Offline
Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to figure out your beef Brennan.
Like, you have an issue that you're not exactly saying. You can't be that worked up about what some people consider ambiguity. I don't see it as that ambiguous, or even if so, that it's somewhat by design. The point being that not every situation has a cut and dry answer, and to allow the parish/diocese to make some judgement, rooted in the catechism.
Some things are cut and dry. I honestly don't know how I can be any more clear. I will quote again Josef Siefer in regard to the questionable passages of AL.
The assertion of AL I wish to investigate here, however, does not invoke subjective conscience at all, but claims a totally objective divine will for us to commit, in certain situations, acts that are intrinsically wrong, and have always been considered such by the Church. Since God can certainly not have a lack of ethical knowledge, an “erring conscience,” or a weakness of free will, this text does not “defend the rights of human subjectivity,” as Buttiglione claims, but appears to affirm clearly that these intrinsically disordered and objectively gravely sinful acts, as Buttiglione admits, can be permitted, or can even objectively be commanded, by God. If this is truly what AL affirms, all alarm over AL’s direct affirmations, regarding matters of changes of sacramental discipline (admitting, after due discernment, adulterers, active homosexuals, and other couples in similar situations to the sacraments of confession and eucharist, and, logically, also of baptism, confirmation, and matrimony, without their willingness to change their lives and to live in total sexual abstinence, which Pope John Paul II demanded in Familiaris Consortio from couples in such “irregular situations”), refer only to the peak of an iceberg, to the weak beginning of an avalanche, or to the first few buildings destroyed by a moral theological atomic bomb that threatens to tear down the whole moral edifice of the 10 commandments and of Catholic Moral Teaching.
If AL is allowed to be understood and pastorally enacted in the way that the Argentine bishops, Cardinal Cupich, or Cardinal Farrell would like, it would undermine the foundational principles of Catholic moral teaching by suggesting that there are no intrinsically sinful situations that could not be overridden by conscience or even willed by God according to context. At best, it represents moral relativism and is antithetical to Christianity. Such a break with the tradition of the faith cannot be understated, much less found to be 'rooted in the catechism'. This is why Cupich calls the document 'revolutionary' and it's why the unanswered dubia loom so large.
The function of the magisterium is as the teaching authority of Christ's Church. "He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects you rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me" (Luke 10. 16) The Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth". Ambiguity for the sake of giving intellectual and moral license is a failure of duty for the magisterium and the papacy. "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea. "
Now we haven't even begun to discuss anything outside of Amoris Laetitia, and I suppose that could be for the best. This is a big enough issue as it is. But I can't stress enough that this isn't some personal 'beef' that I have. The concerns are not trivial and they certainly are not on the fringe.