Amoris Laetitia, Fully Implemented

Pocket

?

By Steve Skojec at OnePeterFive:

In the 14 months since the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia was published, countless pixels have been spilled discussing it, dissecting it, breaking it down, and lamenting its clearly heterodox intent.

We’ve seen its ambiguous provisions allowing Holy Communion for the divorced and “remarried” implemented in more concrete fashion in the Philippines, in Argentina, in Malta, in Belgium, in Germany, and even in Rome. It was in fact the Argeninian bishops of the Buenos Aires region who brought to light the pope’s personal interpretation of his exhortation, when he confirmed their allowance for sacraments for the “remarried” with a letter stating, “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.”

It appears that one bishop in Argentina — elevated to the episcopacy in 2013 by Pope Francis himself — has decided to go all in on this interpretation, of which the pope insists there is no other:

This past Sunday at the Parish Church of San Roque, Reconquista, Santa Fe (Argentina), the local bishop, Msgr. Macín, appointed by Pope Francis in 2013, carried out a monumental and sacrilegious scandal that clearly shows what’s behind Amoris laetitia.

In this church he organized a solemn Mass, in which he publicly announced that according to the norms sent in a letter more than 6 months ago by Pope Francis, and within the framework of the integration of Christians who are “marginalized” because of their irregular situation of being divorced and remarried or in an irregular situation (the divorced in a new union), after having completed a period of 6 months of meetings on Saturdays called the “path of discernment”, it was determined in accordance with what was previously stated (by order of the Pope) TO INCLUDE THEM IN FULL AND SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION, which would happen in the ceremony. At no point was mention made that those people had taken some vow of chastity or of living “as brothers [and sisters].”

In the same way, communion was given to all those mentioned (some 30 couples) accompanied by their relatives who took photos in a festive atmosphere. At no point was reference ever made to the Scriptures which condemn adultery, and again and again the excerpts of Amoris laetitia are mentioned where it is said that the divorced and remarried ought to be included in full communion.

We have reached the last train station on the line, ladies and gentlemen. This is the full implementation of Amoris Laetitia, and it didn’t take long to get here.

If the pope wants to make a course correction, to pull back and say this isn’t what he really intended, now is the time, and this is the case. If he does nothing about it — which we can all reasonably conclude that he won’t — this puts an end to the debate, forever, over whether or not this is exactly what he wanted Amoris Laetitia to do.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Amoris Laetitia, Fully Implemented

  1. Mary Salmond says:

    As Christians we cannot lose hope. Weekly and almost daily hype about the Pope’s latest changes and words are difficult for the people to handle as in decades and centuries past when changes were very very slow. The AL changes may happen in South America, but with it seems few US bishops are willing to change. I’m not sure how many bishops are actually implementing AL and how many priests are agreeing with those bishops. I could be wrong. Our priests and bishops in our region have not even mentioned.

  2. Declan says:

    Mary , your comment is most unclear. Are you undermining the Pope or supporting him?

    You say, ” words are difficult for the people to handle ”. How do you know and do you think this is a condescending remark? And iF the remark is true, what are you proposing for the people?

    I am not one of those who attacks the Pope. If you are, please do it clearly, rationally and not by inference, gossip or innuendo. That is not good. I hope you are not inclined to ‘hit and run ‘ remarks which you do not later support when asked..

  3. Mary Salmond says:

    Will respond later, working right now.

  4. mary salmond says:

    Trying to quantify my statement may not work, so I’ll try to briefly answer your 3 questions.
    1. support especially if the AL is ex cathedra
    2. no, not condescending, but I am confused
    3. propose: we follow the rules of the past 200 centuries
    ** no question given; no innuendos or inference given – don’t gossip either

  5. kathleen says:

    Declan states: “I am not one of those who attacks the Pope.”

    What a strange and topsy-turvey world we live in these days when statements such as these – once upon a time spoken by Catholics to reaffirm and establish their loyalty to the Papacy – now reflect a view that radically opposes Catholic doctrine and teaching!!

    As a good bishop once admitted to a friend of mine:

    “In the old days we prayed for the Pope’s intentions and the conversion of Russis. Now we pray for Russia’s intentions and the Pope”s conversion!”

    That says it all.

  6. Declan says:

    Correct, K. I don’t attack the Pope. Yet you do, as your ‘good’ bishop quote shows.
    You allege that I ‘radically oppose ‘ etc . Have you *any* evidence for that claim? More, have you undermined the Pope on this website? You tell me.

    Your response here is quite Orwellian. .You criticise me for loyalty to the Pope and then you have a go at him.That says it all. With Catholics like this bishop and his admirers, , who needs enemies?

    I guessed you were miffed when you avoided any response to my pleasant questions on relic authenticity via carbon 14. It seems the claim of pollen was fake, though not the relic. You are fine with false claims, I am not. And enquiries I made about Chartres, you rather tellingly avoided a response. You have a special view on pilgrimage – don’t be irritated if others think differently. .
    I am certain my picture is on your dartboard.

  7. mmvc says:

    You seem to have a bit of a persecution complex, Declan. Kathleen has a busy and full enough life not to give a rat’s patootie (excuse the Toad-ism ;o)) about your passive aggressive dumps here.
    Time for you to get a life too, doncha think?

  8. Declan says:

    Thanks mm. It’s good to see you blindly defend a friend . As I say loyalty is what I like as with the Pope. Can you say the same? I note you fail to chastise her for the reasonable points I made above. That would require certain qualities in you which you have in abundance of course.

    You don’t know ‘a rat’s patootie’ about my life. You only want to be abusive – which is not good for the giver..
    Amateur psychology is a difficult field – not your forte. Passive/aggressive is a good one – all bases covered!

    More importantly. Do you find it distasteful that ‘Catholics’ trash the Pope at every opportunity? It’s widespread and here – the most dangerous mutiny since the Reformation . The Curia did it to the last Pope. Drove him out of office. And now we see it on Catholic websites. When someone supports the Pope he is abused for it. If that’s my persecution complex then mea culpa,

    You seem tense. Relax.

    Thank you.

  9. Declan says:

    mary salmond says:
    June 15, 2017 at 23:42

    Trying to quantify my statement may not work, so I’ll try to briefly answer your 3 questions.
    1. support especially if the AL is ex cathedra
    2. no, not condescending, but I am confused
    3. propose: we follow the rules of the past 200 centuries
    ** no question given; no innuendos or inference given – don’t gossip either
    Thanks Mary.
    1 Thank you
    2 I apologise. These are indeed confusing times with Catholics (!) trashing the Pope.
    3 Those rules over 2000 years were often not observed. One example, the Reformation where undermining ‘Catholics’ threw away the rules and nearly did for the Church. Same gossips today..Be careful what you wish for!!!

    An elegant response from you, Mary. Ta!

  10. Mary Salmond says:

    Thanks.

  11. Declan says:

    Toad said ”Yes, Kathleen they have persecuted me admirably. Holding up my comments long enough to confuse people who are trying to conduct any coherent dialogue” Yes that was evident and very confusing it was too.I don’t think that’s a right thing to do.If anyone has views unpopular, then oppose them with reason and clarity.

    it seems I have incurred the wrath of the entrenched regulars, some of whom often are rude to Toad (who can give and take) .- with no consequences. And are now extremely rude to me because they disagree with me. It’s not looking good. I repeat my words of the outset; I’ll leave here anytime I’m asked. I am told by K that I ”now reflect a view that radically opposes Catholic doctrine and teaching!!” I asked for any evidence of this libel but none was forthcoming. Sheer Keyboard Tourette’s.

    Perhaps I should go for a while. If my contributions aren’t welcome, say so now please!! And one’ll be orf!

  12. geoffkiernan says:

    May I stress the need to speak with clarity. This is an important matter.
    Declan, you suggest Mary is sometimes not clear but you are unclear. It is not helped by put down comments like. ‘ you seem tense. Relax’ etc. You seem a polished performer but you are somewhat smooth and unconvincing somehow. I do wonder about you and your agenda. What gives with you, or am just mistaken?

  13. Mary Salmond says:

    Agreed, temper the temper! Well said.

  14. Declan says:

    Geoff. This is important. I said Mary wasnt clear, she clarified and I thanked her. You say I’m unclear (fair enough) but you give no examples. I can’t help you on this with no examples. (no need now).
    You complain of my ‘putdown’. which was mild.(and accurate I think) After the abuse I got, am I entitled to a little comeback? You do it in your way to Toad. -double standards? You say I’m smooth and unconvincing, suggesting (sneakily) that I am somehow dishonest. Shame on you.. Drop the knife.

    My agenda? Oh dear. mm will give you a psychiatrist’s comment on you here . Better I ask of yours. I have only seen you mock Toad and a wish to run over him with a bus and to be controlled. Nothing else. Fine – if you had also something to say! . What’s *your*agenda geoff? What have you to say? So far, I’ve missed it. Your complaint here is the most I’ve ever seen of you. Yes you are mistaken – and how!

    It ‘s true that ”the protruding nail gets hammered flat” . It’s OK. Hammer away. So many questions -so few answers will be given.

    Mary! Whatever you believe, I have NEVER been angry here. LOL!

  15. Declan says:

    I briefly clarified a comment about questions/answers meaning I’ll get few answers. It was ‘moderated’.

  16. kathleen says:

    Busy day. Only just looked in again since this morning.
    Oh dear, the so-called ‘Declan’ has been at it again, throwing his weight around and attacking, interrogation-style, good kind people like mmvc, Mary Salmond and Geoff. Even old Toad was given an earful for replying to you.

    If you truly loved the role of the Papacy and the Holy Catholic Church as you pretend, you would understand that to criticise Pope Francis’ many unorthodox words and actions (not his person) that are destroying and jeopardising the faith of so many people, is the duty of clergy and laity alike. A Pope should defend and guard the holy Deposit of Faith, not undermine, change and/or dilute it – which is what Francis is doing in a very determined and totally unmerciful fashion!

    Mr Whippy, er, Declan, we know who you are. You have been kicked off all sane blogs, including ours, many times before for your rude, belligerent, uncharitable attitude towards everyone. Yet each time, after a while, you have cunningly sneaked back in under different sock puppets, only to reveal your true abusive self again soon afterwards.

    You ask if we want you to go?
    That’s one question I will answer!

    Yes, please leave…. And this time, STAY AWAY !

  17. Mary Salmond says:

    Speaking of divorce, has anyone read today’s readings; Matthew 5: 27-32. Straight from Christ’s mouth. Need I say more?

  18. toadspittle says:

    Well done CP&S. You seem to have killed a record number of my comments in the last 24 hours. Your reward will not be on this earth.
    Still, I will offer up my subjection to censorship for the souls in Purgatory.

    “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
    Matthew 5: 27-32.
    No comment needed.
    Now kill this.

  19. geoffkiernan says:

    Kathleen, now that Declan’ position/stance/agenda has been declared for all to see, maybe he should be allowed and invited to contribute. Every utterance can then be evaluated in context and be contested and fall on its merits. ” let there be no guile found in them’ ….. Who said that?…. and where?

  20. Mary Salmond says:

    May I ask what are the general rules for CP&S censorship? Free speech without malice, vindictiveness, slander, libel, and vulgar words with civility? Reasonable to me.

  21. E. says:

    What hits me is that Jesus called John the Baptist the greatest person born on Earth; John was murdered by adulterous Herods´order. Sign of times.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s