Changing the Teaching Proclaimed in Humane Vitae Will Have Grave Repercussions

This may be a bit late, but I really wanted to address something that is very disturbing and should certainly cause faithful Catholics to pray even harder for the clergy. A story broke just a couple days ago, found over at the National Catholic Register, that a priest who was recently appointed to the Pontifical Academy of Life, Fr. Maurizio Chiodi, gave a lecture last month at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome on Re-reading Humanae Vitae [HV] (1968) in light of Amoris Laetitia [AL] (2016). What's scary here is that Fr. Chiodi tries to prove that AL has opened the door for contraception to be permissible and morally licit in certain cases. In his lecture, he opines: 

"[I]n situations when natural methods are impossible or unfeasible, other forms of responsibility need to be found. There are circumstances — I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 — that precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception."

He is not referring to natural means of regulating births, but to artificial contraception as being "responsible" in a greater degree.. I find this to be really troubling, that this priest would so twist the words of Pope Francis.

Jacques Laumosnier- Wedding of Louis XIV of France

Some Passing Thoughts on A Couple of Essays

About a month ago, Pope Francis' letter to the Argentine bishops on the implementation of Amoris laetitia (AL) in regards to the civilly divorced and remarried was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Dr. Edward Peters, a canon lawyer, addressed this with some clarifying remarks from Fr. Z over at his blog. I had posted some thoughts over there, and so as not to lose them in the shuffle, I'll post them here as well. I mainly wanted to bring up an excellent essay that had been published in print by Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S. A couple quick points though before I post those thoughts in response to Dr. Peter's essay...

I'm getting really tired of all the bad mouthing of His Holiness in certain pockets of the interwebs. It's really disgusting to see how he is being talked about in some quarters. Until proven otherwise, I take Pope Francis' words at face value: "I am a son of the Church". As I am too, I believe that there are many people out there who are twisting the pope's words in AL, and now in this published letter. After studying the issue I agree with both Dr. Peters and Fr. Raymond J. de Souza that "it is possible to read the Buenos Aires guidelines as consistent with the Church’s traditional teaching..." I defer to these men who are experts on the situation. I simply add my thoughts to this just to bring attention to what Fr. Brian Harrison had to say. My comment follows after the jump. It'd be best to read Fr.Z's comments linked above first before continuing.

The Country Wedding- John Lewis Krimmel

Reply on Pope Pius XI's Magisterium

In my latest essay over on Catholic Stand, I finished up talking about how the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium works; what it is and what it is not. There was one commenter who had a question about Pope Pius XI and his encyclical Casti Connubii. The commenter's words will be in red, with my reply in blue.

Tom: Yet the other part of Casti Connubii -- condemning equal rights for women -- is that still the Magisterium?

Nicholas: I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. I'll be happy to engage more fully then. It seems different people have different meanings of "equal rights". There are many different connotations. I can assure you, that in the fullest sense of the term, Pope Pius XI did not condemn equal rights in this encyclical; quite the contrary, actually.

Also, keep in mind that there are three categories when declarations of the authentic Magisterium are made. Only those in the first two categories are recognized as infallibly taught.

Tom: Pius condemns those who say "the rights of husband and wife are equal" (para. 74), called "the subjection of wife to husband" an eternal truth though the specifics vary with time and place (para. 26 - 28), and "there must be a certain inequality" legally (para. 76). I think we can confidently say that these teachings have been superseded.

He also condemns mixed marriages without a special dispensation (para. 82), another teaching which has been superseded.

Pope Pius XI

Can the Laity Exercise the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church?

In response to an article I recently wrote on the infallibility of the Church and the Magisterium, I got into a bit of a discussion with a reader. Unfortunately, Disqus, the commenting feature used on this website, does not like me. I don't know what does it, but something in my posts always get marked as spam. Because of this, I wasn't able to get certain points across to my interlocutor. That section will be bolded when I repost the conversation below.

Basically, his contention was that the teaching authority of the Church does not rest solely with the ordained hierarchy, but with all the baptized. His words will be in red, with mine in blue:

Tom: Vatican II, in Lumen Gentium 12, expanded the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium to include all of those who have the Spirit of truth: "The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, [cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27] cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" [Cf. 1 Cor. 10: 17] they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth."

Second Ecumenical Council- Vasily Surikov

New Article Catholic Stand

My latest essay is up over on Catholic Stand. It's the first in a short series of articles regarding the infallibility of certain teachings in the Church. The second part should be up within the next couple of weeks.  With this essay, I wanted to bring up something that has become more and more common among baptized Catholic Christians; that is, dissent from the teachings of Christ's Church. This can be on one point, or on several points. Often, such Catholics hope or expect that certain teachings will be redefined. But typically, they haven't undertaken a diligent search for the truth, and forget (or, perhaps ignore the fact) that several of these teachings they dislike and do not subscribe to are infallible in virtue of the authority Christ gave to His Church. You can see a snippet of the essay below:

Let’s look at one aspect of the Church’s teaching that is contested by many Catholics: the prohibition of contraception, particularly in Bl. Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae (On the Regulation of Human Births). Many theologians and clergy immediately, openly dissented from Bl. Paul’s reaffirmation of the grave sinfulness of artificial contraception. But since he had not defined this teaching ex cathedra, some dissented by asserting that the pronouncement was not infallible, and therefore this teaching could be ignored in good conscience. This notion couldn’t be further from the truth.

You can read the entire essay here at Catholic Stand.

The Mass- José Benlliure y Gil

Has the Church Ever Taught Error Regarding Faith and Morals?

A few days ago, I posted my essay on how dissenting Catholics face a mighty large dilemma in discounting certain teachings of the Church in matters of faith and/or morals. Apparently, the combox to that article was fairly lively. I think the one sentence that ruffled feathers most was my main thesis, and I would imagine it perturbed people because in order to accept such a notion, one must look deep inside oneself, especially if they do indeed actively dissent from any Church teaching that we are to definitively hold. That thesis was this:

"If the Church is wrong about any of its teachings, even just one, this is tantamount to admitting that Jesus is a false god, because He allowed the Church He founded to teach error."

One person in particular balked at such a suggestion. His words will be in red, mine in blue, and various other posters' comments in other colors. My main interlocutor, after quoting my words above, had this to say:

Tom: I don't think anyone believes this, even "traditional" Catholics. I don't even think the last few Popes believed this either. The Church has issued some teachings in the past that everyone admits now were error. It doesn't mean Jesus was a false god.

Is Tom's assertion true? Let's see.

Jesus the Teacher- Jan Luyken

The Magisterium and the Dilemma of Dissent: New Essay on Catholic Stand

A couple weeks back, I recently posted an essay on Catholic Stand in response to comments made by Melinda Gates, wife of the multi-billionaire Bill Gates. In an interview with the BBC, Mrs. Gates made it clear that she and the Pope “agree to disagree” on the morality of contraception.

She opined, “It’s been a while since [the Catholic Church] revisited this topic [of contraception] — but I’m still optimistic that they might [change the teaching] over time.” This is a reference to Blessed Pope Paul VI’s remarkable encyclical Humanae vitae, in which he reconfirmed the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. You can see a preview of my essay responding to such dissenting or "cafeteria" Catholics below, with the link to the actual essay again provided at the end.

How does Gates gauge whether a certain thing or activity is “right” or not? Does she believe that the Church can make an accurate pronouncement on the morality or sinfulness of a certain action? 

Apparently not, as she outright rejects what the Church teaches on contraception. If she believes she is doing “the right thing for women” by promoting contraceptives, then the Church, by doing the opposite in condemning the use of contraceptives, must be doing the wrong thing. Two contradictory things can’t both be right and true. In this case, either Gates is wrong, or Christ in His Church is wrong. And if it’s the latter, all those who profess to be Catholic have quite the dilemma.

You can read the rest of the essay over at Catholic Stand.

Jesus Among the Doctors- Albrecht Dürer

Christians Are Commanded to Worship Together on Sundays and Holy Days: Why Should We Trust the Church's Teaching Authority?

Sometime back, I got into a discussion with someone regarding the Baltimore Catechism and how it has been an effective supplement for me as a catechist in teaching my students in our parish's religious education program. The pictures inside are remembered by many Catholics of a certain age, and these pictures, and their explanations in Q&A format, made it easy for the kids to understand the reality of the Eucharist during our first Holy Communion prep for 5th-7th graders. The Baltimore Catechism is the perfect supplement to any textbook series a catechist today uses.

However, as the discussion went on, one Catholic person expressed how he disliked some of the pictures and ideas presented in the Baltimore Catechism. This led to a discussion on whether all Christians are obligated to pay due worship to God, by assisting at Mass on Sundays or Holy Days, under pain of mortal sin. This further led into us discussing whether the teaching authority of the Church (the Magisterium) has clearly stated such an obligation to all Christians, and if those same Christians should pay heed.

I think it needs to be said that many non-Catholic Christians, specifically those of an Evangelical or non-denominational bent, eschew corporate worship. They believe that a "Jesus and me" relationship is the only real requirement anyone needs for eternal life, and that if one misses worship with their brothers and sisters on a particular Sunday, it's not a big deal. Clearly, such persons have made only a cursory reading of Scripture. For if they really had delved into the Scriptures, it would be apparent that not only are we obligated to worship our Lord each Sabbath day, but we are to do so corporately. The thought process goes something like this:

1. The relationship between me and Jesus is the most important thing there is, and one doesn't need the Church to have a relationship with Jesus.
2. This must mean it's the only thing I'm really required and obligated to focus on in regards to entering eternal life.
3. So if I miss worshipping with my brothers and sisters in Christ on Sundays, it's not really a big deal.
4. Therefore, I am not required to assist at Mass on Sundays.

Unfortunately, the jump from "1" to "2" does not prove what a relationship with Christ entails. Not to mention, the jump from "3" to "4" is untenable, because who has decided it's "not really a big deal"? Furthermore, who has decided that we are not obligated to keep the Third Commandment, "Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy"? This is the problematic thought process we've received from many Evangelical Christians; it's seeped into the practice of more than a few Catholics who no longer feel it's necessary to corporately worship each Sunday and holy day. As Patrick Madrid puts it in his book Any Friend of God's Is a Friend of Mine:

"Me and Jesus" Christianity isn't biblical"

St. Paul said, "[W]e, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another" (Rom. 12:5). Catholics believe membership in Christ's Body means a personal relationship with Jesus and, through Him, with all Christians. 

Although Protestants may agree with this in theory, in application most of them (this is especially true of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists) promote an individualistic "me and Jesus" version of Christianity, teaching that the only thing ultimately important is one's own relationship with Christ, independent of any relationship to anyone else. While it may pay lip service to the communion of saints, in reality most of Protestantism ignores the organic bond of unity between the Christian faithful..."

Excerpt from the Baltimore Catechism

The "me and Jesus" mentality is indeed "individualistic", flying in the face of Scripture; so how anyone can think worshipping with our brothers and sisters is a trivial matter has obviously not read or reflected on what St. Paul says in his First Letter to the Corinthians. He actually scolds other Christians for thinking they don't need other Christians, emphases mine:

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ...  For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 

...as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single organ, where would the body be?  As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, ...those parts of the body which we think less honorable we invest with the greater honor... 

But God has so adjusted the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. (1 Cor. 12: 12, 14-15, 18-27)

Many Christians, Catholic or not, talk about caring for the needs of other people as Christ instructed, but then they forget about how we need to develop an even deeper relationship with our brothers and sisters since we are all incorporated into the same Body of Christ. This need... this relationship, which is developed concretely at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and our partaking of the Eucharist, must no longer be forgotten. The spread of this individualistic notion of a "personal relationship" with Jesus at the expense of His Body, of His spotless Bride (cf. Rev. 22:17; Eph. 5:26-27), needs to be curbed. We, as Christians, must assist at the Mass so that we may keep the Sabbath holy by giving due worship to God, and we also must worship corporately so that we "may have the same care for one another."

Below is my discussion, with my interlocutor's words in red, mine in blue, and various other commenters in different colors.

When the Writings of Saints Are Deemed to be Politically Incorrect...

You may or may not have heard the story coming out of Orlando this past week concerning a catechist at a Catholic school who had passed out printouts of St. John Bosco’s 1853 essay “The Catholic Educated in his Faith.” The teacher was reprimanded, but to what extent is unclear. From the local article:

The Diocese of Orlando issued a statement about its decision to reprimand the teacher to the Huffington Post. Diocese officials said they would issue the same written statement to the Star-Banner, but that had not been received by press time.

The Diocese of Orlando officials would not answer questions to discuss details about the exact extent of the punishment.

Jacquelyn Flanigan, an associate superintendent with the Diocese of Orlando’s Catholic school system, said in a statement to the Huffington Post that she had spoken with Blessed Trinity’s Principal Jason Halstead and Smythe.

Flanigan stated that after speaking with the two men, the school district decided to “reprimand the teacher for this unfortunate exhibit of disrespect.” Flanigan also said in the statement that the material is also “not consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

It seems we've come to the point where even local dioceses are being too careful of upsetting the PC police. Here's a sampling of St. John's readings, and even I can admit that they aren't PC:

"We could say the Koran is a series of errors, the most enormous ones being against morality and the worship of the true God.  For example, it excuses from sin those who deny God out of fear of death;  it permits revenge; it guarantees its followers a Paradise filled only of earthly pleasures.  In short, this false prophet’s doctrine permits things so obscene, that the Christian soul is horrified just naming them."

But here's the thing... so what if his writings aren't PC? One could argue that Jesus Christ wasn't politically correct either, so to claim that St. John Bosco's writings go against Catholic teaching is simply mistaken. Let's see why that's so.

St. John Bosco and students

Expansive Dialogue Regarding The Church's Infallibility and Apostolic Succession

Some of you may remember that I wrote a series of articles on Catholic365 that stemmed from dialogues I had with a Baptist (and five-point Calvinist) pastor which were posted here on this blog. I then continued to turn those dialogues into essays, however, there was one last dialogue between this pastor and I that I haven't posted yet. It was in response to this essay on the Church's infallibility and how that specific charism relates to the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The reason I hesitated for so long in posting it is because of the length of our discussion, how sprawling it was, and how off topic it eventually got before I decided enough was enough.

Perhaps I went on for too long; there is that saying about casting pearls before swine after all, and shaking the dust from your shoes. But it's my hope that someone might benefit from what is written here, and hopefully, I can eventually make this into an essay or two after doing some modifying. In any case, posting this dialogue will in the very least show people how stubborn Calvinists can be when they are backed into a wall, i.e., perfectly valid arguments not being addressed but instead deemed "invalid" and then with a wave of the hand, seemingly dismissed.

Below is the very long conversation we had. Unfortunately, the original conversation is deleted from Catholic365 as the pastor has been banned. I saved our conversations, but at certain points I did not save the entirety of my interlocutor's posts, and instead only included the relevant quotes I was replying to. I apologize for any confusion that may result in reading this, but I will try to make this as streamlined as possible for easy reading. My words will be in blue, and the pastor's in red. I begin by replying to relevant parts of the pastor's first comment on the above article. After my initial reply, I will include his full replies. My words will be in blue and "Tom's" in red:

Gérard de Lairesse- The Institution of the Eucharist

The Elephant(s) in the Room

With a new year just beginning, the same controversies that plagued the last continue. It appears that all the discussion surrounding Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Latetia (AL) will continue into 2017. In an interview, Cardinal Raymond Burke, one of the four cardinals who submitted the dubia, explained that a formal correction could appear in the new year if the dubia were not addressed. Things are getting pretty serious, and how things will play out is anyone's guess. I sincerely pray there will be no division and all will be resolved by God's grace. I've read a lot of commentary on the issue, and had some discussions with others on this as well, and it all seems to boil down to a couple of issues that are the clear "elephant, or elephants, in the room". One of those, taken from a conversation I was a part of can be seen below:

"Is the idea that refraining from sexual intercourse from a civilly-married partner is too large of a burden and too great of an expectation?"

"It may be that this question is THE elephant in the room re[garding] AL.

"From my own... experience re married couples, especially a Catholic woman married to a non Catholic man, yes, this may well be an unreasonable ask (sic) for a variety of reasons."

To which another person replied, citing the Council of Trent, Session VI: "CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema."

What's being referred to here is the apparent (not actual) contradiction found in one interpretation of AL's footnote #351 (on page 237) and section 84 of Pope St. John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio (FC) which reads:

"[T]he Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

"Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they 'take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.'"

The rest of the conversation, or at least the relevant portions, will follow below. I believe this conversation was very fruitful, and I was able to learn quite a bit, especially by reading more of the papal documents promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI; documents I had never given the time of day to read, but now realize the entirety of these documents are a great treasure of the Church. My words will be in blue, my main interlocutor's in red, and other people chiming in during the conversation will be in other various colors:

Pope St. John Paul II

The Differing Interpretations of Amoris Laetitia

As we get to the end of the new year, the controversey stemming from the varying interpretations of Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia grows more and more concerning. From distressing rumors to new interviews with those who submitted the dubia, it seems that our Church and our leaders need lots of prayer heading into 2017. Not too long ago, I was engaged in a discussion with someone on one Catholic apologist's Facebook wall. It was pretty amicable. I was trying to show how the varying interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, and those coming from just the U.S., are already contradictory, and prove why the dubia is definitely needed. Here is the great, original post from apologist Dave Armstrong's wall:

My Opinion as to Pope Francis Answering the Four Cardinals' "Dubia"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

I stated many times in the combox for my long recent post on the topic that I think it would be good for him to answer and clarify: that it is *always* better to clarify than not to. 

I'm very reluctant to criticize the pope at all, due to my very strong Catholic reverence for the office (NOT due to some silly notion that he can never be criticized, which I have NEVER believed), but I have to call it as I see it, as an apologist who may be asked about it. 

I know from my own experience as a writer and apologist (which is a teaching function), that writers can be misinterpreted. Writing is an inexact art and we are too often insufficiently clear and precise: all the more so in proportion to the complexity of the subject matter. 

So if I am asked questions about *my* meaning and intent, I'm always quick (and glad) to clarify. In fact, I *appreciate* the opportunity, because I figure that if this one person didn't accurately understand me (either through his fault or mine, or both), chances are there are many others out there who also didn't. It helps no one, and hinders the development of a topic, to not be properly understood. 

Infinitely more so for the pope, who is the leader of all Catholics and our supreme teacher, if any one person can be said to be so . . . 

This topic (exactly who in difficult marital situations can receive Holy Communion, and why) is, of course, very complex, too. So that is a second good reason, I believe, and humbly submit, for him to clarify. 

Whether a non-answer "proves" he is a liberal or heterodox in general and/or on the disputed point, is another matter entirely. I would think not; however, it may very well make him *look* like he is, or that he is being "stubborn" or unnecessarily intransigent, or lacking pastoral and prudential wisdom, etc.. and that isn't good, especially given the wide and ever-growing "skepticism" or criticism sent his way, about this, and in general.
It's becoming increasingly inexplicable why he would not simply clarify the thing and be done with it. Again, that's not the same as denying that he may have a good reason; only to assert that it is difficult (as this thing becomes more and more controversial) to speculate as to what it might be. 

I'm not even denying that there can be any number of "hard cases" where communion for at least one party is perfectly admissible according to traditional Catholic morality and discipline. But, as the questions indicate, complexities and confusion need to be cleared up as to specifics. It's also true that those who have nefarious heterodox intent (as I believe I have already written in the past) will exploit any confusion or (rightly or wrongly) perceived "loopholes" as a license to depart from true Catholic practice, just as they did with Vatican II and the reform of the Mass. Yet another good reason to clarify with great specificity... 

I haven't reversed myself, compared to what I wrote before, because I said this many times in the comments under my post, but one might say I have considerably "developed" my opinion and have a little bit more perplexity (in terms of speculation) than I had when I wrote my piece. 

In my opinion (as a mere lay apologist), I think in the *very least* that it would be good for the Holy Father to tell us why he is *not* answering, should he definitely decide not to. But better to answer...

The conversation that followed is below, with my words in blue, Dave's in green, another person's in orange, and my interlocutor's in red:

Musings on the Dubia Regarding Amoris Laetitia

There's been a lot of rumblings not only on the interwebs lately regarding Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, but also in print and on TV. I'm really scared that something disastrous might happen, but I trust in the Holy Spirit, and I know the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church. But still, souls are hanging in the balance, and hopefully none will be lost in all this confusion. 

I had posted some thoughts in regards to an essay written by apologist Scott Eric Alt on what's been going on with the five Dubia submitted by the Cardinals, and had also gotten into a little back and forth with some people on his Facebook wall. Below is a few excerpts from Alt's essay:

"So the question becomes: Are the “some cases” to which Pope Francis refers in footnote 351 the same that John Paul II mentions in Familiaris Consortio. Or are there other cases, unspecified in the text, in which couples can return to the sacrament? In one public address, Cardinal Schonborn seemed to say that 351 was merely an allusion to FC 84... 

"Well and good. Pope Francis even said that any questions about footnote 351 should make note of what Schonborn has to say, because Schonborn is a good theologian, and he gives great detail, so find what Schonborn says, what do I know, I can’t even remember footnote 351. 

"Problem is, it turns out that His Eminence Cardinal Schonborn has been a tad inconsistent about this footnote. His words above were in April. Three months later, in July, he gave an interview to Fr. Antonio Spadaro. In that interview, Schonborn says there has been “an evolution”—a “clear” one—in our understanding of factors that mitigate culpability for sin. 

"Okay, maybe so. But what are these new mitigating factors? Schonborn goes on to quote from Amoris, but that does not answer the question. The closest the text comes is this:
'A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values,’ or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to decide differently and act otherwise without further sin.' 

"That lacks—how shall I say?—precision. 

"...This is why there is a problem with Amoris Laetitia–because there are sections of it, important sections, that are vague, and which scream out for clarification; but attempts to clarify have led to further vagueness (as in Schonborn’s interview with Spadaro) and inconsistent opinions about what it was that the pope wants pastors to do, and not do, with couples in an irregular union seeking to return to the Eucharist. We have had assurances that Amoris is utterly consistent with Familiaris and yet there are two problems: 

-Schonborn’s words have been inconsistent and themselves not at all precise;
-None of these clarifications carry Magisterial weight. 

"And because they do not carry Magisterial weight, different bishops are interpreting Pope Francis to pretty much be saying what they want him to say, and doing what they want to do, and there is no uniformity or correction where there has been folly. 

"So four cardinals intervene with a series of questions asking the pope for clarification on footnote 351. 

"These strike me as fair questions. The cardinals are seeking a definitive, Magisterial answer to some people’s doubts—not answers in interviews, not private lectures, not “go listen to so-and-so.” The reason a definitive answer is needed is precisely to prevent bishops in some places from running wild and doing whatever they want to the potential harm of souls. If someone in a state of mortal sin, not disposed to receive the Eucharist, receives the Eucharist anyway, that compounds the problem. It is a harm to both the individual who receives and the priest who knowingly distributes. A definitive clarification would, potentially, forestall this."

The entire essay is worth a read, and is well written and really mirrors, I think, the feelings of many faithful Catholics. Below is my response to him, followed by another comment made by Scott on his page that set off someone who seems to not be a fan of Cardinal Burke. My comments will be in blue, with everyone else in varying colors:Great article, Scott. I think we're totally on the same page here, and you've articulated exactly what I've been feeling. I love Pope Francis, and I don't think what he's written in AL can be consistently read with Familiaris Consortio 84. But the confusion is there, and we can already see that just in dioceses in the US.

Pope Francis

Should We Ever Disregard the Law and "Follow Our Hearts"?

Perhaps this post won't make total sense, as it's more a stream of consciousness type deal I'll be writing here. I apologize in advance if it isn't totally coherent, and really, this is going to be my sounding board so I don't lose the thoughts floating around in my head. It's just that something really bugged me about the homily given by a visiting priest at Mass today, and it left me scratching my head, trying to figure out what point the priest was trying to get across. Now I don't think there's anything wrong with this man, he is a priest following his vocation and brings us the Eucharist, but there are some questionable things that he says, and it's a bit disconcerting. The part that really got me was when he said that mantra we all seem to hear from the secular world and Hollywood: "Follow your heart". Seeing as we're humans who suffer from concupiscence, it might not be good to always follow our heart, especially if by "heart" we mean our "conscience" and "good intentions", as the connotation seems to mean so often today.

Sacred Heart of Jesus with Saint Ignatius of Loyola and Saint Aloysius Gonzaga- José de Páez 

News Flash: Archbishop Chaput Has Not Changed Church Teaching... And Neither Has the Pope

"Archbishop Chaput's Arrogant Contradiction of Pope Francis"
"Archbishop Chaput's actions 'are not Christian'"
"Divorced Catholics Must Avoid Sex"

These are actual headlines in response to Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia's letter “Pastoral Guidelines for Implementing Amoris Laetitia” released last week.  You'd think three things from headlines in the secular main-stream media (MSM) looking at the examples above:

1. Pope Francis changed Church doctrine to be more lax
2. Archbishop Chaput has thought he can change this doctrine again to make it more "rigid"
3. This is actually news.

Here's a hint for number 3... it's not news. It's not because the first and second points are false. Pope Francis didn't change anything with Amoris Laetitia, no matter how bad people in the secular or liberal Christian world want it to, and Archbishop is saying nothing new; he's just reiterating Catholic teaching. And judging by the response, the world, especially those Catholics who have embraced modernity and the lifestyles of the secular culture, need to hear it.

Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia

Initial Thoughts on Amoris Laetitia and "Rules"

So the day has finally come where Pope Francis has released his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, entitled Amoris Laetitia. It hasn't even been out 24 hours and already there's controversy from all sides. First, we hear from so-called "conservative" side, where many radical Catholic reactionaries and sedevacantists cry out that His Holiness has deviated from Church teaching and the sky has totally fallen. Then you get the "liberal" side of things that go in the complete opposite direction that say that the Pope has "softened" the Church's teachings on marriage and sex. Yea... that's a real news headline. And then of course, some people go even farther and say that the Pope hasn't done enough as far as a politically leftists agenda goes. So that leaves the Church, as the pillar of Truth squarely in the center of these two opposing ends. it's amazing how both sides can seem so radical, despite reading the same document, and still miss the mark. Thank God for is holy Church, proving that there is no "conservative" or "liberal" side to the Church; only the Truth which lies in the middle.

Pope Francis

Recent Thoughts on Baptism

I've been fascinated with baptism since my son came into the world and now with #2 on the way, preparing for the next baptism is on the agenda soon after the birth. The thing about baptism in Catholic theology though, is that you can have it lead to so many different avenues. Is baptism salvific? Who can partake in baptism? Are we regenerated by baptism? What is original sin? What is original justice? How does baptism add in with our justification? And the questions go on and on.

There's a crazy long debate going on at this article over on Catholic Answers, and I've learned so much from reading not only the original article, but the comments as well. I've learned how strong the Catholic (and Orthodox) case is for the sacramental view of baptism, and comparably, how ridiculous many Fundamentalist Protestants are with their weak arguments and how they have to twist and contort pretty explicit Scripture passages, just so the Scriptures can fit their faulty theology that never existed before 1500 A.D.

St Augustine Baptizes the Cathechumens- Girolamo Genga

Discussion on Transubstantiation and Church Authority

Recently, I posted an earlier blog post of mine on transubstantiation. I was surprised at how many comments I got back on it, and the number of discussions that resulted from it. One such discussion I engaged in was with a Fundamentalist Protestant who had an issue with the belief in the Real Presence on the grounds that it wasn't apostolic. that is, no Apostle believed the Eucharist to be the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord. I would've loved to have continued the conversation a bit more, but I will post here the brief exchange that we had. Look for an essay to come from this conversation on Catholic 365 sometime in the near future, highlighting the relevant proofs and information I've posted in this exchange. My words will be in blue, and "Tom's" in red.

Christ Among the Doctors-José de Ribera