Skip to main content

Amoris laetitia

Image
By
+
JMJ

Update: Joseph Shaw published a conclusion here - see end of this post.

There has been a lot (read onslaught) of commentary on the latest issuance of Pope Francis - Amoris Laetitia.

First, I am not going to waste my precious time reading it - because time is precious and reading ambiguous phrases that are merely the result / repeat of a subservience the human respect the emerged fully during the Second Vatican Council is wasted.



Second, there are other far better minds (see below) who have been chewing on this tidbit for a while.

What I will observe is that we have a classic case of cognitive dissonance occurring in a variety of people.



  • Action: Pope Francis issues a document that implicitly states that people in an objective state of mortal sin can approach the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
  • Belief: Popes can do no wrong.
  • Dissonance Increases (head going to explode): Pope Francis continually performs an admixture of actions that are objectively wrong - causing mental and spiritual anguish.
  • Options:
    • Change Belief: Pope can (and has) done wrong.
      • This would lead (ultimately) to the theological conclusions of the SSPX and potentially (if not schooled in Chruch Teaching) sedevacantism.
    • Change Action: Pope really didn't write this etc.
    • Change Perception of Action: The Pope didn't Change Doctrine so all is ok! :-)
      • Yep Pope didn't change doctrine, full points for noticing that.  
      • This little detail is an attempt to escape what IS in the document - that the conscience is king (or queen) and who are we to try and inform these poor souls of the truth of their situation in the eyes of God.  
  • Dissonance Decreases (just a dull pain behind the eyes): Pope didn't mean 'that'.
    • The only problem is that the dull pain behind the eyes is a symptom of a bigger problem: brain cancer.
-OR-


People who will try to bend the spoon usually end up being bent themselves.


I look forward to reading the SSPX commentary as well.

Two items that struck me:
Fr. Hunwicke: Indeed and indeedio, so it does. That is precisely why, over the years, this blog has been hammering away, in season and out of season, at the truth that such development must be eodem sensu eademque sententia. Readers will recall that this principle, enunciated repeatedly by modern pontiffs down to Benedict XVI, goes back through S Vincent of Lerins to an immensely Magisterial writer, S Paul of Tarsus, who was not an Austrian.
Joseph Shaw: Note again, as I pointed out in previous posts, the possibility of moral ignorance isexplicitly ruled out: Amoris laetitia has no interest in suggesting that the sins of a couple in an illicit union are not mortal because of ignorance of the rules. This was a common strategy among liberal priests in relation to contraception in the 1970s. No, we have moved on from that option. Rather, the question is raised: will it not do harm, to follow the rules? It asks the question; it does not provide the answer.

P^3

Update from Joseph Shaw -Last paragraph 'says it all':
What we have now is not the final melt-down of the Church. We have, perhaps, a negative step, but if so it is one of many. We may perhaps say that the teaching of the Church is not as clear as it was, but this obscuring of the teaching has been a long, slow process. More serious, I think, by far, than Amoris laetitia, was the deliberate removal of dozens and dozens of references to sin, God's anger, damnation, repentance, penance, and grace, from the prayers of the liturgy, which happened with the promulgation of the 1970 Missal. That was a disaster for the Church, and the consequences continue to make themselves felt. It wasn't the proclamation of heresy: no, and that makes the whole sorry business harder to combat, in some ways. But in another way it means that there is something we can each and every one of us do, to reinforce the threatened truth: and that is, to pray the ancient liturgy, and to promote it.


Commentary worth reading:

Fr. Hunwicke
Joseph Shaw
Principle of Double Effect (see part on St. Thomas)

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

By
+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3
30 comments
Read more

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

By
 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...
25 comments
Read more

Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum

By
 + JMJ  Now THIS is probably the most important news item in the last two years - yes I place this above the pandemic. I'm only surprised by how long it took for this to surface during this pontificate. I hope and pray that it is false or that if it comes to pass that somehow some good will arise out of the ashes of Summorum Pontificum. P^3  Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (Updated) Update (May 26): Rorate's additional sources in Rome have confirmed this Wednesday that Francis has indeed a text on Summorum Pontificum lined up, which has been developed for months, but what is not known at this point is if the text is just about a more limited take on the Summorum application questionnaire (first revealed by us in the spring of 2020) or about an overhaul of Summorum Pontificum in general: drafts could be dealing with both matters. It is also not impossible for a text to come ou...
9 comments
Read more

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

By
+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...
16 comments
Read more

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

By
Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.
17 comments
Read more