Editorial:
Guidelines point to Amoris Laetitia's intent
The discussion that has
surrounded Pope Francis' apostolic exhortation on family life and marriage,
Amoris Laetitia ("The Joy of Love"), has been a bit odd. Since its
release in April, some corners of the Catholic community have questioned its
weight, or authority, as a teaching document.
U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke,
for example, has said on several occasions that the document is "a mixture
of opinion and doctrine" (a characterization never applied to Pope John
Paul II's 1981 Familiaris Consortio, which was also an apostolic exhortation
responding to a Synod of Bishops on the family). Such comments provoked the
Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, to run an article in August by a
Spanish ecclesiologist, explaining that Amoris Laetitia is an example of the
"ordinary magisterium" -- papal teaching -- to which Catholics are
obliged to give "religious submission of will and intellect" (NCR,
Sept. 9-22).
Discussions also have
focused on what the document means, especially when addressing the thorny
pastoral questions of Catholics in "irregular family situations" -- a
phrase not all that pastorally sensitive in itself -- meaning Catholics who are
divorced and remarried or Catholics living together outside a sacramental
marriage. These issues were heavily discussed before, during and after the two
Synods of Bishops that Francis convened in 2014 and 2015.
In Amoris Laetitia,
Francis focuses on the importance and beauty of marriage and family life and
the church's obligation to support and strengthen it. Some have taken that
guidance to reinforce traditional teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.
A leading advocate of this interpretation is Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput,
who attended the 2015 synod and chairs the U.S. bishops' ad hoc committee on
implementing Amoris Laetitia.
To date, we do not know
what the bishops' plans for the exhortation are, but the ad hoc committee was
given a mid-September deadline for a plan of action. The administrative
committee of the bishops' conference met in Washington Sept. 12-14, so we
anticipate learning about the plans soon.
Chaput has issued
guidelines for his archdiocese already. He is advising his priests to counsel
Catholics in "irregular family situations" "to refrain from
sexual intimacy" and from the sacraments. Catholics in these situations
should not have any leadership role, or really much active participation, in
the life of their parish, according to Chaput's guidelines.
"This is a hard
teaching for many," he acknowledges, "but anything less misleads
people about the nature of the Eucharist and the Church."
We would suggest that
this is too narrow an interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. Theologians Todd Salzman
and Michael Lawler (see next story) make a theological argument for a different
understanding of Amoris Laetitia, especially in regard to conscience. Their
argument deserves close study.
Meanwhile, the question
of pastoral approach remains open.
Many have wondered why
Francis doesn't clarify his thinking. Well, now he has, in a letter to
Argentine bishops who sent their guidelines for implementing Amoris Laetitia in
the Buenos Aires pastoral region to Francis, asking him for comment (see third
story in this blog). The guidelines challenge priests ministering to couples in
complex situations not to speak of "permission to receive the
sacraments," but to invite the couple into "a process of
discernment."
The goal of this journey
of discernment, the guidelines say, is for the couple to be "better
integrated into the life of the church: a greater presence in the community,
participation in groups of prayer or reflection, commitment to various ecclesial
services." That may mean sacraments, it may not, but the question is open,
to be worked out by the priest and the couple.
Francis responded:
"The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of Chapter
8 of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that
it will do much good."
The NCR editorial on
Amoris Laetitia's release (see fourth story in this blog) focused on what
Francis said about conscience: "We can add that individual conscience
needs to be better incorporated into the Church's praxis."
We said then,
"Francis is again calling for an adult church." That call is even
clearer today.
That editorial also
called on bishops and all church pastoral leaders to take the time to study
Amoris Laetitia deeply, to consult with the laity, and implement the
exhortation with boldness and fearlessness. We repeat that call again today.
In Amoris
Laetitia, Francis' model of conscience empowers Catholics
By Michael G. Lawler & Todd A. Salzman
Some have called Pope
Francis' Amoris Laetitia, or "The Joy of Love," his reflection on the
two recent Synods of Bishops on the family, a "love letter" to
families. We believe that Francis' teaching on conscience in that letter is one
of the most important teachings in the apostolic exhortation. As various church
bodies announced plans about how to implement Amoris Laetitia, it is
instructive to see how they will present Francis' teaching on conscience.
To spread the teaching of
Amoris Laetitia though U.S. dioceses and parishes, the U.S. bishops have
appointed a working group led by Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput. The
work of this group isn't yet public, but Chaput has issued guidelines for
implementing Amoris Laetitia in his own archdiocese.
In the Philadelphia
guidelines, which went into effect in July, Chaput comments on the
indissolubility of marriage and admission to Communion for the divorced and
remarried without an annulment. He noted that pastors have an obligation to
educate the faithful, since "the subjective conscience of the individual
can never be set against objective moral truth, as if conscience and truth were
two competing principles for moral decision-making." The "objective
truth," according to magisterial teaching, is that couples living in this
situation are committing adultery and cannot receive Communion and that their
subjective consciences must adhere to this truth.
Chaput's comment
highlights theological debates in the Catholic tradition on the
interrelationship between conscience and objective norms in moral
decision-making. Some commentators on Amoris Laetitia have posited that its
emphasis on conscience and inclusion of the internal forum -- which
"contributes to the formation of a correct judgment [of conscience] on
what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of the
Church and on what steps can foster it and make it grow" -- to resolve questions
of "irregular situations" in marital and other relationships have reinstituted
the authority of conscience in the Catholic tradition.
Thomas Aquinas first
established the authority and inviolability of conscience, which was affirmed
in the Second Vatican Council's Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae. Other
commentators, like Chaput -- who does not even mention the internal forum in
his archdiocesan pastoral guidelines for implementing Amoris Laetitia --
believe that subjective conscience must always submit to, and obey, the
objective "truth" of magisterial teaching.
At the root of these
different interpretations of the authority of conscience are distinct
understandings of the interrelationship between the objective and subjective
realms of morality and how they relate to conscience. Stated succinctly, is
conscience subjective and internal and truth objective and external, whereby
the subjective and internal conscience must obey and conform to the objective
and external truth? Or does conscience include both the objective and
subjective realms, whereby conscience discerns and interprets its understanding
of objective truth and exercises that understanding in the subjective judgment
of conscience?
'Objective' norms
Chaput's assertion on the
interrelationship between the subjective conscience and objective truth reflect
ongoing post-conciliar debates over the relationship between conscience and
"objective" norms. German theologian Jesuit Fr. Josef Fuchs states
the terms of this debate as: Does a truth exist "in itself" or
"in myself"?
The first formulation
sees the conscience as subjective; there is not an objective role for
conscience. Objectivity is consigned to the objective norm "in
itself," "external" to conscience. These objective norms exist
outside the subjective conscience.
The role of the
conscience is to know and apply these norms as a deductive syllogism. That is, synderesis,
a property of the intellect, has an innate natural grasp of moral principles of
divine law -- do good and avoid evil. These principles are formulated into
objective norms, such as do not steal, do not lie, or do not receive Communion
if you are divorced and remarried without an annulment.
Conscience as practical
judgment knows the general principles, the objective norms that are formulated
from these principles, and applies those norms in a particular situation. In
this approach, conscience's freedom is relegated to obedience to external
objective norms (or authority) and the dignity of conscience depends on whether
or not one's judgment of conscience coincides or does not coincide with the
objective norms. If it coincides with objective norms, the act is right and
moral; if it does not coincide with objective norms, the act is wrong and
immoral.
The second formulation
sees conscience as having both the objective and subjective dimensions, what Fuchs
names the subject-orientation and the object-orientation of conscience.
Conscience as subject-orientation is "having inner knowledge of the moral
goodness of the Christian, and as standing before God, and Christ, and in the
Holy Spirit."
This is where God's voice
echoes in the depths of the human heart (Gaudium et Spes, 16), "the
highest norm of human life" (Dignitatis Humanae, 3), and draws a person to
the absolute. There, the first principles of practical reason are self-evident
in the very nature of that moral knowledge, "summoning him to love good
and avoid evil" (Gaudium et Spes, 16); this is the "upright norm of
one's own conscience" (Gaudium et Spes, 26).
Conscience as
subject-orientation is the ontological affirmation of the intrinsic goodness of
the human person created in the image and likeness of God and an invitation to
enter into profound relationship with God and neighbor (Gaudium et Spes, 16).
Though conscience as subject-orientation
affirms who we are, created in God's image, conscience as object-orientation
"concerns the material content of the function of conscience" and
indicates how we are to relate in the world. Conscience as object-orientation
can "see that divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly
city" (Gaudium et Spes, 43). We respond to this world by acknowledging
"the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of
conscience" (Dignitatis Humanae, 3).
Using the first
principles of practical reason as a hermeneutical lens for analyzing what our
relationship with the world is to be, being "guided by the objective norms
of morality" (Gaudium et Spes, 16) and attending "to the sacred and
certain doctrine of the Church" (Dignitatis Humanae, 14), among other
sources of knowledge, conscience as objective-orientation gathers as much
evidence as possible, consciously weighs and understands the evidence and its
implications, and finally makes as honest a judgment as possible that this
action is to be done and that action is not.
In this way, humans
exercise conscience as practical judgment. Although both levels of conscience
are essential, Fuchs correctly notes that the subject-orientation logically
precedes the object-orientation.
In Fuchs' formulation,
there is a much more complex relationship between the object-orientation of
conscience and the objective norm. Since conscience can err from invincible
ignorance and not lose its dignity according to Aquinas and Gaudium et Spes
(16), the emphasis in Aquinas, Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae is on the
authority and dignity of conscience, not on the authority and dignity of the
norm. Objective norms exist externally and are formulated and justified on the
basis of the four sources of moral knowledge: Scripture, tradition, reason and
experience.
These norms, however,
offer nothing more than assistance -- real assistance, but nonetheless merely
assistance -- in the assessment of morally correct decisions made in the
conscience. External, objective norms must always go through the
object-orientation of conscience where the process of understanding, judgment,
decision and action take place. The object-orientation, assisted by the known
principles of the subject-orientation of conscience, function as the hermeneutical
lens to select, interpret and apply the appropriate objective norm in a given
situation. The norms maintain their objectivity, but so too does the
objectivity of the conscience.
In this formulation,
truth exists "in myself," not in a relativist sense that denies
objective and universal truth, but in the sense of the intrinsic human dignity
of the person and the authority of conscience. Conscience must internalize the
values reflected in the norm, see their relevance to the human person in all
her particularity, and go through the process of understanding, judgment,
decision and action.
The essential point for
conscience as object-orientation is the relevance of the objective norm from
the perspective of the inquiring subject in light of the understanding of all
the circumstances in a particular historical cultural context. The implications
of this perspective on the relationship between conscience as
object-orientation and objective norms is that conscience should be guided by
those norms but the authority of conscience is not identified with whether or
not it obeys the objective norm. Otherwise, Dignitatis Humanae could not
advocate for religious freedom, where "every man has the duty, and
therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious in order that he
may with prudence form for himself right and true [objective] judgments of
conscience, under use of all suitable means."
If mere obedience to
objective norms was the sole role of conscience, then conscience that leads
people to follow religious traditions other than the Roman Catholic church
could never be tolerated. That religious pluralism is recognized and affirmed
in Dignitatis Humanae shifts authority from the objective norm to conscience as
object-orientation, informed by objective norms, where the hermeneutical lens
of the conscience as subject-orientation facilitates the process of
understanding, judgment and decision of conscience.
Two models
Robert Smith makes a
distinction between what he calls a "man-in-relationship-to-law"
model of conscience and a "restless-heart-toward-God" model. He
offers as exemplars of these two models Germain Grisez (and, we add, Chaput)
and Bernhard Häring respectively.
Grisez holds that the
only way to form one's conscience is to conform it to the teaching of the
church. Ultimately, though Grisez waxes about human freedom, conscience is
about obedience to church teaching and its objective norms.
Pope John Paul II's
apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio follows this same model, being
wholly rooted in both the truth of sexuality and marriage as taught by the
church and the obligation of the laity to obey that truth. Almost nowhere in
the document does the church's teaching on the inviolable primacy of individual
conscience, even in sexual matters, appear. Such an absence unjustly ignores
the long-standing Catholic tradition fundamentally strengthened at the Second
Vatican Council.
Häring has a
diametrically opposed stance. In the context of his overall approach to moral
theology, namely, God's call to all women and men and each person's response of
a moral life, conscience must be free and inviolable, and "the church must
affirm the freedom of conscience itself." Church doctrine is at the
service of women and men in their sincere conscience search for goodness, truth
and Christian wholeness; conscience is not at the service of doctrine.
Pope Francis puts the
same judgment even more forcefully in Amoris Laetitia: The Church is called, he
writes, "to form consciences, not to replace them."
Francis on conscience
In Evangelii Gaudium and
Amoris Laetitia, Francis brings to the fore again the Catholic doctrine on the
authority and inviolability of personal conscience, especially as it relates to
"irregular situations." Although Francis clearly rejects relativism
and affirms objective norms (Evangelii Gaudium, 64), he warns that
"realities are more important than ideas."
There has to be an
ongoing dialectic between reality and ideas, "lest ideas become detached
from realities … objectives more ideal than real … ethical systems bereft of
kindness, intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom" (Evangelii Gaudium,
231).
Sociological surveys
repeatedly affirm the vast disconnect between the objective norms of the magisterium
on sexual ethics -- the absolute norms that prohibit artificial contraception,
homosexual acts, and Communion for the divorced and remarried without
annulment, for example -- and the perspectives of the Catholic faithful.
According to these surveys, the majority of educated Catholics judge these
norms are detached from reality, and Catholics are following their consciences
to make practical judgments on these and other moral matters.
Francis calls for
"harmonious objectivity" where ideas "are at the service of
communication, understanding, and praxis" (Evangelii Gaudium, 232). Such
objectivity can be found in the conscience, even in the consciences of
atheists.
In his exchange with an
Italian journalist on the issue of atheists, Francis commented, "The
question for those who do not believe in God is to abide by their own
conscience. There is sin, also for those who have no faith, in going against
one's conscience. Listening to it and abiding by it means making up one's mind
about what is good and evil."
The "making up one's
mind" is, we maintain, not an endorsement of relativism, which Francis
clearly rejects, but an affirmation of objective truth that recognizes plural
and partial truths that must be discerned by conscience informed by, among
other sources, external, objective norms. Francis' June 2013 statement on
conscience seems to affirm our assessment:
So we also [like Jesus]
must learn to listen more to our conscience. Be careful, however: this does not
mean we ought to follow our ego, do whatever interests us, whatever suits us, whatever
pleases us. That is not conscience. Conscience is the interior space in which
we can listen to and hear the truth, the good, the voice of God. It is the
inner place of our relationship with him, who speaks to our heart and helps us
to discern, to understand the path we ought to take, and once the decision is
made, to move forward, to remain faithful.
This statement reflects a
very different model of conscience than that of Francis' two predecessors.
Francis' model is much more in line with Häring's "restless-heart-toward-God"
model than Grisez's (and Chaput's) "man-in-relationship-to-law" model
and strikes us as more faithful to the long-established Catholic tradition and
its teaching on the inviolability of conscience.
In Amoris Laetitia,
Francis brings squarely to the moral forefront again the ancient Catholic
teaching on the authority and inviolability of personal conscience. Indeed, his
teaching there on conscience is, in our opinion, one of the most important
teachings in the exhortation. He judges 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" (Amoris Laetitia,
303).
He quotes Aquinas
frequently throughout the document and especially his teaching that the more we
descend into the details of irregular situations, the more general principles
will be found to fail (Amoris Laetitia, 304). As the popular saying goes, the
devil is in the details.
There is an "immense
variety of concrete situations" and situations can be so vastly different
that his document, the pope confesses, cannot "provide a new set of rules,
canonical in nature and applicable to all cases" (Amoris Laetitia, 300).
The only moral solution to any and every situation is a path of careful
discernment accompanied by a priest and a final judgment of personal conscience
that commands us to do this or not to do that (Amoris Laetitia, 300-305). Only
such an informed conscience can make a moral judgment about the details of any
and every particular situation.
This model of conscience,
affirmed by tradition and Amoris Laetitia, provides a faithful and merciful
guide for couples who are in irregular situations and empowers them to follow
their inviolable conscience on this important issue, despite Chaput's
statements to the contrary.
[Todd A. Salzman is a
professor of theology at Creighton University. Michael G. Lawler is the
emeritus Amelia and Emil Graff Professor of Catholic Theology at Creighton.
They are the co-authors of The Sexual Person (Georgetown University Press).]
Pope
praises Argentine bishops' guidelines on helping divorced, remarried couples
By Cindy Wooden, Catholic
News Service September 12, 2016
Pope Francis thanked a
group of bishops in Argentina for providing their priests with concrete
guidelines for implementing the section of his apostolic exhortation on the
family about circumstances in which divorced and civilly remarried couples
might eventually be allowed to receive Communion.
The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore
Romano published an article Sept. 12 confirming Pope Francis wrote to the
bishops of the Buenos Aires pastoral region thanking them for their document on
criteria for applying what the pope wrote in Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia
("The Joy of Love").
The chapter, titled
"Accompanying, discerning and integrating weakness," is focused on
the pastoral care of couples who are living together without being married or
who have divorced and remarried without getting an annulment.
In offering their priests
guidance for applying the teaching in the pope's document to the situation of
couples in their care, the bishops insisted it is not proper to speak of
"permission to receive the sacraments" when it is, in fact, an invitation
to "a process of discernment accompanied by a priest."
The process of
discernment -- of looking at actions and failures that contributed to the
breakup of their sacramental marriage, their current family responsibilities
and their resolve to life the Christian life more fully -- may not necessarily
end with the reception of the sacraments, the bishops said. It may be more
appropriate to help them become more involved in parish activities, participate
in prayer groups and engage in Christian acts of charity.
"When the couple's
concrete circumstances make it possible, especially when both are Christians
with a journey of faith, one can propose a commitment to living in
continence," the bishops said. Abstaining from sexual relations will not
be easy, but it would allow the couple to receive Communion, they said.
In other cases, the
bishops said, when abstaining from relations could harm the new union and the
children who are part of the new family, further discernment is necessary. It
could be that there are factors that limit the responsibility or culpability of
the divorced spouse, they said, and in those cases "'Amoris Laetitia'
opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of reconciliation and the
Eucharist."
In those circumstance,
the bishops said, priests must take care not to give scandal to their
congregations, something which could be done by ensuring the couple receive in
"a reserved way," somewhat privately, although parish congregations
also should be helped to "grow in a spirit of understanding and
welcome."
The pope's letter to the
bishops said they accurately explained what Amoris Laetitia taught and captured
its full meaning. "There are no other interpretations," he said.
Editorial:
Take Amoris Laetitia's challenge seriously
Editor's note: We are re-promoting this earlier
editorial, in light of the news that San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy announced
May 11 that he will convene a diocesan synod in October focused on marriage and
family life.?
Amoris Laetitia is a
profound reflection on the reality of family life in contemporary society, and
Pope Francis has said the community should read the apostolic exhortation
slowly and deliberately. That deliberation will play out in these pages over
the next several weeks, so for now we offer reflections on two points that are
particularly noteworthy.
First, we should note
that Amoris Laetitia offers few concrete solutions to questions that challenge
today's families. In fact, it warns against accepting easily obtained answers.
Instead, Amoris Laetitia boldly challenges bishops, pastors, theologians and
lay leaders to seek answers together and among themselves in sincere dialogue.
In this, the apostolic
exhortation echoes Francis' opening statement for the 2014 Synod of Bishops on
the family; Amoris Laetitia is a challenge to parrhesia: bold, fearless
dialogue about the family.
We urge all leaders in
the Catholic church to take this challenge seriously.
With a few exceptions,
the U.S. bishops -- and no doubt bishops in other countries -- missed the
opportunity to fully engage all Catholics in their dioceses in the lead up to
the two Synods of Bishops on the family.
Tools and encouragement
were provided, and NCR reporting recorded great enthusiasm throughout the
Catholic community to discuss the issues that impact family life. We
recognized, at that time, an opportunity to set the larger community on fire.
Too few dioceses tapped into this enthusiasm.
With Amoris Laetitia,
Francis has given the Catholic community a second chance. At a press conference
April 8 introducing the apostolic exhortation, Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich
said that the document "should spark our imagination" and asked where
that might lead: "Do we need to form teams that are going to help pastors
reach out to people? Do we need to look for ways to enhance our marriage
preparation program? Is there a program we can put together for families who
welcome that first child into the world?"
We would answer Cupich
with a resounding "Yes!" to these questions.
The imaginations of
Catholics have already been sparked, and with Amoris Laetitia, Francis is
fanning that ember. We urge bishops and diocesan leaders not to lose this
opportunity: Go out to the parishes and deaneries and consult widely.
Because it is so
accessible, Amoris Laetitia is the perfect tool to guide these local
consultations. Amoris Laetitia calls for local communities to seek pastoral
programs appropriate to local churches and cultures. These consultations can
become the seedbeds of the parrhesia that Francis is calling for. From these
could spring the spirit of a new evangelization.
At the same time, we urge
Catholic laity and others to have patience with their bishops and diocesan
leaders. They need time to study Amoris Laetitia fully and deeply; give them
that time.
Amoris Laetitia brings
out of the shadows a language and style, a pastoral theology, that has been
much maligned in recent decades. Many in diocesan leadership will need to be
reacquainted with this approach. If they are not convinced and conversant in
this language and approach, then any consultations they call won't be worthy of
the name, and we risk never bridging the divide between teachings and practice
on issues like artificial contraception and "irregular" (to use the
Vatican word) relationships.
We have to give our
leadership the time to get Amoris Laetitia right so that its importance isn't
dismissed. That leads to our next point.
After Amoris Laetitia,
anyone who continues to insist that Francis is not bringing change to the
Catholic church either misunderstands the deeper message of this apostolic
exhortation -- and the Francis pontificate -- or is deliberately trying to
mislead people.
Those who have opposed
Francis' reforms were immediately ready to discredit the apostolic exhortation.
U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke wrote that Amoris Laetitia "is not an act of
the magisterium." It is, Burke says, a "personal, that is,
non-magisterial ... document," a "reflection of the Holy
Father."
One wonders if Burke says
the same of Pope John Paul II's 1981 apostolic exhortation on the family, Familiaris
Consortio, which was cited during the 2014 and 2015 Synods of Bishops as a kind
of gold standard for church thinking on the family.
Other bishops pointed out
in their statements about Amoris Laetitia that the document, in the words of
Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, who attended the synods in 2014 and 2015,
"reflects the consensus of those meetings and many voices," and it
is, according to Cupich, who was appointed to the 2015 synod by Francis,
"an authoritative teaching document" that was faithful to what the
bishops had approved with a two-thirds majority vote.
Let's be clear. Amoris Laetitia
will disappoint some, perhaps many, Catholics. It is tentative at best for
Catholics who have divorced and remarried. It disrespects the family lives that
our LGBT brothers and sisters have created despite the opposition of many in
our society and our church.
We'd invite those who
hoped for more not to become discouraged, because if Amoris Laetitia isn't
strictly revolutionary, it is certainly evolutionary. It does prod this pilgrim
church, which has been sitting in wayside for 35 years, forward.
With Amoris Laetitia,
Francis continues to shift the structure of authority in the church. His
repeated message is: Don't look to Rome and rule books for all the answers.
("Not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be
settled by interventions of the magisterium.") Find answers that fit your
tradition and your local situation. ("Each country or region, moreover,
can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions
and local needs.") Trust yourselves. ("The Spirit guides us towards
the entire truth.") Francis is again calling for an adult church.
This is most clear in
Francis' writing on conscience: "We can add that individual conscience
needs to be better incorporated into the Church's praxis"; "We also
find it hard to make room for the consciences of the faithful, who ... are capable
of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations"; and "We
have been called to form consciences, not to replace them."
Francis, always the
teacher, uses Amoris Laetitia to reflect on family life, but he also uses this
apostolic exhortation to model how he wants the church to operate. Francis
offers the Catholic community two challenges: To live as a community with parrhesia,
speaking and listening to one another with courage and humility, and then to
translate the openness of papal actions and documents into pastoral discourse
and compassionate action in the parishes.
No comments:
Post a Comment