Fishwrap on Jesuit Boston College conference on Amoris Laetitia

Fishwrap (akfishwrapa National Schismatic Reporter) has a post about a conference about Amoris Laetitia held at Jesuit-run Boston College.  The report has an aggressively tendentious title: Conference weighs how ‘Amoris Laetitia’ rejects ‘infantilization of laity’


First, consider some of the speakers: Cardinal Blase Cupich, Atlanta Archbishop Wilton Gregory, Malta Archbishop Charles Scicluna and San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy, Natalia Imperatori-Lee, a theologian at Manhattan College, Jesuit Fr. James Keenan, Jesuit Antonio “2+2=5” Spadaro, C. Vanessa White, a theologian at Catholic Theological Union, etc. Great, right? What could go wrong?

Everything, apparently.

It is hard to assess the usefulness of conference from a news piece written by someone with a clear agenda, but we can glean a few things from the quotes.

One thing that emerged is that they are pushing the primacy of “experience”.  This means that if your experience prompts you to do X, well, that must be okay even though the Church teaches that X might even be intrinsically evil.  Your “experience” authorizes you to do X.  Furthermore, the clergy’s role must then be to affirm your choice and accompany you as you pursue it.  I think I got that right.

Leaving aside completely Cupich’s talk, …

Natalia Imperatori-Lee, a theologian at Manhattan College, said Latino reception of Amoris Laetitia “cannot be understood” outside the historical legacy of the colonial system in the Americas. “

Oh, Sure. Right!

She also said:

Imperatori-Lee said that in Francis’ call for better respect of decisions laypeople make in their lives, Latinos see the pope “pointing to the infantilization of laypeople and families that is so commonly a feature of colonization.” [colonization?]

“The infantilization of the laity has its historical roots in a view of laypeople as objects of clerical control: pay, pray and obey, or as Pius X notes in [the 1906 encyclical] Vehementer Nos, ‘the right of the laity is to allow itself to be led,’ ” she said.

Imperatori-Lee said Francis, however, sees the family as “the protagonist of its own destiny.

“Couples become the subjects of their history, even as pastors and confessors retain a role of accompaniment and listening,” she said.

I’m pretty sure that this is code for: You don’t have to listen to the Church if you don’t want to.

“The replacement of conscience is an act of domination, again colonization,” she said, paraphrasing Peruvian theologian Gregorio Pérez. [I wonder what theological school he could be aligned with.] “It is an abuse of power. The formation of conscience, on the other hand, is life-giving ministry.” [I’m not quite sure who that Gregorio Pérez is, but I suspect it could be this guy.]

I think this means that if a priest or bishop teaches something clear about what the Church teaches concerning faith and morals, that is an attempt to “replace” the conscience and is, therefore, a symptom domination, like colonization (which must, I guess, be really bad… colonization must be evil).  I’ll bet that the speaker thinks that “formation” of conscience means something like affirming whatever people think with your fingers crossed that they’ll get it right on their own… but if they don’t, affirm them anyway.  You don’t, after all, want to be a colonizer.

And this….

C. Vanessa White, a theologian at Catholic Theological Union, focused on how the black Catholic community has understood the exhortation. To prepare for her talk, she sought input from other black Catholic theologians and lay ministers on how the document had affected their parishes.
“Sad to say, most of those who responded say there has been little impact,” said White.
One lay minister told her: “When Amoris Laetitia first came out it was discussed briefly … but there wasn’t an overall interest from the parish to read the document in its entirety.

That’s more like it!

And there’s this.  What to make of this?

Cathleen Kaveny, a theologian and civil lawyer at Boston College, spoke about how the church considers people who have been divorced and remarried without first obtaining annulments.

Kaveny used her dual professional background to examine how the church might turn to U.S. civil law as a resource for a re-evaluation of how it sees remarriage as a continuing kind of adultery.  [US civil law as resource… Does that mean theological locus?  What about laws that permit abortion?  Aren’t there still some sodomy laws on the books?  What about the Ohio law that it is illegal for five women to live in the same house?]

She cited a case in which the Supreme Court decided that prosecutors pursuing a case against polygamists could not charge them with separate counts for each year they were married because the crime had to align with the “lived experience” of the people at question.  [There it is.  “lived experience”.  But wait!  The good stuff is coming up!]

Jesus clearly disfavored adultery,” Kaveny concluded. [Disfavored.  Interesting word choice.  I can picture Christ now, biting his lower lip like Bill Clinton and then accompanying the adulterers with a hug and smile.] “It’s clear that he rejects divorce and remarriage as contrary to the original will of God. [Get ready for the poison…] But nothing in Jesus’ words or conduct demand that the sin involved in divorce and remarriage must be conceptualized as a sin that continues indefinitely, without the possibility of effective repentance.”  [What this means, I think, is that at a certain point the adulterous union ceases to be a sin without any changes or amendment of life.  I think that what she meant.]

“To impose such a requirement in every case is not merciful,” she said. “And mercy is the ultimate touchstone for the divine lawgiver.” [Mercy means never having to say “I’m sorry.”]

We do not need to disturb Jesus’ teaching in order to refine and develop it in these ways, in ways that moral theologians and canon lawyers have always done,” she said.  [Because we now have US civil law to help us out!]

Look.  This is a biased report in the worst excuse for a catholic source you can find.  It is hard to know what really happened there from this mishmash of quotes.  However, I’ll bet you all the money in your pocket that it was help to promote a specific agenda and that no one walked out wondering what it was.

The moderation queue is ON.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Biased Media Coverage, Liberals, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Coming Storm, What are they REALLY saying? and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Mike says:

    “Infantilization of laity”?

    Any so-called ‘shepherd’ who buys into that garbage, actively or passively, is no friend of the sheep.

  2. Amerikaner says:

    Yet more proof that Bishop Schneider is correct in his position that we are living in similar conditions as to when the Arian heresy metastasized throughout the Church.

    The solution is for the laity to withhold financial support in dioceses, etc. where such positions are held. Prelates might think twice about promoting crap if it affected the bottom line. The laity could financially support individual parishes/priests.

  3. Rich says:

    Forget the “infantilization” of the laity. At least infants are human. The way Amoris Laetitia was spun and is now being interpreted, laity are being treated like animals, as if we have no self-control over our passions, so the only way for us to be ministered to is to enable us by providing us with the slick language needed in rationalizing our refusal to follow the most basic moral norms, and let us receive the Eucharist, anyway, to hell with the Commandments. The message being sent there is that we are no better than animals whose nature is to follow their impulses, and our rational soul and free will are diminished to mere added appendages to our being, there if we happen to need them but unessential.

  4. Vincent. says:

    It seems to me the real “infantilization of laity” is saying it’s okay to get their own way regardless of the clear teaching of Christ.

    Fr. Z's Gold Star Award

  5. Curley says:

    I, for one, would like Christ and his church to colonize my soul.

  6. teomatteo says:

    I think I will save the Fishwrap article to read on Columbus Day while I run my air conditioner and sit out on my patio and flirt with the neighbor’s wife. Now that– is lived experience.

  7. introibo2016 says:

    Since Boston College is run by the Jesuits, perhaps this is yet another excellent opportunity to promote the Pope Clement XIV mug!

    Fr. Z's Gold Star Award

  8. Chris in Maryland 2 says:

    It is delicious irony to learn that the Jesuit establishment is now crowing about “infantalizing the laity.”

    The behavior by the Jesuit establishment during “this-their-pontificate” (excluding of course the faithful Jesuits like Fr. Schall, Fr. Fessio, etc – but the counterfeits at Fordham U, Georgetown, BC, Spadaro-cyber-Kirk, the Head “tape recorder” Jez, James Martin, Prof. Hornbeck, etc etc) have put the nails in the coffin of the Jesuit-brand.

    They have proven themselves impoverished of mind, deceitful, malicious and worshipping their politics.

  9. Lazylyn says:

    To me , ‘infantilisation of the laity ‘ means not answering questions !

  10. Ylonila del Mar says:

    A very good retired Jesuit octogenarian friend of mine was ordained with another fellow Filipino Jesuit at Boston College around the time of Pope John XXIII’s death. I printed and gave him a copy of this startling article about the place the other day.

    I’ll be meeting with him tomorrow. He’s soundly orthodox so I don’t think he’d like what’s been stirring there lately.

  11. bushboar says:

    Original will of God?

    ORIGINAL will of God?

    Apparently the liberals would give us a “living Bible” just as they want to give us a “living Constitution.”

  12. Spinmamma says:

    An accusation of being “infantilized” by a requirement of obedience to God’s Word sounds like one made by Lucifer.

  13. AndyMo says:

    “What this means, I think, is that at a certain point the adulterous union ceases to be a sin without any changes or amendment of life. I think that what she meant.”

    I agree that that is what she meant. I wonder how she justifies her presumption of Jesus’ thoughts on the matter when the actual documented interaction of Jesus with an adulteress is his telling her that she has “had many husbands” and that “the man she is married to now is not her husband.” Doesn’t sound like he’s willing to just let it go.

    It’s garbage like this that leads me to believe that no “infantilisation” is necessary; these terrible thinkers already come across as spiritual infants without any outside influence.

  14. Aquinas Gal says:

    And last April 27, the Jesuit Institute at Boston College held another conference on this topic.
    The title says it all:
    Amoris Laetitia: Beyond Veritatis Splendor and Familiaris Consortio

  15. LarryW2LJ says:

    To me , ‘infantilisation of the laity ‘ is a backhanded insinuation that we mere pew-sitters are not on the same intellectual plane as these folks; and that it’s not possible for us to comprehend their lofty revelations.

  16. The Masked Chicken says:

    ” But nothing in Jesus’ words or conduct demand that the sin involved in divorce and remarriage must be conceptualized as a sin that continues indefinitely, without the possibility of effective repentance…To impose such a requirement in every case is not merciful,” she said. “And mercy is the ultimate touchstone for the divine lawgiver.”

    Okay, I’ve had it. Someone has got to explain to these people that they are…just…plain…wrong, once and for all, so that this type of pernicious argument can no longer hold any license for public performance. It’s like they are trying to claim that Shakespeare wrote a little-known, possibly lost sequel called, Romeo and Harriet – you know, the light-hearted comedy that, according to them, Shakespeare wrote to follow the tragedy that led to Romeo and Juliet getting their divorce… (see, I suspect that, according to them, the suicide pact was just a metaphor for a marriage gone wrong). Yeah, that’s right. I see plays.

    After reading this latest quote by Cathleen Kaveny, I feel like John Wayne in the movie, McLintock! After Drago Jones starts an oil rig fire that McLintock has to put out, he says (IMDB):

    George Washington McLintock: I know, I know. I’m gonna use good judgement. I haven’t lost my temper in forty years, but pilgrim you caused a lot of trouble this morning, might have got somebody killed… and somebody oughta belt you in the mouth.

    But I won’t. I won’t…The hell I won’t!

    [belts Jones in the mouth and melee ensues]

    It’s time to pull back the curtain and really look at what is going on and why these arguments are so wrong. I promised I wouldn’t write a long comment going into the nuts and bolts of universal and general laws, but seeing as how, literally, no one else has even written an article explaining the difference and seeing how this is so important for clearing up the confusion, I suppose I will give it a try. I’m just a chicken with no standing, so you can’t blame me if I get it wrong. On the other hand, if I get it wrong, that means I have to throw out about ten years worth of research on incongruity theory.

    Oh, and before I start, Cathleen Kaveny is wrong: mercy is the ultimate touchstone for the Divine Lawgiver, but not for us, so she is changing the subject, subtly, since the discussion is about what we should be doing, not what God should be doing (He, after all, can do whatever He pleases):

    Summa Theologica II. II. Q. 30, Art. 4: Whether mercy is the greatest of the virtues?

    On the contrary, The Apostle after saying (Colossians 3:12): “Put ye on . . . as the elect of God . . . the bowels of mercy,” etc., adds (Colossians 3:14): “Above all things have charity.” Therefore mercy is not the greatest of virtues.

    I answer that, A virtue may take precedence of others in two ways: first, in itself; secondly, in comparison with its subject. On itself, mercy takes precedence of other virtues, for it belongs to mercy to be bountiful to others, and, what is more, to succor others in their wants, which pertains chiefly to one who stands above. Hence mercy is accounted as being proper to God: and therein His omnipotence is declared to be chiefly manifested [Collect, Tenth Sunday after Pentecost].

    On the other hand, with regard to its subject, mercy is not the greatest virtue, unless that subject be greater than all others, surpassed by none and excelling all: since for him that has anyone above him it is better to be united to that which is above than to supply the defect of that which is beneath [and, that, right there should have shut down the argument – these people are not Thomistic, at all. Being united to God supersedes even mercy on the human level] . Hence, as regards man, who has God above him, charity which unites him to God, is greater than mercy, whereby he supplies the defects of his neighbor. But of all the virtues which relate to our neighbor, mercy is the greatest, even as its act surpasses all others, since it belongs to one who is higher and better to supply the defect of another, in so far as the latter is deficient…

    Reply to Objection 2. The sum total of the Christian religion consists in mercy, as regards external works: but the inward love of charity, whereby we are united to God preponderates over both love and mercy for our neighbor.

    This comment is already too long, so more, later.

    The Chicken

  17. MrTipsNZ says:

    I don’t know why they have this kind of thing. After all – didn’t Spadaro say we can’t be sure what Jesus actually said? Hope they had a tape recorder so they know what they said themselves.

  18. Tom W says:

    “… But nothing in Jesus’ words or conduct demand that the sin involved in divorce and remarriage must be conceptualized as a sin that continues indefinitely …”
    I guess sin just get’s “tuckered out and stops”. and conscience is free to put “it behind” …. a theology inspired osmotically while watching Forrest Gump;

    ….. “Mama always said put the past behind you before you can move on”

  19. Tony Phillips says:

    I always like to remind people who complain about ‘infantilisation’ that Vatican II (Lumen Gentium) stated: ‘the laity should promptly accept in Christian obedience what is decided by the pastors who, as teachers and rulers of the Church, represent Christ’.
    Not saying Vatican II is 100% right in all things; just like to point this out.

  20. Tony Phillips says:

    PS…and if you don’t like this, then you’re dissenting from Vatican II.

  21. HyacinthClare says:

    Chicken, you are AWESOME.

  22. Eric says:

    “infantilization of laity”! Who is actually FOR that?! Who is out there arguing for such? No one, straw men all in a row. That is like saying one is against cancer! I agree with a lot of the previous comments on who is being encouraged presently with infantilization. Confirming one’s heart and mind to the Truth or participation trophies.

  23. Eric says:

    Conforming not confirming, haha! Almost needed to sign up for the conference with that typo…

  24. Benedict Joseph says:

    “…the infantilization of laypeople” has never been more mightily accomplished but in the current pontificate, where adults are exempted from the call to a greater freedom by the observance of the admonishment of the Lord.
    Imperatori-Lee cooperates in this debasement of adults by providing credence to the absurdity.
    To term such individuals theologians is to diminish the vocation, the discipline, of theological inquiry.
    Our full stature as adult men and women is found only in conformity to Jesus Christ. There is no nanny-speak to be found in His Gospel. There is plenty of it, an unbearable din, to be found in our Church.

  25. SenexCalvus says:

    Our Supreme Court has demonstrated its cowardice in taking a righteous stand for human dignity in at least two decisions that are familiar to every high-school graduate: Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott v. Sandford. If our nation’s highest Constitutional court hasn’t always upheld human nature (by which I mean “that all men are created equal”) as the criterion for judging all matters temporal, how could one possibly regard a lower, civil-court system’s rulings as being a locus theologicus vel communis in matters that pertain to eternal salvation?

  26. Leppert says:

    All of this. Every single bit of it. All this Amoris Laetitia, building bridges to homosexuals, female diaconate etc. is just gearing up towards the theology expressed above.

    I struggle even calling it theology as it doesn’t fit the name. Theology: the study of God. This is the study of man. The ascension of man above God. Of feelings above eternal truth.

    Remember when Jesus said: I am the accompaniment, the teachings that are received by the community and the life?

    Me neither. I’m sure it was something a little more absolute.

  27. Kerry says:

    When they spoke, did all the conference speakers sound like John Cleese?

  28. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    So if one were to start having an affair, having sex with this other woman would be a sin or no?

    If one abandoned their wife and moved in with the other woman, having sex with her would be a sin or no?

    If one loved this other woman and was like a father to the kids she already had, having sex with her would be a sin or no?

    If one civilly divorced their first spouse and civilly married this other woman and formally adopted her kids, having sex with her would be a sin or no?

    If one started having kids with this other woman, having sex with her would be a sin or no?

    I would like these modernists to explain to me exactly when in one stops sinning this process of sinking deeper into perfidity.

  29. misternaser says:

    I could have sworn the “infantilization of laity” was the reasoning for the Consilium‘s “reform” of the Mass….

  30. Anneliese says:

    You’re funny, Father.

    “Latino reception of Amoris Laetitia “cannot be understood” outside the historical legacy of the colonial system in the Americas.” — what a silly statement.

    What is the obsession with sex? I don’t recall of hearing anyone dying from NOT having sex. And don’t remember reading that sex was an unalienable right. What strange days we live in. Alas.

  31. thomistking says:

    “Latino reception of Amoris Laetitia ‘cannot be understood outside the historical legacy of the colonial system in the Americas.'”

    And here we see the that the Gospel of Christ must be subverted to the gospel of Marx.

  32. Charivari Rob says:

    Yes, bushboar, the “original” will of God. It’s autumn now, though, so pumpkin-spice will of God is available for a few more weeks.

    As for “But nothing in Jesus’ words or conduct demand that the sin involved in divorce and remarriage must be conceptualized as a sin that continues indefinitely, without the possibility of effective repentance.”… I would answer “Well, except for the “…go forth and sin no more…” that came in the next verse…”

    I do look forward to reading more of Imperatori-Lee, however, and what she has to say about the legacy of colonialism. Colonialism (and imperialism) leave lasting marks on peoples. The sooner Rome wraps its sometimes-thick head around that notion and takes it into account when doing things*, the better.

    * NB – not saying “give up doing things”. Am saying “do those things with a little more sensitivity, wit and wisdom”.

  33. GM Thobe says:

    Pray forgive me for being a curmudgeon, but it has been, in my experience, that it is precisely the infants that misbehave and those in authority (that dreaded word) let it slide, whereas the more mature are held accountable for the consequences, good or ill, of their actions. I understand that the author’so preferred dichotomy is freedom vs. Obedience, but it is a dichotomy that in this case I firmly reject.

  34. Serviam says:

    Perfect comment Vincent.

  35. edwar says:

    Kaveny admits that the divorce and remarriage were sins.

    The error begins when she considers what to do about the remarriage. She implies that when they’ve been remarried long enough, and if they’re sorry for their past divorce, then the continuation of the remarriage in more uxorio is no longer a sin. Underlying this, there seems to be an assumption that breaking up the remarriage (e.g. through a second divorce) would be just as bad as the previous breakup of the sacramental marriage. And if you’re sorry for your first divorce and the suffering it caused to your spouse and children, then you definitely don’t want to repeat your mistake by getting divorced again, right? I think that’s the intuitional core of this error.

    The Catholic response is to put forth the option of living as brother and sister. This seems the best way to repent, and to return to the pursuit of Salvation, while still respecting the intuition that a second divorce would be wrong.

    But I think that we, as Catholics, can do more to establish the brother-and-sister option as robust and credible.

    To begin with, let’s try to understand why we are recommending an option which, in other times and places, would have been considered out of the question due to its near occasion of sin. Apparently, due to economic and cultural changes over the centuries, other ways to care and provide for illegitimate children have become scarcer. Today, you can’t drop off your illegitimate daughter at the Ospedale della Pietà in Venice, and trust that she’ll get instructed in the violin by the likes of Fr. Vivaldi. Today, it’s apparently not an option to do what the mother of St. Augustine’s son did–leaving her son with his dad and entering a convent to do penance.

    So in 2017 you have to remain together as brother and sister, as the best way to care for your illegitimate children. If we really think that that’s the best option in many cases–and I have yet to hear a suggestion otherwise–then let’s try to make a robust and credible case for why that’s the best option in 2017 even though there might have been better options in past ages.

  36. JabbaPapa says:

    Fishwrapped Jesuits :

    “The replacement of conscience is an act of domination, again colonization,” she said, paraphrasing Peruvian theologian Gregorio Pérez. “It is an abuse of power.”

    This is very likely to be formally heretical.

    The conscience is informed by God, principally from conception and into our lives and beyond, independently of any body of doctrine, including powerfully via our guardian angels, who continually preach, silently, into our souls the good of the Revelation and the Glory of God, and simply their and His Love. And secondarily through the public Revelation as made known to us in the Scriptures, in the Church and her Tradition, and in her Holy Magisterium (not excluding the so-called “lay magisterium” of the Faithful when they properly teach the Truth to others in good Catholic evangelisation and education and in ordinary social life).

    As such, the formation of a proper divinely informed conscience is the work of Grace in the innermost intimacy of our being, NOT any sort of so-called “domination”, “colonisation”, nor “power” that could be “abused” — which is objectively just Communist political rhetoric, theologically Modernist and Relativist in the worst possible manner, most likely from a South American so-called “liberation theology” — and worse it is sacrilegious and deeply blasphemous in its characterisations of this Work of Divine Grace, as being openly hateful of God and of His Holy Church.

  37. Fr. Reader says:


    What is “Latino reception” in the first place? Probable means just a personal opinion of very few.

    Interesting note from Wikipedia:
    Manuel Pérez Martínez (May 9, 1943 – 1998), also known as “El Cura Pérez” (“Pérez the Priest”), was leader of the Colombian National Liberation Army (ELN) over three decades.
    Born on May 9, 1943 in Alfamén, Spain, Pérez was originally a priest, and worked in Spain, France, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. Following his expulsion from the Dominican Republic in 1968 he went to Colombia, and in 1969 joined the ELN. He became that group’s leader some time in the 1970s and remained so until his death in 1998 from hepatitis B.
    Pérez was considered an extremist; one former guerrilla described him as “rigid and brutal”.[1] His leadership is thought to have significantly affected the ELN’s ideology (Cuban-style Marxism and liberation theology) and methods (which led to accusations of kidnapping, torture, and execution).[1]

  38. Austin says:

    I very much doubt that these people really want a grown-up laity.

    They would find that many of them would be the kind of ‘mature’ and ’emancipated’ Christian that fought to the death in the Vendée in defence of the faith and orthodoxy.

    The liberals have an entirely unfounded belief that there are millions of people out there who would be Catholics if only they did not have to believe all those ridiculous things and obey those ridiculous rules.

    In fact, that constituency is vanishingly small. Those who want region already have a home in liberal Protestantism. Most have no interest in religion at all, or are deeply hostile.

  39. syzdek says:

    “The infantilization of the laity has its historical roots in a view of laypeople as objects of clerical control: pay, pray and obey, or as Pius X notes in [the 1906 encyclical] Vehementer Nos, ‘the right of the laity is to allow itself to be led,’ ” she said.

    Or maybe the “infantilization” of the laity has its roots in Matthew 18:

    18. At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 He called a child, whom he put among them, 3 and said, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

    So it would seem to me that leaning upon the Church and trusting her to guide me along the best path would be rather childlike and allowing her to carry me spiritually through life is even better. After all, a child should listen to his Mother and we do call the Church, “Mother Church”.

  40. Fr_Sotelo says:

    The author who was quoted in the article is not the deceased, excommunicated, ex-priest Manuel Pérez Martinez, but the Franciscan priest, Father Gregorio Pérez de Guereñu, OFM, who I believe is still alive.

    Fr. Gregorio was born in Spain but has worked in Peru most of his life.

  41. CharlesG says:

    It seems to me encouraging people to remain slaves to sin is the real infantilisation around here.

  42. steve51b31 says:

    Tony Phillips- Can I simply just dissent from “The Spirit of Vatican II”?

  43. Eoin Suibhne says:

    How sad (but not at all surprising) to see my new bishop (+Biegler 0f Cheyenne) listed among the speakers at this conference. I say not at all surprising because Cardinal Cupich made it a point to attend Bishop Biegler’s Installation Mass. True to the type, he’s already refused support for (and through the chancery “forbidden”) new parish EF Masses.

    Hard times in Wyoming. In such a few, short years to go from +Bishop Ricken (a founder of Wyoming Catholic College) to, well, what we have now. Orate pro nobis! — especially our priests, some of whom have caved to the pressure.

  44. Gail F says:

    When I read that in the NCR, I was really shocked, especially this: ““We do not need to disturb Jesus’ teaching in order to refine and develop it in these ways, in ways that moral theologians and canon lawyers have always done,” she said.” — No, we just have to say he didn’t mean it was adultery FOREVER, it was a one-time (?) sin of contracting an adulterous relationship, but once you were really, really, REALLY sorry for doing so, the sin of adultery could be forgiven and the relationship was okay to go one with. Keep Jesus’s words AND marry someone else when you’re still married. Is that what the “communion to the divorced and remarried” people mean????

  45. Fr. Reader says:

    @Fr Sotelo
    Thank you very much.

  46. Pingback: SATVRDAY CATHOLICA EDITION | Big Pulpit

  47. credocatholic says:

    I have to say that this seems to be the way the mainstream post-Amoris tide seems to be headed. Here is an actual quote from the World Meeting of Families six-session parish preparation “Amoris: Let’s Talk Family, Let’s be Family” program for 2018: “Today people like to feel in control of their own lives and to make decisions based on what they believe to be right rather than on rules or regulations imposed from the outside. This can lead to people being more mature and having a greater sense of responsibility for their own lives and their own futures.” The conclusion to be drawn is that fidelity to law equals immaturity and twisting law to meet our desires equals maturity. Following this line of reasoning, Adam and Eve set a great example for maturity when they wanted the power to decide for themselves what was good and evil. It seems that this lie is at the root of the greatest sin.

    Here is a link to these materials:

  48. Stephen Matthew says:

    I understand what people are getting at, people see a divorce as a particular discreet act that happens at a specific moment in time and that is then over and done with. Likewise remarriage is viewed in the same way. In this view, the sin is isolated to the particular moment it is first committed, rather than being understood as an ongoing sin. People will point to murder or theft and say that someone can commit those and even in a certain way continue benefiting from them, but yet be forgiven and then move forward with life. People want the same nice clean way of fixing divorce/remarriage questions, a simple go to confession and then make the best of the current situation going forward with reference to the past. Some even tie this to the idea of rebirth, regeneration, or dying to sin, such that they basically think this justifies the idea that the pre and post repentance individual are not in fact the same and thus one is free to treat them self as almost a blank slate.

    But we know it isn’t that simple, though we might well wish it were so, it is simply a fantasy to think that it is.

  49. Fr_Sotelo says:

    Father Reader,

    You are welcome. God bless.

Comments are closed.