Pope Francis, The Family and Divorce: In Defense of Truth and Mercy
Talk Catholic Tradition
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1hf22
For those interested in Amoris Laetitia, the Pope has written a preface for a new book, which defends & explains his teaching.
The Pope's preface can be seen online here (https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/08/21/pope-no-rupture-in-amoris-which-is-rooted-in-classical-doctrine-of-aquinas/).
The book is Pope Francis, The Family and Divorce: In Defense of Truth and Mercy, written by an acquaintance of mine Stephen Walford, and is coming out in a few days.
To declare an interest, I'm mentioned in the acknowledgments, but with papal endorsement I'm sure it might be of interest regardless.
The Pope's preface can be seen online here (https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/08/21/pope-no-rupture-in-amoris-which-is-rooted-in-classical-doctrine-of-aquinas/).
The book is Pope Francis, The Family and Divorce: In Defense of Truth and Mercy, written by an acquaintance of mine Stephen Walford, and is coming out in a few days.
To declare an interest, I'm mentioned in the acknowledgments, but with papal endorsement I'm sure it might be of interest regardless.
2timspalding
Interesting letter. I'll look for the book.
I don't want to sound negative--I have no other opinion on the book. But I read the letter as something of a rejection—Wallingford wanted to ask questions, and Francis refused. He then added some general, hermeneutical principles to reading AL that he's said before. I think this is a wise move by Francis, but he's never going to make his opponents' happy until he allows them to pin him down by their own terms. Perhaps Francis would agree with the book's approach, but he doesn't say he's read it (was it even written then?). It doesn't strike me as an endorsement.
I don't want to sound negative--I have no other opinion on the book. But I read the letter as something of a rejection—Wallingford wanted to ask questions, and Francis refused. He then added some general, hermeneutical principles to reading AL that he's said before. I think this is a wise move by Francis, but he's never going to make his opponents' happy until he allows them to pin him down by their own terms. Perhaps Francis would agree with the book's approach, but he doesn't say he's read it (was it even written then?). It doesn't strike me as an endorsement.
3hf22
>2 timspalding:
The Pope was given a fairly long letter in Spanish setting out the core argument of the book, which I'm told he read.
So while he certainly didn't read the whole book, its broad message was certainly approved by him. And of course the only reason Stephen was granted a papal audience & letter was because those close to the Pope had read and appreciated the same core message previously set out in his series of La Stampa articles.
On the other hand, the Pope's letter certainly doesn't represent magisterial approval of every point in the book. Stephen has a nose bleed high opinion of papal authority for example, which while the Pope didn't speak against it in person or otherwise, he also never gave any indication he shared it (and I personally strongly doubt Francis has anything like so high a view of his own authority).
The Pope was given a fairly long letter in Spanish setting out the core argument of the book, which I'm told he read.
So while he certainly didn't read the whole book, its broad message was certainly approved by him. And of course the only reason Stephen was granted a papal audience & letter was because those close to the Pope had read and appreciated the same core message previously set out in his series of La Stampa articles.
On the other hand, the Pope's letter certainly doesn't represent magisterial approval of every point in the book. Stephen has a nose bleed high opinion of papal authority for example, which while the Pope didn't speak against it in person or otherwise, he also never gave any indication he shared it (and I personally strongly doubt Francis has anything like so high a view of his own authority).
4timspalding
"nose bleed high opinion of papal authority" — Good phrase. The new Ultramontanists, except on top of the mountain, or something.
So while he certainly didn't read the whole book, its broad message was certainly approved by him.
What is the argument on the hottest part of this—divorce and remarriage?
I personally strongly doubt Francis has anything like so high a view of his own authority
Yeah, I suspect you're right.
So while he certainly didn't read the whole book, its broad message was certainly approved by him.
What is the argument on the hottest part of this—divorce and remarriage?
I personally strongly doubt Francis has anything like so high a view of his own authority
Yeah, I suspect you're right.
5hf22
>4 timspalding:
The new Ultramontanists, except on top of the mountain, or something.
Yeah. Papal inerrency. I did try to talk him out of it, and managed to get it moderated a bit, but still.
What is the argument on the hottest part of this—divorce and remarriage?
Confirms the remarried are able to receive Communion in some circumstances, and outlines why that is orthodox. Confirms the answers to the dubia as well (yes x 5).
A brief, less developed, version can be seen in his original La Stampa article from early 2017.
http://www.lastampa.it/2017/01/22/vaticaninsider/amoris-laetitia-where-truth-and...
The new Ultramontanists, except on top of the mountain, or something.
Yeah. Papal inerrency. I did try to talk him out of it, and managed to get it moderated a bit, but still.
What is the argument on the hottest part of this—divorce and remarriage?
Confirms the remarried are able to receive Communion in some circumstances, and outlines why that is orthodox. Confirms the answers to the dubia as well (yes x 5).
A brief, less developed, version can be seen in his original La Stampa article from early 2017.
http://www.lastampa.it/2017/01/22/vaticaninsider/amoris-laetitia-where-truth-and...
6LesMiserables
Francis is the harvest of Vatican II.
Everything he does adds contusion to the faithful.
Everything he does adds contusion to the faithful.
8timspalding
contusion?
10LesMiserables
St Catherine of Siena 's Letter to Cardinal Gerard de Puy (Pope Gregory XI’s nephew) about the Pope:
“With regard to your first question about our love Christ on earth the Vicar of Christ, I believe and consider that he would do good in the eyes of God if he hastened to right two things which corrupt the Bride of Christ. The first is his too great love and care for his relations. There must be an end of this abuse at once and everywhere. The other is his exaggerated gentleness, which is the result of his lenience. This is the cause of corruption among those members of the Church who are never admonished with severity. Our Lord hates above all things three abominable sins, covetousness, unchastity and pride. These prevail in the Bride of Christ, that is to say in the prelates who seek nothing but riches, pleasure and fame. They see demons from hell stealing the souls which have been put into their keeping, and are completely unmoved, for they are wolves who do business with divine grace. Strict justice is needed to punish them. In this case exaggerated mercy is in fact the worst cruelty. It is necessary for justice to go hand in hand with mercy to put a stop to such evil.”
“With regard to your first question about our love Christ on earth the Vicar of Christ, I believe and consider that he would do good in the eyes of God if he hastened to right two things which corrupt the Bride of Christ. The first is his too great love and care for his relations. There must be an end of this abuse at once and everywhere. The other is his exaggerated gentleness, which is the result of his lenience. This is the cause of corruption among those members of the Church who are never admonished with severity. Our Lord hates above all things three abominable sins, covetousness, unchastity and pride. These prevail in the Bride of Christ, that is to say in the prelates who seek nothing but riches, pleasure and fame. They see demons from hell stealing the souls which have been put into their keeping, and are completely unmoved, for they are wolves who do business with divine grace. Strict justice is needed to punish them. In this case exaggerated mercy is in fact the worst cruelty. It is necessary for justice to go hand in hand with mercy to put a stop to such evil.”
Join to post
