John Allen has made a long inteview with Cardinal Schonborn, focusing on Amoris Laetitiae and the reaction to it. This should prove to be both interesting and valuable to read and maybe watch if it was filmed as the interview was in English I think. I copy, below the opening article on the interview. What I noticed within it is the following quote from Pope Francis which I think captures perfectly the two 'wings' of the Church: Neither the rigorists nor the laxists do the work of discernment. The rigorist knows everything in advance, and those who are lax let go of everything. Key papal ally says ‘Amoris’ means tougher line on divorce in the West John L. Allen Jr. Ines San Martin June 1, 2017 Although some critics of Pope Francis worry that the cautious opening to Communion for divorced and civilly remarried believers in his document 'Amoris Laetitia' signals a more permissive stance on the breakdown of marriage, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn says that if the document is taken seriously, its call to discernment in the West will actually counteract an overly "lax" tendency. VIENNA, Austria - While critics of Pope Francis’s document Amoris Laetitia often see it as fostering a permissive line on divorce and remarriage, a key papal ally says that if people actually take it seriously, at least in the West it would likely mean greater firmness vis-à-vis a “lax” culture. “In some areas of the Church, discernment in the sense of Amoris Laetitia, would lead to a stricter attitude,” Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, Austria, told Crux on Tuesday. The 72-year-old Dominican, widely seen as one of the leading intellectual lights of the European hierarchy, spoke in an exclusive interview in his archbishop’s palace. “In the West, generally, we are rather tempted by laxity,” Schönborn said. “In other areas, some people are tempted by rigorism. And Pope Francis said something very important: Neither the rigorists nor the laxists do the work of discernment. The rigorist knows everything in advance, and those who are lax let go of everything.” His point was that Amoris Laetitia calls for a lengthy and morally serious process of discernment about the failure of a marriage modeled on the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits. If that’s really taken seriously, he suggested, it would certainly be a more rigorous screening process for admission to Communion than is often the case in the trenches in many Western cultures. Schönborn also said he’s “not really” troubled by the fact that different bishops and groups of bishops have given different interpretations of Amoris, since “reception is a long process.” What Schönborn does believe is that the Church shouldn’t be in such a hurry to draw immediate practical conclusions, and more focused of becoming “imbued” with the spirit of the document and especially its call to discernment. “It needs discussion, and I’m not afraid that the voices of the bishops and of the laity aren’t fully concordant,” he said. Schönborn also touched on other matters in his Crux interview: He argued Pope Francis forms a “triptych” with his predecessors St. John Paul II and emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, saying they “had to secure the basics of Catholic teaching, which were seriously menaced,” while Francis brings a keen sense of “where people stand, where they are, how their lives are, and where they have to be led.” He acknowledged that the cardinals who elected Pope Francis didn’t quite know what they were getting – though, he laughs, since he expected to be surprised, in a sense Francis has turned out to be precisely what he anticipated. He insisted that the categories of left v. right should be “forgotten” when trying to understand the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas, he says, wasn’t conservative or progressive, but “simply bright and Catholic.” We can’t take for granted that the faith won’t die out in contemporary Western Europe the way it did historically in Turkey and North Africa, Schönborn said, but he nevertheless sees signs of hope – principally in immigrants bringing a vibrant faith to the Old Continent, and in small pockets of committed young believers. https://cruxnow.com/interviews/2017...-says-amoris-means-tougher-line-divorce-west/
Maybe Schonborn should make and take seriously the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Then we wouldnt have to read his diabolical disorientation.... Cardinal Schönborn spoke in the interview about a gay friend of his who, after many temporary relationships, is now in a stable relationship. “It’s an improvement,” he said. They share “a life, they share their joys and sufferings, they help one another. It must be recognised that this person took an important step for his own good and the good of others, even though it certainly is not a situation the Church can consider ‘regular’.” Our Lady of Fatima,pray for us.
davidtlig, a serious question to you. Was Jesus a "rigorist"? He clearly clarified the deadly sins on divorce and remarriage as adultery. He clearly clarified the teaching on Sodomy (homosexuality), that according to Schonbron is an "improvement" so long as you just have one gay partner. This is sick Christianity at the best. It is pure perverted and demonic. No where in scripture can you come close to finding Sodomy as "an improvement" in any form. God help those who think otherwise. "And reducing the cities of the Sodomites, and of the Gomorrhites, into ashes, condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should after act wickedly." [2 Peter 2:6] If in your mind Jesus in not a "rigorist", as it comes to faith and moral teachings, please explain why not? If being a "rigorist" means being faithful to the Christ and his Churches unchanging doctrines on faith and morals then count me in too!!
No, Jesus was not a 'rigorist'. He was Mercy. Pope Francis often refers to the case of the conversion of Zacchaeus from the Gospels. Today’s Gospel presents an event that happened at Jericho, when Jesus reached the city and was received by the crowd (cf. Luke 19:1-10). Zacchaeus, the head of the “publicans,” that is, of the tax collectors, lived in the city. Zacchaeus was a wealthy collaborator of the hated Roman occupiers, an exploiter of his people. He also, out of curiosity, wished to see Jesus, but his condition of public sinner did not allow him to approach the Master; moreover, he was small in stature, so he climbed up a sycamore tree, along the street where Jesus was to pass. When Jesus arrived close to that tree, He looked up and said: “Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house.” (v. 5). We can imagine Zacchaeus’ astonishment! But why did Jesus say I “must stay at your house”? What was His duty? We know that His supreme duty was to carry out the Father’s plan for humanity, which was fulfilled at Jerusalem with His condemnation to Death, Crucifixion and, on the third day, Resurrection. It is the plan of salvation of the Father’s mercy. And, in this plan, there is also the salvation of Zacchaeus, a dishonest man scorned by all and, therefore, in need of conversion. In fact, the Gospel says that, when Jesus called him, “they began to grumble, saying, ‘He has gone to stay at the house of a sinner.’ (v. 7). The people see in him a villain, who has enriched himself on the skin of his neighbor. And if Jesus had said: ‘Come down, exploiter, betrayer of the people! Come to speak with me to settle the accounts!’ No doubt the people would have applauded. Instead, they began to murmur: “Jesus goes to his house, that of a sinner, of an exploiter. Led by mercy, Jesus, in fact, sought him. And when He entered Zacchaeus’ house, He said: “Today salvation has come to this house because this man too is a descendant of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost” (vv. 9-10). Jesus’ gaze goes beyond sins and prejudices – and this is important! We must learn this. Jesus’ gaze goes beyond sins and prejudices; He sees a person with the eyes of God, who does not stop at past evil, but perceives the future good; Jesus is not resigned to closures but always opens, always opens new areas of life; He does not halt at appearances but looks at the heart. And here, He looked at this man’s wounded heart: wounded by the sin of greed, by the many bad things Zacchaeus had done. He looks at that wounded heart and goes there. Sometimes we seek to correct and convert a sinner by reprimanding him, reproaching him his mistakes and his unjust behavior. Jesus’ attitude with Zacchaeus shows us another way: that of showing one in error his value, that value that God continues to see despite everything, despite all his mistakes. This can cause a positive surprise, which makes the heart tender and drives the person to bring out the goodness he has in himself. It is about giving individuals confidence, which makes them grow and change. God behaves this way with all of us: He is not blocked by our sin, but overcomes it with love and makes us feel nostalgia for the good. We have all felt this nostalgia for the good after a mistake. And God Our Father, thus acts, and then Jesus acts. There is no person who does not have something good. And God looks at this to bring him out of evil. https://zenit.org/articles/angelus-address-on-zacchaeus-the-tax-collector/
Come on now David! You can't honestly be defending the quote Mac cited! That is not rigorism, it is Catholicism 101. It is also one of the clearest examples of Diabolical Disorientation I have seen.
This "rigorism" term that has suddenly become so popular with the "left" is just a way to ignore God's Justice. Those who are "rigorous" merely acknowledge that God is not only Mercy. He is Justice as well. God is Merciful beyond our understanding, but to think He is only Mercy is to create a false God.
I find it very difficult to believe that you have actually read the quote from Pope Francis' homily above. That quote answers all the criticisms of Cardinal Schonborn and others who try to follow Jesus' command to love. If you did read it, and understood it, and still talk in terms of "Diabolical Disorientation" then what can I say....
I didn't read Pope Francis' homily. And that is not what my comment was directed to. I am talking exclusively about the quote Mac cited and your response to it.
Thank you for that honest reply. Please read the quote and meditate on it. It is the best explanation of Pope Francis' approach to almost everything.
Are we speaking about the same quote? The quote Mac cited about praising homosexual relationships? I will not meditate on that. If you are speaking of something else Pope Francis said I will be happy to. I do not hate the Pope. Francis is my Pope and I consider what he has to say carefully. I always try to be very respectful of all clergy, especially Prelates and most especially the Holy Father.
Pope Francis often refers to the case of the conversion of Zacchaeus from the Gospels. Today’s Gospel presents an event that happened at Jericho, when Jesus reached the city and was received by the crowd (cf. Luke 19:1-10). Zacchaeus, the head of the “publicans,” that is, of the tax collectors, lived in the city. Zacchaeus was a wealthy collaborator of the hated Roman occupiers, an exploiter of his people. He also, out of curiosity, wished to see Jesus, but his condition of public sinner did not allow him to approach the Master; moreover, he was small in stature, so he climbed up a sycamore tree, along the street where Jesus was to pass. When Jesus arrived close to that tree, He looked up and said: “Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house.” (v. 5). We can imagine Zacchaeus’ astonishment! But why did Jesus say I “must stay at your house”? What was His duty? We know that His supreme duty was to carry out the Father’s plan for humanity, which was fulfilled at Jerusalem with His condemnation to Death, Crucifixion and, on the third day, Resurrection. It is the plan of salvation of the Father’s mercy. And, in this plan, there is also the salvation of Zacchaeus, a dishonest man scorned by all and, therefore, in need of conversion. In fact, the Gospel says that, when Jesus called him, “they began to grumble, saying, ‘He has gone to stay at the house of a sinner.’ (v. 7). The people see in him a villain, who has enriched himself on the skin of his neighbor. And if Jesus had said: ‘Come down, exploiter, betrayer of the people! Come to speak with me to settle the accounts!’ No doubt the people would have applauded. Instead, they began to murmur: “Jesus goes to his house, that of a sinner, of an exploiter. Led by mercy, Jesus, in fact, sought him. And when He entered Zacchaeus’ house, He said: “Today salvation has come to this house because this man too is a descendant of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost” (vv. 9-10). Jesus’ gaze goes beyond sins and prejudices – and this is important! We must learn this. Jesus’ gaze goes beyond sins and prejudices; He sees a person with the eyes of God, who does not stop at past evil, but perceives the future good; Jesus is not resigned to closures but always opens, always opens new areas of life; He does not halt at appearances but looks at the heart. And here, He looked at this man’s wounded heart: wounded by the sin of greed, by the many bad things Zacchaeus had done. He looks at that wounded heart and goes there. Sometimes we seek to correct and convert a sinner by reprimanding him, reproaching him his mistakes and his unjust behavior. Jesus’ attitude with Zacchaeus shows us another way: that of showing one in error his value, that value that God continues to see despite everything, despite all his mistakes. This can cause a positive surprise, which makes the heart tender and drives the person to bring out the goodness he has in himself. It is about giving individuals confidence, which makes them grow and change. God behaves this way with all of us: He is not blocked by our sin, but overcomes it with love and makes us feel nostalgia for the good. We have all felt this nostalgia for the good after a mistake. And God Our Father, thus acts, and then Jesus acts. There is no person who does not have something good. And God looks at this to bring him out of evil. https://zenit.org/articles/angelus-address-on-zacchaeus-the-tax-collector/
Okay I have read this. This is not what I was talking about though. This in no way relates to the comment I was speaking to, but nevermind.
Not only is it not 'regular' the 'good' cardinal forgets that it is unnatural. That is why the church teaches that homosexual attraction is of itself objectively disordered. It take much much prayer and fasting to overcome the inclination which is deep-seated but those who embrace Christ and His cross can through grace become perfectly aligned to the will of God, remain chaste and fix their eyes on Him the author and perfecter of faith. This trial is for some a means to sainthood for those who overcome the flesh, the world and the devil are closest to God. "Either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy," the Catechism explains (CCC 2339).
This is where political correctness takes you to --- totalitarianism https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/b...tarian-bill-allowing-govt-to-take-kids-from-c
In my opinion, both approaches to dealing with sinners are valid. After all, John the Baptist publicly called Herod Agrippa to task for marrying another man's wife! Here, Jesus approaches, rather than corrects Zacchaeus, and this proves to be a turning point for the tax collector. My wise wife, Geralyn, had a similar experience while counseling a pregnant mom at the Pregnancy Center. Geralyn was suspicious that the mom was being abused by the father. She gently probed and then said, "I value you too much and Jesus values you too much; you can't let this continue." This young mother was deeply touched because Geralyn expressed concern, compassion, and respect. In doing so, Geralyn won this woman's confidence and trust. Though not realizing it, Geralyn used a process that Pope Francis encourages and it bore fruit. Imagine if an announcement was put on the door of the pregnancy center that stated: "If your pregnant out-of-wedlock, repent before entering." I doubt they would have many individuals walk through the door. I say that with a touch of hyperbole in order to make a point. The Church teaches us the spiritual work of mercy, "Admonish the sinner." Sometimes we need to be more confrontational than others (like John the Baptist or perhaps in a homily), but other times the tactic Jesus and Geralyn used ends up being just what the doctor ordered! A good lesson from our Pope. I must admit, however, to call sin an error or a mistake drives me nuts. Sin is a conscious choice! If it wasn't conscious, t'would be no sin. Safe in the Barque of Peter!
I agree Mario. My problem is simply this, when do we get the "rest of the story" from our current pope. At least at the end of the "manufactured synod", the pope gave the other side. He is "drunk" on his liberation theology and can not/will not give the other side. What are the fruits of Pope Francis? How about in Argentina? I will tell you, faithful leaving, priest shortages, church in eclipse. This is what Pope Francis has to offer. The rcc(roman catholic church, small letters) is turning into the anglican church of England (whoever said this was spot on) under Pope Francis and will only get worse. Pope Francis is the chastisement sent from God against an unbelieving church.
Yes, I'm all for the "rest of the story," too. I don't believe Pope Francis and John the Baptist would get along. Safe in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary!
davidtlig, is keeping the commandments "rigorist" in your opinion? After all, commandments are doctrinal. Let us see what the Sunday Gospel from two weeks ago said, John 14:[15] If you love me, keep my commandments (rigorist). [21] He that hath my commandments (rigorist), and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. [24] He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words (rigorist)". It seems Jesus was a "rigorist" too in your opinion and that of Pope Francis and many of his followers. It it clear to me that the unmasking of the great apostasy that is in motion now is watering down God's truth. Providing partial truth. The apostate clergy and laity are picking and choosing which doctrines to adhere to, masking all their false compassion into corporal works of mercy and leaving out the spiritual works of mercy, which is of higher degree.
This is absolutely horrendous! Everyone should take a look at this article Garabandal cited if you passed it by. I cannot believe this is happening. The persecution is turning from "soft" to quite aggressive.
