No Apologies from the Apologists: Why Are Apologists Defending Ambiguity?

No Apologies from the Apologists: Why Are Apologists Defending Ambiguity?

Laurence Gonzaga, MA, https://virtusinmediostat.blogspot.com/

I don’t engage in as much apologetics activity as I once did years ago. It can get exhausting. If anything, it helped me understand the faith better by trying to explain it to others in a way they can easily understand, even if they end up rejecting it. To put it simply, I always understood apologetics as giving an account for the faith which gives us hope (1 Peter 3:15). I’ve been out of the game long enough to not really spend much time paying attention to the apologetics landscape. With the “controversies” and theological confusion that have been coming out of the current pontificate, it has been easier for the sake of my sanity to just stay ignorant of what is going on, after all, I have had a history of privately declaring certain seats vacant, not saying which. Not seriously; but very close at times. But this issue which came up for me today, Amoris Laetitia (AL), which I know I am weighing in very late, but I haven’t felt the need to comment on it until I read Tim Staples’ first blog installment giving an Apologia Pro Papa Francisco. I shouldn’t be surprised, establishments such as Catholic Answers, and their periphery professional Catholics must maintain the idea that all prelates, laymen, and theologians are fare game to tear apart their errors or ambiguities to shreds, except for the pope! I know for a while even Michael Voris held this position, not sure about how he feels about it these days. That’s enough of an intro from me. Read Staples’ 1 of 4 apologia. I’m not interested in reading the rest, if it is anything like the first.

http://www.timstaples.com/blog/defending-pope-francis-pt-1 

I selected some quotes, but you can read the piece yourself and I will just simply paraphrase. His whole argument, if I understand him correctly is to say, the pope said nothing controversial at all. The fuss is merely the incorrect interpretation of some that has caused all this commotion. In fact, Francis is only applying an old basic Catholic teaching to a new scenario. I felt somewhat insulted by this argument from Staples! Don’t patronize us simple folk! We get the most basic understanding of venial and mortal sin, and how we can examine our conscience, and what needs to be confessed, so we can receive holy communion with a clean conscience. For a sin to be mortal it requires: 1) grave matter, 2) sufficient reflection, and 3) free intention to do it anyway… Of course, a Catholic who is not morally culpable for what would otherwise be a mortal sin, is not responsible to confess such a sin prior to reception of holy communion. That’s not the issue here! Is Staples suggesting that the five senior cardinals who published the Dubia addressed to Pope Francis do not understand the application of moral culpability to this case?

Here is part of what the Cardinals wrote:

Upon the publication of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" on love in the family, a debate has arisen particularly around its eighth chapter. Here, specifically paragraphs 300-305, have been the object of divergent interpretations.

For many - bishops, priests, faithful - these paragraphs allude to or even explicitly teach a change in the discipline of the Church with respect to the divorced who are living in a new union, while others, admitting the lack of clarity or even the ambiguity of the passages in question, nonetheless argue that these same pages can be read in continuity with the previous magisterium and do not contain a modification in the Church’s practice and teaching.

Motivated by a pastoral concern for the faithful, four cardinals have sent a letter to the Holy Father under the form of "Dubia", hoping to receive clarity, given that doubt and uncertainty are always highly detrimental to pastoral care.

I won’t belabor this reflection too much further, as most of my friends have short attention spans for these topics. The issue here, by my estimation is, it is the irreformable duty of the Catholic Church, as the light to the nations, and through Her Teaching Magisterium, to teach clearly and faithfully, those things which the faithful must know, understand, and practice, to make it to Heaven. The constituent parts of that Teaching Magisterium hold conflicting interpretations of AL, and as such, need clear guidance from the Rock of Unity, the Pope. Yet, he refuses to give us that clarity. Therefore, the confusion stands, until the Pope speaks with the Authority of His Office. Sorry Mr. Staples, not good enough!

Apologists should be fighting for the promotion of greater clarity, not making excuses for ambiguity, and merely defending the absence of heresy, arguments which I bet comes mostly from the sedevacantists, and other confused laymen. Let’s not ignore therefore the legitimate concerns of the cardinals, Burke in particular, and other concerned apostolates, who are only seeking an understanding of this issue that is not a departure from the tried and true doxology and praxis of the Catholic Church.

Pax.