The Flawed Strategy Behind Amoris Laetitia – Homiletic & Pastoral Review. Cardinal Francisco Coccopalmerio, Pope Francis and his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, and Cardinal Gerhard Muller. Catholics continue to be confounded by the mixed signals sent by Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Given the high- ranking Church officials who have weighed in (but on opposite sides), and some who have been apparently released by the Holy Father due to their disagreement, it’s clear that a profound and troubling division exists at the highest levels of the Church about this document, and what it appears to be saying about Catholic teaching and the pastoral practice on marriage. Let us try to understand, yet again, what this document is trying to do, and the turmoil surrounding it. Movie Trailers Icarus (2017). On one side, we have the interpretation of a high- ranking Vatican official, Cardinal Francisco Coccopalmerio. In his recent book, published by the Vatican, Cardinal Coccopalmerio appeals to Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia as his reference for endorsing the idea that invalidly married Catholics may, in some cases, receive Communion, and continue their full marital/sexual relationship.

Is Wix a good website builder for you? Click to see our Wix review and how they can help you create free websites at Website Builder Expert.

The only condition that’s necessary, according to the Cardinal, is that these couples “wish to change this situation, but cannot realize their desire.” The cardinal, who is the president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, represents what is described as “the top Vatican body for the interpretation of canon law.” According to the cardinal, the referenced material in Chapter 8 is in complete accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Then there is the opposite conclusion reached by Cardinal Gerhard Muller, the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. According to Cardinal Muller,Amoris Laetitia requires the invalidly married couple to live in complete sexual continence, as brother and sister, to be able to receive Communion.

He implicitly repudiated the view of Cardinal Cocopalmerio by sharply criticizing the bishops from Germany, Malta, Buenos Aires, and San Diego for endorsing a pastoral approach that follows the conclusion reached by the Vatican- based Coccopalmerio. What are we to make of this? Here we have two public and opposite “readings” of Amoris Laetitia, both coming from high- ranking Church officials. Cardinal Raymond Burke, and three other Cardinals, have formally requested from the Pope a clarification of Amoris Laetitia.

So far, the Pope has avoided answering these questions. But how many hundreds (if not thousands) of clergy and lay people continue to wonder about, and to debate, what the document really means? Ultimately, there is no way of knowing the exact meaning of the statements in Amoris Laetitia. However, “actions do speak louder than words” so maybe we can learn something about the intention of the writer(s) from what they are doing, or from the method or strategy used in Amoris Laetitia. Let’s examine this. Chapter 8 Uses Deliberate Ambiguity. The “poisoned apple” in this document comes in Chapter 8.

The Public Inspection page on FederalRegister.gov offers a preview of documents scheduled to appear in the next day's Federal Register issue.

1. Further reading. Denton, William (2014). Fictional Footnotes and Indexes. Miskatonic University Press. Grafton, Anthony (1997). The Footnote: A Curious History.
2. Book shelf; opinion; the suicidal state in somalia: the rise and fall of the siad barre regime, 1969–1991- a book review april 3, 2017.
3. The Tinseltown tale of Harold & Lillian is surely one that’s worthy of a documentary, though not in the way you might expect. It's not about famous actors or.

That’s where one will find many statements which have Church leaders reeling in contradiction with one another. These statements in Chapter 8 certainly appear to support the new interpretation of Cardinal Cocopalmerio, et al. However, ultimately the meaning is ambiguous. In fact, Chapter 8 is ambiguous throughout. Is there a reason for this ambiguity? Archbishop Bruno Forte, whom Pope Francis appointed as Special Secretary to the 2.

Synod on the Family, has apparently made the claim—as reported by the Italian website zonalocale (and translated by One. Peter. Five)—that the Pope told him: “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried, you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So, we won’t speak plainly, but do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”5 Whether or not this conversation happened exactly as reported, we all know one thing — the Pope has been completely silent about Amoris Laetitia even when being asked by Cardinals to clarify it. In fact, it is difficult to conclude anything except that the Pope wants the document to remain ambiguous, and that this ambiguity was deliberately planned.

It’s unclear who was in charge of writing each section of the document, but Chapter 8, at least, was clearly written to extend to invalidly married couples a “welcome” into the full participation in the Church. Indeed, para. 2. 97 calls for treating these invalidly married couples with compassion and tenderness, and show them “unmerited, unconditional, and gratuitous mercy.” Chapter 8 Conceals and Omits Crucial Parts of Doctrine The chapter makes the benign observation in par. It refers to a “gradualness” to their discovery of good and evil as they mature and grow in various circumstances.

Therefore, these persons do not all have the same responsibility for their actions. To bolster its “gradualness” theory, the author(s) of this section cites John Paul II’s statement in Familiaris Consortio (3.

Pope recognizes “the law of gradualness.” The chapter even cites John Paul II’s insistence that this cannot be understood as “gradualness of the law.” But oddly, the author omits the (absolutely critical) clarifying accompanying statement by John Paul II that it cannot be “as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations” (my emphasis). It does not oblige differently for different people in various situations no matter what their circumstance or knowledge of the sixth commandment. It obliges the same for married couples as it does for single persons.

But why would this clarifying phrase of John Paul II’s be omitted in Chapter 8? One suspects that the intention is to keep alive the notion that in some cases, invalidly married couples may not be able to live the sixth commandment, and that God will understand and not require it of them. The clearest indication of this is the following statement in par.

Yet, conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for nowis the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal (my emphasis). The inescapable conclusion is that, according to the writers of this section of Amoris Laetitia, God does not expect or require certain couples to adhere absolutely to the sixth commandment in certain situations because the commandment is, at times, impossible to keep. If this were true, there would really be no reason to keep these divorced and remarried couples from receiving Holy Communion. Chapter 8 Misappropriates Doctrine. While para. 2. 98 most directly raises the issue faced by invalidly married couples who want to receive Communion, it abruptly stops short of adding the critical and necessary clarification: that the invalidly married must practice “complete continence” (living as brother and sister), to receive the sacraments as stated in John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio (8. This critical piece of Catholic teaching is nowhere to be found in 2.

Instead, this all- important clarification is shifted to footnote 3. The authors cite in their footnote both John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio (8. Second Vatican Council’s teaching in Gaudium et Spes (5. But, while John Paul II was speaking previously in para. Second Vatican Council is speaking about helping couples, living in the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony, in how to space their children. But the statements, one taken from Gaudium et Spes (5. Familiaris Consortio, are made to appear to be speaking of the same situation—which they are not.

In a serious error, the author(s) of footnote 3. The New Girls Trip (2017) Movie. Gaudium et Spes (5. Familiaris  Consortio (8. Here is how it is written in the footnote 3.