Let' me get this straight.. For years the Church has granted annulments to nearly every Catholic who wanted one. Now Pope Francis has made the annulment process much easier and free. Thus we should expect even more annulments . (Note: recently our pastor, wishing to highlight the "success" of this initiative, said annulments had increased 50%. He seemed rather happy about it.) From this I conclude that the Catholic Church aids and abets the failure of marriage by salving the consciences of divorcees by allowing and facilitating annulments.

Now along comes AL which apparently attempt wishes further destroy marriages by making it unnecessary to even bother with an annulment, as if the problem were not bad enough, by the adroit exercise of the situation ethics of the internal forum on malleable
consciences.

And why would the Catholic Church do such a thing in direct opposition to Christ Himself? I think the answer has more to do with money than mercy.

God cannot be happy about this. Lord have Mercy on us all especially Pope Francis.

I have a much simpler way of being Catholic. Popes come and go and the Church always remains the Mystical Body of Christ and the fundamental dogmas and doctrines do not change. My faith is not contingent upon what some popes say and do, but on Holy Scripture, the Living Tradition, the Church Fathers, and the teaching magisterium of the Church, both ordinary and infallible, like the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Her Bodily Ascension. Go to daily mass, pray the rosary every day, and be consecrated to the Blessed Mother of God. And pray the Saint Michael Prayer every day. And pray the divine chaplet also. I know this, the primary purpose of the Church is the salvation of souls, not the salvation of the environment. Today's Gospel reading has it. Jesus said I did not come to save the world..

"fundamental dogmas and doctrines do not change."

They don't change de jure; de facto is another matter. That's what explains my rants, which are not my way of being Catholic. My personality will not admit of a benign attitude in the face of clear danger to the Church and I want to make clear to others what is clear to me. This is a global discussion and it's not like me to sit back while others try to whitewash the papacy of His Majesty Francis.

Don't need a PhD to know that.

What you say cannot be denied. We are not dealing with some careless comment taken out of context here, we are dealing with rampant heresy. I may not have the authority to remove the Pope but I can tell heresy when it stands right in front of me.

Yes, we all have to be realistic at this point about who Pope Francis is and what he is trying to achieve. But, there is a way to do so and remain Catholic. The article "How to Survive a Calamitous Pope and Remain Catholic may be helpful to you. Also, study the history of Pope Honorius. May God bless you.

I find it interesting how many people can speak for God in these matters and conclude that the Pope is a heretic. To be a heretic one must be in obstinate error regarding a doctrine of the Church and can only be declared a heretic and excommunicated by the pope after repeated attempts to get that person to repent. Pope Francis, alone, has the right and the power to speak for the Church in matters of faith and morals. There is no higher authority in the Church on earth. That is it. Read the article by Sandro Magister on his site: Francis. Pope. More infallible than He there is none.
Citing Pastor Aeternus from Vatican I, this pople claims authority not only over the Catholic Church, but over all of Christendom. "Supreme, full, immediate, and universal" both in governing and in teaching. Unless it is the end times [who knows] this is the only pope we have, like it or not.

"Pope Francis, alone, has the right and the power to speak for the Church in matters of faith and morals. " Yes, like the Renaissance popes who slept with their sisters. Who really cares about rights when the Pope is so obviously wrong? The instinct to cuddle up in the Pope's lap these diehard "Catholics" have is dismaying...

You need to make a careful study of Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus in order to realize that Amoris Laetitia is very far from fulfilling the requirements of an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium of the Pope. There are other examples of Popes teaching or at least not opposing errors. One is that Pope John XXII in the 14th century, who taught, although not in an official document, that the souls of the just did not achieve the beatific vision immediatley on dying. However, before he died, he recanted. His successor did make a clearly expressed dogmatic definition on the matter. There is no way that what Pope Francis states in footnotes for instance fulfills the requireent for infallible extraordinary magisterium. Some of the contents of AL would be infallible via ordinary magisterium in that he reiterates traditonal Catholic doctrine. Besides, he had no intention of teaching infallibly in AL.

Chapter 8 of AL is a theological mess. But, it CAN (barely, if we indulge every possible inference) be read in conformity with the pre-existing Magisterium. Therefore it SHOULD be read that way. Whether it was MEANT to be read that way is another question altogether.

An objective reading (i.e., a reading that is not looking for every possible way to conclude that it is not a rupture) would lead one to the conclusion that Pope Francis was at a minimum trying to "split the baby" and at worst actually giving a wink and a nod toward the Rhine so that the Germans can do whatever they want.

I get the point - made by Deacon Jim and others here - that we should (must?) read AL as conforming to the existing Magisterium if we can. And so we do. But we are still stuck with the sinking feeling in our stomachs that the Pope wasn't being straightforward. I mean, what does one do with the blatantly misleading citations, or with the misuse of St. Thomas Aquinas, or with the studied refusal to actually cite the key provisions of the existing Magisterium that would have cleared all of this up? The drafters of AL are not ignorant men.

It makes me sick to think it and to say it, but I can't ignore it.

That is the great tragedy of St. JPII. By openly siding with the conservatives, he forces us to choose between him and Vatican II.

By the way, this article gets the idea of fundamental option wrong, as did that monument to tortured prose called Veritatis Splendor. A much clearer explanation appears in "Pilgrims, Not Strangers," by Cardinal Carlo Maria Montini. The mistake appears when our author condemns the idea that a single evil act might not reverse a fundamental option for God, and might not be a mortal sin. That is not what my moral theology prof taught. He distinguished between a "state" of grace and a "state" of mortal sin. A state of grace includes a whole web of moral, spiritual, intellectual, and emotional attitudes, which includes all those habits we call virtue. A fundamental option for God. A state of mortal sin includes all the opposite. It is entirely possible for a person in the state of grace to do something that violates that fundamental option. My prof said that it would be a mortal sin. But then he distinguished between a mortal sin and the state of mortal sin.

Our author spoke only of "an evil act." But we need to reflect on the three elements that have to be present if we are going to call a sin mortal. If any are lacking, there is no mortal sin: 1) An act that ruptures our relationship with God or neighbor, 2) full knowledge of the consequences, and 3) full consent to the consequences. Since all three elements are necessary, I think mortal sins are rare. I can imagine a person who has given his heart to God performing an evil act. But it is hard to imagine him turning that act into a rebellion against God and neighbor, and a rejection of everything he has learned to live for. Might happen. But how often?

My prof conceded that a person with a fundamental option for the good might indeed commit a mortal sin, but that does not add up to a fundamental option for evil. It might be the beginning of such a path, true enough, and so beware. But at that rate, we should ponder the role played by our favorite venial sins.

That is the great tragedy of St. JPII. By openly siding with the conservatives, he forces us to choose between him and Vatican II.

And the great tragedy of Hombre11 is that he does not know that there is no contradiction between JPII and Vatican 2.

That in fact, Vatican II agrees with Hombre only in his dreams. But let not facts get in the way of an indignant whinge.

Pope Paul VI was very concerned about a divided Church, and so he refused to allow a return to the old Latin liturgy. When St. John Paul allowed that liturgy, he encouraged the conservative reaction that continues to this day. Contrary to St. Paul, who preached unity to the Corinthians, St. John Paul left the Church more divided than he found it.

Pope Paul VI was very concerned about a divided Church, and so he refused to allow a return to the old Latin liturgy.

And in the process created a divided Church.

The changes to the Liturgy were not mandated by Vatican II

Contrary to St. Paul, who preached unity to the Corinthians, St. John Paul left the Church more divided than he found it.

No. He restored to the children of God that Gem that thrown away, the throwing away having left us impoverished and allowed ugliness and banality to creep in.

"Cardinal Carlo Maria Montana." Yes, and Sister Joan and Tiny Tim also had some helpful insights.

Sigh. More pearls trampled into the dust.

You responses remind me of my teenagers at their most immature times.

Consider this possibility's plausibility:

You wrote that, " Pope Francis, [1] alone, has [2] the right and [3] the power to speak for the Church in matters of faith and morals. [4] There is no higher authority in
the Church on earth."

I added the numbers to facillitate the points that, when strung together, test the plausibility that you may have erred in your remark.

[1] No pope is alone. The Body of Christ is not divided. A pope is one with us. But his role is priestly which means he is a mediator between us and Christ who is the ultimate mediator of course. So in that sense, too, no pope is alone. Remember how Christ taught us to pray -- our, us, we.

[2] A right, as such, is something owed and as such is an instrument of justice -- to each his due. No pope is owed allegiance for his own sake, as a fellow creature, but rather his authority is derivative of the Creator (and not derived of fellow creatures). On whose authority is a pope the voice of the Body of Christ? Certainly not on the arbitrary self-willed authority of any man who occupies the priestly office of pontiff. A pope's will, as pope, is not his own. His authority is not his own. "Thy will be done...."

[3] As the history of the Church has illustrated repeatedly, a pope is powerless to contradict the Holy Spirit; the doctrine of infallibility has long-been confirmed.

We have had popes of various comeptencies and dispositions, of course, but infallibility is not a personal power of this or that occupant of the office. Assuming the office does not mean an individual gains the power to rule over Catholics inerringly; it means he assumes the duty of mediating on behalf of the Holy Spirit who will intervene to prevent even a bad pope (not saying Francis is a bad pope) from error on matters subject to infallibility. This does not mean that everything a pope says and does is infallible. The doctrine of infalliblity has always been with us, it has been developed under the guiance of the Holy Spirt to lead us not into temptation, for starters and for other reasons. "Us" includes each pope-as-mediator.

[4] The Holy Spirit *is* on earth. Also, consider The Lord's Prayer in which we are taught to pray, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". Christ's kingdom on earth is the human soul. Each of us is a creature in the image of God. And so, yes, there is a higher authority on earth. The Body of Christ is indivisible on earth. This returns to point [1] which coheres with points [2] and [3].

I'd expect none of what I have said is new to you. You may have already considered all of this. I've itemized these things for clarity only.

Is it plausible that the Holy Spirit will lead a pope into temptation and not deliver us from evil on matters of doctrine?

Again, consider that infalliblity does not mean a pope, as pope, is infallible in all things. It is possible that this suggests that the "change" now voiced by Francis had to be relegated to the supposedly forgotten footnote -- his hand was stayed, as it were. Errors might be portrayed as unerring teachings but portrayal is not the apt test even though mistaken portrayal may test us all.

In humility we must take the long view. And that can mean there are spiritual batles we can not shirk but must engage.

And so I think it is more than possible, and highly plausible, that, as in the past, the hand of a pope-in-error can be stayed by the Holy Spirit. The Gospels give witness, as does Tradition, to the mysteries that lead to development of doctrine and to deeper faith even in the face of adversity, confusion, discord both within and from without the Church.

Repeatedly, we are taught lessons in humility. Pope and non-pope alike.

Blessings.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to answer my comments which are certainly just an opinion. The problem we have as Catholics is trying to discern what is really going and to fathom the spectacle of bishop and cardinals arguing about what Pope Francis really means. I had no difficulty with the teaching of the modern opens from Pius 9 to Pius 12

The Pope's positions certainly seem to be driven toward money. I don't know if there is anything to be done about it other than wait . . . and withhold your own money. If every conservative Catholic withheld giving for one year, I suspect we'd see a different direction from this Pope.

I'm unaware of a single instance where an annulment was declared "incorrectly". Are you saying that you are aware of any such instance?

The huge -- or increasing -- numbers of annulments say nothing about whether they were or were not properly decided.

The fanfare of A.L. may have given many folks wishing to return to the Church the impetus to look into the matter more closely. Or not.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying the numbers seem to reflect the terrible breakdown of the Sacrament of Marriage that seemed to begin about 50 years ago. MANY Catholics seem unaware that heading off to Vegas to get married, and committing themselves to childless marriages, are grounds for a declaration of nullity.

Can we now blame the Church for declaring a marriage null what was in fact null? The blame took place back during Religious Formation and Marriage Preparation ... when the endless, pointless sermons replaced homilies and methods that could have more properly formed the consciences of Catholics sitting in the pews and preparing for marriage.

We are now reaping the whirlwind for their laxity and sin.

The Church appears to FIND A REASON to grant an annulment to anyone who seeks one. This is bad. On all the rest of your comment I agree completely. "Reaping the whirlwind" for sure. We need a new Pope, like Donald Trump, to straighten out the mess in the Church. Please pray that we get one.

The folks left out of all these discussions I have seen are the abandoned spouses. Were they considered in Rome? My sense is no. With the oh-so-liberal policies on annulment, better known as "Catholic divorce," they have been abandoned, betrayed, and considered irrelevant by their Church, often the Church of which they, not their now remarried spouse, have been the faithful member.
I have taught divorce recovery for a number of years as a service of an adult singles group and so have heard their stories many times.
They stood on the altar facing the priest making vows they thought, still think, were for life because their Church told them so. Then, someone comes knocking on their door with papers to fill out for an annulment. That's when the feeling of total helplessness sets in. They have no real opportunity to present their case for the marriage they have invested their lives in. They are not called to testify. Someone they don't know and didn't choose is supposedly doing their speaking for them. But it really doesn't matter because there is no way they can win. There is always that loophole that dissolves the marriage. Eventually they get word from some Church representative that they were never married even with several children in the picture.
Regardless of that announcement, they feel in their hearts that they are still married and continue to live their lives as if they were. For that reason, they do not remarry. Often, they are left with the children and hardly any income to support them.
They are in great anguish, often for the rest of their lives. Some are very angry at the Church. Some have left the Church that betrayed them. Some turn to the Lord even when they don't understand how he permits this.
As it takes two to make a marriage, it also takes two to make a divorce. Who knows what went on in a marriage or where the fault for the split lies. Nevertheless, the Church needs to rethink its policies on annulment and take the abandoned spouse's concerns and spiritual welfare much more seriously than it does now. I don't think this is what the Lord had in mind when he said, "What God has joined together, let no one set apart."

Good question!

And, to that incredibly devastating insult and injury, we may now, apparently, add that the one who abandoned his/her spouse and children may find him/herself back in the good graces of the new and improved 'Church of Mercy, receiving Communion with their new 'spouse'.
I wish someone could have told that to my poor abandoned faithful Catholic grandmother back in 1936, when her philandering husband, repeated the sins of her similarly philandering father a generation before, and left the family for a new shiny thing (with whom he ambled up on the Communion line every Sunday), leaving my grandmother (and her children) husbandless, fatherless, destitute, humiliated and outcasts from 'good' society (the nuns and priests were particularly hard on my grandmother and her children) until the day she died. As a Maureen
O'Hara type of beauty, she had many 'suitors' who begged her to marry them, she would not dare endanger her soul by committing Adultery.
Those experiences would adversely affect subsequent generations in the family.
If only we had known that the rules (or Laws, or Commandments) were so malleable, so very easy to change- so much misery could have been spared so many good and faithful people.

I have no doubt that there are many other faithful Cathollics like your grandmother who have been faithful to the Lord and have never even considered for one moment committing adultery. I also noticed that there ddoesn't seem to be any word of encouragement for these fiathful Catholics in AL.

I agree, and, therein, lies the problem with those who would look to accommodate D/RM receiving Holy Communion.
Too many sacrificed and suffered for too long, even today, for such a betrayal.

The pope may have declared such, but, I would not agree that he made it clear as evidenced by the reaction to AL. Too many people, who speak and write unequivocally, concisely and clearly, have found fault with his style of speech and writing that results in more questions than answers. They can't all be wrong.
I am always willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am happy to leave the ongoing debate to the 'experts'.
After all - as he says, "Who am I to judge?"

Well, actually--no--no, they are not all wrong about the popes clarity problem. Whether or not he is a clear and concise (effective) communicator is in the eye and ear of the beholders.
That the debate still rages, even among his clergy, as well as throughout the laity, and the faithful and unfaithful, is proof that he is not an effective communicator.

When was the last time there was such debate about the confusion caused by any previous popes utterances?
No one was confused about JP2 or BXVI speech or writing- as a matter of fact and much contention- they were both quite unequivocal in both.
You cant claim that PF is an effective communicator when he actually admits to his own such failings.
Just about everyone, even those who think they agree with him, like you after having to submit your own analyses of his garbled exhortations and other utterances, knows him to be quite an ineffective communicator when it comes to being unambiguous.
I get defending the pope against his critics, some of whom cross the line, when it comes to his faithfulness. But, you're not going to try to seriously deny that he has a communication problem, are you? That would be akin to asking us not to believe our own eyes and ears and to just accept your own opinion on the matter, on faith.
Not happening, respectfully, Deacon.

At those rare moments in communication, no, I guess they weren't (assuming context would be supportive of your quotes) effective communicators.
But, PF seems to suffer the rare moment of clarity and effective communication.
We need not agree- hence, the ongoing debate, which, I am sure, we won't settle.
I am still trying to assuage my poor old Irish mother's guilt over 'breeding like a rabbit' (the 'shame' of it all) - even though she was told that having another child after being deemed a very high risk pregnancy for other medical reasons would likely kill her and the baby, but, under threat of ex- communication by a very understanding, compassionate and sympathetic local Monsignor if she dare think of, much less utilize, barrier contraception, she went with the more than likely dead rabbit thing. As a 12 year old child standing outside the confessional when my mother ran out of it crying, inconsolably, I was somewhat indelibly 'affected' by the whole affair. My 5 other siblings and father would never know the burden placed upon my mother's back then. If we only knew then, what we just learned now.
Popes words do have meaning- even when they escape all garbled up past the foot in the mouth.

It works the other way, too. What does a faithful husband who discovers his wife's infidelity do? Faith says forgive. That is the easy part. From personal experience, please understand that living together for40 more years and sleeping in the same bed do not erase the pain.
All three major studies done in the last 60 years have found that in the instance of infidelity, it has been the wife who was unfaithful in the first instance 61% of the time. (+/-)

I'm not making this about which sex is worse when it comes to sin, but, I will point out that there was not so much push back from males on the sexual revolution, including divorce, infidelity and sexual license when the females were held to a different standard, as in oppressed.
As a frequent critic of the social sciences when it comes to human bias affecting data and analyses, I hold those studies in as much contempt as I do the 'study' that claimed that males beat their wives when their team loses the Super Bowl, or that 'gay parents' are as good as or better than heteronormative biological parents, and that there is no difference between gay 'marriage' and normal male-female marriage.
Some truths are just logical and intuitive. It is a mans world and that's fine so long as all recognize the advantages and disadvantages to both sexes associated with that fact.
My point was not about the battle of the sexes, it was about the appearance of changing doctrine, and in some cases, unequally applied doctrine (ex. sex, race, nationality, sexuality), and the adverse effect it has on faithful Catholics, for generations. That it more frequently affected the women in my family may be coincidental, but, I can only speak to my experiences.

Not saying that declaration of nullity [does not end a marriage but declares a putative marriage null] is easy on the parties involved, but that is no reason to your last sentence which makes is appear as if declarations of nullity are against God's will. A Just process, all for it, including making sure that both parties have a fair hearing. Such a process, I have read, eventually brings peace to the parties because they arrived at truth regarding their marriage that has just been declared null.

Are you aware that virtually every nullification that is applied for is granted? As I said, there is always a loophole that "justifies" the nullification. I am not convinced that it is a just process. It seems to be tilted to favor the applicant in all cases.
Those victims of the process who have shared their stories with me were manifestly not at peace even many, many years after the nullification. They were deeply wounded with a hurt that does not go away and believe they were shafted by the Church.
Even the Vatican under JPII expressed concerns at one point about the ease with which nullifications are granted in the U.S. However, I am not aware that anything ever came of that concern.

That's what happened to me. When I married, I assumed it was for life. Here is the order of the dissolving of my matrimonial bonds:
1)annulment, it just showed up, I was never consulted
2) the civil divorse
3) student loans, they couldn't be separated.

Annulment , I guess , was the easiest.

You didn't appeal? If you did and you were not heard that would be unfair and unjust.
*
Cf. Vatican reverses Kennedy ruling (Ex-congressman's "annulment" voided) - http://archive.boston.com/n...

No one told me I could! I was in a severe depression and wasn't capable of thinking clearly. It's formate best. I'm looking for a spouse now! Pray for me!

Just said a Memorare for you. God bless
*
Cf. PREPARATION FOR MARRIAGE (girl)
*
It's formate best. means?

Thanks!