Conversation on Iowa Abortion Bill

Earlier this month, Iowa Governor Kim Reynold signed into law "the heartbeat bill" which prohibits doctors from performing abortions after they've detected fetal heartbeats in pregnant women. This is a great step in removing the scourge of abortion in our country! Of course, the bill is being fought by many, but at the very least, it allowed for some conversation to be had on the subject.

On social media, one news organization asked readers whether or not the "heartbeat bill" was a good thing or not. Discussion on a friend's social media account ensued, and it's helpful to see at least a little headway made with the second of two people I dialogued with. My words will be in blue, one interlocutor's in red, the other in green, and other commenters in various colors.

Tom: Can’t get behind a bill that says what a woman can do with her body and decisions.

Nicholas: I wouldn't get behind a bill that says that either. What the bill proposes is the protection of the female's (or male's) body that lives in a mother's uterus from outside harm. As for "decisions", there are certain "decisions" that should not be protected by the law.

François Riss- Lullaby

Dialogue With a Pro-Choice Bodily Autonomist

I feel myself forced to agree with something many people (at least in the Catholic world) have observed: dialogue is dead. or at least, it's nearly dead. If one isn't devolving into personal attacks, then they're going in a hundred different directions, or ignoring legitimate questions in the course of a discussion. Below is a prime example of such a "dialogue".

Rare is the person who can be intellectually honest and actually have a legitimate conversation. It has happened before, in my experience... but man alive, is it rare. What you will read below stems from a meme that was posted on social media. The pro-choice person went on many different tangents, so I'll only include relevant portions of the thread. His words will be in red, mine in blue, and other persons' in varying colors. As you'll see as you're reading, I post this (and kept engaging this person) because some people may have encountered his arguments in the past and not known what to say. As this Facebook page gets a lot of traffic, I at least wanted to reply for their benefit, if not my interlocutor's, so as to show how ridiculous his position is. That fact will become increasingly clear as the conversation progresses.

The meme in question

Tom: I didn't realize you were being forced to have abortions.

Harriet: Each baby is forced to die without a choice in the matter.

Tom: "Baby"? I thought we were talking about fetuses. Do people abort babies now?

Harry: Oops, Tom has apparently swallowed the lie that fetuses aren't also babies.

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

Our Role in Bringing Christ to All Peoples: Does This Include Practitioners of Judaism?

I recently got into a conversation with some people regarding on how to successfully undertake inter-religious dialogue, specifically with Muslims and Jews. In the last 50 or so years, and especially in just the 21st century, there has been a lot of confusion on this topic. Some go to one extreme and say that there are several ways to salvation; or, that for the Jewish people, there is a path to salvation through their understanding of the covenant and another path for Christians. On the other end of the spectrum, some claim that no Jews can possibly be saved unless they explicitly convert to the Catholic Church and become visible members of that Church while they are arrive on Earth. Both positions are extreme and false, so thankfully, the Church holds the logical, moderate position as she typically does.

One person mentioned that when trying to undertake this dialogue, particularly with Jews, the best way to do so would be to find some common ground on which to begin some kind of discussion. One could perhaps begin by recognizing that Jesus was a Jew, and a practicing one at that, before He founded the Catholic Church.  Another way would be to recognize that both Judaism and Christianity use the Decalogue as a foundation for morality.  I thought that these were some great observations. You have to find common ground when entering a discussion, such as recognizing that Jesus Himself was Jewish, and we have to always speak with charity, as St. Peter exhorts us in his First Letter. But another person made a troubling comment that gave me pause: the Church no longer asks (or teaches) us to actively convert the Jews. Is this really true? Where exactly does the Church teach this? As you'll see in a moment, the Church does not teach such a notion.

Discussion on "Progressive" Views Pertaining to the Church's Teaching on Sexuality and the Marital Embrace

Some weeks ago, Cardinal Robert Sarah wrote an op-ed for the New York Times, critiquing Fr. James Martin, S.J.'s new book on "Building a Bridge" to those Catholics who are attracted to the same sex. In part, Cardinal Sarah wrote that "[Fr. Martin] repeats the common criticism that Catholics have been harshly critical of homosexuality, while neglecting the importance of sexual integrity among all of its followers." The Cardinal goes on to say that homosexual sex acts are "gravely sinful and harmful to the well-being of those who partake in them. People who identify as members of the LGBT community are owed this truth in charity, especially from clergy who speak on behalf of the church about this complex and difficult topic."

I got into a discussion with some people regarding this critique and the way that Fr. Martin has tried to reach out to such persons. Below are two separate discussions on this topic, one which degraded fairly quickly, and the other which was a bit more fruitful. The discussion eventually broadened into the Church's authority and on who's authority the Church's teachings are transmitted to us. My words will be in blue with my interlocutors and those sharing my sentiments in other various colors.

Cardinal Robert Sarah

What Exactly Is "Active Participation" and "Noble Simplicity" in the Context of Holy Mass?

Kind of piggybacking of of Pope Francis' comments (which really were a non-story, and were not controversial at all), I got into a bit of a discussion on elements of liturgical worship. The usual charges against traditional liturgical worship were bandied about, unfortunately. Charges that the extraordinary Form of the Mass didn't reflect "noble simplicity" or had too many "useless repetitions". Below is the conversation that I and several others had on the subject.

There are some good citations from same great essays that I do not want to be lost, so I'll post links to everything here as well for posterity's sake. My words will be in blue, with the others' in various, different colors. The whole conversation "began" when one person found it inaccurate to say that Latin encourages a camaraderie among the faithful.

Harry: The common Latin language encourages a bond of brotherhood between Catholics of all countries, rich and poor, far and wide. 

The problem is that perhaps memory of the pre-reform period has to pass before we can change attitudes to Latin. People will then come to see it not as a mysterious and alien language that shuts them out of the litugy, but as their liturgical language in which is expressed their universality of rite, their brotherhood with their fellows Catholics and not least, their intimacy with Almighty God, for whose worship this language is set aside in their lives. 

The argument that people won't understand the words of the Sanctus and Gloria in Latin when they say them every single week, and read from a Missal with both languages side by side, is just nonsensical. 

We have failed Vatican II when it comes to Latin. It should play a greater role in the reformed liturgy, where it can do all kinds of good without impeding active and conscious participation, if it is employed proportionally and only to the unchanging parts of the Mass. 

''Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.''

Completion of the liturgical reform of Vatican II as referred to by the Holy Father this week, must involve this. Otherwise we have only a 'partial revelation'.

Tom: The only common bond was that the laity were equally disconnected with the Mass. The Mass prayers were said by the priest and altar boys and the people sat and stared. 

You mentioned Hong Kong, and it reminds me of how the Vatican once held that nothing of Chinese culture could be brought into the celebration of the Mass.

Thankfully, that was lifted and Chinese can and do bring their culture into parts of the Mass without changing the consecration itself. 

The Causes of Unconditional Love

In getting ready to write a new essay tangentially related to contraception, I recalled a dialogue I had with someone regarding an essay I had posted on social media. I thought about just posting my own words since I pretty much dominated the conversation. I regret doing this sometimes, typing so much, but there's always so much on my mind that I want to be able to express it all. I am trying to become more concise in my writing, but as I care for this person, I felt it my Christian duty to get this person introduced to some ideas that they may not have been aware of.  I apologize if anyone tires of the length of my blog posts. Please know that I don't do it because I'm full of myself or like to hear myself "talk". In putting my thoughts here, and in dialoguing with other people, I hope to find answers. I just go about it in a way many millennials would rather not.

In any case, here's the selection of the essay, entitled "The Death of Unconditional Love", I posted on social media: 

"The widespread availability of contraception ushered in an age of sexual intercourse without consequence. Unconditional love was taken out of the equation and replaced with immediate, self-serving gratification. Love became inconsequential to sexual relations. With the possibility of procreation and the need for commitment gone, sex went from being a wonderful gift from God and an active participation in his work of creation to a sterile act, devoid of meaning and transcendence. 

"Likewise, easy, no-fault divorce has played an enormous role in the death of unconditional love. Marriage went from being a permanent, lifelong relationship to a temporary one. Our very high divorce rate signals the fact that as adults, few are capable of unconditional love. By rejecting our wives or husbands, whether we intend to or not, we tear apart our families. What is left is a broken reflection of what once was.

"In essence, without using words and often without even intending to do so, we tell our children 'My personal needs are far more important than your need for a loving home, nurtured by both Mom and Dad.'"

Below is our conversation. Some things have been edited out, but the bulk of it is still here:

The Triumph of Divine Love- Peter Paul Rubens

Discussion on Abortion and "Personhood" With a Utilitarian

Recently, the ever-awesome Secular Pro Life posted a guest blog by a woman who suffers from turner Syndrome. An excerpt from the article is below:

"Instead of turning 30 reminding me that I'm getting old, it reminds me I'm living—and it's a wonderful feeling. I will wear every grey hair and every wrinkle as a badge of honour. I get to enjoy a life that's all too often left to 'choice' and deemed 'not worth living'—without even being given a chance. 

"My mom is 'pro-choice' and believes it should have been up to her whether or not to abort me if she had known. I'm so thankful that my diagnosis was safe with me in the womb and that I'm alive—instead of my life being reduced to a statistic."

A heart wrenching reality this woman has to live with, that her mom would actually say these things to her own daughter. But what really disturbed me was one of the commenters on the article. This man, from the UK, was a self-professed utilitarian. This was the first time I really was able to get into a deep conversation with one such person. While his ideas are scary, perhaps even monstrous, my interlocutor was pleasant throughout our discussion, never threw any personal attacks, and explained his point of view in an intelligent manner. But it's his worldview that is problematic. While reading through this dialogue, one will see that not only does he reject the personhood of most life in the womb, but also of some people who may be in a vegetative or comatose state, as can be seen by him saying they "often resume personhood". His comments will be in red, mine in blue, and various other commenters in different colors. My interlocutor's initial reply to the article itself is below:

Tom: This is merely confused counterfactual thinking. She'd never have suffered with the thoughts of having not existed or regretted her missed existence had she have been aborted in the first-trimester do it's a moot point.

Reflecting on the Different Interpretations Given for Amoris Laetitia

I had refrained from posting this long exchange I had had regarding Amoris Latetia for a while, but it seems that the controversy surrounding it just won't go away. I decided it was time for me to post this lengthy discussion so that others can see what is at stake here. We have several bishops contradicting several other bishops on the interpretation of AL. That in itself is scandalous, and even more so are some of the interpretations we've gotten, namely from the Bishops of Malta.

This exchange is mostly with a person I had already talked a bit with on the subject. Unfortunately, this time around it didn't end so well, as my interlocutor, who is a 50-something with a degree in theology, didn't think I was worth the time as I was simply an "autodidact". The thing is, my sources all came from saints, popes, and bishops... as well as our Lord! At the outset, he would interact with my arguments, by the end, he refused to. How my questions were continually dodged will be obvious. Please note, that I don't claim to be a know-it-all. I don't. But the Church does. I asked more than once, that if I was wrong, then show me my error! It didn't happen; my arguments were instead ignored. Perhaps I could've been more pithy, but as I'm a student, I learned a lot through this exchange, and citing as many sources as possible helps me keep things straight. I can only hope that in this excessively large post, someone is able to understand the point I'm trying to make, and can see the evidence I have from the Tradition of the Church to back it up. That is, AL has not changed Church teaching on the reception of Communion for the divorced and remarried that continue to live together more uxorio. My words will be in blue, my interlocutor's in red, and eventually, my words will turn back to black to interject towards the end.

The Apparition of Christ to the People- Alexander Andreyevich Ivanov

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.

What Does Gender Really Mean When It Comes to the Transgender Question?

Recently, my friend posted a meme on social media which depicted a person holding up a sign saying "My genitals do not define my gender". On the bottom half of the meme, the following statements were also made:

"My IQ does not define my intelligence."
"My physique doesn't define my fitness."
"My semen doesn't define my child."
"Go on. Make some more stupid cases."

While I thought the meme was a bit crude, I did think it got a valid point across. Another person made a comment, indicating that the view given in the meme was ignorant in his view. The discussion we had is below, with my words in blue and my interlocutor's in red. I think the discussion we had was cordial, as we both felt very differently on the subject, but it never devolved into ad hominem attacks or other insulting banter. I hope to go deeper into such a discussion in the future, but I'm thankful for the time my interlocutor took to engage me and the time they took to read my point of view. Our discussion follows the jump:

Creation of Adam- Michelangelo 

Thoughts on the Jesuit General's Apparent Relativism, and a Reply to His (non-Catholic) Supporter

A little over a month ago, a very controversial interview with the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Arturo Sosa Abascal, was released. In it, Fr. Abascal claimed that all Church doctrine must be subject to discernment. While technically true, he failed to mention that all need to submit to what the Church has declared. That is so, because Jesus is Head of the Church. All doctrine that the Church gives us comes directly from Jesus Christ Himself. Here are a couple relevant excerpts:

Q: So if conscience, after discernment, tells me that I can receive communion even if the norm does not provide for it… 

A: The Church has developed over the centuries, it is not a piece of reinforced concrete. It was born, it has learned, it has changed. This is why the ecumenical councils are held, to try to bring developments of doctrine into focus. Doctrine is a word that I don't like very much, it brings with it the image of the hardness of stone. Instead the human reality is much more nuanced, it is never black or white, it is in continual development. 

Q: I seem to understand that for you there is a priority for the practice of the discernment of doctrine. 

A: Yes, but doctrine is part of discernment. True discernment cannot dispense with doctrine. 

Q: But it can reach conclusions different from doctrine.
A: That is so, because doctrine does not replace discernment, nor does it the Holy Spirit.

After reading the full interview of what the Jesuit General had to say, I have to say I find his words very disheartening. It sounds as if he's completely embraced moral relativism. Fr. Dwight Longenecker made some good points:

"This is astounding. Let’s be clear. While Fr Abascal thinks Jesus’ words are difficult to understand, Fr Abascal’s are easily understood. He is saying that we can’t really know what Jesus’ words were so it is all up for grabs."

The Scribe Stood to Tempt Jesus- James Tissot

If Planned Parenthood Is Defunded, Will FQHC's Be Affordable For All Women?

Recently, Live Action posted a story on their website exposing the myth that has been circulating around pro-choice circles. That myth is that if Planned Parenthood (PP) is defunded, women will not be able to get accessible healthcare, and the alternatives will be too expensive. Of course, we have to define healthcare, as I (and many others) would argue that abortions and contraceptives are not healthcare. But the biggest issue here, of course, is abortion. Several lively conversations ensued on public social media, and I interacted with two people. Well one, I suppose would be more accurate. And even that one wasn't interested in having a conversation of much substance. What I noticed, in the replies to this story, was that many Americans who are pro-choice and/or support PP are incapable of rational discourse; they are incapable of interacting with ideas other than their own, and instead throw around ad hominem attacks, or simply dismiss any point made with a wave of the hand since they can't come up with a rebuttal. For if they did offer a rebuttal, that would mean they would have to consider the points made by their interlocutor, and it appears that it's too much for many people to contemplate for even a second that they're position on a matter as grave as abortion is wrong.

Christ Blessing Little Children- Marie Ellenrieder

The first "exchange" I had was in response to someone simply posting a meme in reply to the article. In response to my and others' comments, all the person could do was dismiss everything said by saying a condescending "Oh honeys!" This is where intelligent debate dies. Less and less it seems that two people can exchange ideas and have a thoughtful conversation, and instead immediately dismiss the opposing sides thoughts. This is different from finding your opponents logic in actual error. We can't just dismiss someone's opinion, no matter how ridiculous we find it. We still have to interact with it, and not just declare "you're wrong", but prove and demonstrate why this is so.

The other dialogue took place with a woman who felt that Live Action was spreading "lies" and that women would never be able to afford visiting an FQHC (Federally Qualified Health Center). She was mistaken. I'll post my response to the first young woman, followed by pseudo-dialogue I and others had with the second woman immediately after. My words will be in blue, my interlocutor's in red, and other people in various colors.

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

Can Catholics Subscribe to Polygenism in Evolutionary Theory?

Earlier in the week, I had gotten on the tangent of evolutionary theory, and the subject of our first parents came up. Are we actually descended from a literal Adam and Eve, two parents? Or is it possible that there was a "pool" of early humans where our species originated from? I found some great sources of information here, especially these articles written by Dr. Dennis Bonnette. Mongenism is defined as the theory that there are "two sole founders of humanity". Adam and Eve are historical figures. Polygenism is defined as "a theory of human origins positing that the human race descended from a pool of early human couples, indeterminate in number. Hence, this theory, Adam and Eve are merely symbols of Mankind. Rather than being an historical couple, they represent the human race as it emerges from the hominids that gave rise to them as they become homo sapiens, properly speaking."

Pope Pius XII also rejected polygenism in his 1950 encyclical "Humani generis", but some Catholics have held that a form of polygenism could still be considered reconcilable with the faith, for instance, author Michael Flynn, who I'll mention again in a bit. So who's right? Luckily, scientist and catholic convert Dr. Stacy Trasancos recently came out with a book entitled "Particles of Faith: A Cathoic Guide to Navigating Science", which includes a section on this very subject.

The Rebuke of Adam and Eve- Domenico Zampieri

If Martin Luther Is a "Witness of the Gospel", Then What Are the Martyrs of Gorkum?

Recently, I came across a discussion on a Catholic forum that quickly changed topics to that of the recently passed Reformation Day. Of course, many of us are aware that Pope Francis traveled to help commemorate the anniversary in Sweden, leading several Internet pundits to believe that things such as open communion and the like were right around the corner. While that won't be happening, I was surprised to see the following statement from a priest in Europe on this forum, responding to an earlier comment:

" 'Yes, we agree. Luther was a heretic,' 

"No. What we would be in agreement on is exactly what was proclaimed by the Holy See in 1983: 

"Martin Luther is a 'Witness of Jesus Christ' and a "Witness of the Gospel" from the perspective and judgment of Rome in the 20th and the 21st century. 

"Since you are a faithful Catholic, I trust you are in complete and total to Pope Saint John Paul II on the conferral of those titles -- and that in all things you completely submit yourself to the superior knowledge and judgment of the Successor of Peter."

First off, I'm not surprised by the statement given by the Roman Catholic/Lutheran Joint Commission itself. This is where this priest is getting his "witness" terms from; a 1983 report from the international dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans. What I am surprised at, is that he would actually suggest that Catholics must "submit ourselves" to an opinion that was not given by the Successor of Peter with divine and Catholic faith. The main problem I have here is with calling Luther a Witness to the Gospel. I'll go much more in depth below, but first, a thought exercise. If Luther is a witness to the Gospel, then what does that make the saints the Catholic faith already recognizes? What does that make the Martyrs of Gorkum, for example. St. Leonard van Veghel and his 18 companions were martyred by Protestant Calvinists in 1572 in Holland. Their feast day is celebrated on July 9th.

I would argue that these men were witnesses to the Gospel, and much more so than Luther ever could have hoped to be. Why aren't people like the German bishops telling us more about the heroic witness to the Gospel of Jesus that these men gave in the same way we keep hearing platitudes heaped on Luther? St. Leonard and his companions were demanded to abandon their belief in papal supremacy. They did not waver in their Catholic Christian faith, even to the point of death. What amazing witnesses and intercessors we have for us in heaven! Intercessors I did not know about until researching more on this topic! Luther denied this belief that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. How can that be truly called a witness to the Gospel, when our Lord prays fervently in that same Gospel that we " may all be one, as you, Father, are in Me and I in You"? Luther may not have wanted division, but we have seen first hands the fruits of his reform. Yes, his actions led to the Counter-Reformation and the Council of Trent, but we can chalk that up to God bringing good out of a horrible situation. That situation being a fracturing in the Body of Christ that continues to break to this day. In paragraph 2473, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) says:

"The martyr bears witness to Christ who died and rose, to whom he is united by charity. He bears witness to the truth of the faith and of Christian doctrine."

We see Luther called the same thing a martyr is defined as, a witness to Christ. But these witnesses, St. Leonard and his companions, by being witnesses to Christ also bear witness to Christian doctrine, i.e. the papacy. Are we really ready to say that Luther and the Martyrs of Gorkum are both witnesses of Christ in the same way, and should be venerated as such, as this priest is suggesting?

Certainly not, especially as the actual quote from the 1983 statement reads, my bolding:

"We see on both sides a lessening of outdated, polemically colored images of Luther. He is beginning to be honored in common as a witness to the gospel, a teacher in the faith and a herald of spiritual renewal."

The Pope (or the Holy See) wasn't saying Luther was a witness to the Gospel. A few theologians are saying he is beginning to be honored as such. By whom, I cannot be sure. Certainly Lutherans, and I suppose not a few Catholics as well. But is it at the expense of forgetting those that were true witnesses to Christ? That same Christ who is inseparable from His Body, the Catholic Church? The Church which Luther and the other reformers eventually willingly separated from? I would much rather honor St. Leonard and his companions with that title. I pray for reconciliation always, just like our Lord did, but I feel that such a notion given by this priest is confused. Catholics do not have to believe that Luther was a witness to Christ when he denied the legitimacy of His Bride. Below is the rest of the conversation that was had between myself (in blue) and various others on this forum:

The Martyrs of Gorkum, St. Leonard and his Companions