Pope Francis’ general audience in the Paul VI Hall at the Vatican, Oct. 13, 2021. / Vatican Media.
Vatican City, Oct 13, 2021 / 05:45 am (CNA).
Pope Francis spoke Wednesday about the universal nature of the Catholic Church, which embraces all cultures because Christ died for all people.
“This is the meaning of calling ourselves Catholics, of speaking of the Catholic Church: it is not a sociological denomination to distinguish us from other Christians. Catholic is an adjective that means ‘universal,’” Pope Francis said in the Vatican’s Paul VI Hall on Oct. 13.
Vatican Media.
“The Church contains within herself, in her very nature, an openness to all peoples and cultures of all times, because Christ was born, died, and rose for everyone,” he said.
The word “Catholic” comes from the Greek word “katholikos” (καθολικός), which means “universal.” The term was first used by St. Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote in the second century that “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Vatican Media.
In his weekly general audience, Pope Francis reflected on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, chapter five, verse 13: “For you were called for freedom, brothers. But do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh; rather, serve one another through love.”
Pope Francis said: “In the call to freedom we discover the true meaning of the inculturation of the Gospel … being able to announce the Good News of Christ the Savior while respecting the good and the true that exist in cultures.”
Vatican Media.
“It is not easy. There are many temptations to seek to impose one’s own model of life as though it were the most evolved and the most appealing. How many errors have been made in the history of evangelization by seeking to impose a single cultural model.”
The pope pointed to examples from Church history in which missionaries who immersed themselves deeply in other cultures were criticized by their contemporaries. He mentioned the 16th-century Jesuit Fr. Matteo Ricci, who spent nearly three decades in China, and another Jesuit missionary, Fr. Roberto de Nobili (1577-1656), who learned Sanskrit and Tamil while ministering in India.
Vatican Media.
“The liberation obtained through baptism enables us to acquire the full dignity of children of God, so that, while we remain firmly anchored in our cultural roots, at the same time we open ourselves to the universalism of faith that enters into every culture, recognizes the kernels of truth present, and develops them, bringing to fullness the good contained in them,” Pope Francis said.
“To accept that we have been set free by Christ — his passion, his death, his resurrection — is to accept and bring fullness even to the different traditions of every people. True fullness.”
Vatican Media.
In his 11th live-streamed address in his cycle of catechesis on Galatians, the pope underlined that “uniformity as a rule of life is not Christian.”
“Unity yes, uniformity no,” he said.
Pope Francis said that culture by its very nature is always in “continual transformation.”
“Think about how we are called to proclaim the Gospel in this historical moment of great cultural change, where increasingly advanced technology seems to have the upper hand,” he said.
Vatican Media.
“If we were to speak of faith as we did in previous centuries, we would run the risk of no longer being understood by the new generations. The freedom of Christian faith — Christian freedom — does not indicate a static vision of life and culture, but rather a dynamic vision, a dynamic vision too of tradition. Tradition grows but always with the same nature.”
Vatican Media.
“Let us not claim, therefore, to possess freedom. We have received a gift to cherish. Rather, it is freedom that asks each one of us to be constantly on the move, oriented towards its fullness. It is the condition of pilgrims; it is the state of wayfarers, in continual exodus: liberated from slavery so as to walk towards the fullness of freedom.”
At the end of the audience, Pope Francis greeted American visitors on pilgrimage in Rome.
“I greet the English-speaking pilgrims and visitors taking part in today’s audience, especially the groups from the United States of America. In this month of October, through the intercession of Our Lady of the Rosary, may we grow in the Christian freedom that we received at baptism. Upon all of you, and your families, I invoke the joy and peace of the Lord. May God bless you,” the pope said.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Vatican City, Apr 28, 2019 / 06:06 am (CNA).- On Divine Mercy Sunday, Pope Francis reflected on Christ’s wounds, which he said contain the difficulties and persecutions endured by people who suffer today.
Leon is a baby boy cared for and loved at Mary’s Shelter, a pro-life maternity home in Fredericksburg, Virginia. / Courtesy of Mary’s Shelter
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, May 24, 2022 / 13:15 pm (CNA).
Amid a shortage of baby formula in the U.S., experts recommend parents scour smaller drug stores, check online, and join social media groups sharing information.
But here’s another, perhaps lesser-known, option they can also turn to for help: pregnancy resource centers.
Nearly 3,000 pro-life pregnancy centers serve millions of people each year in the United States. They offer women and parents in need everything from health care and material assistance to educational classes and job support — at little to no cost. Right now, for many of these centers, their work also includes connecting struggling families to baby formula.
One center in Michigan, an affiliate of Heartbeat International, a pro-life pregnancy resource center network, revealed to CNA that it has a surplus of formula.
“At this time, we haven’t heard of formula shortages at the pregnancy centers,” Andrea Trudden, vice president of communications and marketing at Heartbeat International, told CNA. “Quite the contrary, actually!”
Trudden recommended families turn to their local pregnancy help organizations for assistance and use OptionLine.org as a tool to find the center closest to them.
“Since pregnancy centers are equipped to help pregnant women and new families with practical resources such as diapers and formula,” Trudden said, “they have been able to step into that gap during this time.”
Some pro-life maternity homes in states such as Virginia and North Carolina said mothers are in desperate need and exploring all of their options, including feeding their babies with formula samples. But, these homes tell CNA, they are walking with mothers in their search, every step of the way.
What is this shortage about?
The nationwide baby formula shortage was caused, and then exacerbated, by a series of factors: supply-chain issues, recalls, the closure of a major production plant in February, and even U.S. trade policy. The result, data-firm company Datasembly found, is that more than 40 percent of baby formulas were out of stock in early May.
Babies with special needs and allergies rely on formula, along with babies in general. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 63.3% of infants were exclusively breastfeeding seven days after birth in 2018. Three months after birth, only 46.3% of infants exclusively breastfed. Six months after birth, that percentage changed to 25.8%
The trouble with formula began partially with the Covid-19 pandemic. Parents stockpiled baby formula at the beginning, which increased production, only to later discover that they had a surplus to use up, which decreased production.
After consuming formula from an Abbott plant in Sturgis, Michigan, four babies became sick, including two who died, from bacterial infections. This led to a recall and the plant shutting down in February.
These incidents exposed the formula market as one not structurally prepared for emergencies, with just four companies largely in control of supply in the United States. U.S. and regulatory trade policy only added to the problem, restricting the exchange of formula internationally, The Atlantic reported.
Months into the shortage, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reached an agreement with Abbott, one of the largest U.S. baby formula manufacturers, to reopen its Sturgis plant in the coming weeks. President Joe Biden invoked the Defense Production Act to prioritize the production of formula. And, in the meantime, the U.S. military has begun importing formula from Europe.
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have called for action. Senate Democrats are pushing a bill that would send $28 million in emergency funding to the FDA. Congress passed, and Biden signed into law, a bill to expand access to formula for lower-income families during emergencies.
In the meantime, before the shelves are fully stocked once more, pregnancy centers and maternity homes around the country are helping parents in need.
“I have never seen this much formula. We have an overflow!” Lois Stoll, a volunteer who manages the formula supply at the center, said in a press release. The center, one of Heartbeat International’s 1,857 affiliate locations, accumulated its surplus over the last two years, during the pandemic.
“It really is the result of an unexpected set of circumstances,” Bryce Asberg, the executive director, added in the release. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of clients fell but donations continued to come in.”
Baby formula is stored on shelves at Helping Hands Pregnancy Resource Center in Hillsdale, Michigan. Courtesy of Helping Hands
Asberg told CNA that the center has been running a material assistance program for several years where it provides mothers and families with baby clothes, diapers, wipes, and baby food or formula.
“We still offer all those items to clients who come in, but recently we have noticed a surge of interest in formula,” he said. “God has been building our supply of formula for many months, and we didn’t know why we had so much. Now we do!”
Washington, D.C.
In Washington, D.C., Janet Durig, the executive director of Capitol Hill Pregnancy Center, said that her center also has baby formula on hand.
“We’ve had some phone calls seeking help and we’ve had formula to give them,” she told CNA. But, she emphasized, the supply is limited because they rely on donations.
“We have it to help people on a limited basis and are helping people on a limited basis,” she said, adding that the center welcomes donations of unopened bottles or cans of formula as long as they have not expired.
Connecticut
Leticia Velasquez, executive director and co-founder of Pathways Pregnancy in Norwich, Connecticut, encouraged moms and families to reach out if they need formula.
She told CNA that the three-year-old center is there for any woman or mom in need.
“We just say, ‘How can we fill the need? That’s what we’re here for,’” she said. “We definitely stand with them in any crisis, whether it be a formula shortage or an unplanned pregnancy.”
Parents in eastern Connecticut looking for baby formula can text the center at (860) 222-4505.
North Carolina
Debbie Capen, the executive director of MiraVia, said that the baby formula shortage is affecting her group’s work in supporting and providing resources to new moms in need. The Catholic nonprofit runs an outreach center in Charlotte and a free college residence at nearby Belmont Abbey College where a pregnant student — from any university or college — can stay until her child turns two years old.
“Yes, the mothers we serve are very concerned about the baby formula shortage,” Capen told CNA. “We always encourage breastfeeding for our expectant mothers, but for those who cannot breastfeed, they usually rely on vouchers for baby formula through the USDA’s WIC program.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s WIC program, also known as the “Special Supplementation Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children,” offers federal grants to states for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant and postpartum women, and young children at nutritional risk.
Capen highlighted that WIC only covers one specific brand of formula, which means that moms must pay full price for any other label. Formula is at a premium price right now, she added, which only puts more stress on their limited resources.
In each state, baby formula manufacturers bid for exclusive rights to provide formula to WIC participants in that state. In return, they offer the state discounts, or rebates. For those who rely on WIC, this means that they face limited options.
In response to the scarcity, the mothers at MiraVia are turning to alternatives: food pantries and the MiraVia community.
“They communicate with our staff and each other when they find formula at a certain location, as well as contact stores to find out when shipments are expected,” Capen said. “They substitute with generic brands when possible and reach out to their pediatricians for recommendations and even free samples.”
Capen listed some ways that people can help during this shortage, beginning with communication and the sharing of resources.
“For example, you can help by searching posts on social media and community apps like NextDoor or OfferUp to find those with formula and suggest where it can be donated,” she said. “Remind friends and family not to stockpile so that the supply of formula can flow to those in most urgent need. If you are pregnant and have received free samples of formula, donate what you won’t use to food pantries or programs for new mothers.”
Virginia
Kathleen Wilson, the executive director of Mary’s Shelter, a faith-centered maternity home in Fredericksburg, Virginia, agreed that “our moms have had many difficulties.”
She told CNA about one of their mothers who gave birth to her fourth baby three months ago. At first, she used a formula brand called Enfamil Reguline. After it became unavailable, she began switching between brands and using whatever she can find, Wilson said. The mother has also tried ordering on Amazon and turned to her pediatrician for samples.
Yaretzi is a baby girl cared for and loved at Mary’s Shelter, a pro-life maternity home in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Courtesy of Mary’s Shelter
“This is a mom who is trying to hold down a job, with an infant and other children to tend to,” Wilson stressed the “very difficult” situation.
Wilson said that two of the other mothers spent days driving around at one point to try to find formula for their babies. When necessary, they are also turning to sample packets of baby formula.
“Our staff and volunteers have been assisting with this and picking up and delivering formula when they can get their hands on it,” Wilson said, adding that donors have also pitched in.
“We are blessed with wonderful donors,” she said. “A friend just stopped in this morning with two cans of formula that he was able to find.”
“If donors are willing and can find formula, we would be thrilled to take their donation,” she said, concluding that she is “praying this comes to an end soon.”
Vatican City, Nov 15, 2019 / 10:04 am (CNA).- Among Pope Francis’ scheduled meetings during next week’s visit to Japan and Thailand are a series of encounters with ordinary Catholics, including the sick and disabled, which will mainly take … […]
10 Comments
Hearts are lonely hunters when met with constant refusal, like Carson McCullers’ deaf mute rebuffed by circumstances, ends it all. Christ frees us from such unwelcome conditions to love freely because he loved us freely. But there are rules Christ sets as the standards for justice, the realization of what love is. How do we judge, and judge we must if love is just? Can it ever be unjust? The latter is why we have rules. Rigorists if implacable perceive no quarter, while the merciful do. Life if lived with a heart teaches that. Are there exceptions? Reason informs conscience there must. That’s why the Church has tribunals to make a just judgment on the validity of marriage. Although many divorce and remarry are unwilling or unable to. At least we may assume some of these remarriages outside the Church are not adulterous while the remaining are. What is frequently disregarded as many internet comments attest is the previous marriage, the anguish, the abandonment of children often means of support. Mercy must be just. His Holiness, wishing to be most merciful, has set his own standards for justice in Amoris Laetitia. As there may be exceptions to the rule, Francis has constructed two principles that nullify the validity of all marriages. Conscience as an inviolable judge, sacramental marriage as an impossibility. “Conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It [individual conscience] can also recognize what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal” (Amoris 303). Grace is omitted in Amoris 303 as the means to avoid sin, as is responsibility. Regarding the inviolability of sacramental marriage, His Holiness quotes Saint Thomas Aquinas in Amoris 304, “Although there is necessity in general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects. Where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all. The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail” (ST 1a2ae 94 4). Aquinas is speaking hypothetically on the principle of justice, that the truth is not found in casuistry rather in examining the conditions of the act. Only then can we reach certitude that a certain principle applies. Obviously he believes there are just principles, inviolable principles as there is justice itself. Aquinas believes sacramental marriage is an inviolable principle. He believes adultery cannot be made licit with the presumption that all principles are illicit because we will always find defects that nullify them. Francis’ interpretation is a thoroughly misleading error. What are the effects of this error if not disregard for the tribunal process, the confessional, and the unconditional reception of communion according to one’s conscience in Malta, Sicily, Germany, Philippines, and spreading?
An added comment regarding conscience and the compelling rationale given by Pope Francis for a more merciful approach. While there may be exceptions to the rule, and priests, at least some historically have made exception Francis couches his entire argument in Amoris with the understanding that the only resolution is to offer communion removing the possible basis for exception and making it a rule.
Exactly so. Exceptions to a rule are one thing, but quite another to invent an entirely new moral category where the rules neither apply nor exist. Instead, this [brackets added]:
“A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [not judgment] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative. hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [thou shalt not]” (Veritatis Splendor, VS, n. 56).
And, earlier: “…the commandment of love of God and neighbor does not have in its dynamic any higher limit, but [!] it does have a lower limit, beneath which the commandment [negative precept] is broken” (VS, n. 52).
Peter, insofar as Amoris Laetitia 304 and the implication that we will find nullifying deficit in all sacramental marriage, the best approach to Amoris 304 and the issue of defects found in the implementation of moral principles, here the insolubility of marriage is to cite the question of Article 4. Whether the Natural Law is the Same in All Men? Aquinas says the more we examine the question we find that men have differing views. That is not to say that all men have different views on natural law, since a consensus is evident in the universal nature of natural law. Hence it’s not the law that changes. Rather either due to deficit of knowledge, for example the patriarchs practiced polygamy without sin unaware of the first principle of monogamy. Marriage to women, even multiple, was within the range of the law. And if a person intent on murder requests the return of a borrowed weapon, although natural law states the obligation to return in this instance we’re not obliged on the grounds of inhibiting murder. Natural law doesn’t change, it’s the accidental deficit often sinful that prevents its fulfillment. Therefore, the natural law of itself, a reflection of the eternal law, doesn’t change. Insofar as marriage, Christ says as instituted from the beginning it was insoluble. Aquinas Ad 1 replies “The Law and the Gospel belong to the natural law, since they contain many things that are above nature, but that whatever belongs to the natural law is fully contained in them. Again, Amoris Laetitia 304 gives the mistaken impression that the further we descend in examining details the more we’re apt to find deficit, and the general principle is found to fail – refers to each individual instance of sacramental marriage. Aquinas instead refers that inconsistency to All Men.
Kudos to you and to Mr. Beaulieu for your analyses. You two have staunch hearts and minds, a lion’s share of fortitude, able as you are to enter the innards of demonic euphemism and return, smelling nice, bearing gifts for those of us not up to the task. Thank you.
We read: “In the call to freedom we discover the true meaning of the inculturation of the Gospel…being able to announce the Good News of Christ the Savior while respecting the good and the true that exist in cultures.”
Yes! And? And…
“Two essential themes [!] are bound up with this view. First, that of the transcendence of revelation in relation to the cultures in which it finds expression. The Word of God cannot, in effect, be identified or linked in an exclusive manner with the elements of culture which bear it. [AND] The Gospel quite often demands a conversion of attitudes and an amendment of customs where it establishes itself: Cultures must also be purified and restored in Christ.”
If what Amoris Laetitia is propounding is being based (justified) on neo-Pelagianism and its effects or consequences, it does not say it within its own contents and does not even mention it. So it does not resolve if this was ever part of the Church’s understanding of marriage and what impacts upon it, or, why such an approach would only now have been essential.
To start with I notice at large there is difficulty today in understanding Pelagianism. On the other hand we do not know what cases are behind Amoris Laetitia so as to have a clearer picture what is covered; only select individuals will know. At the same time there is a drive for not keeping the problematic situations somewhat private.
Other heresies put one at odds with baptism. Do they nullify marriage too or is it just the neo-Pelagianism? Pope Francis has some exposure to Orthodox. Is Amoris Laetitia an attempt to align the Roman Catholic Church with the East which permits nullity “at least” for “the first mistake” as a matter of “mercifulness”?
Sacramental marriage is peculiar to the spouses in its unitive aspects, I think. But if an inquiry is wrongly set and kept exclusive to itself, either never examining the vows or making them indifferent, or testing them on things not of their own tenor, it is bound to reach into all kinds of considerations. Deficiencies are bound to be there but at that point they would come into altered mode of measurement and weightiness.
It is crucial since the spouses are an aid to one another and a grace that precisely helps in the baptismal deepening and precisely makes the witness. Amoris Laetitia might speak a bit to some aspects here (parts that I read); however, it’s arguable what is allowed is too generalist, not sufficiently sacramental and way below what some spouses have vowed.
Just a note for clarity Elias. The original question is whether the Natural Law is the same in All Men. When we examine the general principle [universal] we find all men do not consistently hold the same understanding due to some deficit. Francis mistakenly poses the question for individuals, which most individuals do have a common understanding of the Law. Insofar as Marriage and other absolute principles there are likely minor deficits. A deficit in order to nullify a marriage must be sufficiently serious to negate a required condition for marriage. For example, a previous undisclosed unresolved marriage, an undisclosed mental handicap, an undisclosed addiction, a previously arranged undisclosed continuous sexual relationship with another party, a lack of emotional maturity at the time of exchange of vows and the like, evidence of a previous unwillingness to stay in union. A serious deficit [that existed prior to exchange of vows] must be proved before a tribunal for a declaration of nullity.
I heard a bishop say that the sacrament of marriage was from Genesis; and I see that AMORIS LAETITIA opens by rooting marriage in Genesis, “the human couple in its deepest reality” (10). Is this correct?
In March 1994, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments promulgated instructions on inculturation with regard to the Roman liturgy.
The Instructions highlight the contradiction between the teaching of VCII, Francis’ Traditionis custodes, and the words of Francis today. Why should the Church take special care to incorporate some types of ‘cultural’ diversity while excluding traditional ‘cultural’ Catholic practices which arose (that too, after ‘death’) organically from within the very bowels of the Church herself?
“Fourth instruction for the right application of the Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy…
Introduction
1. Legitimate differences in the Roman rite were allowed in the past and were foreseen by the Second Vatican Council in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy especially in the missions.[1] “Even in the liturgy the church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters that do not affect the faith or the good of the whole community.”[2] It has known and still knows many different forms and liturgical families, and considers that this diversity, far from harming her unity, underlines its value.[3]”
Francis’ CT argument against unity consists of his vague claim of a questionnaire administered to some bishops; some bishops claim they never received or responded to such a questionnaire. Without supporting evidence, the claim that bishops see TLM as disunitive proves itself nothing but dust and straw. On the other hand, the argument for the NOM–to make our worship ecumenically appealing–has demonstrated its devastating consequence. The great drift of Catholics, away from the Church, toward noneness and apostasy, occurred only after the institution of the NOM.
The contradictions of Francis will continue into history. One day his confession will be known, lucid, and clear. On that day, justice shall reign. So help us God.
Hearts are lonely hunters when met with constant refusal, like Carson McCullers’ deaf mute rebuffed by circumstances, ends it all. Christ frees us from such unwelcome conditions to love freely because he loved us freely. But there are rules Christ sets as the standards for justice, the realization of what love is. How do we judge, and judge we must if love is just? Can it ever be unjust? The latter is why we have rules. Rigorists if implacable perceive no quarter, while the merciful do. Life if lived with a heart teaches that. Are there exceptions? Reason informs conscience there must. That’s why the Church has tribunals to make a just judgment on the validity of marriage. Although many divorce and remarry are unwilling or unable to. At least we may assume some of these remarriages outside the Church are not adulterous while the remaining are. What is frequently disregarded as many internet comments attest is the previous marriage, the anguish, the abandonment of children often means of support. Mercy must be just. His Holiness, wishing to be most merciful, has set his own standards for justice in Amoris Laetitia. As there may be exceptions to the rule, Francis has constructed two principles that nullify the validity of all marriages. Conscience as an inviolable judge, sacramental marriage as an impossibility. “Conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It [individual conscience] can also recognize what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal” (Amoris 303). Grace is omitted in Amoris 303 as the means to avoid sin, as is responsibility. Regarding the inviolability of sacramental marriage, His Holiness quotes Saint Thomas Aquinas in Amoris 304, “Although there is necessity in general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects. Where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all. The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail” (ST 1a2ae 94 4). Aquinas is speaking hypothetically on the principle of justice, that the truth is not found in casuistry rather in examining the conditions of the act. Only then can we reach certitude that a certain principle applies. Obviously he believes there are just principles, inviolable principles as there is justice itself. Aquinas believes sacramental marriage is an inviolable principle. He believes adultery cannot be made licit with the presumption that all principles are illicit because we will always find defects that nullify them. Francis’ interpretation is a thoroughly misleading error. What are the effects of this error if not disregard for the tribunal process, the confessional, and the unconditional reception of communion according to one’s conscience in Malta, Sicily, Germany, Philippines, and spreading?
An added comment regarding conscience and the compelling rationale given by Pope Francis for a more merciful approach. While there may be exceptions to the rule, and priests, at least some historically have made exception Francis couches his entire argument in Amoris with the understanding that the only resolution is to offer communion removing the possible basis for exception and making it a rule.
Exactly so. Exceptions to a rule are one thing, but quite another to invent an entirely new moral category where the rules neither apply nor exist. Instead, this [brackets added]:
“A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [not judgment] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative. hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [thou shalt not]” (Veritatis Splendor, VS, n. 56).
And, earlier: “…the commandment of love of God and neighbor does not have in its dynamic any higher limit, but [!] it does have a lower limit, beneath which the commandment [negative precept] is broken” (VS, n. 52).
Peter, insofar as Amoris Laetitia 304 and the implication that we will find nullifying deficit in all sacramental marriage, the best approach to Amoris 304 and the issue of defects found in the implementation of moral principles, here the insolubility of marriage is to cite the question of Article 4. Whether the Natural Law is the Same in All Men? Aquinas says the more we examine the question we find that men have differing views. That is not to say that all men have different views on natural law, since a consensus is evident in the universal nature of natural law. Hence it’s not the law that changes. Rather either due to deficit of knowledge, for example the patriarchs practiced polygamy without sin unaware of the first principle of monogamy. Marriage to women, even multiple, was within the range of the law. And if a person intent on murder requests the return of a borrowed weapon, although natural law states the obligation to return in this instance we’re not obliged on the grounds of inhibiting murder. Natural law doesn’t change, it’s the accidental deficit often sinful that prevents its fulfillment. Therefore, the natural law of itself, a reflection of the eternal law, doesn’t change. Insofar as marriage, Christ says as instituted from the beginning it was insoluble. Aquinas Ad 1 replies “The Law and the Gospel belong to the natural law, since they contain many things that are above nature, but that whatever belongs to the natural law is fully contained in them. Again, Amoris Laetitia 304 gives the mistaken impression that the further we descend in examining details the more we’re apt to find deficit, and the general principle is found to fail – refers to each individual instance of sacramental marriage. Aquinas instead refers that inconsistency to All Men.
Kudos to you and to Mr. Beaulieu for your analyses. You two have staunch hearts and minds, a lion’s share of fortitude, able as you are to enter the innards of demonic euphemism and return, smelling nice, bearing gifts for those of us not up to the task. Thank you.
We read: “In the call to freedom we discover the true meaning of the inculturation of the Gospel…being able to announce the Good News of Christ the Savior while respecting the good and the true that exist in cultures.”
Yes! And? And…
“Two essential themes [!] are bound up with this view. First, that of the transcendence of revelation in relation to the cultures in which it finds expression. The Word of God cannot, in effect, be identified or linked in an exclusive manner with the elements of culture which bear it. [AND] The Gospel quite often demands a conversion of attitudes and an amendment of customs where it establishes itself: Cultures must also be purified and restored in Christ.”
(This from the International Theological Commission, Introduction to “Faith and Inculturation”,1988: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1988_fede-inculturazione_en.html)
If what Amoris Laetitia is propounding is being based (justified) on neo-Pelagianism and its effects or consequences, it does not say it within its own contents and does not even mention it. So it does not resolve if this was ever part of the Church’s understanding of marriage and what impacts upon it, or, why such an approach would only now have been essential.
To start with I notice at large there is difficulty today in understanding Pelagianism. On the other hand we do not know what cases are behind Amoris Laetitia so as to have a clearer picture what is covered; only select individuals will know. At the same time there is a drive for not keeping the problematic situations somewhat private.
Other heresies put one at odds with baptism. Do they nullify marriage too or is it just the neo-Pelagianism? Pope Francis has some exposure to Orthodox. Is Amoris Laetitia an attempt to align the Roman Catholic Church with the East which permits nullity “at least” for “the first mistake” as a matter of “mercifulness”?
Sacramental marriage is peculiar to the spouses in its unitive aspects, I think. But if an inquiry is wrongly set and kept exclusive to itself, either never examining the vows or making them indifferent, or testing them on things not of their own tenor, it is bound to reach into all kinds of considerations. Deficiencies are bound to be there but at that point they would come into altered mode of measurement and weightiness.
It is crucial since the spouses are an aid to one another and a grace that precisely helps in the baptismal deepening and precisely makes the witness. Amoris Laetitia might speak a bit to some aspects here (parts that I read); however, it’s arguable what is allowed is too generalist, not sufficiently sacramental and way below what some spouses have vowed.
Just a note for clarity Elias. The original question is whether the Natural Law is the same in All Men. When we examine the general principle [universal] we find all men do not consistently hold the same understanding due to some deficit. Francis mistakenly poses the question for individuals, which most individuals do have a common understanding of the Law. Insofar as Marriage and other absolute principles there are likely minor deficits. A deficit in order to nullify a marriage must be sufficiently serious to negate a required condition for marriage. For example, a previous undisclosed unresolved marriage, an undisclosed mental handicap, an undisclosed addiction, a previously arranged undisclosed continuous sexual relationship with another party, a lack of emotional maturity at the time of exchange of vows and the like, evidence of a previous unwillingness to stay in union. A serious deficit [that existed prior to exchange of vows] must be proved before a tribunal for a declaration of nullity.
I heard a bishop say that the sacrament of marriage was from Genesis; and I see that AMORIS LAETITIA opens by rooting marriage in Genesis, “the human couple in its deepest reality” (10). Is this correct?
In March 1994, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments promulgated instructions on inculturation with regard to the Roman liturgy.
The Instructions highlight the contradiction between the teaching of VCII, Francis’ Traditionis custodes, and the words of Francis today. Why should the Church take special care to incorporate some types of ‘cultural’ diversity while excluding traditional ‘cultural’ Catholic practices which arose (that too, after ‘death’) organically from within the very bowels of the Church herself?
“Fourth instruction for the right application of the Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy…
Introduction
1. Legitimate differences in the Roman rite were allowed in the past and were foreseen by the Second Vatican Council in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy especially in the missions.[1] “Even in the liturgy the church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters that do not affect the faith or the good of the whole community.”[2] It has known and still knows many different forms and liturgical families, and considers that this diversity, far from harming her unity, underlines its value.[3]”
Francis’ CT argument against unity consists of his vague claim of a questionnaire administered to some bishops; some bishops claim they never received or responded to such a questionnaire. Without supporting evidence, the claim that bishops see TLM as disunitive proves itself nothing but dust and straw. On the other hand, the argument for the NOM–to make our worship ecumenically appealing–has demonstrated its devastating consequence. The great drift of Catholics, away from the Church, toward noneness and apostasy, occurred only after the institution of the NOM.
The contradictions of Francis will continue into history. One day his confession will be known, lucid, and clear. On that day, justice shall reign. So help us God.