Review: “The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia” (Pedro Gabriel)

May 10, 2022 By Dave Armstrong

Dr. Pedro Gabriel, a Portugese oncologist, is also a fine Catholic apologist. He co-founded and is a regular contributor to the excellent website, Where Peter Is: which contains an extensive collection of articles in defense of the orthodoxy of Pope Francis. He is currently taking classes in moral theology at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, and earned a Diploma with Honors from the London School of Journalism. He also writes Catholic novels “with a Tolkienite flavor.”

*****

Dr. Gabriel’s book, The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia, was published on 18 February 2022 (Eugene, Oregon: Resource Publications). The introduction on its back cover reads:

When Amoris Laetitia was published in 2016, it became the most controversial papal document since Humanae Vitae. Many said that Amoris Laetitia was “confusing” and “required clarification.” Others claimed that it was heterodox, while comparing it unfavorably with other church documents. But is this really the case?

In this book, Pedro Gabriel sets out to explore Amoris Laetitia’s controversial eighth chapter. What does the document actually teach as it pertains to the access of divorced and civilly remarried people to the Eucharist, and how can it constitute a legitimate development? As Pedro Gabriel tries to answer these questions, he will also cover the most common arguments being leveled against Amoris Laetitia, and show how this exhortation can be reconciled with Catholic orthodoxy.

Dr. Gabriel, in the Preface, wrote about the controversies surrounding the release of Pope Francis’ post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia on 8 April 2016, and mentioned a shortcoming that has been a hallmark of “Pope Francis criticism” these past nine years:

I had learned a lesson during Benedict XVI’s pontificate: never rely blindly on media reporting. So I did what I had learned during the previous papacy: not to be swept away by the tsunami of scandal, but to consult the primary sources instead. . . .

Time after time, I would read the actual church documents from primary, authoritative sources and feel like the commentaries from certified apologists and popular pundits had missed the mark. It seemed like they were trying to read church doctrine according to a preconceived image of the church that did not always correspond to reality. (pp. xi, xiv-xv)

Indeed, this method is the only sensible (and charitable) way to go about things. But it is violated time and again. I can bear witness that this is the case, based on the course of my own apologetics endeavors: specifically those in defense of Pope Francis.

The moral and liturgical issues involved in the controversies surrounding this papal document are complex and multi-faceted. I can’t possibly delve into all that in the space of a book review. So I have decided — for the sake of relative brevity — to concentrate on portions of Dr. Gabriel’s book where he specifically notes continuity of Amoris and Pope Francis’ ideas and opinions, with those of the two previous popes: Pope Benedict XVI and Pope St. John Paul II. This treatment of consistent development of the Church’s doctrine was addressed in Section III (“A Harmonious Development”), comprising chapters 10-15, or roughly 100 pages out of 281 total.

One of the most important and central points of the entire book occurs in chapter 10, pages 142-143. Misunderstandings along these lines lie underneath much of the flawed and excessive criticism of Amoris Laetitia:

Amoris Laetitia relies on the teaching on mitigating circumstances. . . . mitigating circumstances do not contradict other parts of doctrine, namely the objectively evil nature of all intrinsically evil acts. In fact, in that very same chapter [7], I make a distinction between the doctrine of mitigating circumstances and situation ethics. Adopting the latter would be to adopt the illegitimate model of doctrinal discontinuity, since it contradicts the objectively evil nature of some sins. But the former is a legitimate development.

Therefore, if Amoris Laetitia grounds itself on the teaching on mitigating circumstances, while the previous church pronouncements . . . based themselves on the doctrine of the objectively evil nature of sin, there can be no doctrinal contradiction. In fact, mitigating circumstances presuppose the doctrine of the objectively evil nature of sin. Mitigating circumstances diminish subjective culpability, and there can be no culpability in an act that is not evil. The teachings build upon each other.

What we have observed is a shift of emphasis. Francis chose to emphasize subjective culpability, while his predecessors chose to emphasize the objectively evil nature of sin. Papal critics observe this shift of emphasis and wrongly conclude that a de-emphasizing of the objectively evil nature of sin means that this part of doctrine was abandoned in favor of a new, contradictory teaching. This is, however, erroneous.

In the next chapter (11), Dr. Gabriel tackles the alleged discontinuity or contradiction between Pope St. John Paul II’s post-synodal apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, from 1981. It was exactly the same sort of papal document as Amoris Laetitia, although, as Dr. Gabriel noted, “papal critics will sometimes ascribe a low magisterial weight to Amoris Laetitia” (p. 152), while viewing Familiaris as considerably more authoritative. This has no canonical basis.

Dr. Gabriel (on p. 154) cites Familiaris Consortio, section 84, which asserts that divorced and remarried couples may not receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church. But Pope John Paul the Great went on to specify a condition in which such persons could receive Holy Communion:

. . . a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.” [my bolding and italics]

Note that such a couple is still living together, but abstaining from sexual relations. Thus, this is an example of a divorced and remarried person being able to receive the Eucharist. But they can only do so by refraining from sexual activity with the person to whom they are not truly married, in the eyes of the Church. This was proclaimed by Pope St. John Paul II over forty years ago. Yet we saw no firestorm of protest or accusations of doctrinal / moral heterodoxy; no “dubia” confronting him. Dr. Gabriel demonstrates a direct line of continuity in development between Familiaris (still in section 84) and Amoris:

Also, even if Familiaris Consortio did not go as far as Amoris Laetitia regarding sacramental discipline, it certainly laid out the foundations for Amoris Laetitia, by saying:

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid. (pp. 162-163; italics added by Dr. Gabriel to Pope St. John Paul’s words)

Dr. Gabriel then observed:

Anyway, we should bear in mind that Familiaris Consortio does not claim to have the last word on the matter. Familiaris Consortio urges a greater dialogue between pastors and laity, pastors and families, and theologians and experts in family matters. “In this way the teaching of the Magisterium becomes better understood and the way is opened to its progressive development.” [section 73]

It seems to me to be undeniable that this dialogue is precisely what Pope Francis sought to undertake with the two synods of the bishops on the family. (p. 163; italics added by Dr. Gabriel to Pope St. John Paul’s words)

In chapter 12, Dr. Gabriel ably shows how Amoris Laetitia does not contradict (rather, consistently develops) the outlook of Pope St. John Paul II’s 1993 papal encyclical Veritatis Splendor.

In chapter 13, Amoris is shown to be in harmony with Pope Benedict XVI’s a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis (2007). As with Familiaris, that document (cited by Dr. Gabriel on pages 183-184) also affirmed the validity of Catholics in an irregular marital situation being able to receive Holy Communion, if they abstain from sexual relations:

Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not declared and objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God’s law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the Church’s established and approved practice in this regard. [section 29; italics added by Dr. Gabriel]

On page 200, Dr. Gabriel notes that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1650) also teaches the same doctrine and practice.

If we go back to chapter 4, where Pope Francis’ own views are discussed, we see that they are developments of the thoughts of Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Dr. Gabriel observed, in answering his own question about whether “every” divorced and remarried person could receive Holy Communion:

I think the answer to this question is found in footnote 351 itself. The footnote starts with “in certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments.” By definition, this wording excludes some cases. . . .

On the other hand, the main topic of Amoris Laetitia’s eighth chapter (where the footnote is located) is discernment. If Amoris Laetitia simply opened up the possibility to any civilly remarried person who sought it, why spend so much time talking about discernment at all? . . .

Nevertheless, is there actual textual evidence supporting the claim that the exhortation does not simply open access to the Eucharist to every single divorced and remarried person? Let us read #300:

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 favours.

Amoris Laetitia does not give carte blanche for a priest to grant exceptions or sacramental privileges at will. According to the pope himself, that would be a “grave misunderstanding.” (pp. 49-50)

Dr. Gabriel elaborates upon Pope Francis’ teaching; getting to “the heart of the matter” in terms of the current “controversy”:

Since it was in #303 that Pope Francis mentions not fulfilling the objective ideal, let us contextualize by reading the beginning of that paragraph:

Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.

Previously, we saw that conscience determines what the most generous response is, even if it is not yet the fully objective ideal. This same conscience needs to be “better incorporated into the Church’s praxis.” How? By “recognizing the influence of such concrete factors.”

What “concrete factors” are these? This directs us to the previous couple of paragraphs, which in fact deal solely with those “concrete
factors”:

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. [AL, 301]

The church teaches that these mitigating factors may reduce culpability in such a way that a sin with grave matter is not a mortal sin. This is doctrinally sound . . . It is also doctrinally sound to state that a person can receive communion if he or she is not in mortal sin . . . Pope Francis would only incur heresy if he stated the opposite, allowing people in mortal sin to receive communion.

Pope Francis brings up the church’s “solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors” explicitly to prevent the notion that “the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised.” [AL, 301] (pp. 52-53)

So what is the bottom line in Pope Francis’ development of sacramental and pastoral practice?:

[T]he permissibility of communion to some who have divorced and civilly remarried, per footnote 351, has everything to do with mitigating factors diminishing subjective culpability, so that the person can “live in God’s grace” (i.e., not be in mortal sin).

In fact, this interpretation is even confirmed elsewhere in the text:

What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since “the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases,” the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same. [AL, 300] (p. 54)

I think the examples I have shown illustrate the remarkable cogency and articulate nature of this wonderful and immensely helpful book. The above material only scratches the surface (though I hope it adequately covers the “heart” of it). Dr. Gabriel seems to comprehensively approach the vexed topic from all angles: always bringing to it a faithful attention to orthodoxy and Church precedent, including very subtle and nuanced aspects of moral and pastoral theology, and a proper understanding of Newmanian doctrinal development (itself a very poorly understood element among far too many).

This is sorely needed in our time, in which suspicions and polarization run rampant, and in which (sadly) Catholic apologetics itself is sometimes prone to outside corrupting influences, including cultural and political factors (whether from the “right” or “left”) that are “extraneous” to the Catholic Mind and contradictory to it. Dr. Gabriel, in his Conclusion, notes how such critical apologists are habitually “scrutinizing every single
act of the Holy Father and portraying it in the worst possible light, in order to validate a narrative that slowly took form and shape. They did this sometimes with open hostility and sometimes in more subtle ways, . . .” (p. 260).

As a full-time Catholic apologist myself, and defender of this pope and all the recent popes, I have noticed the same tendencies again and again. It’s obviously not charitable to interpret the Holy Father’s words and actions “in the worst possible light.” This is the grave sin of bearing false witness; all the more so when directed towards a pope, and it is directly contrary to a love that “believes all things, hopes all things” (1 Cor 13:7, RSV), and the Christian duty to “in humility count others better than yourselves” (Phil 2:3).

Near the end, Dr. Gabriel makes a very important statement of purpose:

Finally, I hope that this book might have helped genuinely confused Catholics to have a little more clarity on this issue. I hope, at least, that their suspicions against the Holy Father might have been attenuated somewhat, so that they may give him another chance and start reading him with a new perspective. (p. 262)

May it be devoutly hoped and prayed for! I urge every Catholic who is troubled by Pope Francis and/or particularly, Amoris Laetitia, to buy this superb book and sincerely, prayerfully ponder its content. If you don’t fully understand it, read it twice. I think it is that good and that important. You owe it to yourself, to the Holy Father, and the principle of fair play.

***

Photo credit: image of the book cover of The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia, on its Amazon book page.

***

Summary: Dr. Pedro Gabriel’s book, The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia defends the controversial papal document against numerous fashionable and unfounded criticisms.

Dr. Fastiggi on Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis, & Aquinas

February 1, 2021 By Dave Armstrong

This came about when radical Catholic reactionary Steven O’Reilly (who thinks the pope is a heretic) made a reply to me, in an effort to press me to comment further on Amoris Laetitia: Pope Francis’ encyclical from 3-19-16. Previously, yucking it up with fellow pope-basher and advocate of ecclesial defectibility Steve Skojec (who opined that I was “intentionally stupid”) on Twitter, O’Reilly had referred to me as a purveyor of “crazy labels” and “in denial” and an “apologist” only in quotation marks (that is, not at all) and (my favorite) a member of the club of “Francis toadies”. Can I be a “Jesus toady” too? Sounds about right to me!

Merriam-Webster online defines “toady” as “one who flatters in the hope of gaining favors.” The synonym provided is “sycophant”: defined as “a servile self-seeking flatterer.” The obvious problem with this is that I have gotten back only misery and no end of problems, by defending Pope Francis (in everyday terms, I have “caught hell”), because the fashionable and chic myth and fairy tale today is this false notion that he is a flaming liberal, subversive against the Church, enemy of Catholic moral and theological tradition, and indeed, a heretic.

So by opposing all these lies (and they assuredly, undoubtedly are lies, and I can back my assertions up), I somehow gain “favors” or have any remote “hope” of gaining same? My advocacy of what is the plain dogmatic teaching of Vatican I — not II — (that the pope can never even fall into heresy, let alone promulgate it) has certainly harmed my apostolate, in terms of followers, contributors, online visibility, etc. I clearly gain nothing by this. I’ve paid a big price. But that’s fine with me. I’m happy to do so. It’s my duty and privilege to do it.

If anyone is gaining favors and self-seeking (and I don’t assert this; only rhetorically state it), it is the legion of reactionary pope-bashers like Taylor Marshall, Steve Skojec and One Peter Five, The Remnant, Lifesite, Rorate Caeli, Peter Kwasniewski et al, ad nauseam, who get tons of attention (hits, shares, book sales), and sometimes, tons of money as well (book royalties), for their despicable and harmful efforts. I am simply defending the Holy Father and the institution of the papacy, which I have always thought — in my 30 + years of Catholic apologetics –, was part and parcel of my field; in fact, obligatory.

I defended Pope St. John Paul II when he was attacked and bashed (and he assuredly was), Pope Benedict XVI when he was also trashed (reactionaries now detest him or at least his resignation: feeling a bit like jilted lovers), and I defend Pope Francis when he is lied about and slandered as well. And I will defend the next pope who will also (mark my words) be lied about. The devil is very active in this respect. He knows who to go after.

But now all of a sudden doing that is a “controversial” thing. I’ve been told in a gossipy, cowardly fashion that “many” people (of course not mentioned by name) have a “lower” opinion of me because I defend the Holy Father and the papacy. That’s how low we have sunk in our pathetic time. So insult away! We’ll see in the end (including on Judgment Day itself) who was on the right side of this. I’m happy to let God be my judge, rather than hundreds of thousands of fawning “fans.” Mere filthy lucre or fame and accolades have never been my motivation, and never will be.

Thanks, dear reader, for indulging me and letting me get that off of my chest! Despite these rank insults, a few days ago O’Reilly decided he would become serious and try to engage in actual dialogue (albeit of an obsessive and “one-note tune” nature) with me. The problem was that I had already reiterated over and over (in my counter-reply) that:

I leave those fine-tuned questions mostly to theologians. . . . Fine points are for moral theologians, and neither you nor I are that. . . . I stand by everything he [Dr. Fastiggi] argues. He’s a personal friend of mine, and of unimpeachable orthodoxy. . . . Dr. Fastiggi is editor of the revised Denzinger and Ott both. He’s the man for systematic theology, in my opinion.

In other words, he picked the wrong topic to engage with me. I then linked Dr. Robert Fastiggi’s articles defending the theological and moral orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia: (one / two / three / four). Undaunted, O’Reilly kept trying to goad me all the more in his combox underneath it:

[Y]our ‘go read Dr. Fastiggi’ is not a sufficient answer. Anyone with common sense can see that. After all, if one were to ask you, a professional apologist, about your opinion of the Petrine Office and the views opposed to it, I assume (and hope) your answer would go beyond simply telling one to ‘go read Karl Keating’ or ‘go look at Matthew 16:18, that is all I need to say.’ If that is your approach to honest, good-faith, apologetical questions; my surprise is not that you have written “2,800 papers and 50 books,” it is that you have written any.

These juvenile tactics don’t work with me. I gave my answer: deferring to a respected theologian. It wasn’t good enough for O’Reilly. That’s his problem, not mine. I have no qualms in expressing that I am not sufficiently qualified to delve into the depths of a particular controversial and complex issue, and that it is best left to the expertise of theologians, canonists, and bishops gathered in synod, as it were. But Amoris Laetitia happens to be a virtual obsession with O’Reilly, by his own report:

I contented myself with wearing out my local archbishop, pastor, friends and family with my screeds over developments in the Church, especially during these past few years following the issuance of Amoris Laetitia. (his “About” page)

Note how he even wore out his own “family.” This is the mark of a fanatic, for sure. But apart from his own overly aggressive shortcomings, we understand that there are a lot of folks out there like O’Reilly who think that Amoris Laetitia is a terrible, heretical document, that sought to overthrow constant Catholic moral and theological tradition. They’re confused and disheartened, yet they need not be at all. We totally disagree with their assessment. There is plenty of clarifying material out there.

In my own effort to soothe fears and hysteria, I have collected many substantive articles from others, who defend the orthodoxy of the document. A search of my collection of 266 pro-Francis articles yields fifteen with “Amoris” in their titles. And there are others in the same collection that deal with the same topic (without “Amoris” in their titles), such as:

Pope Francis’s New Document on Marriage: 12 Things to Know and Share (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 4-8-16)

Pope Francis Shatters Reformers’ Dreams with ‘Modern Family’ Document (Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart, 4-8-16)

Pope Affirms Traditional Marriage (Bill Donohue, Newsmax, 4-8-16)

Pope Francis’s revolution has been cancelled (Damian Thompson, The Spectator, 4-8-16)

Pope Francis on love in the family (Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, CatholicPhilly.com, 4-14-16)

Pope Francis is a social conservative (Tim Stanley, The Telegraph, 4-18-16)

Pope okays Argentine doc on Communion for divorced and remarried (Inés San Martín, Crux, 9-12-16)

What Pope Francis said about Communion for the divorced-and-remarried (Catholic News Agency, 9-13-16)

Not heretical: Pope Francis’ approval of the Argentine bishops’ policy on invalid marriages (Dr. Jeff Mirus, Catholic Culture, 9-15-16)

Cardinal Schönborn: Pope Francis follows John Paul II’s teaching on communion (Catholic Herald, 4-8-16)

Recent Comments of Pope Francis Should Help to Quiet Papal Critics (Robert Fastiggi, La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 11-28-17)

Pastoral Charity is the Key to Pope Francis’s Endorsement of the Buenos Aires Bishops’ Document (Robert Fastiggi, La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 11-28-17)

So that is at least 27 in-depth articles regarding Amoris Laetitia and closely related issues, that I have provided for my readers. But it’s not good enough for Steven O’Reilly. All he appears to care about is my opinion. Well, just because I appealed to others more knowledgeable than myself on the issue (which is what I always do as an apologist if I feel that others have points to make that are above my pay grade), it doesn’t mean I have completely ignored it, either. A perusal of my own collection of my own 184 defenses of Pope Francis yields eight relevant articles:

Amoris Laetitia: Pope Francis’ “1968 Moment” [4-8-16]

Defenses of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia [4-9-16]

More Defenses of Amoris Laetitia & Pope Francis [4-26-16]

Satan Loves Divisions Re Amoris Laetitia [5-2-16]

Dialogue: Amoris Laetitia: Confusing or No? [5-3-16]

Amoris Laetitia, “Trads” & Reactionaries [5-4-16]

Buzzing, Mosquito-Like Trashers of Amoris Laetitia [5-6-16]

Amoris Laetitia Has Already Been Clarified Many Times, Including by High-Ranking Cardinals [11-16-16]

So now we’re up to 35 articles about Amoris Laetitia, hosted or prominently linked on my site, including eight of my own, and Steven O’Reilly is still trying to figure out what I believe on the issue, and why? It is a very odd thing. But this is what people do when they are obsessed. Nevertheless, in a sincere and charitable attempt to deliver Mr. O’Reilly from his existential misery (and others, too, who are of the same opinion, and read this article), I did contact my good friend, Dr. Robert Fastiggi, and he was kind enough to clarify his opinions (and the pope’s as an extra bonus). What follows are his letter to me last night, and accompanying material from then-Cardinal Ratzinger that he sent with it.

*****

I thought that I would offer some brief thoughts.

Steven O’Reilly seems to be on a crusade to show that defenders of Amoris Laetitia hold contradictory positions and, therefore, the Pope cannot be defended. I can only offer my own understanding, and it seems that Mr. O’Reilly is familiar with my articles on the subject. The best interpreter of Amoris Laetitia, however, is Pope Francis himself. In his recent book, Let Us Dream, The Path to A Better Future (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2020)—written in conversation with Austen Ivereigh–Pope Francis explains how he decided to deal with the question of whether divorced and civilly remarried Catholics could receive Communion ([see] pp. 87-89 in which he discusses his approach).

He notes that the media tried to make this question the focal point of the Synod on the Family, and it led to some unfortunate divisions among the Synod fathers, which Pope Francis believes manifested the influence of the “bad spirit.” The Holy Father then states that “the Spirit saved us in the end, in a breakthrough at the close of the second (October 2015) meeting of the Synod on the Family. The breakthrough came from those with a deep knowledge of the true moral doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, especially Cardinal Christoph Schönborn.

The teaching of Aquinas was his insight that, “because of the immense variety of situations and circumstances people found themselves in …no general rule could apply in every situation.” This Thomistic insight “allowed the synod to agree on the need for a case-by-case discernment.” As Pope Francis explains “there was no need to change Church law, only how it was applied.” It was a matter of discerning how “God’s grace was operating in the nitty-gritty of people’s lives.” Thus, there was “neither a tightening nor a loosening of the ‘rules’ but an application of them that left room for circumstances that didn’t fit neatly into categories.”

The key texts of Aquinas are cited in the footnotes to AL, 304. I had noticed the importance of AL, 304 and the citations of Aquinas before. This is why in my Vatican Insider article on answering the dubia, I stated that “in principle” divorced and civilly remarried Catholics cannot receive Holy Communion unless they are living in continence. Pope Francis is also aware of the need for “general principles” since they are mentioned by Aquinas in the passage cited, viz. Summa theologiae I-II, q. 94, art. 4. Pope Francis is also aware that discernment “can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church” (AL, 300). He also insists on the need to avoid “every occasion of scandal” (AL, 299).

The approach taken by Pope Francis is very traditional and in perfect harmony with Catholic moral teaching. There must be adherence to the general principles and rules but also discernment of how these rules apply in particular cases. I’ve attached a file showing possible cases that might apply to footnote 351 of AL noted by three Cardinals: Ratzinger, Müller, and Vallini. [Dave: see “attachment” below]

There are other documents of the Magisterium that note the need for discernment of culpability. For example, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its 1975 Declaration on Sexual Ethics (Persona Humana), states that with regard to homosexuals, “their culpability will be judged with prudence” (no. 8). The Catechism of the Catholic Church, when addressing the sin of masturbation, takes note of various factors “that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability” (CCC, 2352).

In light of what the Holy Father says in “Let US Dream,” it’s clear that in Amoris Laetiia there is no change in Catholic moral teaching. Pope Francis simply wishes pastors to handle difficult cases with discernment, which priests do all the time as confessors. He also wishes “every occasion of scandal” to be avoided.

To my mind, Catholics who accuse Pope Francis of heresy are guilty of objective grave sin and scandal because they are contradicting the teaching of Vatican I about the charism of truth and never failing faith enjoyed by the successors of Peter. The Catholics who accuse Pope Francis of heresy, however, might be misled or misinformed. Their culpability must be judged with prudence, discernment, and charity.

I hope these reflections help.

***

Attachment: Difficult cases possibly intended by Amoris Laetitia, footnote 351

1). From Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1998 essay, “CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL”

3 c. Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset. This is implied in the 1994 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it was stated that new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process (cf. No. 9). Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law.

This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions

This essay is found in the third part of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Introduction to Volume 17 of the series produced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, entitled “Documenti e Studi”, On the Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried, LEV, Vatican City 1998, pp. 20-29. It’s posted on the Vatican website after the 1994 letter of the CDF on this matter.

2). This same difficult case is mentioned by Cardinal Gerhard Müller in his introductory essay (Saggio introduttivo) to Rocco Buttiglione’s book, Risposte amichevoli ai critici di Amoris Laetitia (Milano: Edizioni Ares, 2017), 23–25. With respect to cases in which the nullity of the prior bond is impossible to prove, Cardinal Müller writes:

If the second bond were valid before God, the marital relations of the two partners would not constitute a grave sin but instead a transgression against the public ecclesiastical order for having irresponsibly violated the canonical rules and therefore a light sin. This does not obscure the truth that relations more uxorio with a person of the other sex, who is not the legitimate spouse before God, constitute a grave fault against chastity and against the justice owed to the proper spouse.

3). Cardinal Agostino Vallini, the former Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura under St. John Paul II and the Vicar of the Archdiocese of Rome, issued some guidelines on Amoris Laetitia on Sept. 19. 2016, as the Vicar of Pope Francis for the Archdiocese of Rome. These guidelines were by means of a relazione (relation or report) entitled “La letizia dell’amore”: il cammino delle famiglie a Roma” (“The joy of love”: the way of families in Rome”). In his guidelines, Cardinal Vallini refers to footnote 351, and he notes that the footnote (in Italian) uses the conditional and reads: “In certain cases there could (potrebbe) also be the help of the sacraments.”

The use of the conditional shows that Pope Francis is not saying that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics must be admitted to the sacraments. The Holy Father is only noting that they are not excluded from the sacraments in some cases and under certain conditions. What are these conditions? Cardinal Vallini mentions the case in which there is moral certitude that the first marriage was null but there are no proofs to demonstrate this in a judicial setting. In such a case, the only opening to the sacraments would be with a confessor who, at a certain point—in his conscience and after much reflection and prayer—must assume responsibility before God and to the penitent and request that access to the sacraments take place in a reserved manner (in maniera riservata).

4).The philosopher, Rocco Buttiglione, in his 2017 book, Risposte amichevoli ai critici di Amoris Laetitia [Friendly responses to the critics of Amoris Laetitia], notes that Pope Francis is not admitting the divorced and remarried to communion but to confession (p. 68). The confessor must use discernment to decide whether to give absolution, which allows the penitent to receive communion.

Buttiglione—who was a friend of St. John Paul II and an expert on the late Pontiff’s thought—recognizes that absolution can only be given when there a resolve not to commit a sin that is materially grave (pp. 180–181). The confessor, though, must be aware of mitigating factors that might limit the responsibility of the penitent for committing acts that are gravely sinful. Buttiglione gives the example of a woman who is in a condition of total economic and psychological dependence on her civil partner, and this man imposes sexual relations on her against her will (p. 171).

Here it’s not a matter of judging a sinful act not to be sinful but of discerning whether the penitent is fully culpable for the sin. Buttiglione notes: “This does not imply that the unmarried can legitimately engage in sexual acts. The acts are illegitimate, but persons (in some cases)—through the absence of full awareness and deliberate consent—can be free from incurring mortal sin” (p. 172). For absolution to be given there must be the resolve to leave the situation of sin even if the penitent (in the case mentioned) cannot promise to avoid immediately the objective act of sin because she’s living in a situation that exposes her to the irresistible temptation to commit the act (p. 172).

***

Photo credit: cover of book by Pope Francis [GoodReads.com]

***

Buzzing, Mosquito-Like Trashers of Amoris Laetitia

April 23, 2020 By Dave Armstrong

There are plenty of materials now explaining Pope Francis’ 2016 apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (I have 29 articles in my collection of links defending Francis), but — just as with similar endless complaints and whoppers about Vatican II — nothing is ever good enough for the endless questioners and complainers.

First it is said that Amoris Laetitia is unclear, or that it is modernist, or that it is orthodox but so ambiguous that no one can understand it (per the usual standard talking points about Vatican II in some circles). Some think that is due to incompetence (Pope Francis is unable to construct coherent sentences or ideas), others, that it is a deliberate liberal conspiracy (he’s a stinking liberal, or everyone around him is, and they play him like a fiddle).

Then it’s said that we need a clarification. So we get those from both Cardinal Müller and Cardinal Schönborn. Then it is said that this ain’t good enough, because it’s only from lowly cardinals and not the papa.

Then Waldemar Żurek writes on my Facebook page: “If Cardinal Müller were to resolve problems with the ambiguous Amoris Laetitia he would officially present the document in Vatican, and not on the occasion of the presentation of his private book in Madrid. But apparently it was made to calm the naive …”

And he cites One Vader Five, where Dr. Maike Hickson opines in her infinite and glorious wisdom: “We are in a situation where the head of Doctrine (Müller) now says something different from what Pope Francis has said. This seeming inconsistency is detrimental to many souls who are in need of clear instructions with regard to the salvation of their own souls.”

Then they say that it’s not good enough to bluntly say that nothing has changed. It also has to be explained (apparently at length, or they are unsatisfied again) beyond simply stating it.

It’s funny and ironic and tragi-comic, too, because we hear all this babble now about old Church documents in the “good old days” being short and sweet. But the shorter they are, the less is explained in depth, right?

Now more explanation is demanded, and Francis writes very long, nuanced documents. Then people complain that they are too long and confusing. One can’t win for losing.

Nothing will ever satisfy a certain skeptical / traditionalist (some of that class) or reactionary mindset.

The End didn’t come as the reactionaries and fellow eternal grumblers had hoped, so they immediately (in their pride and stubbornness) went to Plan B: pretend that we have “Vatican II document”-like clever sneakiness, ambiguity, and jesuitical “textual conspiracy”: “death by a thousand cuts”-type thinking.

It has to be bad, whatever the “truth” is . . .

These nattering nabobs of negativism are so much like the folks that St. Paul rebuked, who “will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim 3:7).

***

Defenses of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia [4-9-16]

More Defenses of Amoris Laetitia & Pope Francis [4-26-16]

Satan Loves Divisions Re Amoris Laetitia [5-2-16]

Dialogue: Amoris Laetitia: Confusing or No? [5-3-16]

Amoris Laetitia, “Trads” & Reactionaries [5-4-16]

Amoris Laetitia Has Already Been Clarified Many Times, Including by High-Ranking Cardinals [11-16-16]

Dr. Robert Fastiggi Defends Amoris Laetitia Against Critics [10-3-17]

***

(originally posted on 5-6-16 on Facebook)

Photo credit: JFJunior (4-27-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Dr. Fastiggi Replies to Dr. Brugger Re: Amoris Laetitia

October 12, 2017 By Dave Armstrong

Dr. Christian Brugger is Senior Fellow of Ethics at the Culture of Life Foundation in Washington D.C. He replied to an article by Dr. Robert Fastiggi and Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein, as noted in a LifeSiteNews article. Dr. Fastiggi then replied further in the combox and interacted with a “David” there. David’s words will be in blue.

***

Fastiggi’s and Eden’s claim on 303 seems to have gone nowhere, and indeed really does not change the meaning of the text. This is perhaps why they have quickly moved on to another angle to try and discount the “correctio” and any critics, by claiming these folks are not following proper “protocol.” That too is failing quickly, receiving refutation from other voices now, such as canonist Ed Peters, and I don’t think they will be able to dismiss him as some sort of hyper-critical, “anti-Francis” type. As others have pointed out such folks seems to engage in papal positivism, exalting the will of a pope no matter what he says or does, in any form or context said, even if contrary to the Church’s Tradition; in which case they are not interested so much in the truth but in a cult of personality. Indeed, as no less than Cardinal Mueller has confirmed, there is a tremendous emphasis on power, cult of personality, personal allegiance under this pontificate, to the expense of truth. It is certainly not the Catholic tradition that no one can ever criticize or question anything a Pope says, especially when it is so obvious there is a serious problem.

Prof. Brugger is a good theologian and a fine man, but he still seems to believe that AL 303 implies that God is asking people to continue to sin in some cases. In his April 22, 2016 article in Catholic World Report, Brugger writes that AL 303 suggests that “God can be ‘asking’ someone to live in a life-state in which they are objectively violating grave matter.” Then in a Sept. 28 ‘17 LifeSiteNews article, he states that “the generous response” owed to God is “a certain state that is objectively at variance with the universal command of the Gospel.” Now Prof. Brugger argues that, because the subject remains “this conscience” in AL 303, this proves that the “generous offering owed to God” is the recognition that one is living “contrary to “the universal command of the Gospel.”

Prof. Brugger fails to see that AL 303 clearly distinguishes between a conscience’s recognition that “a given situation is objectively at variance with the general mandate of the Gospel” and this same conscience’s subsequent recognition of a “generous response owed to God in the present circumstances.” The subject “conscience” might be the same but the object is different. The “generous response” is not the situation that is at variance with the command of the Gospel but an offering that God is asking amid the mass of impediments even though it may not yet be the perfect objective model.

What might be this “generous response?” Pope Francis does not give an example in AL 303 because he’s speaking in general terms of the dynamics of conscience. Moreover, he knows that concrete cases vary widely. In our Sept. 26 article in La Stampa, Dr. Goldstein and I provided a hypothetical example of a couple in a purely civil “marriage” recognizing that God is calling them to live in continence. We chose this example deliberately to demonstrate that “the generous response” could be the ending of a particular sin. Our example was an attempt to show that Professors Brugger and Seifert are wrong to believe AL 303 implies that God is asking some people to continue to live in an objectively sinful state. It’s really just the opposite. AL 303 teaches that conscience will come to recognize that God is asking for a step in the right direction away from sin. Pope Francis explains this again in AL 305 when he says “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties.’”

In a recent interview the Italian philosopher, Rocco Buttiglione, provides this example for AL 303: “Imagine a father who has a sick son and the child improves. He still has fever but has stopped vomiting; the child manages to keep in his stomach what he eats and has started a therapy that seems to work. The father is happy. Is he happy about the fact that the child is sick? No, he is pleased that his son gives symptoms of improvement and healing.”

This is what Pope Francis is saying in AL 303. God is not happy with situations that are objectively at variance with the command of the Gospel. God, however, is happy when people in such situations discern in conscience that He is asking them to make a choice that moves in the right direction—even if they still need to progress further toward a more complete fulfillment of His will. This is the law of gradualness not the gradualness of the law. It is sad that this beautiful and compassionate message of AL 303 has been so completely misunderstood by scholars who have failed to grasp its true meaning.

It seems you yourself are not sure this is the only meaning- that the generous response “could” or “might” be- not must be- continence. So, one could continue living in objective sin and offer some other “generous response?” And, Buttiglione openly argues that continence is not an absolute precondition; and therefore it may not constitute the offering made?! But he erroneously claims they can co-exist by confusing the subjective/objective issue, which he has done before and Ed Peters, among others, refutes. (Peters has a piece at Catholic World Report.) And compared with the absolute language of continence as a precondition in Familiaris Consortio et al., we have a clear change. So, even among those denying heterodoxy there are folks who admit no absolute requirement of continence, but try to explain how that can now be the case.

The whole problem is, in fact, that a call to continence is no longer being required in practice, which thus negates the meaning you impute anyway. Let us take the Maltese guidelines, which clearly indicate continence is not a requirement whatsoever and even state that communion cannot be denied to a couple still committing adultery. And it claims AL and Francis as its authority; and Francis has not only not disavowed this approach as inconsonant with his intent but given explicit public approval for these guidelines. The German guidelines also do not require continence as well as those of Rome; and arguably the Argentinian too but this might be debatable. And, people claiming to speak for Francis have also indicated this position, e.g, Archbishop Paglia, Cardinal Schonborn, who dishonestly claim that this notion was taught by JPII in some implicit way so therefore there is no rupture. (This is an unwitting admission something is wrong, for why even have to try to rationalize it by claiming it is part of a prior magisterium?) The Maltese guidelines also say that continence may actually be harmful, people are not necessarily capable of that (arguably a heresy, if not error, in itself), so adultery is essentially a solution. Semantics does not take away the underlying premise God is calling people to commit adultery, and how much they are imputable does not the disqualify that.

How do you account for all this? Are episcopal conferences and others all mistranslating AL, reading something into it that isn’t there, not grasping the true meaning? Why hasn’t Francis/Holy See then corrected this, etc, etc.? #303 is just the tip of the iceberg, of course. This, of course is the reason for the request for clarity, the Dubia, the Correctio. This is why the notion it is simply mistranslation/misinterpretation and critics are reading things into the text that are not there, cannot be sustained and is an untenable denial of an objective situation.

My comments were only focused on AL 303. I can’t speak for all these episcopal conferences that you mentioned. I believe Pope Francis has not changed the requirements of FC, 84 or the CCC, 1650. In AL 303 he was only speaking about the dynamics of conscience and how some people recognize that God is asking them to take a step in the right direction. We know that people are at different stages of conscience development. Pastors and friends need to help such people begin the process of living fully according to God’s plan, which, as Pope Francis teaches in AL 297, is “always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.” If you wish to know my thoughts about whether the divorced and civilly remarried should receive Holy Communion without observing continence, google “Fastiggi Kasper” and you find out.

[“David” replied again: see it at the link provided above]

***

Photo credit: You Tube still of Dr. Robert Fastiggi, at a conference at the Franciscan University of Steubenville; video posted on 5-26-14 [link / Standard YouTube License]

***

Dr. Robert Fastiggi Defends “Amoris Laetitia” Against Critics

October 3, 2017 By Dave Armstrong

Dr. Robert Fastiggi and Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein wrote an article for La Stampa, entitled “Does Amoris laetitia 303 Really Undermine Catholic Moral Teaching?” (9-26-17). Here I am documenting his replies (in comboxes), to critiques from Dr. Christian Brugger, Dr. Eduardo Echeverria, Dr. Joseph Shaw, and others.

Dr. Fastiggi and Dr. Goldstein — predictably — are being mocked, insulted, and scorned with regard to their article by two of the usual reactionary suspects: Chris Ferrara (The Remnant) and Louie Verrecchio (aka Catholic). Louie calls Pope Francis “Jorge” in his article.

*****

Replies to Dr. Brugger and others in the combox:

Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein and I are grateful to Prof. Brugger for his reply and his tone of civility. We are glad that he finds our translation “superior.” The flaw in his analysis is his claim that the quod is clearly referring back to statum quendam. This does not seem to follow from the Latin. The “quod” refers to to the liberale responsum (generous response) and not to the statum quendam (given situation). This is made clear from the copulative verb, sit, which links quod to responsum. Furthermore, a “response” involves an act of the will, but a “given situation” is a condition and not a personal act. We believe Professors Brugger and Seifert are reading into the text what they think Pope Francis is saying, but their reading does not seem to follow from the text itself.

We should also note that even the English translation posted on the Vatican website (which preceded the Latin posting) can be read in a more benign way than Professors Brugger and Seifert claim. The Latin text, which is now in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, should be considered normative, and it makes more clear the Holy Father’s meaning, a meaning which we explained in our article. (9-29-17)

***

Cardinal Müller recently said that the statement of the Argentine bishops can be interpreted in an orthodox way. I agree with him. See his interview in the National Catholic Register. (9-29-17)

***

The Holy Father need not answer the Dubia directly. It might, though, be helpful for him to clarify certain matters in his own way under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Oremus. (9-29-17)

***

You’re assuming that the “given situation” is one of active adultery. In AL 303, however, the Holy Father is only speaking in general terms about the dynamics of conscience so he does not provide any concrete examples about what the quod or the “generous response” might be. In our article, Dr. Goldstein and I provided an example in which the generous response involves the couple choosing to live in continence. We believe the Holy Father is saying “that in some complex and irregular situations a person’s conscience will recognize that God is asking for a generous response, indeed an oblationem, or offering, that moves in the right direction even though it doesn’t completely rectify the objective irregularity of the situation.” (9-30-17)

*****

Reply to Dr. Eduardo Echeverria (10-1-17):

The article that Dr. Goldstein and I wrote was narrowly focused on the text of Amoris laetitia [AL] 303. We tried to make it clear that we need to understand the meaning from the text itself as contained in the normative Latin. Prof. Echeverria seems to argue that we can understand the meaning of AL 303 via inferences from other parts of the exhortation. These inferences, though, are open to question, but that would take a long time to explain. In addition to Prof. Echeverria, Dr. Goldstein and I also received replies to our article from Prof. E. Christian Brugger and Prof. Joseph Shaw. I give credit to Prof. Brugger for actually trying to argue for his interpretation from the normative Latin text.

I am glad Prof. Brugger raised the points that he did because it made me realize that his reading of the text is really untenable based on the text itself. Prof. Shaw in his article posted on Lifesite News tried to argue that there is no substantive difference between the meaning of the text in the normative Latin and that contained in the posted vernacular texts.

Here is the essence of my argument:

Perhaps there is no substantive change in meaning between the normative Latin text of AL, 303 and the other vernacular languages we mentioned. This, though, does not resolve the question of what the text actually means. Dr. Goldstein and I wrote our article to question the way Professors Seifert, Brugger and others understand the text. All of these interpreters seem to assume that “the generous response” owed to God in AL 303 necessarily involves objective sin. Dr. Goldstein and I do not believe the normative Latin text supports such a reading. There is no reason to believe that the “generous response” (liberale responsum) owed to God is the same as the “given situation” (statum quendam) “objectively at variance with the general mandate of the Gospel.” Furthermore, a “response” involves an act of the will, but a “given situation” is a condition and not a personal act. How does one respond with a situation or condition? You can’t respond to a situation with the situation itself. This would be like someone being diagnosed with diabetes and responding to this condition with the diagnosis of diabetes. This makes no sense at all.

Even in the other vernacular translations, there seems to be no reason to assume that “the generous response” (la risposta generosa; la respuesta generosa; la réponse généreuse; die grossherzige Antwort) is the same as “a situation” (una situazione; una situación; une situation; eine Situation). This is made even clearer by the Latin non modo (not only). Pope Francis is saying that conscience “can not only recognize a given situation to be objectively at variance with the general mandate of the Gospel,” but “it can also (etiam) recognize sincerely and honestly what may be (quod sit) the generous response owed to God in the present circumstances.” The language of “not only … but also” suggests that something else is discerned by conscience beyond a simple recognition that one’s present situation is “objectively at variance with the general mandate of the Gospel.” It would be absurd to think one could offer an objective sin to God. Dr. Goldstein and I, however, do not believe there is anything in the text that suggests that this is what Pope Francis meant. As we said in our article, we believe that the Holy Father is saying “that in some complex and irregular situations a person’s conscience will recognize that God is asking for a generous response, indeed an oblationem, or offering, that moves in the right direction even though it doesn’t completely rectify the objective irregularity of the situation.”

Prof. Echeverria ends his article with a very valuable quote from Cardinal Müller about the need for more clarification, which can only be provided by the Pope. He fails, though, to mention that Cardinal Müller also says that “in Amoris Laetitia there’s no new doctrine or explication of some juridical points of the doctrine, but an acceptance of the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments.” Does Prof. Echeverria agree or disagree with Cardinal Müller in this regard? It would seem that he disagrees because in his April 2016 CWR article he claims that Pope Francis opens the door to situation ethics and implies support for the gradualness of the law. It’s difficult to see how AL could contain “an acceptance of the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments” and yet open the door to situation ethics and the gradualness of the law. It would also seem that Prof. Echeverria disagrees with Cardinal Ouellet, Archbishops Chaput, Sample, and Prendergast, as well as the Bishops of Poland and the Canadian Provinces of Alberta and the Northwest Territory along with Bishop Thomas Paprocki, Thomas Olmsted, James Conley, Steven Lopes, Philip Egan, and Vitus Huonder who all understand AL in line with Catholic tradition. Did they miss something or are they being dishonest? To be consistent Prof. Echeverria should be willing to correct them publicly for their endorsement of a papal exhortation that opens the door to situation ethics, the gradualness of the law, and undermines the need ‘for the grace of the sacrament of confession” (as he suggests in his April 2016 article).

Prof. Echeverria is my colleague and my friend. I wish I could say he responded well to the article that Dr. Goldstein and I published. Unfortunately, he did not. Instead he repeated his problems with Amoris laetitia and failed to address the core of our article, which was narrowly focused on the text of AL 303 itself.

***

Reply to Lifesite News Oct. 2, 2017

Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein and I are grateful for these comments, which show an interest in the article we published in La Stampa. I should note that I twice tried to post a response to Dr. Joseph Shaw’s Sept. 29, 2017 article, “Critics of Filial Correction are wrong. Here’s why.” Both posts were up briefly, but then they disappeared. I hope this present post won’t be deleted.

I think the case made for the “Correctio” is weakening. In his Sept. 29 article, Dr. Joseph Shaw replies to Dr. Jacob Wood and states: “It is not that we’re saying that the text of Amoris cannot be bent into some kind of orthodoxy. What we are saying is that it has become clear that orthodoxy is not what Pope Francis wants us to find there.” Dr. Shaw’s claim that Pope Francis doesn’t want orthodoxy, however, is based on subjective impressions derived from mostly non-authoritative statements of the Pope. This does not seem to be a very strong foundation for accusing the Roman Pontiff of promoting false teachings and heresies.

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski says that the article I co-authored with Dr. Goldstein shows that AL 303 “admits of an orthodox reading but it does not preclude the heterodox reading.” Many passages of the Bible, though, can be given both an orthodox reading and a heterodox reading. Why should we assume the heterodox reading is more plausible than the orthodox reading? Once again, it seems that the critics of AL must rely on subjective impressions rather than evidence that cannot be challenged.

Dr. Josef Seifert might be correct that the Latin text was not the original text of AL. Dr. Goldstein and I probably would have done better to speak of the “official” Latin text rather than the “original” Latin text. This, though, is really a minor point because the Latin text in the AAS is now the normative text. Even if Dr. Seifert thinks there’s not much difference between the Latin text and the posted English text, he still has not responded to the substance of the article I co-authored with Dr. Goldstein. In that article Dr. Goldstein and I argued that there is nothing in AL 303 that indicates that the “generous response” owed to God is an objective sin. Such a claim is based upon an assumption of Dr. Seifert that is not evident in the Latin text. In his Lifesite News response, Dr. Brugger tried to argue that what was owed and then offered to God was the “given situation” (statum quendam). This, though, makes no sense. A response involves a personal act of the will, but a situation is a condition not a personal act. A person cannot respond with a condition. This would be like a person diagnosed with diabetes responding to the disease with the condition of the disease. Contrary to Dr. Seifert AL 303 does not “destroy the entire moral teaching of the Church.” And contrary to Dr. Shaw, the Correctio is not based on solid evidence. Instead, it is based on a collection of subjective impressions that are open to question. (reply to “Criticism of Pope’s teaching not based on faulty translation: Filial Correction signer”, Pete Baklinski, LSN, 10-2-17)

***

Photo credit: Photo from Dr. Fastiggi’s faculty information page / curriculum vitae, for Sacred Heart Major Seminary (Detroit, Michigan).

***

Amoris Laetitia Has ALREADY Been Clarified Many Times

November 16, 2016 By Dave Armstrong

. . . including by high-ranking cardinals.

Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke (2-22-14) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

*****

So why are Cardinal Burke and three other retired cardinals asking for it again? I have massively documented the repeated clarifications and defenses of this papal document, in my collection, Pope Francis Defended: Resources for Confused or Troubled Folks. Here are the articles I have compiled (including a few thoughts of my own), with their original numbers in my collection (which I will refer to below):

***

198. Amoris Laetitia: Pope Francis’ “1968 Moment” (Dave Armstrong, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 4-8-16)

199. Pope Francis’s New Document on Marriage: 12 Things to Know and Share (Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers blog, 4-7-16)

200. Pope Francis Shatters Reformers’ Dreams with ‘Modern Family’ Document (Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart, 4-8-16)

201. Interpreting Amoris Laetitia ‘through the lens of Catholic tradition’ (Andrea Gagliarducci, Catholic News Agency, 4-8-16)

202. First Thoughts on “Amoris Laetitia” (Bishop Robert Barron, Aleteia, 4-8-16)

203. “True Innovations but Not Ruptures”: Cardinal Christoph Schönborn Presents “Amoris Laetitia” (Diane Montagna, Aleteia, 4-8-16)

204. Pope Affirms Traditional Marriage (Bill Donohue, Newsmax, 4-8-16)

205. Pope Francis on Love, Marriage, and the Family (George Weigel, National Review, 4-8-16)

206. The Pope’s Exhortation – A Parish Priest’s Perspective (Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Standing On My Head, 4-9-16)

207. Defenses of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia (Dave Armstrong, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 4-9-16)

208. Pope Francis Quashes “Who am I to judge?” Speculation in Amoris Laetitia (Artur Rosman, CosmosTheInLost, 4-11-16)

209. Steve Skojec Says Amoris Laetitia 298 Condones Adultery. Steve Skojec is Wrong. (Scott Eric Alt, To Give a Defense, 4-11-16)

210. Amoris Laetitia and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church (Cardinal Raymond Burke, National Catholic Register, 4-11-16)

211. Francis has delivered an eloquent defence of the Catholic vision of marriage (Ed Condon, Catholic Herald, 4-8-16)

212. Pope Francis’s revolution has been cancelled (Damian Thompson, The Spectator, 4-8-16)

213. Things Pope Francis Says in Amoris Laetitia That Few Will Mention (Scott Eric Alt, To Give a Defense, 4-11-16)

214. Amoris Laetitia: What Does Pope Francis Want Us to Do? (Deacon Jim Russell, One Faith, 4-13-16)

215. Amoris Laetitia – Chapter 8 and That Footnote… (Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Standing On My Head, 4-13-16)

216. Pope Francis on love in the family (Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, CatholicPhilly.com, 4-14-16)

217. “Integrating Weakness”: Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia (Scott Eric Alt, To Give a Defense, 4-14-16)

218. Pope Francis Gives Another Interview; False Reporting at 1 Vader 5 Begins Forthwith (Scott Eric Alt, To Give a Defense, 4-16-16)

219. Amoris Laetitia and the “Brinkmanship” of Pope Francis (Deacon Jim Russell, Crisis Magazine, 4-18-16)

220. Pope Francis is a social conservative (Tim Stanley, The Telegraph, 4-18-16)

221. Life Site News Gets a Pope Story Wrong. Again. (Scott Eric Alt, To Give a Defense, 4-19-16)

222. Amoris Laetitia and the Progressive Pope Myth (Anthony S. Layne, Catholic Stand, 4-23-16)

223. Is Amoris Laetitia’s Discussion of Culpability a “Serious Problem”? (Scott Eric Alt, To Give a Defense, 4-25-16)

224. Does Amoris Laetitia Tell Us Not to Judge? (Scott Eric Alt, To Give a Defense, 4-25-16)

225. More Defenses of Amoris Laetitia & Pope Francis (Dave Armstrong, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 4-26-16)

226. Dialogue: “Bad” Bishops & “Confusing” Francis (Dave Armstrong, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 4-28-16)

228. Interacting With the Spaemann Interview on Amoris Laetitia (Scott Eric Alt, To Give a Defense, 4-30-16)

229. Cardinal Schonborn Gives Clarification on Communion (Scott Eric Alt, To Give a Defense, 5-1-16)

230. Satan Loves Divisions Regarding Amoris Laetitia (Dave Armstrong, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 5-2-16)

231. Amoris Laetitia: Welcome to the Field Hospital (Deacon Jim Russell on Scott Eric Alt’s blog, To Give a Defense, 5-2-16)

232. Now if Life Site News Could Correct the Record. Again. [Regarding some important missing facts in an article about Cdl. Schonborn’s presentation of Amoris Laetitia] (Scott Eric Alt, To Give a Defense, 5-2-16)

233. Dialogue: Amoris Laetitia: Confusing or No? (Dave Armstrong, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 5-3-16)

234. Amoris Laetitia, “Trads” & Reactionaries (Dave Armstrong, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 5-4-16)

235. Is Amoris Laetitia Inconsistent in Its Treatment of Conscience? (Scott Eric Alt, To Give a Defense, 5-4-16)

236. Cardinal Müller: Magisterium on Remarried Divorcees Unchanged by Amoris Laetitia (Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register, 5-4-16)

237. Cardinal Müller: Amoris Laetitia is in line with previous teaching on Communion (Catholic Herald, 5-4-16)

238. Amoris Laetitia in Light of Mitus Judex (Deacon Jim Russell, Facebook, 5-4-16)

239. Gotta Love the Buzzing, Mosquito-Like Critics of Amoris Laetitia (Dave Armstrong, Facebook, 5-6-16)

240. Does Amoris Laetitia Treat the Moral Law as a Mere “Ideal”? (Scott Eric Alt, To Give a Defense, 5-10-16)

241. Does Amoris Laetitia Contradict the Council of Trent? (Scott Eric Alt, To Give a Defense, 5-10-16)

261. What Pope Francis said about Communion for the divorced-and-remarried (Catholic News Agency, 9-13-16)

262. Interpretations of Pope Francis’ Application of Amoris Laetitia with Regard to Extraordinarily Difficult Domestic Situations (Dave Armstrong: my comments in my lengthy Facebook thread, 9-14-16)

263. Not heretical: Pope Francis’ approval of the Argentine bishops’ policy on invalid marriages (Dr. Jeff Mirus, Catholic Culture, 9-15-16)

267. Cardinal Schönborn: Pope Francis follows John Paul II’s teaching on communion (Catholic Herald, 4-8-16)

***

That’s 47 articles. Granted, of course they are not all of the same authority (and include even my own strictly “amateur” — in terms of canon law — reflections). But they include express statements of the orthodoxy of the document from the likes of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn: a very high-ranking Cardinal, who was the editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see #203, 229, 232, 267). He has stated:

In this document, for me, there are true innovations but not ruptures. Just as what Pope John Paul II did with the image of God applied to man and woman was not a rupture… but a true development. (#203)

There are no novelties in this document. (#267)

Moreover, we have the clarification from no less than Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, who is the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Pope Benedict XVI’s office before becoming pope). This congregation was founded in order to defend the church from heresy, and is the body responsible for promulgating and defending Catholic doctrine. When the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger clarified things in that office, it was always quite sufficient for the more “traditional” folks in the Church, concerned about questions of orthodoxy and liturgy. So why isn’t it sufficient when Cardinal Müller confirms the orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia? I listed two articles containing Cardinal Müller’s opinions (#236-237). Here are a few of his informed judgments:

At no point has the Pope called the arguments of his predecessors into question.

It is not possible to live in God’s grace while living in a sinful situation . . . [such people] cannot receive Holy Communion unless they have received absolution in the sacrament of penance. . . .

[The] “Church has no power to change the Divine Law . . . not even a pope or council can change that. . . . [it is a] “misreading” [of Amoris Laetitia to suggest otherwise.] (#236)

If Amoris Laetitia wanted to overturn such a deep-rooted and important discipline, it would have expressed this precisely and given reasons for it.

They [divorced and remarried] are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. . . .

Without going into details, it is enough to point out that this footnote [351] refers to objective situations of sin in general, not to the specific case of civilly remarried divorcees. The situation of the latter has peculiar features which distinguishes it from other situations. . . . [it] does not apply to the previous discipline. . . . The standard of FC 84 [Pope St. John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio] and SC 29 and their application in all cases is still valid. (#237)

[Note: In Sacramentum Caritatis paragraph 29, Benedict XVI states that where “objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation” [for a divorced and remarried Catholic], that they must “commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God’s law, as friends, as brother and sister [so that] they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, . . .”]

Ironically, Cardinal Burke himself used to say (or so it seems to me, anyway) that Amoris Laetitia was perfectly orthodox. I even included an article about that in my listing (#210). Seven months ago, he stated the following:

[A] document which is the fruit of the Synod of Bishops must always be read in the light of the purpose of the synod itself, namely, to safeguard and foster what the Church has always taught and practiced in accord with her teaching.

In other words, a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, by its very nature, does not propose new doctrine and discipline, but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.

In February 2014, Cardinal Burke appeared quite sure and content that Pope Francis “affirmed the unchanging and unchangeable truths of the Church’s teaching on these very questions [of the Church’s teachings on sexuality]” and noted that many Catholics “had developed a quite different impression as a result of the popular presentation of Pope Francis and his views.” [my italics]

Now, all of a sudden, like St. Peter walking on the water, Cardinal Burke seems filled with doubts:

We are simply setting forth what the Church has always taught and practiced in asking these five questions that address the Church’s constant teaching and practice. The answers to these questions provide an essential interpretative tool for Amoris Laetitia. They have to be set forth publicly because so many people are saying: “We’re confused, and we don’t understand why the cardinals or someone in authority doesn’t speak up and help us.”

As shown above, general confirmation of the orthodoxy of the document has already been provided by Cardinals Schönborn and Müller, as well as many other high-ranking bishops and theologians. But he continues:

[I]f the Petrine Office does not uphold these fundamental principles of doctrine and discipline, then, practically speaking, division has entered into the Church, which is contrary to our very nature. . . . This idea, for instance, that the Pope should be some kind of innovator, who is leading a revolution in the Church or something similar, is completely foreign to the Office of Peter. . . .

For us to remain silent about these fundamental doubts, which have arisen as a result of the text of Amoris Laetitia, would, on our part, be a grave lack of charity toward the Pope and a grave lack in fulfilling the duties of our own office in the Church. . . .

It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.

Okay; assuming for a moment that Cardinal Burke is correct, and the pope is in “fundamental” error, Cardinals Schönborn and Müller and many other bishops and high-ranking theologians have affirmed that Amoris Laetitia is in perfect continuity with previous Church teaching, so whom are we to believe? Cardinal Burke seems to be the “odd man out” here. Why should anyone believe his take, over against that of all the others? It’s almost as if he places himself (in a sense, and from a certain perspective) — along with his three fellow “questioning” cardinals — in the position of Martin Luther: questioning the pope and the Church, with the apparent expectation that his word and his questioning be taken as somehow more authoritative or noteworthy than all the others.

Lastly, Pope Benedict XVI has stated several times that he thinks Pope Francis’ teaching (which includes Amoris Laetitia) is in complete continuity with his own. Catholic News Agency reported this a mere two months ago, on 12 September 2016:

Pope emeritus Benedict XVI has said he is satisfied with the papacy of Pope Francis and sees “no contradictions” between their pontificates. . . .

In Benedict XVI’s own words, he sees “no breach anywhere” between his pontificate and that of his successor.

“New accents yes, but no contradictions,” . . .

That’s good enough for me. But as we have seen so many times before, unwarranted criticism of one pope often spills onto other popes, whom the critics themselves see as supposedly more orthodox than the pope they are lambasting. Hence, in this instance, to suggest that Pope Francis has strayed from orthodoxy or Catholic moral tradition, implicates also Pope Benedict XVI, since he expressly stated that there are “no contradictions” and “no breach anywhere” between his teaching and that of Pope Francis. It becomes a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Self-described “traditionalists” like Cardinal Burke would not want to contradict Pope Benedict because he was the “darling” of the traditionalists. They loved him. He could do no wrong in their eyes. I think he ought to heed the Pope emeritus’ words, then, and so rest his troubled (and confused?) conscience.

In the meantime, the pope’s refusal to clarify is no different, in my opinion, than the Supreme Court of the United States refusing to consider a case; instead deferring to the judgment of lower courts. Thus, the pope’s non-reply need not be regarded as anything more momentous or “notorious” than that. The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already spoken and has done his job. All is well. Details in particulars and in pastoral application have to be worked out, as always in complex matters, but that is far different from a supposed scenario of “grave” errors and deficiencies in the teachings and actions of Pope Francis.

[see also the very vigorous discussion on my Facebook page about this post. I clarify (usually under fire) many of my own comments and make new ones as well, not covered above]

***

Addendum: Application of Amoris Laetitia with Regard to Extraordinarily Difficult Domestic Situations [Facebook comments from 9-24-16]

I won’t say that the pope is wrong, because I don’t feel myself qualified to judge the supreme head of the Catholic Church, but I do believe that any “loophole” (I use the word loosely), no matter how sensible and justified, or deemed to be “necessary”, will be exploited by the theological liberals / so-called “progressives” in the Church for their own nefarious ends. I agree with traditionalist concerns to that extent.

Whether that is sufficient reason, however, to disallow any loopholes in any circumstances, I don’t know; since liberals always exploit and distort ANY nuanced understanding of anything (e.g., look what they’ve done with development of doctrine and conscience, not to mention, widespread liturgical corruptions): thinking that nuance is their own sole intellectual domain; hence that anyone who exercises it must be one of their own (non-liberals being, of course, dumb and fundamentally challenged).

Sometimes it is true that complex nuances should still exist, wholly apart from the likelihood or even near-certainty that heterodox factions in the Church will corrupt and exploit them. That is true for development of doctrine and issues of conscience. It’s good and supremely helpful that Blessed Cardinal Newman (my “theological hero” and biggest influence in my conversion) has brilliantly analyzed these things at fabulous length. But his views have been distorted and twisted times without number by liberals, who wrongly “claim” him, just as they have claimed Pope Francis. So should he not have written what he did because of that? No.

But the fine points here are for canon lawyers and theologians and cardinals and popes to work out and through. I don’t judge the Holy Father, and don’t claim to — in effect — know more than canon lawyers and theologians and cardinals and popes. I’m weird that way . . .

I’m probably fated to be “betwixt and between” on this matter. That’s so often how it is, so nothing new there! I see valid concerns of both “sides” of a lot of disputes, and I usually have a “both/and” perspective.

In my opinion, Pope Francis recognizes that extreme complexities can sometimes exist in real-life situations. Jesus was merciful and “pastoral” like that. The woman caught in adultery could absolutely be stoned by existing Mosaic law. But He had pity on her and she wasn’t stoned. And she definitely committed adultery.

As I understand it, the reasoning would pertain to what is determined to be a “de facto” annulment, as opposed to a canonical “de jure” one. It goes beyond mere legalism in certain rare difficult circumstances, which I find to be an outlook quite consistent with Jesus and St. Paul (his numerous arguments regarding law and grace).

For example, Paul writes at length about the non-necessity of circumcision for non-Jewish Christians, then has one of his Greek converts (Timothy) circumcised because of particular circumstances. There are many other similar examples.

There will always be liberals who twist and pervert nuances in application, and people who don’t have enough theological education or insight to ever understand it in the first place. So these things will indeed happen. They already are. I don’t take those things, however, as arguments against it.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!*

***

Amoris Laetitia, “Trads” & Reactionaries

May 4, 2016 By Dave Armstrong

Precise Definitions & Accurate Categories are Supremely Important for Cogent Analysis

Image by “PixelAnarchy”: uploaded on 7-26-12 [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

***

This is a continuation, with Catholic Tom Trinko, of our prior discussion, entitled, Dialogue: Amoris Laetitia: Confusing or No? His words will be in blue. This occurred on my (public) Facebook page.

*****

You apparently don’t want to address my points so you wish to slur me by an ad hominum attack linking me to Rad Trads who I spend a great deal of time trying to bring back to the Church.

First most Rad Trads do not admit that VII documents are perfectly orthodox; they claim that they have a veneer of orthodoxy but are intended to be read in a heretical sense. I of course have always defended VII while condemning the “spirit” of VII.

I am at a loss as to how to understand how my saying that the Pope is not being clear, while being fully orthodox in his teaching, is calling the Pope a bogeyman.

Do you think that papal infallibility extends to prudential matters such as how best to communicate with his flock?

What I can’t understand is why you can’t admit the obvious, the Popes communication decisions in this case could have been better.

I do know that your reasoning does turn off the Rad Trad folks because they see it as saying that the Pope is incapable of any mistakes a definitively non-Catholic doctrine.

I didn’t link you to reactionaries. I stated above [in the previous dialogue post]: “you are not necessarily a reactionary. You could also be a traditionalist or a non-traditionalist ‘fellow traveler.’ One of the latter two is what you sound like to me.”

In these debates I often make general statements that don’t necessarily apply to the person I am debating. I have already clarified that.

I agree: reactionaries would tend to read VCII as you say. Trads usually say it is orthodox but ambiguous. Another reason to place you in the trad camp or even non-trad orthodox / sympathetic to much in trad’ism (as I am) . . .

I wasn’t talking about you at the end. I made an analogy (as I often do in argument) between your calling AL [Amoris Laetitia] unclear and “traditionalists and reactionaries say[ing] the same exact thing about the Vatican II documents.” Then I launched off my analogy to talk about other things they believe. I do this all the time in my writing. I often use the same techniques.

But as I just showed, I already had stated that I didn’t put you in the reactionary camp in the first place. These are all sociological generalizations, which is how such analysis must be in the nature of things.

You say it is “obvious” that the pope is unclear in AL. Believe it or not, there are people who disagree with you. If you can’t grasp that, you can’t. We all have opinions. You’re entitled to yours. I disagree with them. Whether you “understand” that or not, is not my problem. It is the fact of the matter.

I couldn’t care less about what reactionaries think of me. They’ve been lying about me for nearly 20 years. They’re worse than even atheists and anti-Catholic Protestants: the rudest, most uncharitable people online. I’ve been stabbed in the back by people with whom I made tremendous efforts at reconciliation. I’m lied about and mocked regularly on reactionary Facebook pages and websites and forums. I’ve been the target of vicious campaigns of slander deliberately designed to discredit me (and even harm my livelihood).

I’ve had papers on my site all that time saying clearly that the pope can be rebuked (albeit rarely and by the right people), can be wrong in a number of things; that I myself disagreed with this pope about climate change and nuclear power, that I disagreed with the past two about capital punishment and the Iraq War, etc.

I say and reiterate these things over and over and over. It never matters. It goes in one ear and out the other of these people. So why should I care about what they think of me when they can’t simply read and comprehend what I say and repeat ad nauseam? I utterly detest these sorts of things (not the people, but what they do and the false things they believe, and the tragic divisions they cause).

For a veteran writer you seem amazingly unclear as to what your words imply.

You wrote “you are not necessarily a reactionary. ” You go on to try and modify that but the fact you wrote that phrase by definition links me to reactionaries. General statements generally don’t start with “you”.

When one compares me and Rad Trads in an analogy one is saying that my approach is like theirs; i.e. grossly flawed. To say that that’s not talking about me is to express a whole new meaning to the concept of an analogy.

One does not need to be a Trad or a reactionary–both pejorative labels by the way–to recognize that the wording of VII documents could have been improved. The whole herumetics of continuity discussion is proof that standing alone VII documents have issues. Sure if one does the logical thing and used the herumetics of continuity the docs are clear but that is a bridge too far for many people.

By definition if many people find the AL unclear it is unclear. One can’t say that because some select few understand it it is clear. I can read a physics paper that you couldn’t understand but that does not mean it’s clearly written. You neglect to take into account the intended audience. If AL were intended only for theologians or experts like yourself then you’d be right in saying that the fact that non-experts can’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s not obvious.

However when Bishops and many members of the laity can’t figure out just what the Pope was saying it’s by definition proof that the document is unclear. You seem to want to blame the reader but as a writer you know it’s your job to make your point clear not the job of the reader to figure out whatever words you slap on the page–not that your books are not well written.

And it’s unclear to me if you’re not lumping me with the folks you call reactionaries why you spend the latter part of your post attacking them and their bad manners. Rather your continual comments about the failures of the reactionaries, comments not germane to our discussion on whether or not the Pope could have communicated better, can not help but be construed as your linking me to them in contradiction to your earlier statements. If you must vent about these people do so when discussing with them not with me.

Finally this is not an instance of disagreeing with what the Pope is saying for I fully agree that a couple living as brother and sister can, under certain circumstances, receive communion. Hence it is not similar to disagreeing with the Popes scientifically incorrect comments on “climate change”.

I tried my best to explain myself. I guess, then, I am as unclear in your eyes as you think Amoris Laetitia is. Join the crowd . . . I’m happy to be lumped in (at least in this respect) with the wonderful Vatican II documents and this fabulous Apostolic Exhortation.

From where I sit you have not yet grasped the reasoning behind my position, and the logical progression of my thinking, that I have taken the greatest pains to explain to you. I’m sure that will go over like a lead balloon, too, but after this comment of yours I can conclude nothing else.

I just clarified that I was not calling you a reactionary, yet you assert over and over that I am in effect doing so, or doing so in a sneaky, equivocal manner. That is a direct rejection of what I plainly stated I was not doing, which is questioning my own report.

As I have always said, “I am the world’s greatest authority on what is in my own head.” Once a person doubts the self-report and explanations of a person about his own thinking, then dialogue is dead and can no longer lead to anything constructive.

“you are not necessarily a reactionary” was strictly a logical expression meaning, “it doesn’t follow necessarily [i.e., logically] from what I am saying, that I believe you are a reactionary.” You have taken that the wrong way, to mean (far as I can tell) something like, “I suspect you are a reactionary, but am playing games and saying that you are not so that we can keep talking.” I explained exactly what I meant, but it wasn’t good enough for you. I’ll say it again, in all caps and bolded: “I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE A REACTIONARY.” Believe what you like. Once again, you have concluded that my words cannot be taken at face value. Because you couldn’t understand what I was saying, you chose to make ad hominem attacks, which is also a deficiency of logic as well as charity.

The correct phrase is “hermeneutic of continuity”, not “herumetics of continuity.” If you’re going to critique it, you’ll at least want to get the spelling right.

“Trad or a reactionary–both pejorative labels by the way”

“Reactionary” is not a term anyone likes to be called. That is granted. But if the shoe fits . . . I coined the term “radical Catholic reactionary” precisely because the group that it describes looks at itself as the quintessence of traditionalism, whereas in fact it is a wholesale distortion of same and a disgraceful scenario of false labeling and co-opting of a good term.

Traditionalists expressed over and over that they didn’t like the term “radtrad.” They interpreted it as saying that “all traditionalists are radical” and so thought it was an intended insult against the entire class of traditionalists. That was made abundantly clear in the huge dust-up over Catholic Answers’ use of “radtrad” in one of its radio shows a few years back, at the same time I was trying to come up with an alternate term. This is not the intended meaning of it at all. Rather, it was defined by those who used it (including CA) as “the small fringe, extreme group of those who call themselves traditionalists but who are in fact not so, and are radical and out of the mainstream.”

I only used “radtrad” for a couple of years. My preferred term before I coined my own was “quasi-schismatic.” But I listened to my traditionalist friends and sought to use an alternate term that didn’t offend them, even going to the great lengths of going through all my papers and changing the terms, and re-editing two of my books.

“Radical Catholic reactionary” works because it doesn’t have “trad” or “traditionalist” in it at all: thus is not subject to being understood in the way I just described. Also, because it includes “Catholic” it can’t be construed as saying that I don’t think reactionaries are Catholic. So it kills two birds with one stone: precisely the two birds it needed to kill to succeed in its intended purpose.

Saying that “trad” is a “pejorative label” is an entirely new (and remarkable) argument that I have not heard before. “Traditionalists” call themselves that. Thus, when non-traditionalists use the term they are being polite in calling traditionalists their own chosen term: what they wish to be called.

Moreover, I virtually call myself a “traditionalist” since I am so close to, and sympathetic to the position in many ways (e.g., having attended Latin Mass for now over 25 years). I wrote a whole post about it.

So to say that I am now using the term as a pejorative is really out there: a truly surreal and bizarre proposition. Perhaps, though (it’s not clear: no pun intended) you are only objecting to the shortened version “trad”. That would at least make some sense, but not much more.

I can assure you or anyone else reading that the only reason I ever do that is because “traditionalist” is such a long word, and one tires of typing that out too many times, in talking about it.

I used “trad” four times in one paragraph of my previous comment simply as an abbreviation: and for no other reason. In the same comment I also used the abbreviations “AL” and “VCII”. If you are objecting to “trad” then I guess you think I am pejoratively viewing the Second Vatican Council and Amoris Laetitia as well, which is ridiculous. I also use “JPII” a lot. Am I putting down Pope John Paul the Great, too? You used “AL” twice in your last comment and “VII” twice.

Lastly, traditionalists themselves use “trad” all the time, too (I assume for the same reason: to avoid typing all those letters over and over; certainly not because they despise themselves). For example, traditionalist Kevin M. Tierney does it five times in one of his many articles on the topic:

“. . . trad circles . . .”

“. . . trad bloggers . . .”

“trads” (three times in two paragraphs near the end)

Traditionalist Taylor Marshall uses “trads” twice in one of his articles. Etc., etc. I could find scores and scores of further examples.

As an apologist, professional author, and sociology major in college, definitions and proper, descriptive, accurate titles are extremely important to me personally and to the work that I do: as seen in the great care I took to avoid offending traditionalists (hence, my cessation of use of the term “radtrad” and urging others to do the same).

I go through the same sort of arguments and wearisome objections made by anti-Catholic Protestants who absolutely hate being described as that. Yet as I have shown many times, this term has long been in use by historians and other scholars, and is perfectly respectable and descriptive. Thus, I use it. These are people who claim you and I are not true Christians, and that Catholicism is not a species of Christianity. To call them “anti-Catholics” is infinitely less insulting than what they are saying about us.

They need to be distinguished from the huge majority of “ecumenical” Protestants who do not reject Catholicism as sub-Christian, exactly as reactionaries (folks who ludicrously call me “neo-Catholic” or “modernist” or “Novusordoist”) need to be distinguished from true traditionalists because they do not represent that honorable and orthodox group.

You say you’re not calling me a reactionary because you interpret the phrase “you are not necessarily a reactionary” in a rather idiosyncratic way.

Yes I did, so that’s the end of that.

I will accept your claim that you didn’t mean that but it’s really hard given that you keep talking about reactionaries when you talk to me. Your reply -2 above has the last 5 paragraphs dedicated to reactionaries for example. But I’ll accept that you just didn’t communicate clearly.

You can accept whatever you like. Most of my readers have no trouble accepting my styles of communication and arguing. I am regularly told that my writings are clear and easy to understand. Once in a while someone doesn’t understand it. This is fully to be expected, so I’m not bothered by it. It’s mostly a subjective thing. If nine people say that one’s writing is “clear” and one says it is “unclear” one obviously has to write for the nine and not the one. A writer can only go by the feedback he gets, and (for Catholic missionaries) the fruits of his work.

I made no ad hominem attacks against you unless of course my pointing out the highly antagonistic way your poorly phrased comments could be interpreted is ad hominem in your mind.

<snark>If you’re going to attack my spelling you are clearly clutching at straws; I leave spelling to my editors. As a writer I’m more concerned about content. </snark>

Hardly. I’m just helping you out. If you go argue about this stuff and use that spelling of a well-known phrase, people will think you don’t know what you are talking about. So it was an act of charity. You can’t see that. Others can.

When a mainstream catholic calls someone who considers themselves a “true” catholic because they reject VII it’s a pejorative; a label for something that is not good. If you don’t intend it that way then I’ll keep that in mind in the future. I’ve never seen the term Trad used in a neutral or approving way but there’s always a first time.

Then you haven’t observed the traditionalist world and its self-terminology very closely. I have for 20 years. I gave you examples; they weren’t good enough for you. I could give many more, as I said, but since these had no impact, it’s unlikely that further ones would. People use abbreviations. This ain’t rocket science.

I too worry about offending people. That’s why I developed the term NONCC–Non-Orthodox Non-Catholic Christian–to avoid upsetting Protestants who objected to the label of Protestant.

But we’ve drifted far from the main point; the Pope’s extremely poor communication technique. No matter how “beautiful” AL is the reality is that the key issue at stake here is whether or not the Pope is endorsing Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics. The Pope should know that too.

Hence to not clearly state that the Sacrament is only available to those who are in effect not married, i.e. living as brother and sister, is simply inexcusable. You’ve given no reason that withstands scrutiny to justify the Pope not being clear on this very important point.

Because you’re an academic perhaps you think having to go to external sources to understand a document is normal but for the majority of Catholics if the document itself is unclear they’re in trouble.

I’m not an academic; I’m a lay popular-level apologist, who writes for and to the masses. But some of what I do is sort of “academic-lite.” Many academics like reading my writings. I just never claim to be a scholar, because I don’t have those credentials.

Further the Pope was not unclear on something that is intrinsically hard to discuss such as the Trinity but on something that is trivial to clearly state. All he had to do was say “Those divorced and remarried who are willing to live as brother and sister may be able to receive Communion.”

Yet even when given the chance he laughed it off and told people to listen to the Cardinal.

Given that we both agree that the Pope did not intend anything heretical we also both agree that the Pope’s interests are best served if people can clearly and definitively know what he intended. He’s failed at that.

Ah, I see how you view the Holy Father. He has “extremely poor communication technique.” He “should know” stuff that you know. You judge him for not doing what you think is absolutely necessary, and this is “simply inexcusable”. “the document itself is unclear.” He “failed” in this respect.

He was wrong to say that a Cardinal properly clarified his document. He has to do everything. So he screwed up again. He didn’t know that Cardinals couldn’t actually do some things, too. He should have checked with you. Damn! The lost opportunities of life . . . !

All this amounts to “I know better than the pope.” Gotcha. Duly noted. In an alternate universe perhaps you could have attained the office of Vicar of Christ. I have a hunch that in that world you would catch as much hell and receive as much unwarranted criticism as Pope Francis gets.

But it’s just a hunch. I prefer this world where the marvelous Pope Francis is pope. May he have many more years.

*****

Meta Description: As sadly so often, discussion about Pope Francis & Amoris Laetitia, breaks down & becomes “ships passing in the night.”

Meta Keywords: Amoris Laetitia, annulments,apostolic exhortation,Catholics & marriage,Catholics & the family,Divorce, fellow travelers, Holy communion, Pope Francis,pope-bashing, public squabbling, Radical Catholic Reactionaries, remarried Catholics, synod on the family,useful idiots, well-intentioned folks

Dialogue: Amoris Laetitia: Confusing or No?

May 3, 2016 By Dave Armstrong

Image uploaded by “ClkerFreeVectorImages” on 4-29-14 [Pixabay / public domain / CC0 license]

*****

Catholic Tom Trinko‘s words will be in blue. This occurred on my (public) Facebook page.

*****

Perception is reality. While I have no problem believing that Pope Francis is not a heretic the reality is that liberals in the Church are going to take footnote 351 and run with it.

We also know that lots of good Catholics will be concerned that the only way they can figure out that the Pope is not teaching error is by listening to a talk by some Cardinal. Is it too much to ask that on an issue this contentious which has received so much coverage and so many claims that the Pope will change doctrine that the Pope’s own writing could be more explicit?

That one has to listen to the cardinal’s talk to understand what the Pope wrote is bordering on scandal itself. Catholics are under attack from every direction these days. That they have to do deep research to find out that the Pope isn’t teaching error is an unconscionable burden to levy on them.

How many people leaning toward the SSPX or other “traditional” groups will take a step out of the Church because of this?

I write articles defending the misinterpretation of this Pope but the time has come to condemn him not for heresy but for apparently not understanding the impact of his less than clear writing.

Pope Francis has lead an amazingly holy life for which we can give thanks to God. However releasing this document with footnote 351 without a clear statement that the sacraments are only for those not living sinfully was a huge error given that the media, and liberal Catholics, had been saying for years that the Pope would allow Communion for people living in objective sin.

I sadly suspect that years from now it will be possible to find liberal priests and bishops who will allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion and cite the Pope’s document as support.

As I confidently predicted just three hours before writing this (“Will it shut up the reactionaries and their fellow travelers? No. Sadly, nothing will.”), the clarification even from a Cardinal won’t do any good for people who keep wanting to criticize and insist that everything is so muddy and unclear and confused.

Traditionalists and reactionaries used to love Cardinal Ratzinger, didn’t they? His “banal” quote regarding the Novus Ordo Mass is still grossly quoted out of context to this day. They used to love Cardinal Burke until he disagreed with them about Amoris Laetitia.

So we get precisely what was being requested over and over and you dismiss it with the wave of a hand. It was not strictly necessary, but some people are slow learners and lack faith and trust, so it was necessary for them.

Well I’m not entirely alone. Read what this Bishop [Schneider] wrote. [link]

Also note I didn’t communicate well. I specifically said that I didn’t think that the Pope intended anything heretical so I’m not clear why you’re grouping me with reactionaries.

My complaint,and Bishop Schneider’s, is that the Pope’s unclear language will create problems for the Church even though the Pope’s intentions are good.

And by the way I do think one needed to listen to the Cardinal to figure out what the Pope intended. It’s not clear from the context that the Pope was talking about couples who were not living in objective sin because they were being chaste.

I’m not an idiot but I would not have thought of that on reading what the Pope wrote even though I’d assume that there was some legitimate way to reconcile what the Pope wrote with Church teaching.

That’s why your comment about slow learners is not germane. In my case the issue wasn’t was the Pope a heretic but rather how in the world can we reconcile what he wrote with Truth.

I’ve written a number of articles defending the Pope’s earlier comments [links: one / two / three / four / five] . . . [you have an inability] to understand why good people who trust the Pope are concerned when Bishops and priests are claiming the Pope is teaching that it’s okay for sexually active remarried people can get Communion and the Pope does not simply say “No that’s not what I said”.

I dealt with your objections, I believe, in my recent paper: Satan Loves Divisions Re Amoris Laetitia.

Your article on the pope and immigration is included in my resources in defense of the Holy Father.

You are totally wrong and I say that in a very charitable way.

Here’s why:

1) There are many public voices in the Church, including prelates, who are saying that divorced and remarried Catholics should be allowed to receive communion under some conditions.

Of course there are. The liberals / modernists (like the poor) are always with us.

2) The media has been widely relaying the statements of those clerics.

Of course they do, because it furthers their anti-traditional / secularizing agenda. What’s new today is that so many Catholics read that slop and think that the Holy Father is part of it.

3) The average Catholic knows that clerics, including Bishops, have been saying that the divorced and remarried should be able to get Communion.

Probably, since the average Catholic is woefully ignorant of so many things in theology and practice.

4) Hence an unclear statement will leave confusion in the Church.

I don’t agree with you that Amoris Laetitia is unclear. I deny your assumed premise.

5) Confusion in the Church is unacceptable and should be avoided.

I agree. Public infighting and questioning of the competence of the pope is also unacceptable and should be avoided.

6) The only way to avoid those clerics claiming the Pope said X, even though he didn’t, is for the Pope to clearly say he didn’t say X.

The pope did do that by directing the confused to Cdl. Schonborn’s clarifications. There is nothing wrong or improper in that at all. The pope doesn’t have to do everything. What are we, a bunch of children?

Your response would be valid if no one of any stature in the Church was speaking about giving communion to divorced and remarried Catholics.

However in the world as it is we know that the folks who are now speaking for Communion for divorced and remarried have often in the past asked “forgiveness”, actually approval, after the fact on issues like Communion in the hand, altar girls, and most recently women having their feet washed at Easter.

A reasonable person has every reason to assume that some Catholics will not bother to listen to what the Cardinal said and simply run with their interpretation of what the Pope wrote.

Not responding to and correcting that will create severe problems in the Church.

And of course the obvious question is why would it be hard for the Pope to simply say “I meant cases where the couple is living a life of heroic virtue by being chaste.”?

The job of the Church is to teach the Truth. Whenever any of the faithful are confused, for whatever reason, the job of the Church is to be clear even if that requires restating things that “should be obvious”.

I provide 34 articles clarifying Amoris Laetitia. How many have you read of those, if you’re so confused? Wouldn’t you have the highest motivation to read them, so as to become un-confused? [he didn’t answer]

You can’t deny that AL is unclear to some people unless you’re going to say I’m dumb or disingenuous and the same is true of the Bishop I cited.

You might find it clear but the reality is that unless one is steeped in knowledge of the Church, which most Catholics in America at least aren’t these days, it is clearly incorrect to simply declare that writing that has confused so many people is in fact clear.

The Bible has confused tons of people, and whole sects and heresies have been built upon false interpretations of it. Is it sufficiently clear to understand? I say it is, for the most part, though there are clearly complexities in systematic theology and exegesis, to learn with study.

I gave my own opinion. I do not think it is unclear. I didn’t deny that others did not find it to be so. The reasons why they do would be a whole ‘nother discussion. I think a lot of it is because they bring false assumptions and premises as to what was or “must have been” in the pope’s mind when he wrote it, and his overall outlook.

Yes we are children, or more precisely sheep. Referring people to a long talk rather than simply saying he meant chaste couples is an extraordinarily poor communication technique.

The very fact that 30+ articles have been written clarifying AL proves that your assumption that AL is obvious is incorrect. An obvious text does not need to be explained over and over again by third parties.

It does not at all. They are written because, for various reasons, some people find Pope Francis to be so unclear and supposedly heterodox in some fashion or against tradition. So a lot of effort has to be expended to show that he is not those things.

Likewise, much ink has been spilt in trying to persuade reactionaries (and many traditionalists) — mostly in vain — that the Vatican II documents are perfectly orthodox and wonderful, while they continue the canard that they are supposedly unclear and ambiguous.

It’s the same with the Bible. As an apologist, I’ve been explaining the Bible to people who don’t understand it or distort it, for 35 years. The fault lies in them, not in Scripture. I think that is the case here, too, whether they are well-intentioned (most are) or not.

My first major apologetics projects in the early 1980s were collecting evidences for the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Trinity in the Bible, and to refute Jehovah’s Witnesses. They and many others do not see these clear proofs, which number in the hundreds. If the Bible (God’s Word) is massively misunderstood, why wouldn’t a human papal document also be? Of course it will be. All we can do is explain it for the slow learners or those laboring under misconceptions and false presuppositions.

And while I would be motivated to read such articles the person who is at risk because of the lack of clarity in AL, the divorced and remarried Catholic looking for a way out, is unlikely to look a gift horse in the mouth when his priest and his bishop say that the Pope was endorsing communion for the divorced and remarried.

I think a big part of our disagreement is that I believe the Pope should strive to be a better communicator and you think the burden should rest on the people in the pews to figure out what the Pope is really saying.

Yes, I think people should get off their butts and learn much more than they do. They are willing to do so in college or at work. But when it comes to theology and spirituality, they don’t have time, and want to be spoon-fed. Hence, they are easy pickings for the secular media, and its allies and bedmates among reactionaries and liberals.

You agree that many Catholics are woefully ignorant of their faith but then you say that the Pope doesn’t need to be clear that it’s the faithful’s responsibility to figure out what the Pope is really saying even when it requires a lot of knowledge. That’s a recipe for disaster.

Again, I didn’t say that the pope doesn’t need to be clear. I think he is, for the most part (though everyone can improve). He simply has a different style. He’s a pastor, not primarily a theologian or philosopher like the previous two popes. People misunderstand him (generalizing, of course) largely because of what they bring to the table in interpreting him. If they bring false premises, they will misinterpret what he writes and says.

I don’t expect the Pope to write things that can’t be misinterpreted, after all people misinterpret the Bible all the time. But when something of this magnitude comes up a simple direct clarification is necessary.

Once again, he has clarified. He said, in effect, “go read Cdl. Schonborn’s clarifications if you are confused about what I meant.”

I didn’t say I was confused. I said the Pope was unclear and that was a big problem. The Patheos article was clear.

I still disagree. The Popes comments on this in AL were not remotely clear enough given the environment he was writing in–Bishops saying that Communion for divorced and remarried is okay.

It’s one thing if a text is unclear because it’s complex. It’s quite another when it’s unclear because the author eschews clarity.

Given the length of this document the Pope could have added a sentence clarifying the living chastely constraint without exceeding his page limit.

Similarly when directly asked about this he should have been clear and not just point to some Cardinal’s talk.

The Pope is to be our teacher but you act as though it’s the responsibility of the faithful to overcome papal obtuseness.

Christ’s Truth is both simple and clear. He didn’t require them to “get off their butts and learn much more than they do”. Willful misunderstanding, like the SSPX, is far from the situation with AL where detailed research is needed to figure out what the Pope intended.

The writer of Hebrews would appear to disagree:

Hebrews 5:11-14 About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. [12] For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; [13] for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. [14] But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.

Actually that supports my point:

“For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; “

I’m saying we need a clear teacher, the Pope, who provides simple to understand truth, milk. You’re saying we should be able to eat meat, obscure teaching, before we are fed milk. The reality is that the majority of American Catholics need milk not meat.

You were trying to deny that God (and the Church) requires people to “get off their butts and learn much more than they do”. So I gave a scriptural example where they had to do just that. It was a rebuke: they should have known more than they did. The parable of the talents is very much along the same lines (Matthew 25:14-30). They have to do something with what they have been given.

This isn’t just a Protestant notion. It’s also a Catholic one. Hence, a renewed emphasis on Scripture-reading in the Church, especially over the last 70 years or so. It’s presupposed that people can learn things on their own, without being led like a child at every turn.

But today people choose to remain ignorant in various ways and not study on their own. They’d much rather whine about how ignorant and confused they are, and moan about how supposedly unclear the pope is, and how he must lead them by the hand in everything.

Also, in the questions under consideration (who can and cannot receive Holy Communion), the answers for the average Catholic will be sought out by consulting a priest or at least a DRI or other Catholic teacher, or apologist.

Thus, the responsibility is on them, not just on the pope. Whether they fail in their task, and why they fail if in fact they do, is a completely different discussion, and there are numerous causes for that failure when it occurs (sadly, far too often), and very few — if any — of them have directly to do with how clear Pope Francis writes or expresses ideas and doctrines.

No. You gave me a verse that said that before they are ready for meat people need teachers who will prepare them.

I pointed out that most American Catholics haven’t had those teachers and hence are unready for meat.

You are apparently comfortable with people going astray due to unclear Church teaching because you blame the people. Yet Christ clearly instituted the Church precisely to educate the people. If the Church fails in that, and it clearly has in the US, then it’s unfair to blame the people only.

It’s one thing to defend the intentions of the Pope, something I agree with, but quite another for you to defend his failings and lay the blame for them on the people.

All that matters is that because of the lack of clarity in AL, clarity that could have been added with minimal effort, many will be seduced into believing the lies of those clerics who will tell them that they can go to Communion when they can’t.

The reason we want to convert everyone to the Church even though those outside the Church can be saved is because the odds of people doing the right thing is much better when they know what Christ actually taught. That’s also why we need a Pope who speaks clearly on critical matters not just a Pope who is fully orthodox in his teaching.

Jesus said to be saved we had to be like little children not like scholars. That doesn’t mean that studying the faith is not something we should do but it does mean that it’s a stretch to condemn poorly catechized Catholics for the Pope’s lack of clarity.

I’ve never denied (ever, in 25 years) that the Church is failing at large in her teaching duties. I just referred above to “failure [of priests and teachers in the Church] when it occurs (sadly, far too often) . . .”

We continue to differ on whether the pope was unclear or not. You say that you understand him but that nevertheless he remains too unclear in Amoris Laetitia. I replied with three arguments:

1) The Bible and Vatican II are misinterpreted and thought to be unclear, too. The Bible’s perfect and inspired. Obviously we can’t go and change that. We can only teach people the correct doctrines in it.

2) People need to learn on their own, too (I gave two scriptural arguments).

3) It’s mainly a function of priests and DRIs and apologists and Catholic teachers (in Catholic schools) and catechists to teach these things. Most lay Catholics will never read AL, assuming they have even heard of it.

But, bottom line: you say the pope is fundamentally unclear and I deny that.

You’re blaming him; arguing that he is lax in his duty and incompetent. You think you could do a better job than he did. So it is the same old saw: y’all think you are more Catholic than the pope, and would make better popes than he is. You know better. You are lecturing him on how to be the Holy Father. You would speak more clearly than Pope Francis. He’s a fool in over his head, who doesn’t understand even basic concepts of teaching and pedagogy. That’s what the griping amounts to. You can try to deny it all you want.

One quickly tires of this, no matter how well-intentioned it is.

They said all the same bullcrap about Pope St. John Paul II. How short people’s memories are! The incessant moaning and whining stopped during Benedict’s reign because he was the traditionalists’ and reactionaries’ darling. But as soon as he was gone, it immediately started up again.

Rorate Caeli literally trashed Pope Francis on his first day in office, and their main source was a Holocaust denier, as I have documented. They didn’t know if he’d be “clear” or not on his first day!

You say, “we need a Pope who speaks clearly on critical matters not just a Pope who is fully orthodox in his teaching.”

And of course traditionalists and reactionaries say the same exact thing about the Vatican II documents: they are orthodox, but they ain’t clear enough; they’re “ambiguous”, and so they alone have brought about the almost complete (alleged) collapse of the Church (forget secularism, the sexual revolution, theological liberalism, the massive clerical and academic dissent against Humanae Vitae, etc.). Nope, it must be Vatican II and the New Mass which are the cause of all ills. Couldn’t possibly be anything else.

Now Pope Francis is the third boogeyman. Classic reactionaryism features the “big three”: bashing of the pope, the New Mass, and Vatican II.

*****

Meta Description: Dialogue with a fellow Catholic who insists that Amoris Laetitia is terribly unclear, while I take the polar opposite view.

Meta Keywords: Amoris Laetitia, annulments, apostolic exhortation, Catholics & marriage, Catholics & the family, Divorce, Holy communion, Pope Francis, pope-bashing, Radical Catholic Reactionaries, remarried Catholics, synod on the family, useful idiots, public squabbling, fellow travelers, well-intentioned folks

Satan Loves Divisions Re Amoris Laetitia

May 2, 2016 By Dave Armstrong

Geological fault line in Þingvellir National Park, Iceland. Photograph by Jon Connell, 8-5-06 [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

*****

This is an exchange with James Hooper, a Catholic friend, on my Facebook page. His words will be in blue. Words of Catholic friend Margie Prox Sindelar will be in green.

*****

You gentleman are heroically defending AL and to some degree the Pope. It really is the only salvageable position for explaining this as an evangelist. But for the sake of argument, wouldn’t it be nice if all this was rendered unnecessary by a clear and unambiguous rejection of the Kasper paradigm? It would just throw a bucket of cold water on all of this controversy. I pray we get that re-statement / clarification soon.

I think it was rejected by not being adopted, just as the Supreme Court rejects a lower ruling by deciding not to deal with (hence not overturn) a higher contrary ruling.

The very fact that the discussion basically centers around a footnote in a non-dogmatic Apostolic Exhortation shows us what we are here dealing with. Nothing has changed, except perhaps in a pastoral sense: an attempt to be more sensitive to difficult marital situations.

Dave the current controversy is solely because people see the Kasper language in Chapter 8. Right or wrong, they see it. Kasper and the German bishops see it. Most people like us can accept the hermeneutic of continuity – however a goodly portion of the Church doesn’t, including quite a few “sane” Catholics with great reputations. Despite all that has transpired it would be helpful to the case of pulling these people in to hear an unambiguous, plainly worded rejection once and for all.

The same stuff is said about Vatican II all the time, as I note more than once in my post. I don’t buy it. Theological liberals will always distort things. That will happen as long as they are around and haven’t died out yet. Give it 15-20 years and they’ll be mostly dead and we’ll be liberated from their sublime wisdom and faith.

Those will be glorious days. However, wouldn’t it have been nice at the time of Vatican II to have really clear directives as to what the documents didn’t mean? Perhaps it wasn’t as clear what was happening back then. Its clear now and I hope not a missed opportunity for the Holy Father to help us to help him. Come Holy Ghost.

Again, I think Vatican II is quite clear and glorious. I think the same about the Bible, which has been distorted by kooks and liberals lo these past 3000+ years. No one knows that better than the apologist. I see how it is done all the time, even by atheists, who ludicrously fancy themselves experts on Holy Writ.

They see it because they are looking for it, many of these people are still bemoaning that Burke is not Pope [see related link], and don’t trust Pope Francis.

Some but not all. Some are sincerely wanting to help the Pope and those souls who will be impacted by these kooks by eliminating the ambiguity.

That’s why I said “many”, and I stand by my opinion that those “worried” about the Pope will serve the church better by worrying about their own sanctification, and I have the Saints to back up my opinion.

If what was appropriate is worrying about our own souls, then none of us would be apologists or evangelists. We have a de facto problem in that very prominent churchmen, not just raving radical traditionalists, see an ambiguity that has the potential to lead people astray. Assuming that isn’t the Pope’s intention at all, suggesting a clarification only helps him and the Office of Pope. As you know, I don’t think the only two options are acceptance or silence.

That’s why I provide links to 31 articles [as of this writing] that accept and explain Amoris Laetitia. [#198 and after in the list] One can at least read the positive, “pro” articles if they must read the others, too.

I won’t go astray sticking with the Pope, but many can and do go astray questioning him. I have seen it and so have you. We need good apologists like Dave because there are very bad apologists, very bad media, and a lot of Catholics that don’t trust the Holy Spirit. I see nothing but ugly fruit coming from those who question the Pope nonstop, and it starts innocently enough, with good intentions, but its a huge danger. The section lay people are obsessed with is not ever for laypeople. The biggest crisis in the church right now, in my opinion, is that too many think they are apologists and they are not.

Too many think they are popes or Protestants, too.

Dave you’re kind of moving the goal posts. My comment was on people who misinterpret Vatican II. Those people caused trouble in the last 30-40 years. What I was saying is that it would have been nice to have some clearer interdiction on those people sooner. As we both know John Paul II and Benedict XVI introduced the concept of the hermeneutic of continuity to combat that idea.

As I said at the outset, I commend Dave for doing this heavy lifting. It is the job of the apologist to present the voice of the church in the most positive light possible. I have actually reposted Dave’s collection of articles on my wall for the edification of those who follow me.

My quip was tangential I suppose, that given the obvious concern by more than just the usual commentators, but by real and respected theologians and prelates, which comes from a place not of anti Popery or mischief, perhaps a clarification from the Holy Father would be helpful to everyone. In my opinion it’s not enough to lump everyone together into the kook bucket, or to simply suggest everyone should like it or lump it. Perhaps your focus is the 1 Peter 5 crowd, but there is a lot more being said out there that isn’t in “bad media.”

It would be a shame to see all of this become divisive like the waterboarding discussion 20 months ago where all of us were being collectively accused of all sorts of mischief, when we were just defending the right of Catholics to form an opinion on another vague non dogmatic issue.

It already has, and on reactionary pages is far worse than the waterboarding fight ever was. My page is civil because I demand that it be so, but the larger fight is very ugly and divisive and the devil has a huge victory.

I think the charity displayed in the conversation here keeps that danger at bay, but we should remain vigilant that we minister to those people whose opinions may differ or who are so far off the ranch (calling the pope a heretic) that unity seems unlikely. In the spirit of mercy, our rhetoric should always assume the best intentions and not add to the division there already is. Again, no worries here; just laying that out for consumption by all.

I don’t lump everyone together as indistinguishable. What I say is that it is troubling that more and more “respectable” and non-reactionary voices are jumping on the “criticize the pope at every turn” bandwagon.

I predicted this. The [mostly] secular media / liberal / legitimate mainstream traditionalist + radical Catholic reactionary “narrative” regarding Pope Francis is now so entrenched that it will probably not go away till we get another pope.

I think this is a great tragedy and a huge victory for the devil, who loves nothing more than to divide and conquer, and set Catholics against each other and against their own supreme leader: the Vicar of Christ. He is so happy about it that he is dancing with glee and ecstasy.

We will see more and more of this as time goes on. And some who have gone down this road will become traditionalists and some will keep traveling further “right” into radical reactionary land and worse. Mark my words. I’ve watched these trends for 25 years.

I agree with you about the devil. He is assuredly delighted. We should seek unity where we can, assisting the Holy Father where we can.

Hilary White (Lifesite News / The Remnant) already has a position that there are no orthodox bishops and that the entire non-reactionary Church isn’t Catholic at all, but literally another religion that she calls “Novusordoism.”

It’s standard practice among reactionaries to call those of us who disagree with their nonsense “neo-Catholics” and to mock us (as I was at The Remnant [see my reply] and Scott Eric Alt is being mocked currently by Steve Skojec of One Vader Five). [see his reply also]

When I critiqued Chris Ferrara’s trashing of the last document of Pope Francis (Laudato Si) I was roundly mocked and dismissed as a guy who has no readers. Division? There it is.

My point was that we can’t let our defense of the Magisterium or the Pope contribute to more division, not that there isn’t division. Elevating the rancor serves nobody except the aforementioned Devil.

Telling the truth, unfortunately, always ruffles feathers. This is why Jesus was murdered, and why they tried to kill Paul and Peter many times, and eventually did. We know Jesus never sinned, yet they accused Him of being filled with a demon, and of blasphemy.

Folks get angry even if we present truths as perfect saints and all sweetness and light. Division exists because a proportion of any given crowd accepts falsehood and lies. That is the beginning of it.

I have not read these people out of the Church (like Hilary White has done with us). That’s why I call them “radical Catholic reactionaries.” My reasoning in coining that term was to make it clear that I am starkly separating the category from mainstream traditionalism, and also to make it clear that I regard the people as Catholics, albeit both radical and reactionary.

Well Dave, I personally see the ambiguity that others have pointed out in Chapter 8. I think it opens a door to mischief, and there are plenty of people like Cardinal Kasper who are clicking their heels in celebration of the ambiguity they see to. I don’t question the Pope’s motives – and I don’t think its appropriate to blend “hair on fire” criticism with evangelism – and I think that’s probably the difference.

We’ll see where all this criticism and public confusion and lamentation leads, James. It’s nowhere good, in my opinion.

I am curious. What do you think is an appropriate response to an honest concern with this kind of non-magisterial document? Is the only acceptable option just complete acceptance, or is there an appropriate route for one to exercise one’s obligations under Canon 212?

Obviously rants accusing the pope of heresy are not appropriate. What other responses are appropriate in your opinion?

I’d say the appropriate response is to continue on as we always have, accepting it as part of the “hermeneutic of continuity” and to stop interpreting the pope as if he is a liberal and revolutionary: for which there is no evidence.

Thanks. I’d like to propose that there is another position here, that doesn’t fit into that binary model of either you accept it as part of the “hoc” or reject it because you think the Pope is a revolutionary or liberal.

I believe one can simultaneously promote the document through the eyes of the “hoc” and make an observation that many in the church (Cupich, Kasper, Marx, etc.) since the document has been released have announced that they see an opening for communion for divorced and remarried that aren’t living in continence. I believe that one can simply call for clarity from the Vatican in a concern for souls that may be led astray, without indicting the Pope as a revolutionary or liberal.

We have to remember that the synod in part was called to clarify these very issues which are now even more confused. The Pope himself pulled Cardinal Kasper out of retirement to air his proposal, presumably in a spirit of putting the question to rest once and for all. Since the matter has not been put to rest in the eyes of these people by the synod, nor by the exhortation, nor by comments following the release of the synod – it doesn’t seem unreasonable to simultaneously promote the positive hermeneutic and request clarification where it is obviously needed, all without denigrating the Pope.

As I have stated over and over, folks will misinterpret and (I think, dishonestly, or at least erroneously) exploit the document, just as they do the Bible and the Vatican II documents.

Nothing can stop that. All the clarifications in the world can be made and it won’t help. The more nuanced, and (I think) realistic and practical documents are, the more liberals exploit them in this manner.

Moreover, those who are not liberal and anti-pope who think it is so unclear, etc. (with perfectly good intentions), are falling into the hands of liberal goals: and essentially are functioning, under the circumstance, as what Lenin called “useful idiots.”

I just have to respectfully disagree that anyone who is not liberal and who sees shortcomings in this document, while proposing it within the full parameters of canon 212 (respect for the office and speaking their concerns candidly) are in fact “useful idiots.” I think that’s a sad condescension to people who have dedicated themselves to God and the Church. Again I am not speaking about hair on fire reactionaries. The document is not dogmatic, nor does the Pope claim any sort of magisterial voice here. Comparing it to Trent or Vatican II is a mismatch.

That’s what I have to say. Thanks.

As usual, I have to explain “useful idiots.” It is not saying that the people are consciously idiots. From the perspective of those with a far more radical agenda, this is how they are viewed. Wikipedia gives a good one-sentence definition:

In political jargon, “useful idiot” is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.

Thus a person can be perfectly sincere and well-meaning, in this instance orthodox Catholic, love and care about the Church, be wonderful people, etc., and still be a useful idiot in specific ways. The devil is an extremely subtle operator. See C. S. Lewis’ classic, The Screwtape Letters . . .

Of course, reactionaries say the same sort of thing about those of us whom they derisively call “neo-Catholics” all the time: that we are in bed with modernism, fundamentally compromised (even consciously so in the worst cases) useful idiots. But they will not say the nice stuff about us that I am saying about those who are critiquing Pope Francis with only good intentions.

I understand the allusion to “useful idiot,” and I still don’t agree. You are basically suggesting that people such as myself who have a track record of defending the pope but see a problem brewing in the church which could be averted by some Papal clarification are in fact unwittingly promoting reactionaries. I find this ironic because you are equally offended by apparently being accused of unwittingly supporting modernists. Personally I think it is uncivil and unfair to paint someone who disagrees with you on a purely prudential matter as an unknowing agent of Satan.

I appreciate your time in conversing with me on this matter. I wish I could say I felt less unsettled. As someone I respect, I am disappointed to see these distinctions being made. Thus it’s probably best I retire from the dialogue here. Peace.

Yes, I believe the devil is extremely clever, and he is exploiting the present divisions to the max.

I think whatever legitimate criticisms that can be made (and I don’t deny that there are possibly some) should be made in private, with fellow Catholics: not broadcast for all the world to see.

But since the criticism is broadcast far and wide, and by increasingly more people and relatively more respectable people, I am duty-bound as an apologist and defender of the pope to speak out against it.

We’re a laughing-stock among anti-Catholic Protestants now. They are having a field day noting and mocking all these internal divisions. They use it as arguments against the One True Church. They say, “see! The nauseating papists are no different than we are, with our own endless divisions, never able to be healed.”

And this includes speaking out against what I believe to be the grand strategy of Satan to once again divide and conquer: one of his favorite and oldest tricks in his large arsenal.

If you disagree, you do. I can only call it as I see it. I’ve always been known as a straight shooter, and with good reason: because I am in fact (right or wrong) a straight shooter.

Public detraction of the Pope is very different from public discussion of a situation that is developing in the church. Shooting the messenger, albeit straight shooting, without distinction probably isn’t helpful to prevent further division.

I have taken an oath as well to defend the magisterium. Requesting a clarification along those lines to aid our errant brethren in understanding the limits of praxis is perfectly in those lines and does not presume an attack on the Holy Father.

You need not worry that I take anything personal. My feelings are the least of my concern. The souls of those being led astray by errant voices are my concern. My opinion is that positive apologetics would be maximally effective with some straight shooting from the Pope, when he realizes there is trouble brewing.

You call for clarification. Cardinal Schonborn has already provided exactly that. The pope expressly stated that what the Cardinal said would clear up the confusion over the “controversial” portions of the document. And Cardinal Schonborn made it perfectly clear that the document does not overturn existing Catholic tradition, teaching, and practice. So your wish has been granted.

*****

Meta Description: Is public massive criticism of a papal document by Catholics a good thing? Is it even necessary? I debate it with a Catholic friend.

Meta Keywords: Amoris Laetitia, annulments,apostolic exhortation,Catholics & marriage,Catholics & the family,Divorce, Holy communion,Pope Francis, pope-bashing,Radical Catholic Reactionaries,remarried Catholics, synod on the family

More Defenses of Amoris Laetitia & Pope Francis

April 26, 2016 By Dave Armstrong

Image by “Nicola”: 20 August 2015 [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

***

See my first post on Amoris Laetitia and a follow-up one. These off-the-cuff reflections come from a good discussion where two people were critical of Amoris Laetitia (in part) and myself and two others defended it, and the Holy Father. It is a private thread, so I can’t cite the others, but I will paraphrase a few portions (in brackets).

*****

The “observer” is left with some folks who disagree with Amoris Laetitia or are unhappy about it, and others who think it is good and fine. I’m in the latter camp.

But as a generality, I trust the pope, and trust that he knows what he is doing. I have not seen the slightest evidence that he is not orthodox, regarding anything.

[allusion was made to Cardinal Kasper and Pope Francis placing him in a prominent position in the family synods]

Many if not all or virtually all of the more liberal Cardinals were appointed by Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict in the first place. Kasper was made a Cardinal by John Paul II and made President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity by Pope Benedict.

The problem of liberal bishops and theologians (or those who don’t actively oppose liberalism, if they are not personally liberal) is very complex and implicates far more than Pope Francis. He is leading the Church that he inherited. It has been complex and troubling after the wholesale rebellion after Humanae Vitae in 1968. The Church has done all it can to avoid a schism, and that involves all sorts of less-than-ideal situations with individual bishops (the German case being the most troubling).

As I understand it, Apostolic Exhortations are not the sort of document that introduce new doctrine. Amoris Laetitia never states that divorced and remarried can receive Holy Communion. Therefore, the present Church law exists as it was (as I believe Amoris Laetitia alludes to several times). I think it’s rather like the Supreme Court not commenting on a case, which means that the decision of the Court below it stands.

If the document is distorted in application by the theological liberals, what else is new? Have they not done the same with Vatican II for fifty years? Have liberals not butchered the Bible itself for 250 years?

Then the question becomes whether it is the fault of the document or those who distort it. Traditionalists and radical Catholic reactionaries place the blame squarely on the (take your pick) “ambiguous” or “heterodox” Vatican II documents. I place it in the confused brains and convoluted policies of liberals.

***

That’s what they have been saying about the Vatican II documents for 50 years [that they are confusing and (deliberately?) ambiguous], and about Pope St. John Paul II’s encyclicals and other documents, which were regarded as Byzantine philosophy-speak.

If we have a philosopher-pope, his documents are criticized as inexplicable. If we get one who approaches things pastorally, he gets the same criticism. I guess these poor popes can’t win for losing. It matters not what style they have or approach they take. The common thread with all of them is pope-bashing and “we know better than the pope” / “why is he doing these stupid things that even my dog-catcher knows are wrong?”

[it was noted that there are two errors of uncritical thinking: bashing everything the pope says, or believing that he can never be wrong about anything]

I don’t agree with absolutely everything he says, or think that I have some obligation to do so. Of course, this is always the accusation against defenders of the pope: especially from traditionalists and always from reactionaries.

I have said that as a matter of fact (not some faux “necessity”), I have personally not seen heterodoxy in this pope’s teachings. That’s different from claiming that it is not there at all, or saying that it couldn’t possibly be. I believe that a pope could possibly be individually a heretic (while God would prevent him from officially promulgating the error).

I disagreed with Pope Francis in Laudato Si regarding both global warming and nuclear power, and said so in my defense of it. I was just like you: agreed with 98% of it, and praised it; disagreed with a few portions. The pope said straight out that those portions were not magisterial, anyway.

I have disagreed with popes regarding the Iraqi War and absolute prohibition of capital punishment (I favor it for mass murderers and terrorists only).

Deacon Jim Russell and Scott Eric Alt (I believe) and myself are not saying that error isn’t possible, period, but that error or heterodoxy is not present in Amoris Laetitia.

I always tend to argue by analogies, and I just thought of another one. Some of our Protestant friends (at least if they are like I used to be as a Protestant) think it is the most outrageous thing in the world to believe in an infallible Church, protected by God.

So, along these lines, when I defend Catholic teachings, they say that I am doing so simply because I have to. I’m special pleading, spinning, propagandizing, because I “have” to, as an apologist.

I reply that it is not only true that I believe the Church could not teach theological or moral error, but that it also has not in fact done so. These facts can be analyzed historically. They’re “out” there to analyze. And so we can look at, e.g., the cases of Popes Honorius, Liberius, and Vigilius.

But for the mind skeptical of Catholic claims, it is unthinkable that any human organization could not err, or has not erred. They think that I, as an apologist, must somehow be performing some sleight-of-hand, or pulling a fast one. It’s fideism, blind faith, throwing away my mind (so I am told).

I make my arguments, don’t see any plausible alternative views (from among my 800 or more online debates), and so I maintain the view I have had since 1990 in faith. The facts line up. I become more confident all the time in my faith. It’s one of the huge blessings of being an apologist (seeing the weakness of opposing arguments and the great superiority of ours).

It’s very similar with this stuff. Some folks can’t believe that there are readers of Amoris Laetitia who don’t see anything wrong with it. They have read the fashionable narratives (usually fed by a combination of the secular media, traditionalist and reactionary commentary, and the theological liberals), and so they interpret the document through that hazy lens. More and more people have jumped onto the narrative and bandwagon of “Pope Francis as a liberal and loose cannon” and they interpret accordingly. But the foundational premise is wrong.

There are those of us who truly don’t see a problem with it. It doesn’t follow that I fancy myself as some sort of expert on papal documents or canon law or the fine points of liturgical and moral theology. I do not and am not. I’m simply giving my opinions as a lay apologist. I don’t see any insuperable problems with it.

I would say that people like Robert Royal, Jeff Mirus, Phil Lawler, Fr. George Rutler, and some others, are starting to give into what I think is a false narrative. I predict that it will fast become a slippery slope into further “dissent”.

I say that because I have observed how these things work for now at least 20 years if not 25. The criticisms keep getting greater and greater. Everyone starts jumping on the bandwagon.

We continue to disagree as to what he is doing and not doing. The liberals (not you!) are spinning the document like a top, just like they have done with Vatican II.

The reactionaries are stating straight out that they predicted all along, not that Amoris Laetitia would be in and of itself heterodox, but that it would be weak, ambiguous, and perceived as heterodox or “progressive” by the modernists and what they call “Novus Ordo Catholics” or “Vatican II Catholics” or “neo-Catholics”: whom they regard as heterodox and virtually modernist, or in bed with modernism, by their own arbitrary and quasi-schismatic standard.

This is precisely the traditionalist and reactionary criticism of Vatican II, that I have dealt with times without number. It’s history repeating itself.

***

So we can all see and agree that the folks here are good orthodox Catholics in good faith, but some here can’t grant that to the Holy Father? That’s precious . . .

I say Vatican II is great and perfectly orthodox. Traditionalists and reactionaries say it is ambiguous and/or heterodox, and literally causing the problems in the Church today (as if there were no such things as, say, the 60s, the sexual revolution, the overwhelming influence of secularism, etc., etc.). Take your pick . . . If people go after Vatican II, they will certainly bash and/or trash an Apostolic Exhortation as well. It’s all of a piece.

All we need to know about the devil’s time-honored strategy of “divide and conquer” is here in this thread and in the increasing chorus of Francis-bashers or partial critiquers. It’ll get worse and worse, because that is human nature.

The same occurred later in Pope St. John Paul II’s reign, went away in Benedict’s reign (because he was the darling of traditionalists and reactionaries) and now it is here again. It’s all entirely predictable.

[what other magisterial document or pope has created this much fuss?]

Vatican II, as I have argued, Pope St. John Paul II’s ecumenical proclamations and actions (like the Assisi conferences). JPII was trashed and bashed in his later years. I know. I was there defending him.

I was also there recently defending Pope Benedict, when Michael Voris claimed (within the last few months) that he exaggerated his illness in order to resign: which action was “immoral” and an abandonment of the flock. Reactionaries like Voris will attack anything they don’t agree with, whether a pope or not.

[Cardinal Kasper, in his errors, was not promoted by Popes John Paul II or Benedict]

He was appointed Cardinal by Pope St. John Paul II and head of ecumenical outreach by Pope Benedict.

[Certainly you aren’t saying that these people are making their criticisms because liberals are? Lioberals may have some legitimate points that we can agree with]

No; I’m saying that they (and you) are the ones (for varying reasons) who are beginning to increasingly buy into the narrative that there is something fundamentally, seriously wrong with Pope Francis, whether he is (at best) maddeningly inarticulate (the mildest form) or ignorant of basic tenets of theology and moral theology (more severe criticism) or flat-out heterodox / modernist (the strongest bashing).

This is to be fully expected. I see them as casualties in the battle with the devil to avoid the dividing and conquering where he is spectacularly succeeding with regard to creating havoc within the Church.

Of course I’m not saying that anyone is deliberately following Satan and trying to do his bidding. They’re all perfectly sincere and well-meaning, as you are.

But I am saying that this sort of internal division is part of the master plan by Satan. He’s the conspiratorialist. I wrote yesterday on my Facebook page:

The devil is very vigilant in his attacks upon the Church and the Holy Father. He is absolutely ecstatic these days to have so many orthodox, good, faithful Catholics, helping him do his dirty work.

Even Satan was surprised that Catholics by the millions could fall for these lies. But so it is. A huge gain for the kingdom of hell . . .

One could write an entire new Screwtape Letters just based on the manifold lies being lobbed against the Holy Father, ultimately inspired by the Father of Lies.

The “Lies” I referred to there are the three variations of the hostile “narrative” that I outlined above. People buy into those and proceed accordingly. But I deny that all three are true. So (if I am right about that) it’s a house of sand.

Now it may be that if and when we get to heaven, God will tell us, “Royal and Lawler and Mirus et al were right: Pope Francis messed up royally in Amoris Laetitia and confused the flock and will spend 1000 years more in purgatory as a result.”

If so, I’ll yield in obedience to the Omniscient and All-Good Wisdom. Right now, I don’t see it. Sorry!

And Deacon Jim Russell is right: it’s mostly the “pointy-heads” (I say with all due affection) and reactionaries in their entirely predictable reaction who are agonizing over this.

I predicted some of their behavior myself. I said that Steve Skojec (of “One Vader Five”) was gonna “diss” Cardinal Burke (a great darling of both traditionalists and reactionaries) as soon as he read what he said about Amoris Laetitia. Sure enough, he did, within hours of my “prophecy.”

Hilary White (of Lifesite News and The Remnant) did him one better. For her, all the bishops are liberals and hacks, and anyone who attends the Novus Ordo Mass and likes Vatican II is of an entirely different religion, called “Novusordoism.” She has made this clear, many times. I’ve documented it myself.

And it’s where Skojec and his ilk are headed, the more they follow this path. I have seen these trends these past 25 years. And it influences how I look at this sort of thing, too (as an old sociology major to boot). I take a long view of it, in light of past trends and history.

[you are interpreting all this in light of your own narrative that any criticism is diabolically-based. This makes you fundamentally biased]

I have not. You’re not reading what I have been saying very carefully. I’m just saying that the devil divides and conquers. One could take a position (I would agree) that even if such discussions are justified or worthwhile, they should be done in private and not in public. At least your thread is not a public one. I commend you for that.

Moreover, I certainly don’t think that when St. Dominic and St. Francis and St. Catherine of Siena took it to popes big-time, that this was the devil triumphing and speaking through them. And that was because they were right in their criticisms.

The key to all is what the facts are, not some predetermined narrative through which everything is filtered.