‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church

National Catholic Register ^ | 4/11/16 | Raymond Cardinal Burke, SRE

[markomalley]

The secular media and even some Catholic media are describing the recently-issued post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, “On Love in the Family,” as a revolution in the Church, as a radical departure from the teaching and practice of the Church, up to now, regarding marriage and the family.

Such a view of the document is both a source of wonder and confusion to the faithful, and potentially a source of scandal not only for the faithful but for others of good will who look to Christ and his Church to teach and reflect in practice the truth regarding marriage and its fruit, family life, the first cell of the life of the Church and of every society.

It is also a disservice to the nature of the document as the fruit of the Synod of Bishops, a meeting of bishops representing the universal Church “to assist the Roman Pontiff with their counsel in the preservation and growth of faith and morals and in the observance and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline, and to consider questions pertaining to the activity of the Church in the world” (Canon 342). In other words, it would be a contradiction of the work of the Synod of Bishops to set in motion confusion regarding what the Church teaches, and safeguards and fosters by her discipline.

The only key to the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is the constant teaching of the Church and her discipline that safeguards and fosters this teaching…

[fr_freak]

related:

Ann Barnhardt: Confirmed: Amoris Laetitia Means, “The Joy of Sodomy”

[piusv]

So much for Cardinal Burke coming to the rescue.

[Remole]

I have read the document and some of the analysis. The problem with Cardinal Burke’s assessment here is that the document is so shoddily argued, such a horrible collection of ideas, claims, arguments, and use of authority, that it would not be accepted as a Master’s Thesis at a Pontifical University. If the document was of the character that Cardinal Burke claims (a consistent expression of the teaching office of the Church that never changes), then how, pray, could it have engendered such confusion?

[piusv]

If the document was of the character that Cardinal Burke claims (a consistent expression of the teaching office of the Church that never changes), then how, pray, could it have engendered such confusion?

What do you expect from a fellow Modernist?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Much as I enjoy an occasional stiff dose of the incomparable Ann Barnhardt, she's dabbled into something pretty stupid here. "The Joy of Sodomy" would be "Gaudium sodomiticum".

There's nothing in the document even remotely supportive of sodomy.

[fr_freak]

I'm completely ignorant in Latin. In case you didn't get a chance to read other Barnhardt posts on the theme:

Barnhardt: A Professional Classicist Weighs In….

"...On balance, considering all of the usages, I’d say it’s probably not generally used to talk about homosexual sodomy- there are many and more frequently used words to talk about that (which I’ve always attributed to the ancient’s better grasp of natural law…) BUT….there is still enough double entendre there for it to be suspect and suggestive. Even if you totally discount the potential homosexual angle, amor/amoris definitely and frequently is used to talk about hetero- sex, sodomitical acts, and lust lust lust. It’s not even debatable. "

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's patent that "amor" means sexual/romantic love. Sexual/romantic love is sanctified in marriage in the full significance of its unitive/procreative purposes. I don't see the point abut quibbling about the freaking TITLE of this thing, other than to insist that "Francis has to be wrong about abso-frackin-lutely everything."

Grand Mal Schadenfreude.

[Campion]

"Amo/amare" is just the usual Latin verb for "to love". It doesn't necessarily refer only to love of a sexual or romantic nature. There is also another verb, "deligo/deligere", which means something close to "choose," "prefer," or "select" and yields noun forms which are often translated as "beloved" or "lover," etc.

Latin doesn't have the complex nuances of the Greek agape/phileo/eros/etc.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You're right. "Amo" doesn't mean *only* sexual/romantic love. I was wrong to give that impression.

My point, better stated, would be that "amo" does encompass (among other things) sexual/romantic love, and that's not a problem. It's still properly used in the title of the Exhortation: it's love, and it's innocent. I'm trying to refute certain inflamed opinionistas out there who think it means, mainly, sodomy.

[Salvation]

BTTT!