At the French site Le Croix we find an article with quotes from the head of the newly created Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life, Cardinal-designate Farrell. He defends Amoris laetitia rather energetically, saying – with no hint of doubt – that the Holy Spirit speaks in the controversial document.
The French piece seems to be coordinated with another bastion of fidelity to all papal magisterial teaching…
« Honnêtement, je ne vois pas en quoi et pourquoi quelques évêques semblent penser qu’ils ont à interpréter ce document », affirme, dans une interview au National Catholic Reporter à paraître jeudi 17 novembre, celui à qui le pape François a confié la pastorale familiale.
Please remind me… do you remember Fishwrap being a staunch defender of the magisterium of St. John Paul?
The Fishwrap’s interview will be published tomorrow in English.
More appetizers from the French…
« Je pense que le document Amoris laetitia est fidèle à la doctrine et à l’enseignement l’Église », estime-t-il en réponse aux quatre cardinaux qui y voient une rupture avec l’enseignement de Jean-Paul II. « Il s’appuie sur la doctrine de Familiaris consortio de Jean-Paul II, ajoute-t-il. Je le crois passionnément. »
« C’est le Saint-Esprit qui nous parle, martèle-t-il. Pensons-nous que le Saint-Esprit n’était pas là au premier synode?? Pensons-nous qu’il n’était pas là au second synode?? Croyons-nous qu’il n’a pas inspiré notre Saint-Père François en écrivant ce document?? »
Rhetorical questions?
Anyway… the coordination of messages through certain publications seems to be well underway.
Loading ...
Will the nothing-like-Francophones among us get a accurate enough impression running these quotations though Google (or another recommended online ‘ Translator’ )?
The effects of Pope Francis’ clear-out of the Dicasteries can clearly be seen. Perhaps the results of the needed intervention by Cardinal Burke and his fellow Cardinals will be glossed over without causing the stir that should result from that intervention.
Google’s translation of the French:
“Honestly, I do not see how and why some bishops seem to think they have to interpret this document,” said in an interview to the National Catholic Reporter to be published on Thursday, November 17, the one to whom Pope Francis entrusted the pastoral Family. . .
“I believe that the document Amoris laetitia is faithful to the doctrine and teaching the Church,” he said in response to the four cardinals who see it as a break with the teaching of John Paul II. “It is based on the doctrine of Familiaris consortio of John Paul II,” he adds. I believe him passionately. ”
“It is the Holy Spirit who speaks to us,” he hammered. Do we think that the Holy Spirit was not there at the first synod? Do we think he was not at the second synod? Do we believe that he did not inspire our Holy Father Francis by writing this document ?? “
I think you’ll get most of the meaning by using Google Translate. It’s not particularly difficult French.
Maybe the four Cardinals could ask him their questions. Or, failing them, somebody else. You have to wonder why some people just seem unable to give straight answers to straight questions rather than circumventing them.
« Honnêtement, je ne vois pas en quoi et pourquoi quelques évêques semblent penser qu’ils ont à interpréter ce document », affirme, dans une interview au National Catholic Reporter à paraître jeudi 17 novembre, celui à qui le pape François a confié la pastorale familiale.
“Honestly, I don’t see in what, and why, certain bishops appear to think they have [problems? to question?] in interpreting this document.” affirms the one whom Pope Francis has entrusted with the pastoral care of the family, in an interview, with NCR, which will appear on Thursday 17th November.
« Je pense que le document Amoris laetitia est fidèle à la doctrine et à l’enseignement l’Église », estime-t-il en réponse aux quatre cardinaux qui y voient une rupture avec l’enseignement de Jean-Paul II. « Il s’appuie sur la doctrine de Familiaris consortio de Jean-Paul II, ajoute-t-il. Je le crois passionnément. »
“I think [he doesn’t say “crois”, which would be a statement of fact]that the document AL is faithful to the doctrine and teaching of the Church”, he esteems [considers, offers] in response to the four cardinals who see in it [AL] a rupture with the teaching of John Paul II. [ Worth noting, but not supremely important that Francis is called Pope and John Paul is not]. “It rests [ literally, it presses on ] the doctrine of FC, of John Paul II”, he adds. “I believe it passionately [ probably “firmly”]”
Catholic News Service also has an interview with Cardinal Farrell:
Catholic News Service is an operation of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops
I’m shocked and very disappointed by the Cardinal-designate’s comments. I thought I knew him to be solidly orthodox since before he was an auxiliary bishop, and after his consecration, and I’ve been defending him since his recent elevation and promotion … but apparently I’m wrong, and he is just another Legionnaire of Christ who betrays the Church. This upcoming Consistory would appear to be the ultimate victory of this Pontificate’s Company Men.
The dear Cardinal Farrell doesn’t address specifically the question of the Communion to the divorced remarried couples which is the main concern of the 4 cardinals’ letter. [Not quite. A clear concern, certainly. Read it again.]
He speaks in a general way about AL saying that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit and in accordance with JPII’s Familiaris Consortio.
He doesn’t understand why “some bishops should have to interpret AL”. He says that the Holy Spirit presided to the Synod and that the Pope was divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote.
Full stop
Not one word about the Body of Jesus given to the remarried people living in adultery. This doesn’t look to be his main concern.
Chris Garton-Zavresky, I think you are mixing up the words of Cardinal-designate Farrell with those of the writer of the article. The only words spoken by +Farrell in the parts you quoted are::
“Frankly, I don’t understand how or why some bishops seem to believe they have to interpret this document”
“I believe the Amoris laetitia document is faithful to the doctrine and teachings of the Church”
“It’s based on the doctrine of John-Paul II’s Familaris Consortio. I believe that fervently.”
Emilio says:…….All true, leave it to the liberals to wiggle around or support this document….
Pope Benedict we miss you so…………
Skojec nails it over at OnePeter5: “A Rapidly Emerging Schism.”
Bishop Farrell on Twitter: If you find Pope Francis “confusing” – you have not read or do not understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I suppose that includes Cardinal Burke now.
The attack on The Holy Trinity continues apace.
rbbadger,
Thanks for the encouragement!
Chris Garton-Zavesky,
Many thanks for doing homework for me I could not confidently do myself!
If you look through the Cardinal-elect’s blog from his time as Bishop of Dallas this will come as no surprise. I will say he did allow an FSSP apostolate to operate within his diocese and he should be commended for doing so, but many of his statements seem to lack the logic and reason that Thomism gives us.
Is he still giddy from the designation? Granted there’s no substance here — it could be paraphrased [let me coin a word — it could be equivalently, loosely paraphrased, or “ICELed”(TM)] or even ICELed as “Honestly, I don’t know what these guys are looking at when they say this has problems. This follows straight from FC directly. This is clearly direct transcription from the Holy Spirit, I feel it, I know it”, so I’ll see to it that it is regarded as infallible before Easter. It’s wonderful.
The reduction of all of the complex issues of couples living outside of Sacramental Marriage into a binary yes/no proposition regarding the divorced-remarried is rather destructive.
As Amoris Laetitia points out : 305. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”. — and yet, does it not seem that this is exactly what these proponents of a so-called Kasperite “solution” are doing in the face of the defenders of Orthodoxy and Tradition ?
They are taking a certain (bad) interpretation of the moral suggestions to Pastors in AL, and then using them as “stones” to hurl against their “enemies” ; you’re not being “merciful” enough etc. ; all of which is entirely contrary to Millennial Church practice in cases where some doubt or division may arise in any matter — for the Church in such a position ordinarily reaffirms existing norms instead of acting in a manner that might lead to divisions or even schism.
Granted, no black & white answer concerning the divorced-remarried is possible, given that Familiaris Consortio itself defines conditions where they may be admitted to the Sacraments ; and “more complex” situations than just straightforward adulterous divorce-remarriage certainly exist too ; but a clear reminder of what constitutes the state of Adultery has not such problems ; and the five dubia raised by the Cardinals go anyway far deeper into the Errors of the Kasperite fallacy than just this simple binary so-called “question”.
To dismiss the raising of these deeply considered theological dubia by referring to whatever shallow and ill-catechised notions of “mercy” is precisely to hide behind Church teachings, to sit on a chair of Moses, and judge with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families.
Pingback: THURSDAY EDITION | Big Pulpit
Whenever I hear “I don’t know anyone who…” or read, “Honestly I don’t see how…”, I think there is an unstated fallacy, to wit, “So therefore, it cannot be so”
Pauline Kael (who is supposed to have said), “How could he win, I don’t know anyone who voted for him?”, is an example I think.
I don’t see a way to read Francis through Benedict anymore and have begun praying to Saint Joseph. Considering the very clear request from the four, if Amoris is doctrinally fine, then a quick answer should be easily provided. It is clear by the remarks that they didn’t read Cardinal Burke’s comments, nor the Dubia.
catholictrad, nearly ALL of the doctrinal arguments around Amoris Laetitia centre upon an objectively false interpretation, dogmatically, of a footnote where Marriage, Divorce, “re-marriage”, and Adultery are not even mentioned in the first place.
We are in the midst of an ideological tug-of-war between two extremes, IMO, whereby some ultra-liberals want to abuse the teaching of AL towards the permission of objective moral evils, and some ultra-traditionalists desire instead to abuse the same teaching for the purpose of vehicling sundry ultimately schismatic tendencies.
More properly, the four Cardinals in their five dubia are seeking a far more proper theological Clarity against the so-called “spirit of the council” fake Catholicism that certain hippy-generation Bishops continue to promote.
C’est le Saint-Esprit qui nous parle, martèle-t-il. Pensons-nous que le Saint-Esprit n’était pas là au premier synode?? Pensons-nous qu’il n’était pas là au second synode?? Croyons-nous qu’il n’a pas inspiré notre Saint-Père François en écrivant ce document??
It is the Holy Spirit who speaks to us, he emphasized. Do we think that the Holy Spirit was not there at the first synod? Do we think he was not at the second synod? Do we believe that he did not inspire our Holy Father Francis in writing this document?
The mask is not only off, it can no longer be found.
It appears that the “dubia” have been consigned to the junk pile and those who will will go it as they have, and those who respectfully question can go you know where.
This is the indictment they make against themselves.
Where is the remedy?
Shepherds indeed. More the Pied Pipers.
I am not a member of the clergy; so I have a question for those of you who are. What are the numbers (as best as you can tell) ? Are there, in fact, many divorced and re-married couples who actually listen to Church teaching about receiving Eucharist in their state of circumstances? Do you get a lot of inquiries about this? Unfortunately, the only divorced and re-married Catholics that I know, don’t even go to Church anymore, let alone attempt to receive the Eucharist. Maybe not being able to receive is their reason; but somehow I doubt it. I think the reasons for that go deeper than just not being able to receive.
I’m sorry I even have to ask this – but not being a part of said group of Catholics (divorced and re-married), I’m wondering just how pervasive this is.
I suspect that Pope Francis and Cardinal Burke (et alia) are looking at this from two different ways. One way to get at what I am thinking is to ask, what is the paradigmatic case they have in mind when thinking about these issues. I suspect that Francis has in mind a person whose spouse left the village/barrio/country years ago and hasn’t been heard from since, and so on. Burke at alia have in mind a suburban guy who has a midlife crisis and leaves his wife for a 20 year old. Depending on which case is taken as paradigmatic, the position staked out readily follows.
FWIW, I think that +Farrell is looking at it in the first case. When in Dallas he worked a great deal with migrants and would be familiar with situations of ‘missing spouses’, family abandonment and the economic realities that can lead people to shack up without the benefit of church marriage
I’m not saying that Burke is wrong, or that Pope Francis is right, just suggesting that I can see where both men are coming from.
Pope Francis has stated that he wants the Orthodox to unite with us. Since they allow divorce and remarriage, (the high profile Aristotle Onassis and Jackie Kennedy marriage comes to mind), it appears that the Pope is willing to go to great lengths for this end. Is the reception of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried the first baby step toward this end?
Will the Orthodox be willing to change any of their doctrines to unite with us?
Andrew says:
17 November 2016 at 7:45 AM
C’est le Saint-Esprit qui nous parle, martèle-t-il. Pensons-nous que le Saint-Esprit n’était pas là au premier synode?? Pensons-nous qu’il n’était pas là au second synode?? Croyons-nous qu’il n’a pas inspiré notre Saint-Père François en écrivant ce document??
It is the Holy Spirit who speaks to us, he emphasized. Do we think that the Holy Spirit was not there at the first synod? Do we think he was not at the second synod? Do we believe that he did not inspire our Holy Father Francis in writing this document?
Let’s apply the principle of the Holy Spirit speaking to Vat II.
Sacrosanctum Concilium:
36. (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
101. (1) In accordance with the age-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office.
No doubt Bishop Farrell enthusiastically implemented these liturgical principles when he was in Dallas.
I find this encouraging. He does not say that AL helps us move in a new direction, he says it is faithful to the teaching of the Church. The teaching of the Church is clear. And he says it is based firmly on Familiaris Consortio. As long as he keeps interpreting it that way, good. Any confusions, even those confirmed by higher authorities, should be corrected by the correct line of the teaching of the Church, including FC.