Walsingham.

One thing that jumped out to me is that, in Vatican/Italian time, the space between August 11 through September 24 is minuscule.

The Vatican shuts down, as does most of Italy, for the entire month of August. Once things creak back into gear in September there is QUITE a backlog.

Add to that, the Vatican and Italy are not Type A cultures. If the item was sent in August, a month in which absolutely everyone is out of the office & on vacation, the timeline can't be counted as 6 weeks . It's really been only 3 weeks, and a 3 weeks in which they are dealing with all the stuff that stacked up during the previous 4 weeks. For what that's worth.

And to expect the Vatican to have responded to anything in 3 normal weeks, let alone 3 massively backlogged weeks, is unrealistic. I wouldn't expect a response from the Vatican in 3 normal months. 6 months, maybe. 3, never. It's just not how they operate.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Laurie

[dominicansoul]

The Church already forgives grievous sin.  But the sinners need to learn to "go and sin NO MORE."  

[McM RSCJ]

 

are you saying you believe against the church doctrine that its mortally sinful to divorce and remarry someone? 

To Havoc:

First, no, I agree with the Church that action to destroy a marriage is grievously sinful--but I don't think that is the point at stake.  The question is whether those who have been divorced and remarried can find a path to full communion in the Church.  

To prepare for responding to that  question, I took some time to read prayerfully through some sections of Amoris Laetitia.   Once again, I found myself moved by a rich resource--profound and nuanced.  I wish I could take more time for work to keep rereading. 

Amoris Laetitia upholds and expounds the ideal, dignity, and essential contribution of faithful marriage.  Amoris Laetitia also upholds and expounds the pastoral importance of accompanying "discerning" persons and couples that find themselves in "irregular situations."  And Amoris Laetitia outlines a pastoral path--guided by love, mercy, and inclusion-- toward their full integration into Church life including Eucharist.   

Do I believe this teaching of the Church?  I do.  And I rejoice in it.  I also know this pastoral path to full inclusion has been open to many couples in many dioceses--and I think they are fortunate not to have encountered roadblocks from priests or other Church officials who adopt what Pope Francis calls the "casting off" approach:

There are two ways of thinking which recur throughout the Church’s history: casting off and reinstating. The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of Jerusalem, has always always been the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement… The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever; it is to pour out the balm of God’s mercy on all those who ask for it with a sincere heart… For true charity is always unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous”.   Consequently, there is a need “to avoid judgements which do not take into account the complexity of various situations” and “to be attentive, by necessity, to how people experience distress because of their condition"[AL: 296].

I would encourage you, Havoc, to take the time to read and pray over Amoris Laetitia.  I think you may find it deeply moving and instructive.  

Edited September 25, 2017 by McM RSCJ

[havok579257]

40 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

 

are you saying you believe against the church doctrine that its mortally sinful to divorce and remarry someone? 

To Havoc:

First, no, I agree with the Church that action to destroy a marriage is grievously sinful--but I don't think that is the point at stake.  The question is whether those who have been divorced and remarried can find a path to full communion in the Church.  

To prepare for responding to that  question, I took some time to read prayerfully through some sections of Amoris Laetitia.   Once again, I found myself moved by a rich resource--profound and nuanced.  I wish I could take more time for work to keep rereading. 

Amoris Laetitia upholds and expounds the ideal, dignity, and essential contribution of faithful marriage.  Amoris Laetitia also upholds and expounds the pastoral importance of accompanying "discerning" persons and couples that find themselves in "irregular situations."  And Amoris Laetitia outlines a pastoral path--guided by love, mercy, and inclusion-- toward their full integration into Church life including Eucharist.   

Do I believe this teaching of the Church?  I do.  And I rejoice in it.  I also know this pastoral path to full inclusion has been open to many couples in many dioceses--and I think they are fortunate not to have encountered roadblocks from priests or other Church officials who adopt what Pope Francis calls the "casting off" approach:

There are two ways of thinking which recur throughout the Church’s history: casting off and reinstating. The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of Jerusalem, has always always been the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement… The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever; it is to pour out the balm of God’s mercy on all those who ask for it with a sincere heart… For true charity is always unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous”.   Consequently, there is a need “to avoid judgements which do not take into account the complexity of various situations” and “to be attentive, by necessity, to how people experience distress because of their condition"[AL: 296].

I would encourage you, Havoc, to take the time to read and pray over Amoris Laetitia.  I think you may find it deeply moving and instructive.  

 

 

Ok, I am confused. The church teaches that a divorced and civilly remarried catholic can be in full communion with the church if they choose to live as brother and sister and have repentance for their sin.  Maybe I am misunderstanding you or the AL document here, but are you saying that its ok for a divorced and remarried catholic to receive communion without living as brother and sister.  I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I am just confused.

[McM RSCJ]

Havoc, please take some time and ponder Chapter 8 in Amoris Laetitia.  (Actually, to do the Church teaching in this text justice, one needs to ponder the entire text, I think.)

Your response refers to what "the Church teaches."  This text is part and parcel of what the Church teaches about marriage in 2017.  As I mentioned before, the text is complex and nuanced.  It does not include an abstract list of do's and don'ts. 

 

If we consider the immense variety of concrete situations such as those I have mentioned, it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to providea new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernmentof particular cases, one which would recognize that, since “the degree of responsibility is notequal in all cases”, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same. [AL #300]

[Seven77]

 

13 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

Havoc, please take some time and ponder Chapter 8 in Amoris Laetitia.  (Actually, to do the Church teaching in this text justice, one needs to ponder the entire text, I think.)

Your response refers to what "the Church teaches."  This text is part and parcel of what the Church teaches about marriage in 2017.  As I mentioned before, the text is complex and nuanced.  It does not include an abstract list of do's and don'ts. 

 

If we consider the immense variety of concrete situations such as those I have mentioned, it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to providea new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernmentof particular cases, one which would recognize that, since “the degree of responsibility is notequal in all cases”, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same. [AL #300]

I'm also bit confused. What the Church teaches about marriage in 2017?  The Church can't teach something different in 2017 than in 1017.  Maybe "how" but not "what,"  unless you're talking about a further development of the "what." 

What's abstract to me is that paragraph, not that I've even read the Exhortation. 

[Luigi]

In the pioneer period of North American history, there was a severe shortage of priests. Catholics in areas like Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky often married without benefit of the sacrament of marriage, because no priest was available. When a priest did become available, he would "regularize" those marriages. I don't personally know what all that entailed - confession? then the sacrament of marriage? an explanation from each individual about the circumstances of their marriage? In any case, it was possible for those who were "living in sin" to be reinstated into the Church and its sacramental life.

Similarly, I know unmarried couples who, upon discovering they were pregnant, went to a Catholic priest and asked to be married. In all the cases I know of, they were told either: 1) to get married civilly and have the baby - if they still wanted to get married a year after the baby was born, they could be married in the Church; 2) not get married civilly, have the baby, and if they still wanted to get married a year after the baby was born, they could be married in the Church. In this instance, too, the Church has found a way to reinstate Catholics who were "living in sin."

I think that Pope Francis is trying to find a way to reinstate those "living in sin" after divorce and remarriage.

We are all sinners. If the Church chooses casting off of sinners, there would soon be no Church at all. The Church is not for perfect people, the Church is for sinners who are trying to improve. (Who was it that said, "A saint is a sinner who kept trying"?) Casting off is characteristic of Puritanism and other non-Catholic Christian traditions.

[Seven77]

2 minutes ago, Luigi said:

In the pioneer period of North American history, there was a severe shortage of priests. Catholics in areas like Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky often married without benefit of the sacrament of marriage, because no priest was available. When a priest did become available, he would "regularize" those marriages. I don't personally know what all that entailed - confession? then the sacrament of marriage? an explanation from each individual about the circumstances of their marriage? In any case, it was possible for those who were "living in sin" to be reinstated into the Church and its sacramental life.

Similarly, I know unmarried couples who, upon discovering they were pregnant, went to a Catholic priest and asked to be married. In all the cases I know of, they were told either: 1) to get married civilly and have the baby - if they still wanted to get married a year after the baby was born, they could be married in the Church; 2) not get married civilly, have the baby, and if they still wanted to get married a year after the baby was born, they could be married in the Church. In this instance, too, the Church has found a way to reinstate Catholics who were "living in sin."

I think that Pope Francis is trying to find a way to reinstate those "living in sin" after divorce and remarriage.

1

So, we are talking about civilly married people who divorced and remarried? I thought all the fuss was because the issue was Catholics who were married in the Church, who divorced and remarried.

I think you're confusing "validating, "and "reinstating ." A marriage (civil) can be validated in the  Church, while a person (Catholic) can be reinstated (into full communion.)  

I hope I'm not adding confusion…lol. 

[Luigi]

2 hours ago, Seven77 said:

So, we are talking about civilly married people who divorced and remarried? I thought all the fuss was because the issue was Catholics who were married in the Church, who divorced and remarried.

I think you're confusing "validating, "and "reinstating ." A marriage (civil) can be validated in the  Church, while a person (Catholic) can be reinstated (into full communion.)  

I hope I'm not adding confusion…lol. 

I'm not a canon lawyer; I never have been; I don't want to be; I don't play one on TV. I don't know all the details of canon law - I don't know any of the details of canon law.

But I do know that the Church has ways for people to get right with God - through the sacrament of Penance, through validating, through reinstating, through annulment, through other means for all I know. As far as I can tell, the Church exists to help people get right with God.

As far as I can tell, Pope Francis is trying to find a way to get more people right with God. I'm not going to make any more comments on this thread because I don't know enough to make apt comments. I'm just saying that when a pope, duly elected by the College of Cardinals under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, initiates some sort of pastoral outreach, I have to trust that said pope is still working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The only productive action I can take is to shut up and pray like hell.