Post by homeschooldad on Dec 30, 2023 22:41:43 GMT
crisismagazine.com/opinion/the-poisonous-fruit-of-amoris-laetitia
As I have said before, both here and elsewhere, I am not quite as exercised by Amoris laetitia as are many other traditional and otherwise "conservative" Catholics, yet neither am I assured that what seem to be common-sense caveats are the only thing AL is talking about. I could see the point of caveats such as (a) a woman who would be willing to observe Josephite chastity, but her illicit husband won't allow it, and she has no way to resist him, without great harm to herself and possibly even her children, if there are any (and I say "woman" and "husband" because it's as far-fetched as it is comical, to imagine a Catholic Peg Bundy demanding that Al gratify her, when Al would gladly live in perfect continence), and (b) a couple who cannot separate without grave harm to their family --- kids need both parents at home (something I know only too well) --- but, while having resolved to live in Josephite chastity, "let it get the best of them" once every so often, in short, they "backslide". In the first case, I have to see the woman as being without moral fault, basically being raped, and in the second case, as long as they are giving the Josephite thing their best efforts, then do as with any other "backsliding" sin, go to confession, resolve not to do it anymore, and move on. But again, while AL may foresee such situations, it seems to go beyond these, and that is where I start having issues with it.
We are not animals in heat. A man would gladly live in chastity --- well, maybe not "gladly", but he'd have no choice --- if his wife were lying in a coma. A woman must live chastely (at least one hopes she would) if her husband were missing in action, or in prison. So why not resolve to live in perfect chastity when the only alternative is mortal sin?
As I have said before, both here and elsewhere, I am not quite as exercised by Amoris laetitia as are many other traditional and otherwise "conservative" Catholics, yet neither am I assured that what seem to be common-sense caveats are the only thing AL is talking about. I could see the point of caveats such as (a) a woman who would be willing to observe Josephite chastity, but her illicit husband won't allow it, and she has no way to resist him, without great harm to herself and possibly even her children, if there are any (and I say "woman" and "husband" because it's as far-fetched as it is comical, to imagine a Catholic Peg Bundy demanding that Al gratify her, when Al would gladly live in perfect continence), and (b) a couple who cannot separate without grave harm to their family --- kids need both parents at home (something I know only too well) --- but, while having resolved to live in Josephite chastity, "let it get the best of them" once every so often, in short, they "backslide". In the first case, I have to see the woman as being without moral fault, basically being raped, and in the second case, as long as they are giving the Josephite thing their best efforts, then do as with any other "backsliding" sin, go to confession, resolve not to do it anymore, and move on. But again, while AL may foresee such situations, it seems to go beyond these, and that is where I start having issues with it.
We are not animals in heat. A man would gladly live in chastity --- well, maybe not "gladly", but he'd have no choice --- if his wife were lying in a coma. A woman must live chastely (at least one hopes she would) if her husband were missing in action, or in prison. So why not resolve to live in perfect chastity when the only alternative is mortal sin?
