Pope : Critics of Amoris Laetitia Wrong…editor
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Seeing, understanding and engaging with people’s real lives does not “bastardize” theology, rather it is what is needed to guide people toward God, Pope Francis told Jesuits in Colombia.
“The theology of Jesus was the most real thing of all; it began with reality and rose up to the Father,” he said during a private audience Sept. 10 in Cartagena, Colombia. The Rome-based Jesuit-run journal, La Civilta Cattolica, published a transcript from the meeting Sept. 28. The journal provided its own translations of the original Spanish remarks.
Meeting privately with a group of Jesuits and laypeople associated with Jesuit-run institutions in Colombia, the pope told them, “I am here for you,” not to make a speech, but to hear their questions or comments.
A Jesuit philosophy teacher asked what the pope hoped to see in philosophical and theological reflection today, not just in Colombia, but also in the Catholic Church in general.
Philosophy, like theology, the pope said, cannot be done in “a laboratory,” but must be done “in life, in dialogue with reality.”
Pope “Benedict XVI spoke of truth as an encounter, that is to say, no longer a classification, but a path,” Pope Francis said. It always has to be done “in dialogue with reality because you cannot do philosophy with a logarithm table.”
The same sort of dialogue, he said, applies to theology, which is not “to bastardize” theology or make it impure. Rather, “quite the opposite” is true. Jesus, who is “the greatest reality” of all, always started with people’s real lives to lead them toward God.
“It began with a seed, a parable,” a specific incident, and then Jesus would explain, he said; Jesus wanted to do a “deep,” profound theology.
“To be a good theologian, in addition to studying, dedicating oneself, having sharp insight and grasping reality,” one must reflect and pray “on one’s knees,” he said.
A man or a woman “who doesn’t pray cannot be a theologian,” he said. He or she may know every doctrine that ever existed and be a walking “Denzinger,” the pope said, referring to the 19th-century “Handbook of Creeds and Definitions” by Heinrich Denzinger, “but they will not be doing theology.”
It all comes down to “how you express who God is,” how the Holy Spirit is manifested, the mystery and “the wounds of Christ,” he said. “How you are teaching this encounter — that is the grace.”
The pope then said that he wanted to use the teacher’s question as an opportunity address — in justice and charity — the “many comments” concerning the post-synodal apostolic exhortation on the family, “Amoris Laetitia.”
Many of the commentaries, he said, are “respectable because they were made by children of God,” but they are “wrong.”
“In order to understand ‘Amoris Laetitia,’ you must read it from the beginning to the end,” reading each chapter in order, reading what got said during the synods of bishops on the family in 2014 and 2015, and reflecting on all of it, he said.
To those who maintain that the morality underlying the document is not “a Catholic morality” or a morality that can be certain or sure, “I want to repeat clearly that the morality of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ is Thomist,” that is, built on the moral philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, he said.
One of best and “most mature” theologians today who can explain the document, he told them, is Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna.
“I want to say this so that you can help those who believe that morality is purely casuistic,” he said, meaning a morality that changes according to particular cases and circumstances rather than one that determines a general approach that should guide the church’s pastoral activity.
The pope had made a similar point during his meeting with Jesuits gathered in Rome for their general congregation in 2016. There he said, “In the field of morality, we must advance without falling into situationalism.”
“St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure affirm that the general principle holds for all but — they say it explicitly — as one moves to the particular, the question becomes diversified and many nuances arise without changing the principle,” he had said. It is a method that was used for the Catechism of the Catholic Church and “Amoris Laetitia,” he added.
“It is evident that, in the field of morality, one must proceed with scientific rigor and with love for the church and discernment. There are certain points of morality on which only in prayer can one have sufficient light to continue reflecting theologically. And on this, allow me to repeat it, one must do ‘theology on one’s knees.’ You cannot do theology without prayer. This is a key point and it must be done this way,” he had told the Jesuits in Rome. Source
So much for that Filial Correction – those few “academics and scholars” selected to sign, really did make a difference … NOT!
Or maybe you disagree?
“The theology of Jesus was the most real thing of all…”
Apparently so, except when it wasn’t. We’ve had this wrong all the way along until “I” came along on March 13, 2013.
In other words, “Amoris Laetitia” is without error because I say it is.
The hubris is simply beyond measure.
The man is without a compass.
God forgive me but this so called Pope gets worse day by day. Francis we are fed up with you talking in riddles as if you were on some Batman Show . We know as Catholics to get down on our knees and wish that that was how the Blessed Sacrament was given. But you are against us kneeling to receive The Eucharist. And as far as I ( and other Catholics ) know the only time that you seem to go down on your knees is when your washing the feet of Muslims on Holy Thursday. And as far as disagreements go . You are the master it seems of starting ridiculous discussions which you know fine well will lead into chaos. You would be better to mind more the words of Our Lord . Let your Yes be Yes and your No be No for anything else comes from the Evil One .
You have it down exactly right.
To draw upon a popular image, his “magisterium” is tossed salad with Nanny Dressing.
Schönborn, Kasper, Cupich, et al. It is a form of ecclesiastical psychosis. Let’s term it “Clerical Derangement Syndrome.”
They consider themselves to be genuine authentic wisdom figures. The real deal.
They believe the wordsmithing with which they are perpetually engaged reflects reality and that it has credence simply because they produce it. They regard the snapping of what survives of their neurons as prayer, and their fantasy constitutes Divine Revelation.
If you deprived any of them a shower and shave for a couple weeks and propped them on a street corner they would be recognized for what they are – simply disoriented.
The ones that aren’t riding the ego train are hiding for fear of their personal security [and not without justification] see Father Hunwicke and his citation this morning.
One would like to be able to suggest psychological screening for those advancing in ecclesial responsibility, but it doesn’t seem to have done the trick at the starting gate either. It merely keeps the authentic vocations at bay.
“We don’t want those ridged young’ins changing the faith demographic, you know. We’d all be speaking Latin, lighting candles and murmuring rosaries! God forbid — if he/she exists.”
What do you mean by “see Father Hunwicke and his citation this morning”?
Who is Fr Hunwicke and what is the citation you are talking about?
Go to :
He is Father John Hunwicke, convert from Anglicanism, a Brit, a member of the Ordinariate. A font of theological scholarship, historical knowledge, human wisdom, plain common sense and the most extraordinary humor.
And I can’t help but believe, a holy man.
He is must reading everyday.
For September 28 his write-up is entitled “Episcopal Update on Fear.”
Now go read him, and profit from him and enjoy him daily.
God bless you!
Thank you for posting that link – I very much enjoyed reading it. This piece, remarking on the fear of bishops which prevented them from signing the Filial Correction, made me laugh heartily: Father Hunwicke writes…
I am reminded of the dear old Anglican joke … stop me if you’ve heard it before … yes, we old men are such bores … about the laying on of hands during Episcopal Consecration.
“What” asks the ubiquitous Tiny Boy, “are they all doing to him?”
(I should explain here to Cradle Catholics that the Anglican tradition most happily preserved the ancient ritual whereby all the Consecrators – they might be a dozen or more – imposed hands simultaneously. It looked rather like a rugger scrum, with the Consecrand submerged in the middle.)
The child’s Father explains to him: “They are removing his spine”.
Priceless! Absolutely priceless!
I’d give my right arm to have dinner and drinks with the man!
Count me in (as long as you’re paying!)
No “mean Scot” jokes now!
And this Irish-American (3rd generation) would gladly!
Faith of our Fathers,
I completely agree that Pope Francis gets worse by the day.
However, I don’t know why you say that he is against us kneeling to receive The Eucharist. I must have missed that – is there a link you can give us, as I’d like to check that out.
That is really laughable. There’s the Pope’s answer to the “Filial Correction” – go away!
So much for academics and scholars, LOL!
I agree. So much for the Filial Correction and the supposed academics.
A boot-licker speaks: https://stream.org/popes-deputy-urges-dialogue-francis-accused-heresy/
I think we have in that particular “boot-licker”, a man who took Pontius Pilate for his Confirmation name!
I wouldn’t say he’s a boot licker, I’d say he’s a frightened man. He knows the Pope is being called out by more and more Catholics who are concerned about his apparent back door undermining of the Church’s moral teaching, and he’s getting nervous. By refusing to personally address either the dubia of the four Cardinals or the filial correction of the scholars, Francis looks like he can’t answer for himself. At least I hope it is that he can’t defend his dangerous writings because the alternative would be that he is showing himself to be pertinacious in his errors.
Even if the Pope believes himself to be absolutely correct in what he writes and says, he is obliged to clarify for those who have expressed concern as well as to those who have become confused. Continued refusal to do so indicates bad will and an abdication of his duty as chief shepherd and pastor of souls. That is extremely serious for a Pope.
Whatever he is, boot-licker or frightened man, he is not helping by suggesting dialogue to understand one another is what is required. We understand the pope’s position all too well, and that’s why we’re concerned!
Exactly so. Suggesting dialogue when Catholics are asking public clarification in what appears to be an heretical undermining of the Church’s moral teaching by the Pope is beyond ridiculous. This is not about coming to a middle-of-the-road solution between a Modernst Pope and the Traditional Catholic faithful, it’s about souls being placed in danger by the obscuring or worse of infallible teaching by he whose duty it is to protect the inviolate faith from pollution and corruption.
No dialogue needed, just a clarification and declaration from Francis that the divorced and remarried cannot receive Holy Communion while still in an adulterous union. That’s the infallible teaching and that’s all he is being asked to make clear. His refusal thus far to do so indicates bad will and a grave danger to souls.
Maybe this is a sign of hope – the Pope sent a cardinal to Moscow on a diplomatic mission and this is an extract from what the press were told:
“After returning to Rome, His Eminence shared with Vatican press personnel that Pope Francis “was pleased with the impressions and positive results” of his trip. During his remarks to the press, Cardinal Parolin emphasized:
“Russia, for its geographical position, its history, its culture, and its past, present, and future, has an important role to play in the international community and in the world. Therefore, it has a particular responsibility regarding peace
As it says in the 1P5 report, this is significant coming in the centenary year of the Fatima apparitions.
I can’t help wondering if the Pope is worried, seeing the growing danger of nuclear war – I don’t think the crisis in the Church bothers him because he doesn’t think there is one, LOL!
The Filial Correction has been discredited – at least one signature was forged.
Regard well who we are playing with. As I said over at 1P5:
Those who would legitimize adultery would see this sort of nefarious enterprise –providing fraudulent additional signatures – as child’s play and a morally neutral means to undermine any threat to their enterprise.
Why would those who have placed themselves in the cross-hairs of ecclesiastical vendetta undermine their scholarly intervention with such an action? Such a course would be entirely counterproductive, not to say irrational.
Clearly the only irrational actors in this engagement are those defending the Bergoglian “magisterium.” One need only read “Correctio Filialis” and compare it to the nature of the responses it has received from the apologists of “Amoris Laetitia” to judge the nature of the actors in this dispute.
Priests who would deny the reality and nature of mortal sin are, without hyperbole, capable of anything. None of us should ever forget that.
God alone knows with whom on the world stage they are in connivance, some with and some without knowledge.
This is the viper’s tangle.
I don’t think the Filial Correction has been discredited at all since all reasonable people will conclude that enemies of it have merely sought to discredit the effort by faking other people’s signatures. The greater majority of signatures are genuine and it is clear from the Pope’s silence, as well as from the invective being directed against those who have signed, that Modernism has no answer to what is alleged in the Correction.
The devil will continue to use his instruments in this and other ways to discredit any and all efforts by faithful Catholics to defend the Faith. Of course he’ll fail, as always, but not without a cost in terms of weaker souls.
I was just reading yesterday the Pope’s excuses for AL, citing St. Thomas Aquinas of all people in support of his attempt at undermining the Church’s teaching on the divorced and remarried. It was all put in typically Modernist long-winded and completely obscure terms, but it sounded good and will quickly be accepted by the lesser informed.
When I read these words of Pope Francis I was reminded of the Gospel story of St. Peter trying to talk Our Lord out of facing His Passion and Death on the Cross. Our Lord’s response then, as it would be now with Francis’ novel argument, was “Get behind me, Satan. You think as men think, not as God thinks.”
This sums up for me the entire Vatican II spirit, the spirit that Pope Pius XII feared would enter the Church. It is a spirt void of the spuernatural, interested only in humanity and its comfort. And to disguise the betrayal, Jesus and His mercy are thrown in to make it look like a divine work. It’s not a divine work, it’s a work of destruction first of Faith and now of morals.
Usually, when false signatures appear on a petition, that petition is discredited. I take your point about enemies but surely the organisers should be able to verify signatures in some way, to avoid such an eventuality. Any way you look at it, it looks bad for them.
I am still unimpressed, speaking for those of us who have no certificates to speak of, that this petition was limited to a small group of the elite, so given the small number of people involved, I think the organisers should have been able to spot a false signature a mile away.
Yes, I agree entirely that there should have been some mechanism in place to verify signatures, and that the absence thereof has damaged the correction to some extent. Like you, I am also dissappointed that this initiative did not allow somewhere for the addition of signatures for those Catholics who are not priests and scholars. I am also disappointed with the moderator’s deliberate refusal to add at least the signatures of editor and Deacon Augustine, both of whom meet the requirements. That smacks of personal bias trumping Catholic duty.
I agree totally, there was personal bias in not allowing the signatures of people who have the required qualifications just because Dr Joseph Shaw doesn’t like them. If the idea of having only academics sign was to impress the Pope that people of some intellect are concerned about him, then, you’d want as many signatures of that kind as possible. I am shocked that any petty bias has prevented that.
My signature has now been appended to the main list of signatories. I think that one of the reasons why it has taken so long to get up there is that the organisers are now taking more care to verify the authenticity of the signatories – especially since the attempt to discredit the effort with a fake signature.
I cannot see editor’s name on the list, and I would not know your offline identity even if it was on the list, but I too am disappointed that they have not been included.
I shall now don my Kevlar cassock and crash-hat in anticipation of consequences! 😉
I found your signature and no wonder – you are the “Leader Marriage & Family Life Commission” in your diocese, so it’s a scandal in itself that your signature took so long to be published. As for “organisers taking more care to verify authenticity…” Yeah right. You really ARE taking this charity thing seriously…
More likely they’ve become aware of the criticisms about the criteria (or lack of it) for signing on this blog. Well, not for signing on this blog, but you know what I mean… Insert the comma yourself!
Anyway, what do you mean, you’re awaiting the “consequences”… Are you insinuating that my hair is green for an ulterior reason ? O, and by the way, that’s me just trying to fix my computer…
No, editor – although I’m sure your green hair is very fetching.
Let us just say that I am too familiar with some of the consequences that have occurred to signatories of similar efforts in the not-too-distant past. Not, I would hasten to add, at the instigation of my bishop.
I see, I get it. I thought you meant consequences because your signature is now up there and mine is not. At least now I have confirmation that Dr Joseph Shaw is the force behind the Correction and since I did criticise his call for “bi-liturgical” tolerance (or words to that effect) I am pretty sure that my signature will not make it, even at this late stage, onto the page.
See if I care…
Hope I am not disturbing you at too late an hour, but I’m afraid your tears may have been heard across the vast span of the interwebbythingummy.
Just checked the list of signatories and not only are you on there, but they have even provided a link to Catholic Truth.
I look forward to your next piccy……..
You gotta be kidding me! I’m off to check…
Watch this space (or, to be precise, the space below this space!)
Well, Deacon Augustine,
I do declare! My signature is up there right enough – who’d have thought it! And the only Scot identified as such on the list – I DO declare! Thank you for the alert -I’d stopped checking. I’m partying now…
I came across this clever ditty by the “That the Bones You Have Crushed” blog:
That is very funny indeed, LOL!
Saying that, it is very sad to see the papacy brought so low. May the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary come soon!
It is somewhat disappointing to read here of a pinch some are experiencing regarding “signing “Correctio Filialis.” There are those who are out of sorts about a fraudulent signature [undoubtedly contributed deliberately to undermine the credibility of the enterprise], and those who resent not being invited endorse the actual letter at http://www.correctiofilialis.org/signatories/
Yes, it appears a bit elitist to encourage only clerics and academics to sign but it also allows them to have some oversight – which others are saying is itself inadequate.
We can all provide our endorsement by signing the supportive petition at:
https://www.change.org/p/petition-support-by-the-catholic-laity-for-the-filial-correction-of-pope-francis [over 11,500 names since Sunday].
Let’s do that and spread the word.
And let us also remember that the initial signers have been characterized as groundlings by the Bergoglians – but surely there is not a lightweight in the bunch. The Bergoglians dismissed a petition with some 800,000 last year which asked for clarification of “Amoris Laetitia.”
Nothing but capitulation to fantasy will satisfy them, let us not surrender.
Make your voice heard in the face of mendacity.
This article claims that the “Correction” is a false flag: https://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.ca/2017/09/filial-correction-is-false-flag-as.html
Here is the first paragraph:
“A twenty-five page document, signed by mostly individuals from 3rd, 4th and 5th rate universities alleging to “correct” the Pope, is making a bit of a stir, even in the secular press. Some of the individuals who have signed this document are not even theologians. The claim that this document is some sort of major earthquake shaking the Church, and that it will incommode the Pope (or, to be more precise, the men who control this man), is absolute nonsense. The document is not even unique – though it is being erroneously presented as unprecedented since the Middle Ages. In point of fact, the Abbe Georges de Nantes issued two books of accusations for heresy against Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.”
Despite fifty-five years of no catechesis, inadequate catechesis, inaccurate catechesis and an evisceration of the theological academy, there are survivors who know [true] Catholicism from faux Catholicism. They have raised their voice, accompanied by 11,600 petition signers [since last Sunday] at “Support by the Catholic Laity for the Filial Correction of Pope Francis.”
Last year the Bergoglians dismissed a petition with some 800,000 which asked for clarification of “Amoris Laetitia.”
Nothing but capitulation to fantasy will satisfy them, let us not surrender.
We are dealing with elements of the transcendent here. Numbers do not matter, nor ultimately does scholarship or credentials.
The Truth matters.
Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
There is no need to beat a dead horse by rehashing the list of grievances against the current state of affairs. “Correctio Filialis” and the “Dubia” presented by four conscientious and brave Cardinals have telescoped the major issues flawlessly, despite the usual six gun response of deceive, distract, dismiss, disparage, discourage and disarm in order to defeat the orthodox faithful.
Schismatic! [Sufficiently so as to merit a dialogue going on for some years – but now? – not so much.]
One sole miserable soul alone would have been sufficient to see the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, adopt our humanity and endure a sadistic death at the hands of the self-important who knew best.
How exactly is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ determined to be worthy of notice in the Bergoglian epoch?
Does your sin, your moral crisis have to rank high on the zeitgeist list of heroics – adulterer, LGBTQ, S&M, or just for fun a simple SJ?
The ever so fraudulent “egalitarian” posers inhabiting the ecclesiastical class have inadvertently dropped their masque and revealed themselves for who they are.
Those who believe, those who care, those who can stomach it, have noticed.
Those devoted to infantilism substituting for devotion remain blindfolded. As long as they don’t see the cattle cars going off to the East they are not responsible.
“Leave it to the priests. They know better.”
God reward Cardinal Muller for a simple and brilliant solution to a host of problems that have been festering since before “the” Council.
Let the disputation begin.
Let it begin in public.
But it is highly doubtful to merit a “thumbs up.”
To do so would rob the St. Gallen entourage of its last refuge – papal authority. That can only be tanked when they are done with it and a bishop dressed in white walks to his judgement over the aborted vocations and the slayed souls.
The stench of fraudulence wafts through the Church.
That priest is arguing for LACK of leadership in the matter of discerning apparition claims, and thus leaving vulnerable souls to the nonsense of false “seers”, costing them time, money and leading them into false doctrine.
I never read that priest’s column now. I’ve yet to come across one that I would consider remotely sound.
Well, here’s one critic of Amoris Laetitia who has been restored to high office – Cardinal Burke
A case, perhaps, of “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”?
Now that you’ve made it to the big time, how about a few extra zeroes in my paycheck?????
I hear your pain…
It must be yesterday somewhere in the world……oh well, you can’t have everything. Where would you put it?
Great question but there are some questions to which there is simply no answer…
Further to the Filial Correction, a bunch of “useful idiots” in the Church have launched a similar initiative but with the purpose of supporting Francis’ nonsense. From what I can see, the signatories are almost exclusively German speaking – what a surprise huh?
Unlike the earlier correction, they do not seem to offer any arguments but only fawn over and “suck up” to Francis. A text book example of ultramontanism.
On the other hand, Italian newspapers suggest the Church in Poland is preparing to release its own correction of Francis. If so, maybe this might finally shake Cardinal Burke into action?
In any case, how very unedifying it is to see this strife in the Church. The so-called unity of the Church has long been a sham, but it is coming out into the open now.
Further to my above comment about the Church in Poland:
The Polish bishops’ conference has affirmed the Church’s traditional teaching on Communion for the remarried, in a new document on Pope Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Although the document has not yet been appeared, the Italian newspaper La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana has published excerpts, in which the bishops lay a particular stress on supporting those in irregular situations.
I read elsewhere that the delay in releasing the document (“not yet appeared”) was due to a direct intervention from Francis himself, but that may be just hearsay.
In any case, lets see the Poles get their document into the public domain and fast!
Reading more about this Polish document, described as affirming traditional teaching:
The council also follows previous Popes in saying that, if the couples cannot separate but resolve to live “as brother and sister”, they may possibly be able to receive the Eucharist when scandal is avoided.
I’m open to correction, but I don’t think that is traditional teaching at all and is in fact a JP2 novelty of the kind which helped open the door to where we are today.
Further to my post above about the support for Francis (now being referred to as a “laudatio”) I have been reading around regarding some of the signatories. It is hilarious.
They include a lady who was actually excommunicated by Francis for attempting to offer mass, along with her husband, in their own home. Other signatories include those who signed the 2011 “call to disobedience”.
This transparent switching between dissent and ultramontanism – to suit themselves – shows they view Popes more as political leaders and not successors of Peter, and highlights how they are really following their own religion, not the Catholic faith.
Comments are closed.