"amoris Laeticia: Two Articles And A Commentary
Here are two excelent articles, one by Sandro Magister who isn’t on the wave length of Pope Francis but, nonetheless, gives us a good idea of what the document is about, and the other which, because the writer thinks along the same lines, especially in the title, goes deeper.
Integration Yes, Communion Who Knows? The Pope’s Sibylline Response
MY COMMENTARY
I believe that that there is a profound unity between the theology of Vatican II, the the understanding of Pope Benedict on the Church, and the understanding of Pope Francis on the workings of grace in human relationships.
Bishop Christopher Butler, who was present at the Council as Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation, one wrote that, before the Council, he knew who was a Catholic and who wasn’t; after the Council, he knew who was a Catholic, but he no longer knew who isn’t. The same thing could be said after “Amoris Laeticia” about grace. Before “Amoris Laeticia” we knew which marital unions could be lived out in the state of grace, and which couldn’t. However, after “Amoris Laeticia”, we know which marital unions can be grace-filled, but we don’t know which can’t. As grace and the sacrament of marriage are ecclesial realities, Pope Benedict’s answers to the question of membership of the Church and Francis’ answers about the different ways of living together are connected.
Before the Council, the answer about what makes a person a Catholic was put in legal terms, and the papal dogmas of Vatican I were considered an adequate answer to the problem. A legal answer is clear, logical and satisfying. Then came along Vatican II which, without in any way denying the dogmas of Vatican I, filled them out by putting the basis and fount of Catholicism in the liturgy and especially the Eucharist. Communion with the pope is what should happen when all local churches celebrate the same Eucharist, creating a universal organism; but, due to history outside our control, the Eucharist is celebrated by many outside the universal jurisdiction of the pope, which means that there are local and regional churches that are “the Church” because of the Eucharist without acknowledging the pope.
Foremost among the theologians of eucharistic ecclesiology is Benedict XVI, both as cardinal and pope. The Church is present, not only among churches that are not in “full communion” with the Church’s universal structure, but also in “ecclesial communties” which broke away from the Church’s eucharistic structure at the Reformation and now have their own man-made structures while retaining the sacrament of baptism or, at least, faith in Christ.
When we reduce theology to Canon Law and give purely legalistic answers to questions about the Catholic Faith, then Catholicism is clear, logical and uncomplicated. Once you dig deeper and strive to include other aspects of Catholicism when looking for answers, then you get a messy Catholicism “because there is nothing so queer as folks!” What Pope Benedict has done for ecclesiology, Pope Francis is doing for Pastoral Theology, for exactly the same reason. In fact, I don’t think you can accept the approach of Pope Benedict without assenting to the approach of Pope Francis, even if Pope Benedict shyed away from it, knowing the can of worms he would be opening!
“Conservative” understanding of who is in mortal sin and who isn’t, and a “conservative” understanding of marriage are also completely legalistic and, hence, suffer from the same inadequacy. Just as a pre-Vatican II conservative would have accepted that membership of the Church depended on accepting papal jurisdiction and would have considered a depth of holiness of someone outside that jurisdiction as irrelevant to whether they were Catholic or not (there is no such thing as degrees of membership), so those conservatives who oppose the views of Pope Francis are likely to consider “mortal sin” as breaking a law of a certain gravity with full knowledge of what they are doing. They remain “in a state of mortal sin” until they repent of that sin. They are also likely to believe that Catholic teaching on marriage is identical to the canon law that governs marriage: if you change the rules, you change the doctrine. Cardinal Burke has said as much.
When Pope Benedict suggested that divorced and re-married couples should substitute spiritual communion at Mass for sacramental communion, he showed that he agreed with Pope Francis that real life is more complicated than that suggested by Canon Law because he also knew that someone “in the state of mortal sin” is as incapable of authentic spiritual communion as he is of worthily receiving sacramental communion. Not all who have divorced and re-married are in a state of mortal sin. Popes Benedict and Francis are in agreement with the theological reality, even if they do not agree on the pastoral policy.
A much clearer indication that the theological positions of the two popes are closer than many people realize is their effort to heal the rift with the lebevrists. The media caste Pope Benedict as a “conservative” and, therefore is suspected of being sympathetic to some of the aims ofrthe Society of St Pius X; but no one can accuse Pope Francis of this: yet both popes have been equally anxious to heal the schism. The best analysis of the motives of Pope Francis, I believe, comes from Bishop Fellay, the head of the (lebrevrist) Society of Pius X, though I think he is wrong about Benedict who is closer to Francis than he realises. He writes:
If at first Benedict XVI, and now Pope Francis, did not see the Society in a particular way that is different from this ecumenical perspective that I just mentioned, I think that there would be nothing at all. I even think that instead we would already be laboring once again under penalties, censures, excommunication, the declaration of schism, and that whole attempt to eliminate a bothersome group. Then why was Benedict XVI and why is Pope Francis now so benevolent toward the Society? I think that the two do not necessarily have the same perspective. In the case of Benedict XVI, I think that it was his conservative side, his love for the old liturgy, his respect for the previous discipline in the Church. I can say that many, and I mean many priests, and even groups that had problems with the Modernists in the Church and had recourse to him when he was still a cardinal found in him—at first as a cardinal, then as pope—a benevolent respect, a desire to protect and to help them at least, as much as he could.
In Pope Francis we do not see that attachment either to the liturgy or to the old discipline. We could even say, quite the opposite, given his many contrary statements, and this is what makes it more difficult and more complicated to understand his benevolence. And nevertheless, I think that there are nevertheless several possible explanations, but I admit that I do not have the final word on the subject. One of the explanations is Pope Francis’ perspective on anything that is marginalized, what he calls the “peripheries of life”. I would not be surprised if he considered us as one of these peripheries which he manifestly prefers. And from that perspective, he uses the expression “walk forward” with people on the periphery, hoping to manage to improve things. Therefore it is not a fixed decision to succeed immediately: a development, a walk, goes wherever it goes…, but at least you are being rather peaceful, polite, without really knowing what the result might be. Probably this is one of the deeper reasons.
Another reason: we see also Pope Francis rather constantly critiquing the established Church, what is called in English the establishment—we say that from time to time in French, too—reproaching the Church for being self-satisfied, a Church that no longer looks for the lost sheep, the one that is in trouble, at all levels, whether poverty on the one hand or even physical danger…. But we see in Pope Francis that this concern, despite the blatant appearances, is not just a concern about material things…. We see very well that when he says “poverty” he includes also spiritual poverty, the poverty of souls that are in sin, that should be brought out of it and led back to the Dear Lord. Even though it is not always expressed that clearly, we find a number of expressions that indicate this. And from this perspective, he sees in the Society a community that is very active—especially when compared to the situation in the establishment—very active, in other words it seeks and goes out seeking souls, it has this concern about the spiritual welfare of souls, and is ready to roll up its sleeves and work for it.
He is acquainted with Abp. Lefebvre; he read twice the biography written by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, which shows, without a doubt, an interest; and I think that he liked it. And also the contacts that he was able to have in Argentina with our confreres, in whom he saw a sort of spontaneity and also candor, for they hid absolutely nothing. Of course, they were trying to get something for Argentina, where we were having difficulties with the State concerning residency permits, but they hid nothing, they did not try to dodge issues, and I think that he likes that. This may be the rather human side of the Society, but we see that the pope is very human, he assigns a lot of importance to such considerations, and this could explain a certain benevolence on his part. Once again, I am not saying the final word on this subject, and certainly behind all this there is Divine Providence. Divine Providence which manages to put good thoughts into the head of a pope who, on many points, alarms us tremendously, and not just us: you can say that everyone who is more or less conservative in the Church is scared by what is happening, by what is being said, and nevertheless Divine Providence manages to bring us through these reefs in a very surprising way. Very surprising, because it is clear that Pope Francis wants to let us live and survive. He even said to anyone who cares to listen that he would never do the Society any harm. He also said that we are Catholics. He refused to condemn us for causing a schism, saying: “They are not schismatics, they are Catholics,” even though after that he used a somewhat enigmatic expression, namely that we are on the way toward full communion. We wish that we could have a clear definition sometime of this term “full communion”, because you can see that it does not correspond to anything precise. It is an opinion…, you don’t really know what it is. Even quite recently, in an interview given by Msgr. Pozzo about us, he repeats a quotation that he attributes to the pope himself—we can therefore take it as an official position—the pope, speaking to Ecclesia Dei confirmed that we were Catholics on the way toward full communion.[4] And Msgr. Pozzo explained how this full communion can come about: by the acceptance of the canonical form, which is rather surprising: the idea that a canonical form would resolve all the problems with communion!
A little further on, in the same interview, he says that this full communion consists of accepting the major Catholic principles,[5] in other words the three levels of unity in the Church, which are the Faith, the sacraments and the government. In speaking about faith, he speaks here instead of the Magisterium. But we have never called into question any one of these three elements. And therefore we never called in question our full communion, but we skip the adjective “full”, and say quite simply: “We are in communion according to the classic term used in the Church; we are Catholics; we are Catholics and we are in communion, because the rupture of communion is precisely schism.”
It is not that he lumps schismatics, homosexuals, transsexuals, divorced, traditionalists etc together – unless it is to lump them together with Catholics in general: we are all sinners in need of God’s mercy to attain to that life of divine sonship which God has in store for all. This mercy seeps into every situation where there is even the smallest opening, the tiniest hole; and all it needs is the flicker of an eyelid from the sinner, the smallest movement to open the way for mercy, and for the process of salvation to start. This is a long way from the “Canon Lawyer in the Sky” which is the portrait of God we get from a particular kind of conservative.
This is an argument really about God. At the centre of Christianity is the kenotic love of God revealed in Christ. It ia a love that did not condemn the world but strives to save it. Christ accepted to suffer the full consequences of the human sin himself, sold all he had to buy our salvation, left the ninety nine sheep to go and find the one that was lost; he died and was crucified for us and then went into the deepest recesses of hell to hunt down and discover those who would respond so that they could accompany him to heaven, even foresaking his conciousness of his Father’s presence in the process, “My God, my God, why have you foresaken me?”. He doesn’t wait for us to sort out our own mess: he plunges straight into it and saves us. This is the God of “The Hound of Heaven”. The result is a messy Catholicism because God’s activity cannot be contained in any clear, logical, legal system, and God’s love will burst through any barriers we construct.
Just as fiction writers anticipated the submarine and space travel before scientists made them real, so authors like Georges Bernanos, Graham Green and Shusako Endo anticipated the insights of Vatican II and its aftermath, showing us that Catholicism is necessarily messy.
Nothing could be further from weak-kneed liberalism than this view of Pope Francis, which is why the secular media do not understand either Pope Benedict or Pope Francis: their pre-suppositions are different. Liberalism assumes that God is a great distance from us, if he exists at all, and urges a universal tolerance. Pope Francis knows God is present in every situation, like a bomb ready to explode. If we want to find God, we must get our hands dirty, take on the smell of the sheep among whom he is active, and then do what he wants, whether the world approves or not. In place of a universal tolerance, he urges a universal love, which must include a universal respect, but doesn’t always include tolerance.
The theology of Pope Francis has been filtred through his experience of life in the street. He knows from experience that heroic Christian love can sometimes be found where Canon Law would only discover sin. He knows that, in the words of the priest in “The Diary of a Country Priest”, grace is everywhere. Why does he, in succession to Pope Benedict, seek out Bishop Fellay and the Society of St Pius X? Because both popes have seen, their job to cross every barrier, to pull down any wall, to look into any corner and to light up any darkness that they come across “that all may be one.” This is what Christ does. It is specially so when, every time they celebrates Mass, they are united by the Spirit to all others who celebrate Mass, whether priests or lay people: this is the basic unity of the Church, brought about by Christ in the Holy Spirit. Our disunity is a denial of the reality of the Mass which, thankfully is not as real as the reality of the Mass. Neither Pope Francis, nor we ourselves, nor Bishop Fellay can arrogate to ourselves God’s right to judge: if we in our separation celebrate the Eucharist in good faith, then we are bound to make real in our own lives the unity with others we celebrate every time we celebrate the Mass separately. That is what Pope Francis is doing, crossing every barrier, breaking down as many walls as possible, trying to reflect in his own ministry Christ’s kenotic love. Bishop Fellay noticed three ingredients in Pope Francis ministry, a) reaching out to the margins, any margin, everywhere, b) not trying to solve every problem, but walking with all who need it, and c) trusting in God’s Providence to do the rest.
It has nothing to do with modernism or liberalism: modernists and liberals do not trust in God’s Providence like Pope Francis does. What frightens people is that he leaves so much to God’s Providence and rejects censorship and control as a poor substitute for trust in God. He believes in the maximum of free expression, confident that the Holy Spirit will bring unity out of diversity.
Joshua J. McElwee | Apr. 8, 2016
Amoris Laetitia
VATICAN CITY In a radical departure from recent pastoral practice, Pope Francis has asked the world’s Catholic clergy to let their lives become “wonderfully complicated” by embracing God’s grace at work in the difficult and sometimes unconventional situations families and marriages face — even at risk of obscuring doctrinal norms.
The pontiff has also called on bishops and priests globally to set aside fears of risking moral confusion, saying they must avoid a tendency to a “cold bureaucratic morality” and shift away from evaluating peoples’ moral status based on rigid canonical regulations.
In a substantial and already hotly debated document addressing church teaching on family life, Francis says that Catholic bishops and priests can no longer make blanket moral determinations about so-called “irregular” situations such as divorce and remarriage.
Writing in his new apostolic exhortation, titled Amoris Laetitia (‘The Joy of Love’), the pope strongly advocates for the worth of the traditional, life-long Christian marriage but speaks respectfully of nearly all models of family life.
He also persistently asks the church’s pastors to shift away from models of teaching focused on repetition of doctrine in favor of compassion and understanding for peoples’ struggles, and how God may be calling to them in the depths of their own consciences.
“It … can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace,” states the pontiff at one point in the document, released by the Vatican Friday.
“It is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being,” the pope writes later.
“Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits,” states Francis. “By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God.”
Earlier in the document, the pope acknowledges that the way the church has expressed its family life teachings in the past has not left enough room for individuals to make appropriate decisions about their own lives.
“We have long thought that simply by stressing doctrinal, bioethical and moral issues, without encouraging openness to grace, we were providing sufficient support to families, strengthening the marriage bond and giving meaning to marital life,” writes Francis.
“We find it difficult to present marriage more as a dynamic path to personal development and fulfillment than as a lifelong burden,” he continues.
“We also find it hard to make room for the consciences of the faithful, who very often respond as best they can to the Gospel amid their limitations, and are capable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations,” he states. “We have been called to form consciences, not to replace them.”
Such language, openly reevaluating how the church approaches and considers families around the world, pervades the 263-page document, which is expansive in scope.
Beginning with a moving and in-depth exegesis of both Old and New Testament passages dealing with family life, it continues on to address a wide range of issues, first evaluating struggles faced by families around the world and then suggesting pastoral responses.
Francis rarely offers outright direction for how clergy should respond to particular situations, instead giving reflections or general advice and allowing individuals to determine what may be appropriate.
The pope says the church needs to be “humble and realistic, acknowledging that at times the way we present our Christian beliefs and treat other people has helped contribute to today’s problematic situation.”
“We need a healthy dose of self-criticism,” states the pontiff. “At times we have also proposed a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families.
“This excessive idealization, especially when we have failed to inspire trust in God’s grace, has not helped to make marriage more desirable and attractive, but quite the opposite,” he continues.
“We have often been on the defensive, wasting pastoral energy on denouncing a decadent world without being proactive in proposing ways of finding true happiness,” Francis states later.
“Many people feel that the Church’s message on marriage and the family does not clearly reflect the preaching and attitudes of Jesus, who set forth a demanding ideal yet never failed to show compassion and closeness to the frailty of individuals,” he continues.
Amoris Laetitia, hotly anticipated for months, was written by Francis as a response to two back-to-back meetings of Catholic bishops he hosted at the Vatican in 2014 and 2015 on issues of family life.
Both meetings, known as synods, made recommendations to the pontiff following the prelates’ weeks of discussions. The pope’s exhortation cites extensively from those recommendations, often quoting from them before then expanding into his own considerations.
The document, which unfolds over 325 numbered points and nine chapters, also quotes extensively from Francis’ predecessors, the Second Vatican Council documents, local bishops’ conferences, 13th century theologian and St. Thomas Aquinas, and even the late U.S. Protestant Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Pope John Paul II receives the most footnotes of any author, with more than 40 citations; Aquinas has at least twelve.
‘Pastoral mercy’ for divorced and remarried
Francis devotes the whole eighth chapter of the exhortation to considering how the church should act towards Catholics who divorce and remarry without first obtaining annulments, whom church practice has in the past prohibited from taking Communion.
While the pope does not specifically issue a new law or regulation allowing remarried Catholics writ-large to have the Eucharist, he significantly changes the church’s stance towards such persons. Like the final document issued by the 2015 Synod, he calls for “pastoral discernment” of individual situations.
He also proposes what he calls “the logic of pastoral mercy” in working with remarried persons.
Citing John Paul II, Francis puts forward the notion of “graduality,” meaning that Catholics may sometimes grow toward adherence or understanding of church teaching throughout their lives.
“This is not a ‘gradualness of law’ but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law,” states the pope. “For the law is itself a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception.”
“No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” he exhorts. “Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.”
Francis then distinguishes between remarried persons who have been in their new relationships for lengthy periods of time and those who have only recently moved on from a prior divorce.
“The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment,” he states.
In reference to the different situations remarried people can be in, Francis writes about “mitigating factors” that clergy should consider in their pastoral discernment in working with remarried persons.
“The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations,” he states. “Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.”
Quoting first from Aquinas and then the formal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Francis states: “A negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved.”
In other words, the pope says one cannot judge a person based on how their situations measure up to any general norm.
He then affirms the 2015 synod document’s call that “pastoral discernment, while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these situations.”
Later, the pope expounds on Catholic teaching on conscience, saying that “individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.”
“Conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel,” writes Francis.
“It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal,” he states.
“Let us recall that this discernment is dynamic,” writes the pope. “It must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.”
Quoting again from Aquinas, Francis says he wants to “earnestly ask that we always recall” one of his teachings in the Summa Theologiae.
“Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects,” the pope quotes the saint.
Francis then puts it more bluntly: “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,’” he continues.
Proposing his “logic of pastoral mercy,” the pontiff says that while “in no way must the Church desist from proposing the full ideal of marriage” there is also “a need to accompany with mercy and patience the eventual stages of personal growth as these progressively appear.”
“I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion,” Francis states.
“But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, ‘always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street,’” he continues.
“At times we find it hard to make room for God’s unconditional love in our pastoral activity,” writes the pope.
“We put so many conditions on mercy that we empty it of its concrete meaning and real significance,” he states. “That is the worst way of watering down the Gospel. It is true, for example, that mercy does not exclude justice and truth, but first and foremost we have to say that mercy is the fullness of justice and the most radiant manifestation of God’s truth.”
Same-sex marriage, contraception, gender ideology
Francis addresses several other sometimes controversial issues throughout the exhortation, including same-sex marriage, contraception and abortion.
While the pontiff recognizes values he says are expressed in committed same-sex relationships, he clearly separates them from heterosexual relationships. He also firmly affirms Pope Paul VI’s teaching against use of contraception by Catholics and speaks strongly against abortion.
“We need to acknowledge the great variety of family situations that can offer a certain stability, but de facto or same-sex unions, for example, may not simply be equated with marriage,” writes the pope. “No union that is temporary or closed to the transmission of life can ensure the future of society.”
Quoting the 2015 synod document later, he states: “As for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.”
On contraception, Francis states: “From the outset, love refuses every impulse to close in on itself; it is open to a fruitfulness that draws it beyond itself. Hence no genital act of husband and wife can refuse this meaning, even when for various reasons it may not always in fact beget a new life.”
Yet, later in the document, the pope also affirms and repeats a passage from the 2015 synod document that put the choice to use contraception in the realm of decisions informed by one’s conscience.
“Decisions involving responsible parenthood presuppose the formation of conscience, which is ‘the most secret core and sanctuary of a person. There each one is alone with God, whose voice echoes in the depths of the heart,’” he writes.
On abortion, Francis states: “So great is the value of a human life, and so inalienable the right to life of an innocent child growing in the mother’s womb, that no alleged right to one’s own body can justify a decision to terminate that life, which is an end in itself and which can never be considered the ‘property’ of another human being.”
But the pontiff speaks strongly against violence or oppression towards women, stating: “I would like to stress the fact that, even though significant advances have been made in the recognition of women’s rights and their participation in public life, in some countries much remains to be done to promote these rights.”
“The equal dignity of men and women makes us rejoice to see old forms of discrimination disappear, and within families there is a growing reciprocity,” the pope states.
“If certain forms of feminism have arisen which we must consider inadequate, we must nonetheless see in the women’s movement the working of the Spirit for a clearer recognition of the dignity and rights of women,” he continues.
Francis also speaks clearly against the teaching of what he calls “gender ideology,” saying: “Let us not fall into the sin of trying to replace the Creator. We are creatures, and not omnipotent. Creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift.”
But later he also seems to acknowledge that gender exists on something of a spectrum.
“It is true that we cannot separate the masculine and the feminine from God’s work of creation, which is prior to all our decisions and experiences, and where biological elements exist which are impossible to ignore,” states the pontiff. “But it is also true that masculinity and femininity are not rigid categories.”
‘May we never lose heart’
Francis devotes the fourth chapter of the exhortation to a moving and in-depth word-by-word consideration of St. Paul’s famous and often quoted description of love as patient, kind, and bearing and believing all things.
Examining each of the saint’s original Greek words, the pontiff puts them into their linguistic and cultural context to better explain the Christian view of love. The reflection reads like a careful, kind back-to-the-basics explanation of how Christians should act.
On Paul’s description that love “bears all things,” for example, the pontiff states: “Married couples joined by love speak well of each other; they try to show their spouse’s good side, not their weakness and faults.” For “believes all things,” he states: “Love trusts, it sets free, it does not try to control, possess and dominate everything.”
Later in the chapter, Francis then speaks directly to people considering or just beginning marriage, offering kind and straightforward advice about life-long partnership.
The pope calls on partners to practice dialogue with one another, saying: “Men and women, young people and adults, communicate differently. They speak different languages and they act in different ways.”
“Take time, quality time,” the pontiff suggests. “This means being ready to listen patiently and attentively to everything the other person wants to say. It requires the self-discipline of not speaking until the time is right.”
“Develop the habit of giving real importance to the other person,” he advises later. “This means appreciating them and recognizing their right to exist, to think as they do and to be happy. Never downplay what they say or think, even if you need to express your own point of view.”
“Keep an open mind,” says Francis. “Don’t get bogged down in your own limited ideas and opinions, but be prepared to change or expand them. The combination of two different ways of thinking can lead to a synthesis that enriches both.”
The pope concludes the document with a chapter on the spirituality of marriage, citing the Second Vatican Council’s emphasis on spirituality born in family life.
“Just as God dwells in the praises of his people, so he dwells deep within the marital love that gives him glory,” states Francis.
“The Lord’s presence dwells in real and concrete families, with all their daily troubles and struggles, joys and hopes,” the pope continues.
“The spirituality of family love is made up of thousands of small but real gestures,” he states. “In that variety of gifts and encounters which deepen communion, God has his dwelling place.”
“Life as a couple is a daily sharing in God’s creative work, and each person is for the other a constant challenge from the Holy Spirit,” Francis states. “The two are thus mutual reflections of that divine love which comforts with a word, a look, a helping hand, a caress, an embrace.”
“All of us are called to keep striving towards something greater than ourselves and our families, and every family must feel this constant impulse,” the pontiff concludes. “Let us make this journey as families, let us keep walking together.”
“What we have been promised is greater than we can imagine,” he states. “May we never lose heart because of our limitations, or ever stop seeking that fullness of love and communion which God holds out before us.”
[Joshua J. McElwee is NCR Vatican correspondent. His email address is [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter: @joshjmac.]
Source: http://fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2016/04/amoris-laeticia-two-articles-and.html
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).