Pope Francis donated 500,000 dollars from the Peter’s Pence collection to assist the thousands of immigrants stranded on the USA border, thereby highlighting the humanitarian crisis of our brothers and sisters in Christ who travelled thousands of miles in hopes of a better life for themselves and their families, only to be abandoned without shelter or assistance. It also highlights the need for Catholics to have a consistent approach to the doctrine of the Church, namely to get better acquainted with actual Church Social Doctrine (not just the warped version of it preached by politically biased pundits.)

Cardinal Pietro Parolin and the International Theological Commission issued a document condemning a particular and often ignored religious freedom violation: the “soft totalitarianism” in democratic countries. The document, approved by Pope Francis, further explains: “the democratic state (…) in the name of an “alleged ideological neutrality”- is bent on removing “every ethical justification and every religious inspiration” thus in favor of an “ideology of neutrality which, in fact, imposes the exclusion of religious expression from the public sphere ”. And this “makes it particularly vulnerable to the spread of ethical nihilism in the public sphere”.We are faced with “a ‘secular imitation’ of the theocratic conception of religion, which decides orthodoxy and the heresy of freedom in the name of a political-salvific vision of the ideal society: deciding a priori it’s perfectly rational, perfectly civil , perfectly human identity. Absolutism and the relativism of this liberal morality here conflict with the effects of illiberal exclusion in the public sphere, within the alleged liberal neutrality of the state“.”

On the other hand, more violent forms of anti-Christian religious persecution still rage on in other countries, but there are some signs of hope, namely in Syria.

Pope Francis has designated Claudia Ciocca as the leader of one of the Vatican’s most important organisms: The Secretariat for the Economy of the Holy See. It is the first time that a woman is named to such a role.

But certainly, the most newsworthy topic this week is that 19 Catholics have signed an Open Letter charging Pope Francis with heresy and making recourse to the college of bishops to depose him on that charge.

It has been the source of much amazement that one of the signatories is formerly proeminent theologian Aidan Nichols. Many of the papal critics are shielding themselves behind his prestige to give credence to this unjustifiable action. Mike Lewis has already weighed in on this argument, namely by building upon this article from Henry Karlson, bringing attention to the truism that proeminent theologians do not become heretics despite being proeminent theologians, but because they are proeminent theologians. We recommend again the reading of Karlson’s article here.

Joanne Baker published a very well-researched article drawing from Thomistic theology to explain what fraternal correction is, if a Catholic can criticize the Pope publicly and in which circumstances, and if such arguments can be applied to our current situation to criticize Francis. Spoilers: they do not. A must read! (Thank you to commenter Jane for bringing this incredible article to our attention).

David Wanat also weighs in, by coining the term Me-gesterium to define people who use a personal interpretation of magisterial documents, apart from its historical, cultural and authoritative context. Lots of very good quotes in there too. This article and this one from the same author are also very good.

Notable apologista Jimmy Akin also shows how the signatories of the letter failed spectacularly in proving their main point on which every single of their claims rests: proving that the Pope has taught heresy.

Pope Francis’ intentions for May 2019: pray for the Church in Africa:

Liked this post? Take a second to support Where Peter Is on Patreon!

Pedro Gabriel, MD, is a Catholic layman and physician, born and residing in Portugal. He is a medical oncologist, currently employed in a Portuguese public hospital. A published writer of Catholic novels with a Tolkienite flavor, he is also a parish reader and a former catechist. He seeks to better understand the relationship of God and Man by putting the lens on the frailty of the human condition, be it physical and spiritual. He also wishes to provide a fresh perspective of current Church and World affairs from the point of view of a small western European country, highly secularized but also highly Catholic by tradition.

Weekly roundup (28 Apr – May 4)

21 Responses

  1. ONG says:

    Very good collection of articles and sub-articles that could be provided as replies to many commenters around the web…
    Many would only read the titles though. 😊

  2. carn says:

    “Spoilers: they do not. A must read!”

    That spoiler is partly wrong.

    The article can be used in support of claiming that the heresy letter is not “virtuous”.

    But it is insufficient to show that the public criticism from trained theologians and/or bishops and/or cardinals is not “virtuous”.

    Cause the criteria is:

    “To judge the Holy Father deserving of public correction, we would need to be in a position of equality as a bishop, or else have been given the gift of particularly good judgment about the prudential matters in which we correct him.”

    And as far as i can see all other criteria, which must be fulfilled for “virtuous” criticism, are so to say internal or non-obvious.

    For example that first a correction in private should be tried; it is hard to know, if someone criticizing the Pope in public has tried all in private what is necessary before going public; but what someone tried in private is usually only known to him and the Pope (or the ones opening and sorting the letters sent to the Pope; i guess he does not read all personal mail).

    For example that the judgement should not be a rash judgement; whether something is a rash judgement or not depends on a large part how someone arrived at a judgement; again might be hard to know.

    Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the article mentions:

    “An action may also cause scandal when it only has the appearance of evil.”

    Accordingly, if a Pope would do something, which would be perceived as evil, for example using an item cor ceremonies in public which is for many people to be only understood and perceived as an satanic item (and has no specific symbolism in Christianity) or speaking in a way which many people perceive as the long awaited permission to finally scrap all that supposedly outdated and unscientific moral norms of Church teaching, could be one regarding which criticism from cardinals and bishops/others with sufficient knowledge could be “virtuous” (note: i speak in the hypothetical; if a Pope did these things, they might appear to be evil, even if a Pope had good intent; wielding the sigil of Bathomet during mass would be a problem, even if the Pope where unaware about its meaning; saying something, that would accidentally encourage priests and theologians to tell people that sex outside marriage is fine, would appear to be evil, even if Pope were unaware that many might understand what he says this way)

    Accordingly, based on what the article says, at least the dubia might have been “virtuous” criticism.

    They are from cardinals; and they tried to address an issue, in which supposedly the Pope acted in a way that appeared at least to some to be about scrapping Church teaching; and they tried to inform him in private before going public.

    Therefore, it would be a bit shorthand to conclude that it is proven that no criticism of Pope Francis meets the criteria laid down in the article.


    As we should always check first, whether we ourselves did something wrong, it would not hurt for some critics of Papal critics – present people not exempted – to check whether what they do in public is ok.

    Cause the same criteria of course apply, if one wants for example to criticize in public the dubia cardinals for making the dubia public.

    • M. says:

      That’s just tu quoque fallacy Carn. How I know that one for my teenager does it to me constantly, lol!

      • carn says:

        Please consider the meaning of terms you use:


        “Tu quoque “argument” follows the pattern:[2]

        Person A makes claim X.
        Person B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
        Therefore, X is false.”

        Where in my text is “Therefore, X is false”?

        If you cannot name/quote any part of my text, where i supposedly do/say that,

        your claim that i use tu quoque falllacy is false.

        What i do is the second step of the above by implying that critics of papal critics also fail the criteria of the linked article.

        Do i claim that therefore the criteria are false?


        I just claim that just as some/many papal critics fail that criteria (and some maybe don’t), some/many critics of papal critics fail that criteria (and some maybe don’t) [and i allow for the possibility that more papal critics fail the criteria than critics of papal critics].

        That is by the way an often appearing pattern that the longer some conflict goes on without any sign of pacification, the more serious the violations of both sides regarding some code of conduct.

        And that is even the case, if one side is “right” and more moral; even the “good guys” will violate some code of conduct more often and more seriously.

        (Myself not excluded; usually the longer some conflict like discussions goes on, the more problems i have to behave as i should)

        “How I know that one for my teenager does it to me constantly, lol!”

        My teenagers sometimes – only sometimes – do it the correct way by admitting their own misbehavior while also pointing out my own misbehavior without claiming that the severity is equal and/or that misbehavior is irrelevant due to the other side supposedly behaving worse.

      • Marie says:

        Through all this, the simple questions still remain unanswered by the critics: Did Jesus not say to Simon ” …..and I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”?

        Why do I never hear a Papal critic address this in any of their arguments? How do they get past this? To me, this is the foundation of Catholicism. If we skip this, nothing else matters. I have never, ever seen talk of this. Further, history has proven that a bad pope or not, faith and morals, as promised, are protected. So, together with Christ’s promise, how can anyone question it, genuinely?

        If we don’t believe that, how can we claim to be Catholic? And if we do believe it, what is there to worry about? Arguing what is really considered teachings that we must follow is just an excuse to not follow what we don’t want to follow, but I think everyone knows in their heart that it is just not that complicated. The teachings, and understandings of them are not meant for theologians only, rather for all of us. We can’t skip the foundation of Catholicism and then argue the Councils, Vatican I, etc, etc. We start with the foundations, and then go from there. Like any structure, if we don’t, it will eventually crumble.
        If any papal critic can explain how they get past this question, maybe I could then understand, at least partially their position. As it is now, I cannot see any pure motive, as I see love of self over submission of intellect and will, when challenged.

      • carn says:

        A bit a jump of topc; and i cannot speak for papal critics in general (also, depending on the definition i might or might not be one myself).

        But you asked me, so i will try:

        “Why do I never hear a Papal critic address this in any of their arguments?”

        Some of them address this by suggesting that some/many of Pope Francis statements/actions or at least of the statements/actions used to interpret his encyclicals do not meet the criteria necessary to be binding.

        As a simple example: i somewhere read the argument, that due to Pope Francis “firing” Cardinal Müller, that therefore somehow interpretations of AL suggested by Müller are not in accord with what Pope Francis wants. So that Peter firing a certain underling causes the faithful to be bound to reject the interpretation that underling offers for the Pope’s words – and that without the Pope ever stating that the interpretation of the underling are to be rejected.

        I do not think that the firing or hiring Pope Francis does can bind us to accept or reject any interpretation of his words, cause we never know the full story of the reasons for hiring/firing and accordingly do not know whether the underling was hired/fired for his interpretation of papal words and accordingly the hiring/firing cannot bind us to some interpretation.

        It is of course also done with arguments on a more theological level, e.g. AL states in 3.:
        “3. Since “time is greater than space”, I would
        make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal,
        moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by
        interventions of the magisterium. Unity of
        teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the
        Church, but this does not preclude various ways
        of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or
        drawing certain consequences from it.”

        Seems to be an explicit statement that for some things the Pope does not want to offer any intervention of the magisterium, so he does not want to bind the faithful regarding whatever these things are.

        and in 4.:

        “For this reason, I thought it
        appropriate to prepare a post-synodal Apostolic
        Exhortation to gather the contributions of the
        two recent Synods on the family, while adding
        other considerations as an aid to reflection, di-
        alogue and pastoral practice, and as a help and
        encouragement to families in their daily commit-
        ments and challenges.”

        Right after stating that some things need not be bound by Peter, Peter lists several purposes of the following text and notably settling doctrine is not among the statements.

        If Peter prefaces some text with permission to interpret some things in differing ways and then notes as purpose of the text only pastoral and summary issues, doesn’t that mean that Peter did not want to bind the faithful with that text at least in doctrinal matters?

        I do not know; but of course that allows for argument that choosing an interpretation of AL does not violate any obedience to Peter, cause Peter allowed right in AL for differing interpretations.

        And as a last of this – definitely non-exhaustive examples what arguments were raised – even if AL is in some matters binding for the faithful and even if we can select the correct interpretation by observing closely what else the Pope says and how AL lines best up with rest of magisterium:

        Which one is the binding one?

        Before you argue that this is the supposedly invalid excuse of the Pope being confusing, it is the argument that there are differing and potentially exclusive interpretations.

        Take right this WPI article:
        “Notable apologista Jimmy Akin also shows how the signatories of the letter failed spectacularly in proving their main point on which every single of their claims rests: proving that the Pope has taught heresy.”

        So WPI claims that Akin gets something correct.

        But what does Akin also say in his article?

        “but as Cardinal Gerhard Müller has shown, the relevant statements in this document can be understood in harmony with Church teaching.”

        He cites positively an interpretation of Cardinal Müller.

        So Akin implies that Müller gets it right.

        Unfortunately, i know other voices which say that Müller gets it wrong (most noteworthy, Cardinal Kasper implied so in his response to Müller’s recent manifest)

        So Akin says its Müller’s interpretation. Others say Müller is wrong. Others (i think even some WPI people) suggest that Schönborn is right (which means Müller is at least partly wrong). And yes, to honor it, there are WPI articles about how to interpret it – which differ from Müller’s interpretation.

        All i can say is that either most of the interpretations are ok in light of Peter saying in AL that some matters need (not yet) be settled by magisterium (in which case i am not bound by Peter to any specific interpretation of AL) or some of them are wrong.

        Which highlights one further problem i like to highlight.

        To resolve the issue, if the faithful are bound to something via AL, one might ask Peter.

        But Peter is to some extent unwilling to answer.

        And that is not resolvable; cause if Cardinal disagrees with Cardinal how to interpret something and indirect guessing from whom the Pope fires and hires is not binding on the faithful, the buck stops with Peter.

        And so some people end up in various ways with actual intellectual uncertainty, if and to what Peter wants to bind them.

        And if one is honestly intellectually uncertain to what one is bound by Peter, one has no conscious choice between sticking with Peter and accordingly one would be past the problem, that one should honor what Peter binds (for the time being, till one gets out of that situation).

        The polite counterargument – also offered here on WPI (though to some extent politer than offered elsewhere) – is that one is only a proud, dishonest, hateful, nasty, stonethrowing pharisee of the jesus-murdering-type who just grabs for any excuse so he can continue to shun mercy and avoid conversion.

        But that is rather unconvincing; cause even if i were so, Müller would still disagree with Kasper, cardinal would still disagree with cardinal and the buck would still stop with Peter. Who is silent.

        “The teachings, and understandings of them are not meant for theologians only, rather for all of us.”

        Where the problem starts. Literally the first thought that crossed my mind, when hearing the dubia and that they were not answered was, that at least one of the answers is relevant for me (the next thought was: Ah, lets just ask more knowledgeable people on Catholic Answers forum; didn’t work well).

        So of course Peter binds me – if he answers the question. If he doesn’t, i cannot see how i am bound regarding the answer to the unanswered question and the way it is personally relevant for me.

        Except for of course that the answers of the previous Peters continue to be valid, if this Peter continues to not answer.

        But that doesn’t mean anything else, that for some aspects of my life i am bound to just take passing note of much of what Pope Francis says and as long as i do not spot something, which binds me in that regard, i am still bound by previous Peters.

        Making me somehow an dissenter.

        “but I think everyone knows in their heart that it is just not that complicated”

        No, i do not know that in my heart.

        What my heart claims to know for certain (although i often object, that this might be just unfortunate prejudice caused by various personal experience, but my heart is not that open to advice in that regard) is that if i ask a question of someone and that someone spends countless words to explain to me various things i have not asked for – e.g. supposed character faults of mine, deficits of the questions, how i must still learn before ever hoping to answer, various issues related to the topic or worst what i should ask instead – but never gets around to ever put together some words actually trying to address what is before the question mark, that what that person has to offer to that matter is among other things usually totally useless for making me understand anything further and i should look elsewhere for further info. And i should avoid ever bothering with such person again.

        So contrary to what you claim, my heart tends to suggest, that i should just disregard what that Peter mostly.

        That i do not do is mainly cause i always thought those “my heart says so” “i feel it in my heart” etc. arguments to be totally braindead stupid – i received no warranty that my heart gets things correctly.

        Of course this in a sense hilarious; cause what most papal apologist tell me is that i should trust my heart regarding Pope Francis. Especially, as “useless” is one of the more polite attributes my heart attributes to those people who offer many words to questions of mine but never answer them.

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        Without being able to answer more fully, I would like to note that Muller’s interpretation linked by Akin is remarkably similar to the one WPI has espoused again and again (at least in a superficial reading)

        One problem with invoking Muller’s interpretations is that he has interpreted the document in several different ways along the years.

      • ONG says:

        Why don’t you simplify/synthesize all of your queries in fewer fundamental concepts, and start with ONE at the time?
        E.g.: GOSPEL
        What is the Gospel for you and what should one do with it?

      • M. says:

        Phew ok, now you have my head spinning around Carn. I think you probably win, but I am no longer sure, so I’ll concede defeat since I am probably too lazy to try to defend that I am a defender of the defenders of the pope and therefore the tu quoque actually applies, or…something equally confusing. 🙂 Peace.

      • carn says:

        Sorry, that i failed to make it short; it should not about winning.

        It should be about understanding and sharing information. You might have knowledge/information that is valuable for me; and vice versa; and the purpose of communication is to receive that knowledge/information if there is such.

        @Pedro Gabriel

        If Müller changed his interpretation in critical ways, than things get even more cloudy. Cause if someone changes aka revokes some earlier position, that former position – at least based on what that person said – is certainly not one can consider to be reliable.

        If cardinals shift in interpretation of what was bound or loosened by Peter, it is hard to see what was bound or loosened by Peter.


        If Müller’s introduction for the book of Buttiglione is a valid interpretation of AL, then what Müller says therein is a valid position to hold:

        “In paragraph 305 and in particular in note 351, which is the subject of a passionate discussion, the theological argument suffers from a certain lack of clarity which could and should have been avoided by referring to the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Trent and Vatican II on the justification, the sacrament of penance and the appropriate way of receiving the Eucharist.”

        Which means that my personal opinion from reading documents of Pope Francis, that they are in part worded … not very good, is something ok to hold, if the linked interpretation of Müller is an acceptable one.

        But peace; i was asked and i tried to answer.

  3. Chris dorf says:

    Regarding the article about democracies in religious freedom one could go on about one religion taking over the nation’s thought processes about God such as the United States has had it’s entire history where protestantism has informed the understanding of the the person as up in against the concept of the common good which is why Catholicism with a ghetto religion in America even to President Kennedy being grilled by southern Baptist and the Catholic Social doctrine being minimized to almost non-existent

  4. Guest says:

    I think we need faith like Abraham. When asked to sacrifice his son it was repugnant, maybe even contradictory to his understanding–for Isaac was the child of promise. Abraham obeyed anyway. Now we give him kudos for that but at the moment it was a really hard decision.

    Is God still leading us through His Church? If not, when did He stop? If so, do we trust Him to lead us through His human apostles? Can we go to hell for obeying legitimate God ordained authority we disagree with? Can we sacrifice our precious ideas and will?

  5. Marie says:

    Carn- Thanks for answering. I guess it is a bit off topic, but not in the sense that the arguments put forth must have first tackled this point very decisively. The argument regarding Muller being fired, an , in short not being bound as a result, well, would that only apply when a Cardinal is let go? It does not make since that our Lord would expect us to read up on everyone, and everything so that we can figure it all out. Isn’t that precisely why we have a Pope, so we know where to look for the truth? I am not bound to read Cardinal Muller, Kasper, Schönborn or Jimmy Aiken. I may or may not do so to better understand the Pope, and Church teachings, but that would always be after accepting that what the pope has said regarding faith and morals is what is to be followed. Christ would not expect us to try to figure out which is binding and which is not, for that would exclude so many of us from being able to do so, for a variety of reasons.That’s why it is part of teaching that we are bound by the teaching. Theologians can offer and assist us in a deeper understanding, but it never takes away from the basic truths.
    I am certain that if we got 50 cardinals together, and each were to listen to a case regarding an annulment, their wound be differing views, as they determine whether a marriage took place. The same is so for AL, it is a case by case basis that cannot say precisely what exact circumstances must be in play. Each case would be unique.
    Yet AL is hardly the only complaint going around. It has been from day one, and continues. The desire by some to ignore the foundations of our faith, and put forth all kinds of theories as to why we don’t need to listen to our pope not only goes against Church teachings but everything Christian as far as kindness and generosity towards our fellow man. I appreciate your effort to explain it, but for me, as soon as we interpret, rather than accept and expand our understanding, we have lost our way.

    • Marie says:

      Sorry for all the typos 🙂

      • ONG says:

        Yeah, I remember that “day one” (and days after) and the next in-flight press conference, where several journalists were obsessively focusing on that pesky little footnote #351, and fully DISREGARDING the purpose and aim of the entire Amoris Laetitia, in spite of Pope Francis repeatedly exhorting them to get deep into it as A WHOLE, with the correct interpretative key that was suggested during its presentation day!

        And here we are three years after circling on the very same issue!!!

        Did anyone read the attached document “The logic of pastoral mercy, of April 8, 2016?

      • Marie says:

        Ong- I just read “The logic of pastoral mercy” now, thank you! Genuinely beautiful, I honestly don’t understand what the problem is. Amoris Laetitia is anything but a free for all, rather a full recognition of the beauty and benefits of marriage, while recognizing the suffering of those who fell short.

        Usually, when we are blessed with something, we want to share that, and wish that others could have the same. Conversely, when we struggle with something, and it isn’t so great, some can be envious of those who who are not struggling, or worse, they are determined that no one gets ‘an easier ride’ or is ‘bailed out’ of something when they have had to struggle so hard just to survive it. Sometimes I wonder if that is the root of those in opposition to Pope Francis, and his push for mercy, for when you’ve been blessed with something (happy marriage, receiving the sacraments, financial security) why wouldn’t you want others to have a path to these potential joys and blessings? When our mentality is always seeing the ‘free pass’ someone may get, we never recognize their hidden struggles, nor do we fully acknowledge the gifts we have been given, for if we did, we would want everyone to share in them.

    • carn says:


      If i get asked questions, i try to answer; accordingly, if you ask me questions, expect another comment of mine.

      “Isn’t that precisely why we have a Pope, so we know where to look for the truth?”


      “I may or may not do so to better understand the Pope, and Church teachings, but that would always be after accepting that what the pope has said regarding faith and morals is what is to be followed.”

      True (except that “has said regarding faith and morals” does not mean every single thing said by a Pope, which could be broadly understood to refer to faith and morals; for example last year that some accusations against some Chilean bishop are false; which is a statement about that person’s guilt; which is – loosely – understood a statement about morals, namely that that persons conduct was morally ok; but the Pope himself later realized that that statement of his was false).

      But when i do not understand something the Pope has said and consider what theologians or cardinals have said in that regard and these contradict each other, that is a problem; even more if some of them suggest that some of the competing interpretations are heresy and others suggest that they are not heresy.

      And in case of the dubia the Pope has not said anything, which might amount to an answer. There are only theological “guesses” out there, what might be the answers and/or why the questions are impossible to answer and/or why asking the questions itself might already be dissent.

      So there is nothing to accept for me regarding the dubia, except what previous Popes said.

      “I appreciate your effort to explain it, but for me, as soon as we interpret, rather than accept and expand our understanding, we have lost our way.”

      How can you avoid interpreting, when you do not understand what is said and if different people clearly understand the words differently? How can you avoid trying to make up your own answers (which is in a sense extreme form of interpreting), when no answer is given?

      “Yet AL is hardly the only complaint going around.”

      True. But that some find fault, where none is, does not show, that there is nowhere fault.


      “Why don’t you simplify/synthesize all of your queries in fewer fundamental concepts, and start with ONE at the time?”

      No problem to do that:

      “2. After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?”

      That is all my queries simplified to a single question. I could add two more for completeness, but you wanted me to keep it simple.

      But it might be a bad starting point, cause the people i shamelessly copied that question from were called out by head of Greek bishops to be apostates and/or heretics for asking.

      “What is the Gospel for you and what should one do with it?”

      The most important message from God to man. Read it and/or listen to it and/or think about it and/or listen to homilies about it and/or hold it in your heart (though how to do the last is a bit hard to put into words).

      • Pedro Gabriel says:

        “last year that some accusations against some Chilean bishop are false; which is a statement about that person’s guilt; which is – loosely – understood a statement about morals, namely that that persons conduct was morally ok;“

        Emphasis on the word “loosely”. This is not what we refer to when we speak of the Pope teaching on matters of faith and morals. We are talking about general teachings of morality (eg: contraception is wrong), not to any particular application to any particular case, especially since what was at stake was not the morality of the act (sexual abuse is wrong) but the veracity of the accusations.

        Also, regarding your question to ONG, it’s the same question you posed me some months ago. I replied. But you then just said that my reply was one interpretation among many and you would only be satisfied with an answer from the mouth of the Pope. So why ask ONG?

      • ONG says:


        I just posted about the “interpretation key” that was suggested three years ago during the presentation of AL.

        I hadn’t seen these two answers, yours and Pedro’s.

        To add any comment on that I would have to read what was written earlier…

      • carn says:

        “This is not what we refer to when we speak of the Pope teaching on matters”

        I was answering to Marie, who used “Pope said” instead of “Pope teaching”; therefore that clarification.

        “Also, regarding your question to ONG, it’s the same question you posed me some months ago. I replied. But you then just said that my reply was one interpretation among many and you would only be satisfied with an answer from the mouth of the Pope. So why ask ONG?”

        ONG asked for the simplification of my queries; he did not ask for a simplification to which he can provide an authoritative answer. Accordingly, me providing that question is exactly what ONG asked for. So the reason i posted that question is, that it is a truthful answer to his question. (And this again is a truthful and complete answer to your question, why i posted that question to ONG).


        You might ponder upon the issue, that if that is the (or at least a very important) starting point for my queries, that then i can run into problems, as that starting point is part of what some consider an attack on the Pope, others (overlap possible) consider as evidence that the Pope is heretic, further people (overlap possible) consider as evidence that the one asking has an “obsession with controlling and dominating everything”, and further people (overlap possible) see as an attitude of going back to “categorizing” and “to try to impose rules by sheer authority” which would be an act against the “joy of love in which we can believe and which excludes no-one, truly and sincerely no-one”.

        The main problem though is, that the fundamental issue i start with is so hotly contested and unanswered by the Pope and has turned into such an inner catholic civil war, that i consider it rational to stick with what was taught in that matter (the question itself; not communion for divorced) up to March 13, 2013.

        And as you see, i read the document you thought no one read at least insofar to find nice quotes.

        And a final especially nice one:
        “This is why reading Amoris Laetitia is so comforting. No-one must feel condemned, no-one is scorned.”

        Except the people asking the wrong questions of the wrong people.

      • ONG says:

        The “Mercy of God” cannot be put in a box, otherwise the adulteress woman would have been stoned by Jesus himself!
        That’s the underlined “rational point” for me.

        Do you think that IF those who started this “inner war” had experienced Mercy themselves and esp. acknowledged how to pastorally transmit it to others in “certain irregular situations” would still have kept on warring till today?

        Did they ever follow with that presentation or read the whole AL in the chapter order it was strongly suggested and not from footnote #351?

        Here you may find some more “nice quotes”: (in case you hadn’t seen it I’ll post the link below)

        SUMMARY of Amoris Laetitia


Share via
Copy link