I'm Starting to Like This Pope

[tuttle]

(From here so as to not interfere with the intent of THE CATHOLIC THREAD)

+JMJ+

After critical letter to pope, theologian resigns as consultant to U.S. bishops

Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy. (Credit: Stock image.)

On the same day that an ex-chief of staff for the U.S. bishops' Committee on Doctrine and a current member of the Vatican's International Theological Commission made public a critical letter he wrote to Pope Francis accusing him of sowing "chronic confusion," the U.S. bishops announced that Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy has resigned as an adviser to the Committee on Doctrine.

After making public a letter he wrote to Pope Francis accusing the pontiff of sowing “chronic confusion” and teaching in an “intentionally ambiguous” manner, a former chief of staff for the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine has resigned as a consultant to the same committee.

The conference announced the resignation in a statement on Tuesday, the same day the letter by Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy was published by Crux and other media outlets.

“After speaking with the General Secretary of the Conference today, Father Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M., Cap., has resigned, effective immediately, from his position as consultant to the USCCB Committee on Doctrine,” the bishops’ statement said.

“The work of the committee is done in support of, and in affective collegiality with, the Holy Father and the Church in the United States. Our prayers go with Father Weinandy as his service to the committee comes to a close,” it said.

At the same time, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, released a separate statement saying Weinandy’s resignation illustrates the nature of constructive discussion in the Church.

“Throughout the history of the Church, ministers, theologians and the laity all have debated and have held personal opinions on a variety of theological and pastoral issues. In more recent times, these debates have made their way into the popular press. That is to be expected, and is often good,” DiNardo said.

“However, these reports are often expressed in terms of opposition, as political - conservative vs. liberal, left vs. right, pre-Vatican II vs Vatican II. These distinctions are not always very helpful,” he said.

“Christian charity needs to be exercised by all involved. In saying this, we all must acknowledge that legitimate differences exist, and that it is the work of the Church, the entire body of Christ, to work towards an ever-growing understanding of God’s truth,” DiNardo said.

DiNardo appeared to suggest that Weinandy’s letter failed to afford a necessary benefit of the doubt to the pope’s positions. …

Pope Francis is not the problem.

His teachings only seem "confusing" because our age is confused.

Francis tells us to look at our problems, so we can start to find solutions.

It doesn't help us that our political "left" and "right" are both insane, and so Francis does not support either side of the political spectrum. Part of our own problem is that we keep looking to governments for solutions to problems that governments can't solve -- like defining gender, or marriage, or changing the climate. We we need to do for ourselves.

While I don't really know the ins and outs of how Catholics run their house, I feel like the claim being made here that the Pope sowing "chronic confusion" and teaching in an “intentionally ambiguous” seems to be something I've pointed to before as being an issue. Although I would probably say though that the Pope's ambiguousness has been more often un-intentional.

Now for at time you guys had convinced me that the Pope is more consistent with Catholic doctrine than his critics claim. I accepted it as a portion of my ignorance of things Roman Catholic over the fact that I found him often at odds with certain longstanding Roman Catholic held doctrines. You all have more or less said he's being clear and consistent with Roman Catholic doctrine and I've accepted that for the time being, leaning on your all's credibility as folks inside the house despite what I see looking through the window.

But what do I do when people on the inside, and even people closer to the Pope, start saying the same thing I was saying before my education? While I'm a Protestant, I'm certainly not an opponent of Francis the man, and I frankly have often found much of what he says to be encouraging (before it's explained back inside the fence). Then after speaking with all of you, if I'm allowed an opinion on the subject, where I used to think the Pope very confusing, I now think the Pope isn't that confusing at all. I'm certainly not confused when I hear what he says, but apparently a number of Catholics are confused at what he says...and that I now realize, is what was leading to my initial confusion. And the fact that he's being accused of sowing continual confusion by folks inside the house, makes me wonder if I'm more right about him than I've been led to believe.

And this isn't political for me. My confusion over the Pope's comments was less about the Pope's comments and more about the comments from folks within the house who were confused about the Pope's comments. Follow? So circle back to the beginning. If I find the Pope's comments to be clear, and Catholics find the Pope's comments to be confusing (particularly, I suspect, because a person like me does find them to be clear), then at the very least, the Roman Catholics have a problem on their hands with the Pope. That problem is that he's either very clear, or absolutely unclear. This leads me to think that it's less that our age is confused, less that the Pope is confused, and more that the Roman Catholic Church is confused. I have a feeling that's the real problem that this Pope is exposing.

[hugodrax]

(From here so as to not interfere with the intent of THE CATHOLIC THREAD)

+JMJ+

After critical letter to pope, theologian resigns as consultant to U.S. bishops

Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy. (Credit: Stock image.)

On the same day that an ex-chief of staff for the U.S. bishops' Committee on Doctrine and a current member of the Vatican's International Theological Commission made public a critical letter he wrote to Pope Francis accusing him of sowing "chronic confusion," the U.S. bishops announced that Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy has resigned as an adviser to the Committee on Doctrine.

After making public a letter he wrote to Pope Francis accusing the pontiff of sowing “chronic confusion” and teaching in an “intentionally ambiguous” manner, a former chief of staff for the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine has resigned as a consultant to the same committee.

The conference announced the resignation in a statement on Tuesday, the same day the letter by Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy was published by Crux and other media outlets.

“After speaking with the General Secretary of the Conference today, Father Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M., Cap., has resigned, effective immediately, from his position as consultant to the USCCB Committee on Doctrine,” the bishops’ statement said.

“The work of the committee is done in support of, and in affective collegiality with, the Holy Father and the Church in the United States. Our prayers go with Father Weinandy as his service to the committee comes to a close,” it said.

At the same time, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, released a separate statement saying Weinandy’s resignation illustrates the nature of constructive discussion in the Church.

“Throughout the history of the Church, ministers, theologians and the laity all have debated and have held personal opinions on a variety of theological and pastoral issues. In more recent times, these debates have made their way into the popular press. That is to be expected, and is often good,” DiNardo said.

“However, these reports are often expressed in terms of opposition, as political - conservative vs. liberal, left vs. right, pre-Vatican II vs Vatican II. These distinctions are not always very helpful,” he said.

“Christian charity needs to be exercised by all involved. In saying this, we all must acknowledge that legitimate differences exist, and that it is the work of the Church, the entire body of Christ, to work towards an ever-growing understanding of God’s truth,” DiNardo said.

DiNardo appeared to suggest that Weinandy’s letter failed to afford a necessary benefit of the doubt to the pope’s positions. …

Pope Francis is not the problem.

His teachings only seem "confusing" because our age is confused.

Francis tells us to look at our problems, so we can start to find solutions.

It doesn't help us that our political "left" and "right" are both insane, and so Francis does not support either side of the political spectrum. Part of our own problem is that we keep looking to governments for solutions to problems that governments can't solve -- like defining gender, or marriage, or changing the climate. We we need to do for ourselves.

While I don't really know the ins and outs of how Catholics run their house, I feel like the claim being made here that the Pope sowing "chronic confusion" and teaching in an “intentionally ambiguous” seems to be something I've pointed to before as being an issue. Although I would probably say though that the Pope's ambiguousness has been more often un-intentional.

Now for at time you guys had convinced me that the Pope is more consistent with Catholic doctrine than his critics claim. I accepted it as a portion of my ignorance of things Roman Catholic over the fact that I found him often at odds with certain longstanding Roman Catholic held doctrines. You all have more or less said he's being clear and consistent with Roman Catholic doctrine and I've accepted that for the time being, leaning on your all's credibility as folks inside the house despite what I see looking through the window.

But what do I do when people on the inside, and even people closer to the Pope, start saying the same thing I was saying before my education? While I'm a Protestant, I'm certainly not an opponent of Francis the man, and I frankly have often found much of what he says to be encouraging (before it's explained back inside the fence). Then after speaking with all of you, if I'm allowed an opinion on the subject, where I used to think the Pope very confusing, I now think the Pope isn't that confusing at all. I'm certainly not confused when I hear what he says, but apparently a number of Catholics are confused at what he says...and that I now realize, is what was leading to my initial confusion. And the fact that he's being accused of sowing continual confusion by folks inside the house, makes me wonder if I'm more right about him than I've been led to believe.

And this isn't political for me. My confusion over the Pope's comments was less about the Pope's comments and more about the comments from folks within the house who were confused about the Pope's comments. Follow? So circle back to the beginning. If I find the Pope's comments to be clear, and Catholics find the Pope's comments to be confusing (particularly, I suspect, because a person like me does find them to be clear), then at the very least, the Roman Catholics have a problem on their hands with the Pope. That problem is that he's either very clear, or absolutely unclear. This leads me to think that it's less that our age is confused, less that the Pope is confused, and more that the Roman Catholic Church is confused. I have a feeling that's the real problem that this Pope is exposing.

Don't ever change, tuttle. It genuinely makes me smile to see you always come full circle. And I mean that genuinely, without an ounce of smart aleck.

You may or not be off the mark with what you said. Partially because I cannot quite tell what you've said, and I think that's because you don't want to ruffle feathers.

I like your statement about confusion to the faithful about statements that are quite clear to people outside the faith. I think that hits the nail on the head nicely.

You see, there are mechanisms in place for our bishops, priests, and laity to follow. Theyre even written down. I read Fr. Weinandy's letter, and while I think him out of line, I see his point. If you're telling a priest to make allowances for the divorced, give the poor guy a mechanism by which to walk--otherwise he's butting right up against Canonical Law. If you want him to freely speak his mind and follow his conscience, don't punish him for doing so. Give him a framework.

I would think the priests would be a little gun shy at the moment

[Del]

(From here so as to not interfere with the intent of THE CATHOLIC THREAD)

+JMJ+

After critical letter to pope, theologian resigns as consultant to U.S. bishops

Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy. (Credit: Stock image.)

On the same day that an ex-chief of staff for the U.S. bishops' Committee on Doctrine and a current member of the Vatican's International Theological Commission made public a critical letter he wrote to Pope Francis accusing him of sowing "chronic confusion," the U.S. bishops announced that Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy has resigned as an adviser to the Committee on Doctrine.

After making public a letter he wrote to Pope Francis accusing the pontiff of sowing “chronic confusion” and teaching in an “intentionally ambiguous” manner, a former chief of staff for the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine has resigned as a consultant to the same committee.

The conference announced the resignation in a statement on Tuesday, the same day the letter by Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy was published by Crux and other media outlets.

“After speaking with the General Secretary of the Conference today, Father Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M., Cap., has resigned, effective immediately, from his position as consultant to the USCCB Committee on Doctrine,” the bishops’ statement said.

“The work of the committee is done in support of, and in affective collegiality with, the Holy Father and the Church in the United States. Our prayers go with Father Weinandy as his service to the committee comes to a close,” it said.

At the same time, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, released a separate statement saying Weinandy’s resignation illustrates the nature of constructive discussion in the Church.

“Throughout the history of the Church, ministers, theologians and the laity all have debated and have held personal opinions on a variety of theological and pastoral issues. In more recent times, these debates have made their way into the popular press. That is to be expected, and is often good,” DiNardo said.

“However, these reports are often expressed in terms of opposition, as political - conservative vs. liberal, left vs. right, pre-Vatican II vs Vatican II. These distinctions are not always very helpful,” he said.

“Christian charity needs to be exercised by all involved. In saying this, we all must acknowledge that legitimate differences exist, and that it is the work of the Church, the entire body of Christ, to work towards an ever-growing understanding of God’s truth,” DiNardo said.

DiNardo appeared to suggest that Weinandy’s letter failed to afford a necessary benefit of the doubt to the pope’s positions. …

Pope Francis is not the problem.

His teachings only seem "confusing" because our age is confused.

Francis tells us to look at our problems, so we can start to find solutions.

It doesn't help us that our political "left" and "right" are both insane, and so Francis does not support either side of the political spectrum. Part of our own problem is that we keep looking to governments for solutions to problems that governments can't solve -- like defining gender, or marriage, or changing the climate. We we need to do for ourselves.

While I don't really know the ins and outs of how Catholics run their house, I feel like the claim being made here that the Pope sowing "chronic confusion" and teaching in an “intentionally ambiguous” seems to be something I've pointed to before as being an issue. Although I would probably say though that the Pope's ambiguousness has been more often un-intentional.

Now for at time you guys had convinced me that the Pope is more consistent with Catholic doctrine than his critics claim. I accepted it as a portion of my ignorance of things Roman Catholic over the fact that I found him often at odds with certain longstanding Roman Catholic held doctrines. You all have more or less said he's being clear and consistent with Roman Catholic doctrine and I've accepted that for the time being, leaning on your all's credibility as folks inside the house despite what I see looking through the window.

But what do I do when people on the inside, and even people closer to the Pope, start saying the same thing I was saying before my education? While I'm a Protestant, I'm certainly not an opponent of Francis the man, and I frankly have often found much of what he says to be encouraging (before it's explained back inside the fence). Then after speaking with all of you, if I'm allowed an opinion on the subject, where I used to think the Pope very confusing, I now think the Pope isn't that confusing at all. I'm certainly not confused when I hear what he says, but apparently a number of Catholics are confused at what he says...and that I now realize, is what was leading to my initial confusion. And the fact that he's being accused of sowing continual confusion by folks inside the house, makes me wonder if I'm more right about him than I've been led to believe.

And this isn't political for me. My confusion over the Pope's comments was less about the Pope's comments and more about the comments from folks within the house who were confused about the Pope's comments. Follow? So circle back to the beginning. If I find the Pope's comments to be clear, and Catholics find the Pope's comments to be confusing (particularly, I suspect, because a person like me does find them to be clear), then at the very least, the Roman Catholics have a problem on their hands with the Pope. That problem is that he's either very clear, or absolutely unclear. This leads me to think that it's less that our age is confused, less that the Pope is confused, and more that the Roman Catholic Church is confused. I have a feeling that's the real problem that this Pope is exposing.

It goes back to what I said: We live in a confused age.

We already have Catholics who want general amnesty for divorce and remarriage (like Evangelicals have), or blessings for gay-marriage (like liberal Protestants have).

We already have very clear and biblical teaching about things such as these.

We also have clear teachings regarding stewardship of our wealth and our environment, even though these are not always mentioned in Scripture.

But we also have very active dissenters from the teachings of Jesus. They push the envelop of truth. Others push back, insisting that Francis should issue some clear condemnations or something. And so it looks awful.

In the bolded part above, I'm going to guess that you actually read what Pope Francis actually said -- and so it is clear enough. You also know that a Pope cannot change or make up anything new or different. So any ambiguity is easy to sort out because the context is solid, and you are smarter than the average bear.

I am not confused by anything Francis has said.

My take is this: The people who complain about "confusion" are not at all confused. They are afraid for the ignorant masses out there, who get their understanding of Catholic faith and practice from the secular media. They worry about folks who have long twisted "who am I to judge?" into some blanket permission for the sins of this age.

They basically want Pope Francis to tweet about "fake news," like Donald Trump does.

That thing that Uncle Bob said about how Pope Francis "pisses off the dust-farters and the rainbow-farters" -- hits the nail on the head.
=========================================

We have a lot of wounded souls out there. Francis is urging us to be the field hospital for sinners. With this in mind, everything that Francis has said makes sense.

[Del]

(From here so as to not interfere with the intent of THE CATHOLIC THREAD)

+JMJ+

After critical letter to pope, theologian resigns as consultant to U.S. bishops

Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy. (Credit: Stock image.)

On the same day that an ex-chief of staff for the U.S. bishops' Committee on Doctrine and a current member of the Vatican's International Theological Commission made public a critical letter he wrote to Pope Francis accusing him of sowing "chronic confusion," the U.S. bishops announced that Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy has resigned as an adviser to the Committee on Doctrine.

After making public a letter he wrote to Pope Francis accusing the pontiff of sowing “chronic confusion” and teaching in an “intentionally ambiguous” manner, a former chief of staff for the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine has resigned as a consultant to the same committee.

The conference announced the resignation in a statement on Tuesday, the same day the letter by Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy was published by Crux and other media outlets.

“After speaking with the General Secretary of the Conference today, Father Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M., Cap., has resigned, effective immediately, from his position as consultant to the USCCB Committee on Doctrine,” the bishops’ statement said.

“The work of the committee is done in support of, and in affective collegiality with, the Holy Father and the Church in the United States. Our prayers go with Father Weinandy as his service to the committee comes to a close,” it said.

At the same time, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, released a separate statement saying Weinandy’s resignation illustrates the nature of constructive discussion in the Church.

“Throughout the history of the Church, ministers, theologians and the laity all have debated and have held personal opinions on a variety of theological and pastoral issues. In more recent times, these debates have made their way into the popular press. That is to be expected, and is often good,” DiNardo said.

“However, these reports are often expressed in terms of opposition, as political - conservative vs. liberal, left vs. right, pre-Vatican II vs Vatican II. These distinctions are not always very helpful,” he said.

“Christian charity needs to be exercised by all involved. In saying this, we all must acknowledge that legitimate differences exist, and that it is the work of the Church, the entire body of Christ, to work towards an ever-growing understanding of God’s truth,” DiNardo said.

DiNardo appeared to suggest that Weinandy’s letter failed to afford a necessary benefit of the doubt to the pope’s positions. …

Pope Francis is not the problem.

His teachings only seem "confusing" because our age is confused.

Francis tells us to look at our problems, so we can start to find solutions.

It doesn't help us that our political "left" and "right" are both insane, and so Francis does not support either side of the political spectrum. Part of our own problem is that we keep looking to governments for solutions to problems that governments can't solve -- like defining gender, or marriage, or changing the climate. We we need to do for ourselves.

While I don't really know the ins and outs of how Catholics run their house, I feel like the claim being made here that the Pope sowing "chronic confusion" and teaching in an “intentionally ambiguous” seems to be something I've pointed to before as being an issue. Although I would probably say though that the Pope's ambiguousness has been more often un-intentional.

Now for at time you guys had convinced me that the Pope is more consistent with Catholic doctrine than his critics claim. I accepted it as a portion of my ignorance of things Roman Catholic over the fact that I found him often at odds with certain longstanding Roman Catholic held doctrines. You all have more or less said he's being clear and consistent with Roman Catholic doctrine and I've accepted that for the time being, leaning on your all's credibility as folks inside the house despite what I see looking through the window.

But what do I do when people on the inside, and even people closer to the Pope, start saying the same thing I was saying before my education? While I'm a Protestant, I'm certainly not an opponent of Francis the man, and I frankly have often found much of what he says to be encouraging (before it's explained back inside the fence). Then after speaking with all of you, if I'm allowed an opinion on the subject, where I used to think the Pope very confusing, I now think the Pope isn't that confusing at all. I'm certainly not confused when I hear what he says, but apparently a number of Catholics are confused at what he says...and that I now realize, is what was leading to my initial confusion. And the fact that he's being accused of sowing continual confusion by folks inside the house, makes me wonder if I'm more right about him than I've been led to believe.

And this isn't political for me. My confusion over the Pope's comments was less about the Pope's comments and more about the comments from folks within the house who were confused about the Pope's comments. Follow? So circle back to the beginning. If I find the Pope's comments to be clear, and Catholics find the Pope's comments to be confusing (particularly, I suspect, because a person like me does find them to be clear), then at the very least, the Roman Catholics have a problem on their hands with the Pope. That problem is that he's either very clear, or absolutely unclear. This leads me to think that it's less that our age is confused, less that the Pope is confused, and more that the Roman Catholic Church is confused. I have a feeling that's the real problem that this Pope is exposing.

Don't ever change, tuttle. It genuinely makes me smile to see you always come full circle. And I mean that genuinely, without an ounce of smart aleck.

You may or not be off the mark with what you said. Partially because I cannot quite tell what you've said, and I think that's because you don't want to ruffle feathers.

I like your statement about confusion to the faithful about statements that are quite clear to people outside the faith. I think that hits the nail on the head nicely.

You see, there are mechanisms in place for our bishops, priests, and laity to follow. Theyre even written down. I read Fr. Weinandy's letter, and while I think him out of line, I see his point. If you're telling a priest to make allowances for the divorced, give the poor guy a mechanism by which to walk--otherwise he's butting right up against Canonical Law. If you want him to freely speak his mind and follow his conscience, don't punish him for doing so. Give him a framework.

I would think the priests would be a little gun shy at the moment

There's a kerfuffle in my diocese this week.

Our bishop (though the Vicar General) set down some "considerations" for pastors who must deal with funerals for folks in multiple marriages or same-sex civil marriages. Not rules... just things to consider.

So the media have come down with petitions and propaganda, condemning our bishop for "denying" last rites to homosexuals.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2017 ... 809950001/

Nothing of the sort is true, of course. That would be most uncharitable. However, the bishop did suggest that he would support a pastor who felt it was necessary to deny Catholic funeral services to someone who was living loudly and publicly opposed to Catholic faith, without sign of repentance, in order to avoid giving "scandal" (in the biblical sense -- "seeming to support and encourage others in grave sin").

Our bishop is trying to provide that "framework" so that priests can be the pastors we need. From the link:

The diocese's statement said the memo to priests "was a result of pastoral questions asked by the priests themselves" and the intent was to provide some framework "to serve as a tool."

But guidance comes at a cost, because the world is so intolerant.

A random layman is quoted in the article, complaining (of course) that this guidance is opposed to whatever [he thinks] Pope Francis stands for. This is why faithful Catholics are sometimes concerned about "confusion," and ask Pope Francis to speak with more clarity.

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

You see, there are mechanisms in place for our bishops, priests, and laity to follow. Theyre even written down. I read Fr. Weinandy's letter, and while I think him out of line, I see his point. If you're telling a priest to make allowances for the divorced, give the poor guy a mechanism by which to walk--otherwise he's butting right up against Canonical Law. If you want him to freely speak his mind and follow his conscience, don't punish him for doing so. Give him a framework.

This seems to elide the whole thrust of Amoris Laetitia — missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. The "mechanism" is the local Ordinary's pastoral judgment. In making the judgment (whichever way he makes it), the bishop is also taking the judgment on himself.

Amoris' relativization of the legal framework gives a twofold advantage: No divorcee/adulterer can claim a legal "right" to a Sacrament, since the Church's objective moral teachings have not changed — and Canon Law still reflects this, as it should. But also, neither can diocesan authorities hide behind a "my hands are tied/I just work here" attitude, so as to avoid getting into the dirt the with the real pastoral needs of the people. Ordinaries who are refexively and unblinkingly Legalistic — or conversely, on Libertinistic autopilot — will find themselves challenged by Amoris.

In the meantime, Legalistic minds paralyzed by the "haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be getting Communion who doesn't deserve it", as well as Libertinistic ones loathe to be told "no", may well have conniptions. It would behoove all Catholics to remember that the mediaeval Church wasn't troubled, at least not insurmountably so, by the spectre of this Either/Or.

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

Now for at time you guys had convinced me that the Pope is more consistent with Catholic doctrine than his critics claim. I accepted it as a portion of my ignorance of things Roman Catholic over the fact that I found him often at odds with certain longstanding Roman Catholic held doctrines. You all have more or less said he's being clear and consistent with Roman Catholic doctrine and I've accepted that for the time being, leaning on your all's credibility as folks inside the house despite what I see looking through the window.

But what do I do when people on the inside, and even people closer to the Pope, start saying the same thing I was saying before my education? While I'm a Protestant, I'm certainly not an opponent of Francis the man, and I frankly have often found much of what he says to be encouraging (before it's explained back inside the fence). Then after speaking with all of you, if I'm allowed an opinion on the subject, where I used to think the Pope very confusing, I now think the Pope isn't that confusing at all. I'm certainly not confused when I hear what he says, but apparently a number of Catholics are confused at what he says...and that I now realize, is what was leading to my initial confusion. And the fact that he's being accused of sowing continual confusion by folks inside the house, makes me wonder if I'm more right about him than I've been led to believe.

And this isn't political for me. My confusion over the Pope's comments was less about the Pope's comments and more about the comments from folks within the house who were confused about the Pope's comments. Follow? So circle back to the beginning. If I find the Pope's comments to be clear, and Catholics find the Pope's comments to be confusing (particularly, I suspect, because a person like me does find them to be clear), then at the very least, the Roman Catholics have a problem on their hands with the Pope. That problem is that he's either very clear, or absolutely unclear. This leads me to think that it's less that our age is confused, less that the Pope is confused, and more that the Roman Catholic Church is confused. I have a feeling that's the real problem that this Pope is exposing.

This may sound snarky (please don't take it as so), but do you realize that there's really no particular "content" to this post? It's mostly just vague insinuation and fearmongering.

Keeping in mind that Catholicity is a living reality (meaning "neither static nor dynamic" or rather, "both static and dynamic"), your post seems to read, "Life is scary. And thus, a living faith must also be scary and fraught with peril. Danger! Stay away!"

The real question is not whether Father Such-&-So or Bishop Bebop or Larry Layman have tests of faith — temptations to find solace in reductive static or reductively dynamic distortions of Catholicity — which they may or may not pass. Rather, the real question is whether you'll just sit on the sidelines criticizing those who are fighting the good fight, engaging in the ups-&-downs of a real life of faith.

Remember that the Church which is so ostensibly "confused" is the same Church which, at Trent, authoritatively said "If anyone says 'X,Y,Z', let him be anathema". Trent is really where you, yourself, must begin. Carping about the Church's contemporary internal affairs — a Church which has long ago moved past Trent — only deflects from your own unambiguous issues with Trent.

[hugodrax]

+JMJ+

You see, there are mechanisms in place for our bishops, priests, and laity to follow. Theyre even written down. I read Fr. Weinandy's letter, and while I think him out of line, I see his point. If you're telling a priest to make allowances for the divorced, give the poor guy a mechanism by which to walk--otherwise he's butting right up against Canonical Law. If you want him to freely speak his mind and follow his conscience, don't punish him for doing so. Give him a framework.

This seems to elide the whole thrust of Amoris Laetitia — missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. The "mechanism" is the local Ordinary's pastoral judgment. In making the judgment (whichever way he makes it), the bishop is also taking the judgment on himself.

Amoris' relativization of the legal framework gives a twofold advantage: No divorcee/adulterer can claim a legal "right" to a Sacrament, since the Church's objective moral teachings have not changed — and Canon Law still reflects this, as it should. But also, neither can diocesan authorities hide behind a "my hands are tied/I just work here" attitude, so as to avoid getting into the dirt the with the real pastoral needs of the people. Ordinaries who are refexively and unblinkingly Legalistic — or conversely, on Libertinistic autopilot — will find themselves challenged by Amoris.

In the meantime, Legalistic minds paralyzed by the "haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be getting Communion who doesn't deserve it", as well as Libertinistic ones loathe to be told "no", may well have conniptions. It would behoove all Catholics to remember that the mediaeval Church wasn't troubled, at least not insurmountably so, by the spectre of this Either/Or.

Interesting. I'd say the whole point of Amoris Laetitia is that it isn't clear how it is to be implemented and if it's framework is "personal judgment" I'd be astounded. Likewise, the "twofold advantage" argument fails, in my eyes, from the start. It's necessary to say "certain types of people just aren't going to get it." Preferably insultingly so that we can shut them up in the name of love. The Wosbaldian Proto-Priest is, to my knowledge, extrememly rare (good thing, or he might make interesting sounds while eliding his teeth). In reality, most people are struggling with the meaning of this document. To impute that a priest who may not understand Amoris is trying to avoid getting into pastoral care is, frankly, astounding. I'd say the questions themselves indicate that all parties care.

[tuttle]

+JMJ+

Now for at time you guys had convinced me that the Pope is more consistent with Catholic doctrine than his critics claim. I accepted it as a portion of my ignorance of things Roman Catholic over the fact that I found him often at odds with certain longstanding Roman Catholic held doctrines. You all have more or less said he's being clear and consistent with Roman Catholic doctrine and I've accepted that for the time being, leaning on your all's credibility as folks inside the house despite what I see looking through the window.

But what do I do when people on the inside, and even people closer to the Pope, start saying the same thing I was saying before my education? While I'm a Protestant, I'm certainly not an opponent of Francis the man, and I frankly have often found much of what he says to be encouraging (before it's explained back inside the fence). Then after speaking with all of you, if I'm allowed an opinion on the subject, where I used to think the Pope very confusing, I now think the Pope isn't that confusing at all. I'm certainly not confused when I hear what he says, but apparently a number of Catholics are confused at what he says...and that I now realize, is what was leading to my initial confusion. And the fact that he's being accused of sowing continual confusion by folks inside the house, makes me wonder if I'm more right about him than I've been led to believe.

And this isn't political for me. My confusion over the Pope's comments was less about the Pope's comments and more about the comments from folks within the house who were confused about the Pope's comments. Follow? So circle back to the beginning. If I find the Pope's comments to be clear, and Catholics find the Pope's comments to be confusing (particularly, I suspect, because a person like me does find them to be clear), then at the very least, the Roman Catholics have a problem on their hands with the Pope. That problem is that he's either very clear, or absolutely unclear. This leads me to think that it's less that our age is confused, less that the Pope is confused, and more that the Roman Catholic Church is confused. I have a feeling that's the real problem that this Pope is exposing.

This may sound snarky (please don't take it as so), but do you realize that there's really no particular "content" to this post? It's mostly just vague insinuation and fearmongering.

Keeping in mind that Catholicity is a living reality (meaning "neither static nor dynamic" or rather, "both static and dynamic"), your post seems to read, "Life is scary. And thus, a living faith must also be scary and fraught with peril. Danger! Stay away!"

The real question is not whether Father Such-&-So or Bishop Bebop or Larry Layman have tests of faith — temptations to find solace in reductive static or reductively dynamic distortions of Catholicity — which they may or may not pass. Rather, the real question is whether you'll just sit on the sidelines criticizing those who are fighting the good fight, engaging in the ups-&-downs of a real life of faith.

Remember that the Church which is so ostensibly "confused" is the same Church which, at Trent, authoritatively said "If anyone says 'X,Y,Z', let him be anathema". Trent is really where you, yourself, must begin. Carping about the Church's contemporary internal affairs — a Church which has long ago moved past Trent — only deflects from your own unambiguous issues with Trent.

Admittedly, the thrust of my post wasn't necessarily to make a point, but more like taking a thought-stroll around the block. If you read vague insinuation and fearmongering into that, I can't really stop you, but honestly, it's just me trying to wrap my mind around it.

So from that angle, I'm not sure how exactly what you are getting at with the rest of your post. I certainly don't think you are being snarky. But I do get a whiff of you thinking I'm sort of standing on the outside looking for a way in. I'm not seeking to find a loophole or waiting with baited breath for the next ambiguous Papal statement in the hope that this one might finally finagle Protestants to be on par with Roman Catholics.

As far as that goes, regardless of whether I'm merely musing or capriciously carping about the Roman Church's contemporary internal affairs, I don't have to deal with Trent in the least. Nor does my tradition. My protestant faith can manage the idea that Christ is found both within and without the Roman Catholic Church. That millstone is not tied around my neck, leaving my vocal cords free to comment, critique, compliment or even pray for the Roman Church in whichever era I please. And as what I say (again, whether musing or carping) has no impact on the internal workings of the Roman Church, any more than my musing or carping on the latest blockbuster has no real impact on Hollywood, it leaves you free to drop it just as much as it leaves you free to pick it up. I'm just saying, from my angle, it looks like the real confusion in all of this originates within Catholicism itself, and not specifically the pope, nor specifically the current 'age' (though I'm sure they play a part). Just as my critique of a movie director's film is ultimately just an observation I have and not an unconscious plea to break into Hollywood, so my opinions of the Roman Catholic church about this doesn't mean I'm poking holes trying to find my way in (or break it all down).

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

Interesting. I'd say the whole point of Amoris Laetitia is that it isn't clear how it is to be implemented and if it's framework is "personal judgment" I'd be astounded.

You may well be astounded, but I'd advise you not to expect any more "clarification", as there isn't any more to be given, IMO. Which is exactly why the dubia hasn't been answered. The paradox between the objective legal framework and the subjective one of conscience has simply reached its critical mass, which is what Amoris (rather innocuously, IMO) points out. To me, if there is anything "astounding" in all of this, it is that such a kerfuffle has been made over a document which principally changes nothing in either theory or practice.

———————————————————————————————————————

To impute that a priest who may not understand Amoris is trying to avoid getting into pastoral care is, frankly, astounding. I'd say the questions themselves indicate that all parties care.

I'd say that all one needs to do is to read the dubia (or, even more, the filial correction), in order to disabuse one of this notion. When the question is posed, "Which is of primary importance? Canon Law or Conscience?" it seems that some parties are trying desperately to avoid giving the catholically inevitable answer of "Yes".

[hugodrax]

+JMJ+

Interesting. I'd say the whole point of Amoris Laetitia is that it isn't clear how it is to be implemented and if it's framework is "personal judgment" I'd be astounded.

You may well be astounded, but I'd advise you not to expect any more "clarification", as there isn't any more to be given, IMO. Which is exactly why the dubia hasn't been answered. The paradox between the objective legal framework and the subjective one of conscience has simply reached its critical mass, which is what Amoris (rather innocuously, IMO) points out. To me, if there is anything "astounding" in all of this, it is that such a kerfuffle has been made over a document which principally changes nothing in either theory or practice.

———————————————————————————————————————

To impute that a priest who may not understand Amoris is trying to avoid getting into pastoral care is, frankly, astounding. I'd say the questions themselves indicate that all parties care.

I'd say that all one needs to do is to read the dubia (or, even more, the filial correction), in order to disabuse one of this notion. When the question is posed, "Which is of primary importance? Canon Law or Conscience?" it seems that some parties are trying desperately to avoid giving the catholically inevitable answer of "Yes".

If it's so innocuous and pointless, changing nothing in theory or practice, why was it written? Why is there such a debate? Why are Cardinals, bishops, priests, wosbalds and hugodraxes discussing it?

[infidel]

If it's so innocuous and pointless, changing nothing in theory or practice, why was it written? Why is there such a debate? Why are Cardinals, bishops, priests, wosbalds and hugodraxes discussing it?

Because someone, somewhere is wrong.

[hugodrax]

If it's so innocuous and pointless, changing nothing in theory or practice, why was it written? Why is there such a debate? Why are Cardinals, bishops, priests, wosbalds and hugodraxes discussing it?

Because someone, somewhere is wrong.

That's about the size of it.

[UncleBob]

If it's so innocuous and pointless, changing nothing in theory or practice, why was it written? Why is there such a debate? Why are Cardinals, bishops, priests, wosbalds and hugodraxes discussing it?

Because someone, somewhere is wrong.

And they won't admit to it.

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

Interesting. I'd say the whole point of Amoris Laetitia is that it isn't clear how it is to be implemented and if it's framework is "personal judgment" I'd be astounded.

You may well be astounded, but I'd advise you not to expect any more "clarification", as there isn't any more to be given, IMO. Which is exactly why the dubia hasn't been answered. The paradox between the objective legal framework and the subjective one of conscience has simply reached its critical mass, which is what Amoris (rather innocuously, IMO) points out. To me, if there is anything "astounding" in all of this, it is that such a kerfuffle has been made over a document which principally changes nothing in either theory or practice.

———————————————————————————————————————

To impute that a priest who may not understand Amoris is trying to avoid getting into pastoral care is, frankly, astounding. I'd say the questions themselves indicate that all parties care.

I'd say that all one needs to do is to read the dubia (or, even more, the filial correction), in order to disabuse one of this notion. When the question is posed, "Which is of primary importance? Canon Law or Conscience?" it seems that some parties are trying desperately to avoid giving the catholically inevitable answer of "Yes".

If it's so innocuous and pointless, changing nothing in theory or practice, why was it written? Why is there such a debate? Why are Cardinals, bishops, priests, wosbalds and hugodraxes discussing it?

Why was JP2's Theology of the Body written, as it, also, principally changes nothing?

Answer: Because expounding/celebrating/defending the true and good and beautiful is the perpetual work of the Church. An end in itself.

If the dubia cardinals want to claim that the Church's Supreme Law is the universal obtaining of Canon Law in every particular case, then they're free to become heresiarchs. If not, then they're just posturing. Frogs puffing up their chests. Instead, they need to take the lowest place, and wait until they're invited higher. Until they're back in charge to make decisions.

[hugodrax]

+JMJ+

Interesting. I'd say the whole point of Amoris Laetitia is that it isn't clear how it is to be implemented and if it's framework is "personal judgment" I'd be astounded.

You may well be astounded, but I'd advise you not to expect any more "clarification", as there isn't any more to be given, IMO. Which is exactly why the dubia hasn't been answered. The paradox between the objective legal framework and the subjective one of conscience has simply reached its critical mass, which is what Amoris (rather innocuously, IMO) points out. To me, if there is anything "astounding" in all of this, it is that such a kerfuffle has been made over a document which principally changes nothing in either theory or practice.

———————————————————————————————————————

To impute that a priest who may not understand Amoris is trying to avoid getting into pastoral care is, frankly, astounding. I'd say the questions themselves indicate that all parties care.

I'd say that all one needs to do is to read the dubia (or, even more, the filial correction), in order to disabuse one of this notion. When the question is posed, "Which is of primary importance? Canon Law or Conscience?" it seems that some parties are trying desperately to avoid giving the catholically inevitable answer of "Yes".

If it's so innocuous and pointless, changing nothing in theory or practice, why was it written? Why is there such a debate? Why are Cardinals, bishops, priests, wosbalds and hugodraxes discussing it?

Why was JP2's Theology of the Body written, as it, also, principally changes nothing?

Answer: Because expounding/celebrating/defending the true and good and beautiful is the perpetual work of the Church. An end in itself.

If the dubia cardinals want to claim that the Church's Supreme Law is the universal obtaining of Canon Law in every particular case, then they're free to become heresiarchs. If not, then they're just posturing. Frogs puffing up their chests. Instead, they need to take the lowest place, and wait until they're invited higher. Until they're back in charge to make decisions.

This makes little sense to me. It looks like you are putting motives to people whose motives you cannot possibly know and that cannot have escaped you. I don't remember your theology being quite so ad hominem. This is merely dust-farting in the name of the rainbow--I mean, I agree that a dubia was ridiculous, but why couldn't they ask for a clarification and expect a response?

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

… I agree that a dubia was ridiculous, but why couldn't they ask for a clarification and expect a response?

Why did the Pope have to put an end to the de Auxiliis controversy (16th c.) by tabling the issue and enjoining both sides to silence?

Answer: Because there was no answer.

But since the Church has no power to positively declare a negative answer (i.e. declare that there is no answer) and since She is also protected by the Spirit — not only from approbating error — but also from condemning the non-erroneous (i.e. condemning either the Bañezian or the Molinist schools), She could only leave it hanging. Undecidable. And so it remains.

And those who want to keep waiting for an answer are free to do so. It's only been 500 years. But they're not free to cause trouble.

[hugodrax]

+JMJ+

… I agree that a dubia was ridiculous, but why couldn't they ask for a clarification and expect a response?

Why did the Pope have to put an end to the de Auxiliis controversy (16th c.) by tabling the issue and enjoining both sides to silence?

Answer: Because there was no answer.

But since the Church has no power to positively declare a negative answer (i.e. declare that there is no answer) and since She is also protected by the Spirit — not only from approbating error — but also from condemning the non-erroneous (i.e. condemning either the Bañezian or the Molinist schools), She could only leave it hanging. Undecidable. And so it remains.

And those who want to keep waiting for an answer are free to do so. It's only been 500 years. But they're not free to cause trouble.

Be honest. Your eyes are brown, aren't they?

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

If you read vague insinuation and fearmongering into that, I can't really stop you, but honestly, it's just me trying to wrap my mind around it. […] As far as that goes, regardless of whether I'm merely musing or capriciously carping about the Roman Church's contemporary internal affairs, I don't have to deal with Trent in the least. […] it looks like the real confusion in all of this originates within Catholicism itself, and not specifically the pope, nor specifically the current 'age' (though I'm sure they play a part).

Friend, of course you can "deal" or "not deal" as you choose. I'm only saying how your post reads to me. To cut me a wee bit a slack, saying that the Church is essentially confused ("originates in Catholicism itself") seems like a pretty "fearful" suggestion. It sure seems like it trades on the stereotypical Protestant fear of Popish Babylon.

And if that's what you want to do, then I'm cool (in a sense) with it. It would be honesty.

But if that's not what you want to do, then my point is simply that, for a Church so supposedly "confused", you've obviously had no trouble getting the point pretty clearly vis-à-vis Trent. And that, instead of standing agog at the contemporary Church convo, you might consider the invitation to enter into it.

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

… I agree that a dubia was ridiculous, but why couldn't they ask for a clarification and expect a response?

Why did the Pope have to put an end to the de Auxiliis controversy (16th c.) by tabling the issue and enjoining both sides to silence?

Answer: Because there was no answer.

But since the Church has no power to positively declare a negative answer (i.e. declare that there is no answer) and since She is also protected by the Spirit — not only from approbating error — but also from condemning the non-erroneous (i.e. condemning either the Bañezian or the Molinist schools), She could only leave it hanging. Undecidable. And so it remains.

And those who want to keep waiting for an answer are free to do so. It's only been 500 years. But they're not free to cause trouble.

Be honest. Your eyes are brown, aren't they?

You're not obliged to accept what I'm saying. But it'll make your life a lot easier, if you do.

To me, it seems pretty simple and straightforward: the Ordinary (or the Ordinary with his delegated council or whatnot) can make a pastoral decision, on a case by case basis, as to whether he thinks the communicant to be in good faith.

This is nothing different, in principle, from what priests have always done in the confessional, viz., to decide to leave a particular confessant in good faith about the sinfulness of a certain act if he deems that the confessant's state will become worse — rather than better — through the confrontation.

Granted, the logistics are different and may cause a whole nest of other practical issues, but that's another tale.

A tempest in a teapot, there's nothing radically new here. That is, unless I'm completely wrong about the whole shebang.*








*

[hugodrax]

+JMJ+

… I agree that a dubia was ridiculous, but why couldn't they ask for a clarification and expect a response?

Why did the Pope have to put an end to the de Auxiliis controversy (16th c.) by tabling the issue and enjoining both sides to silence?

Answer: Because there was no answer.

But since the Church has no power to positively declare a negative answer (i.e. declare that there is no answer) and since She is also protected by the Spirit — not only from approbating error — but also from condemning the non-erroneous (i.e. condemning either the Bañezian or the Molinist schools), She could only leave it hanging. Undecidable. And so it remains.

And those who want to keep waiting for an answer are free to do so. It's only been 500 years. But they're not free to cause trouble.

Be honest. Your eyes are brown, aren't they?

You're not obliged to accept what I'm saying. But it'll make your life a lot easier, if you do.

To me, it seems pretty simple and straightforward: the Ordinary (or the Ordinary with his delegated council or whatnot) can make a pastoral decision, on a case by case basis, as to whether he thinks the communicant to be in good faith.

This is nothing different, in principle, from what priests have always done in the confessional, viz., to decide to leave a particular confessant in good faith about the sinfulness of a certain act if he deems that the confessant's state will become worse — rather than better — through the confrontation.

Granted, the logistics are different and may cause a whole nest of other practical issues, but that's another tale.

A tempest in a teapot, there's nothing radically new here. That is, unless I'm completely wrong about the whole shebang.*








*

Hah! Good stuff.

Yes, I'm sure it would be easier. I'm not even disagreeing (much) with you. I agree that individual confessors have always had the judgment call--perhaps why this one would have been better left alone rather than needlessly provoke rumbles among the bishops.