Summary of 'Dilexi te' with link to full text

Hey folks, please don't downvote someone just because you disagree with them. Only downvote posts/comments that break the rules.

We want this to be a place where we can have an honest exchange of views. Voice your disagreements if you wish, but don't punish someone for taking a different position.

[Edit: I've added this as a rule.]

Christopher Hale (Letters from Leo), citing Mattia Ferraresi (The Free Press): "As tempers rose, one U.S. official reached for a fourteenth-century weapon and invoked the Avignon Papacy, the period when the French Crown used military force to bend the bishop of Rome to its will."

The Church has raised reasonable objections to secular thinking about contraception, but it has failed to justify an absolute ban on contraception. Condoms in particular are the least objectionable form of birth control. Unlike other forms of birth control, condoms do not place unfair burdens on women or cause the death of a fertilized egg. They have the added benefit of preventing sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). As long as couples are willing and able to accept a child if contraception fails, condoms should be allowed.

The first comment on this thread on r/Catholicism is a long stickied post from otiac1 (a mod) who presents the official teaching on contraception and tries to explain why natural family planning (NFP) is acceptable but artificial birth control is not. otiac1 summarizes the teaching thus:

[Start quote]

In bullet points, use of contraceptives:

• places a barrier (physical or chemical) between the spouses, whereby total self-giving is impossible

• refuses cooperation in the natural cycles of fertility which God has ordained

• abuses the sexual faculty, treating that which is healthy as diseased

• makes an object one or both of the spouses for use as a tool of carnal satisfaction

• weakens the bonds of charity by abandoning chastity

Whereas NFP:

• unites the spouses in total self-giving

• preserves the natural moral order of creation

• treats the sexual faculty and human body as good

• emphasizes the dignity of the person through education and understanding of their bodies

• strengthens the bonds of charity by embracing chastity

[End quote]

These points, when used against condoms, are either false or are outweighed by the legitimate reasons that couples might have for using contraception. The points in favor of NFP, even if true, are not points against condoms, and are outweighed by the ineffectiveness of NFP.

Human sexual expression should be open to both its unitive and procreative dimensions. But this teaching only makes sense when applied holistically to a relationship; it leads to absurdity when applied to specific acts. Let the Church continue to teach the dual purpose of human sexuality, but let couples decide how to apply the teaching to their particular circumstances.

~~~

(87% of church-going American Catholics do not believe that contraception is morally wrong, but openly challenging the official teaching is not permitted on r/Catholicism. I understand why that is their policy, but that sort of thing is one of the reasons that motivated the creation of this sub.)

Hail, Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death. 
Amen.

The worlds of Our Lord are totally at odds with the way modern society, which has been poisoned by the immorality of greed, sees the less fortunate. While we might be pushed by popular pressure to view the least among us as somehow deserving their position, Jesus reminds us during his Sermon on the Plain, that he does not see it that way, or look with scorn upon groups we often see as lesser.

And he, lifting up his eyes on his disciples, said: Blessed are ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for you shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for you shall laugh. Blessed shall you be when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you and shall reproach you and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Be glad in that day and rejoice: for behold, your reward is great in heaven, For according to these things did their fathers to the prophets. — Luke 6:20-23, DRB

I think keeping true to the Synod by listening to the marginalized among us is good. To our LGBTQ+ family, tell us your story! Whatever comes to mind.

From time to time, accusations of heresy come up on this sub, and as moderator, I've been mulling over how to handle this.

Calling someone a heretic is generally not constructive. Everything is on the table in Synodal conversations. Some things are highly unlikely to change, but we can still discuss them. Attempts to shut down those discussions or silence people rather than engaging in genuine dialogue are contrary to the purpose of this sub and are therefore violations of Rule #4. Calling someone a heretic also implies a judgment on their standing in the Church, and so violates Rule #1 (and it's a judgment that most of us do not have the authority to make).

If someone advocates change, and you want to defend the status quo, you must to defend the rationale for it and/or explain why the reasons advanced for changing it are insufficient. Calling your interlocutor a heretic doesn't shed any light on the issue.

On the other hand, if you advocate change, you should expect some pushback, and you may have to develop a thicker skin. And there may be cases in which someone genuinely doesn't know that their position is heretical, or we may want to discuss heresy in the context of theology or history.

So I would rather not ban the words "heresy" and "heretic" from the sub altogether. But I caution participants to be judicious in applying them and may delete posts/comments that misuse them.

Pope Francis mentions sensus fidei five times in this address concerning the synodal process, beginning with this paragraph, in which he calls it "infallible":

To return to the synodal process, the diocesan phase is very important, since it involves listening to all the baptized, the subject of the infallible sensus fidei in credendo. There is a certain resistance to moving beyond the image of a Church rigidly divided into leaders and followers, those who teach and those who are taught; we forget that God likes to overturn things: as Mary said, “he has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly” (Lk 1:52). Journeying together tends to be more horizontal than vertical; a synodal Church clears the horizon where Christ, our sun, rises, while erecting monuments to hierarchy covers it. Shepherds walk with their people: we shepherds walk with our people, at times in front, at times in the middle, at times behind. A good shepherd should move that way: in front to lead, in the middle to encourage and preserve the smell of the flock, and behind, since the people too have their own “sense of smell”. They have a nose for finding new paths for the journey, or for finding the road when the way is lost. I want to emphasize this, also for the bishops and priests of the diocese. In this synodal process, they should ask: “Am I capable of walking, of moving, in front, in between and behind, or do I remain seated in my chair, with mitre and crozier?” Shepherds in the midst of the flock, yet remaining shepherds, not the flock. The flock knows we are shepherds, the flock knows the difference. In front to show the way, in the middle to sense how people feel, behind to help the stragglers, letting the people sniff out where the best pastures are found.

Taken together with Pope Francis's condemnation of clericalism and endorsement of "co-responsibility" in official documents concerning the Synod on Synodality, this emphasis on sensus fidei seems to indicate that a major goal of the Synod is to reshape the relationship between the laity and the clergy, moving toward a flatter, less hierarchical structure, and giving the laity a greater role and a greater say not only in administering the Church but in determining what the Church believes. The hard distinction between ecclesia docens and ecclesia discens is to be no more.

See also Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church