The Pope Francis Thread

[Del]

Again, as I mentioned upthread, it was widely publicized. It was repeatedly mentioned on OldCPS. It was published in the EWTN-affiliated National Catholic Register:

On the Pope’s personal instruction, the 2016 Buenos Aires bishops’ guidelines on Chapter 8 of his post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, appeared last week in the Holy See’s journal of juridical record, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis AAS). The interpretation permits the sacrament of reconciliation and Holy Communion in some cases for remarried divorcees who, for example, try to live lives of sexual abstinence but must continue to live together for the sake of raising their children.

Title: "The Pope’s Endorsement of Argentina’s Amoris Guidelines: What It Means"
Link: ncregister DOT com/news/the-pope-s-endorsement-of-argentina-s-amoris-guidelines-what-it-means

I'm calling shenanigans then, although I don't know who is guilty.

Recent bloggers report that the Buenos Aires Protocol allows a local pastor to dispense with canon law, marriage tribunal judgment, and annulments. The pastor can grant permission to the divorce/remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist by his own authority. Of course, many couples will go pastor-shopping until they find one who doesn't care.

Whereas the Register reported that the BA protocol allows remarried Catholics to receive Christ in the Eucharist as long as they abstain from sex, thus avoiding the sin of adultery. And this exception only applies to couples who have a need to stay together, such as caring for children. [This has been the canonical practice in the American Church for several years, and does not appear to be a change in Apostolic Tradition.]

This is messy stuff, and still in need of clarification. Clarification in simple words. Simpler words than promulgated. Because it has not been clearly promulgated yet, in spite of having been published in the Book of Arms (after that chapter on the Holy Hand Grenade).

Humble question, Wos: What do you think the Buenos Aires Protocol advises divorced/remarried Catholics to do regarding receiving the Sacraments?

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

I'm calling shenanigans then, although I don't know who is guilty.

Recent bloggers report that the Buenos Aires Protocol allows a local pastor to dispense with canon law, marriage tribunal judgment, and annulments. The pastor can grant permission to the divorce/remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist by his own authority. Of course, many couples will go pastor-shopping until they find one who doesn't care.

Whereas the Register reported that the BA protocol allows remarried Catholics to receive Christ in the Eucharist as long as they abstain from sex, thus avoiding the sin of adultery. …

[…]

The Register article cites that as merely one example. As in "remarried divorcees who, for example, try to live lives of sexual abstinence but must …"

However, here's more from the selfsame article:

Then, in a crucial paragraph, the [Buenos Aires] bishops stated that in “more complex cases” the option of living in continence “may not, in fact, be feasible,” but a path of discernment is “still possible.” They added: “If it comes to be recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability [as per Amoris Laetitia, 301-302], especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. Amoris Laetitia, Footnotes 336 and 351). These sacraments, in turn, dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the power of grace.”

The Buenos Aires bishops stressed this did not grant “unlimited access” to the sacraments, but that proper discernment applies to “each case” and that “it is always important to guide people to stand before God with their conscience.” Access to the sacraments when there are “unresolved injustices” in a relationship is “particularly scandalous,” the bishops wrote.

The bishops said access to the sacraments may be required “privately” to avoid giving “confusion” about the indissolubility of marriage. They added that discernment is “not closed” but “dynamic” and must remain open to “new stages of growth and to new decisions,” according to the “law of gradualness” and with confidence “in the help of grace.”

Title: "The Pope’s Endorsement of Argentina’s Amoris Guidelines: What It Means"
Link: ncregister DOT com/news/the-pope-s-endorsement-of-argentina-s-amoris-guidelines-what-it-means

Doesn't seem like any "shenanigans" to me.

[Del]

+JMJ+

The Register article cites that as merely one example. As in "remarried divorcees who, for example, try to live lives of sexual abstinence but must …"

However, here's more from the selfsame article:

Then, in a crucial paragraph, the [Buenos Aires] bishops stated that in “more complex cases” the option of living in continence “may not, in fact, be feasible,” but a path of discernment is “still possible.” They added: “If it comes to be recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability [as per Amoris Laetitia, 301-302], especially when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. Amoris Laetitia, Footnotes 336 and 351). These sacraments, in turn, dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the power of grace.”

The Buenos Aires bishops stressed this did not grant “unlimited access” to the sacraments, but that proper discernment applies to “each case” and that “it is always important to guide people to stand before God with their conscience.” Access to the sacraments when there are “unresolved injustices” in a relationship is “particularly scandalous,” the bishops wrote.

The bishops said access to the sacraments may be required “privately” to avoid giving “confusion” about the indissolubility of marriage. They added that discernment is “not closed” but “dynamic” and must remain open to “new stages of growth and to new decisions,” according to the “law of gradualness” and with confidence “in the help of grace.”

Title: "The Pope’s Endorsement of Argentina’s Amoris Guidelines: What It Means"
Link: ncregister DOT com/news/the-pope-s-endorsement-of-argentina-s-amoris-guidelines-what-it-means

Doesn't seem like any "shenanigans" to me.

Wow. This does clarify their position for me, thank you!

This also clarifies my understanding of the dubia, and why cardinals' questions are so crucial. This formulation has no guardrails. How will this not lead quickly to "unlimited access" to the sacraments, in spite of "unresolved injustices" to innocent spouses and children? How will this lead Catholics to more frequent confessions and more careful examination of consciences? How will this avoid more loss of faith in the dissolubility of marriage and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Who will tell the pastors and couples when they have been too lenient in absolving themselves of unrepentant sins?

This is exactly the same language that the 1933 Lambeth congress used to allow married Christians to use birth control -- for a brief time, after careful discernment, when pressed by some grave need that mitigates the sin. Those guidelines were thrown out in just a few years, and we have all of the dire results prophesied in Humanae vitae -- including the present case of epidemic divorces.

Francis's solution is to disregard more of Sacred Christian Tradition and embrace the World. The Great Apostasy continues apace.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

… This formulation has no guardrails. …

Who will tell the pastors and couples when they have been too lenient in absolving themselves of unrepentant sins?

[…]

That's like saying that the so-called "Pastor's Privilege" — which the priest has always exercised exercised in the Confessional — has no guardrails cuz there's no hidden microphone reporting on all his prudential judgements in the priest-box.

The problem is that your model apparently requires an ad hoc pastor's pastor — and a pastor's pastor's pastor, and a pastor's pastor's pastor's pastor, etc. — in order to function as Christ intended. A "pastor of all pastors" if you will.

[Hugo Drax]

+JMJ+

… This formulation has no guardrails. …

Who will tell the pastors and couples when they have been too lenient in absolving themselves of unrepentant sins?

[…]

That's like saying that the so-called "Pastor's Privilege" — which the priest has always exercised exercised in the Confessional — has no guardrails cuz there's no hidden microphone reporting on all his prudential judgements in the priest-box.

The problem is that your model apparently requires an ad hoc pastor's pastor — and a pastor's pastor's pastor, and a pastor's pastor's pastor's pastor, etc. — in order to function as Christ intended. A "pastor of all pastors" if you will.

Yeah. He's called the "Vicar of Christ," and you've described apostolic succession.

If you were Catholic, this would all make sense to you.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

… This formulation has no guardrails. …

Who will tell the pastors and couples when they have been too lenient in absolving themselves of unrepentant sins?

[…]

That's like saying that the so-called "Pastor's Privilege" — which the priest has always exercised exercised in the Confessional — has no guardrails cuz there's no hidden microphone reporting on all his prudential judgements in the priest-box.

The problem is that your model apparently requires an ad hoc pastor's pastor — and a pastor's pastor's pastor, and a pastor's pastor's pastor's pastor, etc. — in order to function as Christ intended. A "pastor of all pastors" if you will.

Yeah. He's called the "Vicar of Christ," and you've described apostolic succession.

[…]

He's not the "pastor of all pastors". Rather, he's the Universal Pastor, which is not the same thing.

The model you're apparently proposing would do nothing but confirm the Orthodox fear that the Pope's Universal Jurisdiction is nothing but a Roman stalking-horse for a totalitarian "bishop of all bishops".

[Hugo Drax]

+JMJ+

That's like saying that the so-called "Pastor's Privilege" — which the priest has always exercised exercised in the Confessional — has no guardrails cuz there's no hidden microphone reporting on all his prudential judgements in the priest-box.

The problem is that your model apparently requires an ad hoc pastor's pastor — and a pastor's pastor's pastor, and a pastor's pastor's pastor's pastor, etc. — in order to function as Christ intended. A "pastor of all pastors" if you will.

Yeah. He's called the "Vicar of Christ," and you've described apostolic succession.

[…]

He's not the "pastor of all pastors". Rather, he's the Universal Pastor, which is not the same thing.

The model you're apparently proposing would do nothing but confirm the Orthodox fear that the Pope's Universal Jurisdiction is nothing but a Roman stalking-horse for a totalitarian "bishop of all bishops".

Thanks for the laugh, Wos. Never let the truth get in the way of a good sound bite!

[Del]

+JMJ+

… This formulation has no guardrails. …

Who will tell the pastors and couples when they have been too lenient in absolving themselves of unrepentant sins?

[…]

That's like saying that the so-called "Pastor's Privilege" — which the priest has always exercised exercised in the Confessional — has no guardrails cuz there's no hidden microphone reporting on all his prudential judgements in the priest-box.

The problem is that your model apparently requires an ad hoc pastor's pastor — and a pastor's pastor's pastor, and a pastor's pastor's pastor's pastor, etc. — in order to function as Christ intended. A "pastor of all pastors" if you will.

I am looking for something that serves the role of a Marriage Tribunal.

At least in the Confessional, a priest has the ability and authority to discern if the sinner is repentant. Merely entering the confessional is often more than enough evidence of repentance.

The BA protocol admits that discernment and repentance is necessary. But there is no apparent accountability in real-world process. Just carrying on with the sin and choosing to ignore it.

The next pope is going to have to restore discipline. And invite the evangelical fruit of the Latin Mass worship to flourish again.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

[…]

The next pope is going to have to restore discipline. And invite the evangelical fruit of the Latin Mass worship to flourish again.

If by "restore discipline" you mean "rescind the Buenos Aires Protocols", then on the face of it, that's a perfectly legit opinion. One certainly has a right to hold that prudential opinion, to pray for it and to publicly express one's desire for it.

[Del]

+JMJ+

[…]

The next pope is going to have to restore discipline. And invite the evangelical fruit of the Latin Mass worship to flourish again.

If by "restore discipline" you mean "rescind the Buenos Aires Protocols", then on the face of it, that's a perfectly legit opinion. One certainly has a right to hold that prudential opinion, to pray for it and to publicly express one's desire for it.

The problem with the Buenos Aires Protocols is that there actually isn't any protocol. It is a statement of the mood and attitude by which any protocols should be guided. We still need protocols.

The marriage tribunals conducted in accord with the 1983 Code of Canon Law provide actual rules for examining defects in a marriage that could justify an annulment. This examination looks for defects that existed at the day of marriage covenant -- because Jesus clearly stated that when two are joined in the sacramental covenant, they cannot be unjoined.

I believe that the BA protocols are insufficient because they give too much license to couples (after maybe consulting with their pastors) to annul their own vows.

If Francis really wants to suppress canon law and canonical form (I have long believed this to be so), then he should institute something like "Pastoral Tribunals," perhaps for a limited time. Couples can humbly approach the diocese, admit that they have made a mess of their lives and families, and humbly beg to be admitted back home like the Prodigal Son.

There are two goals to accomplish: One is to welcome home all of the souls who were lost to the pagan world. Second is to restore our biblical Christian faith in Sacramental Marriage as one man and one woman, joined together for one lifetime, and open to new life.

The current expression of BA Protocols will not restore society's faith in natural marriage, even among Catholics. Francis's desire to bless same-sex couples will do even more damage.

The point is that people should not be tempted to absolve their own sins. Forgiveness must come from Christ and His Church.