Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...

Friday, 17 February 2017

What Cardinal Kasper Said, If Cardinal Kasper Said What I Believe Cardinal Kasper To Have Said

In this day of Fake News, or rather, constant accusations of fake news, one is reminded more than ever that no one can have empirical knowledge of all matters that interests or concerns him.
I am not there to hear to the actual words spoken by a president, or here to watch the actual expressions and gestures of a pope or that other place to see the actions taken by a terrorist .

When it gets down to it, I don't know that those images of storms flickering on the screen are of an actual event happening now, that the contents of this pill bottle are what the box describes, or even if they are, that they will do what I am told by my doctor who is told by the FDA or a pharmaceutical conglomerate, that they will.
But you have to trust somebody, and I choose to trust the weather man, and I choose to trust my GP. One hopes previous accuracy or good faith is, if not quite a pledge, at least an indication of present accuracy and good faith.
National Review, New York Times, Breitbart, HuffPo... who knows?
An additional problem in this area of finding and trusting sources for information, especially in the ecclesiastical realm is the translation issue.
All that is by way of prelude to saying, Sandro Magister is someone in whom I have a high degree of trust. He has a  piece on the push for inter-communion in recent ecumenical initiatives, including some of an interview Cardinal Kasper gave, to which I can only say, What the Francis? [Emphasis supplied]
Cardinal Kasper: We are friends, we are brothers and sisters. We have begun this ecumenical way and we have taken many steps in the meantime. We have good hope that one day we will even reach full communion. Even now we already have a great deal of communion among us.
       Q: A communion at the Eucharistic table as well?
Cardinal Kasper:Yes, shared communion in certain cases, I think so. If [two spouses, one Catholic and one Protestant] share the same Eucharistic faith - this is the presupposition - and if they are interiorly disposed, they can decide in their conscience to receive communion. And this is also the position, I think, of the current pope, because there is a process of coming together; and a couple, a family, cannot be divided in front of the altar.
Um, no.
The entire premise is flawed because the two descriptors of this hypothetical couple are incongruous, they cannot exist at one and the same time.
If they ACTUALLY "share the same Eucharistic faith" it is either because the one has ceased to be Catholic or the other has ceased to be protestant.
(Yes, I'm shouting.)
And the idea that just because they are a couple they cannot be divided this way is absurd.
He's speaking of mainline protestants with liturgical worship and at least some sacraments, whose Eucharist faith is similar, (NOT "the same,") but what of others?
What if one is Catholic and the other Mormon? or Baptist? or Jewish? of Satanist? or pagan? or Muslim? or Taoist? or atheist?Should they be divided in front of the altar?

Saturday, 28 January 2017

The Picture of....

.... well, of obedience, as it happens.

Does it take "guts" to admit, "“Il Papa ha sbagliato”?.... or Grace?

Interesting, interesting interview with the German novelist, (and sometime liturgist, and certainly liturgical theologian,) Martin Mosebach, regarding Amoris Laetitia, the dubia, and papal duty.

It occurs, with who-knows-who turning their attention to and getting their mitts on the current Missal and its translation, I know he's an Extraordinay Form guy, but perhaps Mosebach would consider a sequel to Heresy of Formlessness?

Or even a contemporary papal history, The Papacy of Formlessness?

Hagen formlessness!
("Hagen falta de forma?")

Thursday, 26 January 2017

Which One of These Has Earned Prelatial or Episcopal Opprobrium?

You know, I mean.... for his sartorial choices?
Which one do you think, say, a pope even might weigh in on?
Go ahead, take your time.
I'll wait.


Trying Not To Play "Gotcha!" With the Holy Father

Pope Francis, not sure why, brings out the worst in me.

I know, I already KNOW, headlines are like as not completely deceptive, sometimes flat contradicted by the facts as presented in the article that follows. (Not as big a problem in middle-of-the-road Catholic news outlets, but still...)
And I'm not taking all the blame for this, I think it is a matter of sad confluence that we have at this time a president who thinks in tweets and and a pope who preaches in sound bytes.
Governing well may take more than 140 characters, the Holy Spirit probably doesn't sound like a Hallmark card.
So I see, "Trusting in God means letting go of what we want, Pope says,"and my first thought is, Oh, really? than why do you seem to be getting all bent out of shape when thwarted by Synods, Knights, and Catholics who feel a connection with previous centuries of Catholicism?
And now on top of this, I'm wondering, why is it all right to say, “this is my opinion: women are more courageous than men.”
Are positive generalizations not just as sexist/racist/whateverist as negative ones?
You might, in this PC world, barely get away with, “this is my opinion: men are less courageous than women,” just barely, but there'd be some sniffing, although it means more of less the same thing.
But yeah, you'd get away with it.
Because. Privilege.
But could you imagine the outcry if instead, “this is my opinion: women are less courageous than men.”
He might find himself in Origen's shoes. Or other item of clothing.
Oh, and I also know the Law of Projection, by which we are all to be judged in the 21st century, so if this bother me, clearly it is because if it is a fault it is one of which I myself am most grievously guilty.
So, I see an apt Lenten penance suggesting itself, weeks early....

Tuesday, 24 January 2017

"To Drive the Cold Winter Away....."

By which I mean, to feel cozy at the prospect of the mercury dipping below 70°.

But even so, sipping mulled wine and gazing happily at our Don't-You-Dare-Take-It-Down-Before-February-2 Tree feels like Yules of Yore, (meaning, not of my Youth, but of Years Yet... oh, shut up.)

But I do like spiced wine and I do like the glittering bead garlands of the tree and I do like the over-populated creche scene, (a heathen in-law looked at it and said, wow, that supposed to be Jerusalem or the east Village, or what...? Magnanimous at this festive time, I forgive him and pity him his ignorance.)

Not much time left to savor the victual delights of the season.
One last bit of "fancy" cheese - is there much tastier than Sartori's Bellavitano? I should like to know about it if there is!
Thank God for Aldi, it's the only way I'd ever have such a treat in my house, (we were almost banned from Whole Foods after Himself consumed pretty much the entire contents of a "dome" of samples once. I was made very aware of the... frugality? of my holiday larder by the aforementioned in-law. The prospect of Himself losing insurance coverage will no doubt preclude us ever again entertaining the guy in a manner he finds acceptable - if that isn't the very definition of Silver Linings I don't know what is!)

My Mother... she may have been the only person I know who also enjoyed mulled wine. And she liked cheeses as much as I. Her last Christmas is a memory that will continue to haunt and delight me.
"Lo, how a..."

Friday, 20 January 2017

"Harvey, Pray For Us"???!?@??#?$???%?^???!?????

I imagine everybody could use a laugh right about now, even if it's a mirthless one.
The choice of some putters of notes and words on paper in a manner that those putters (and presumably their editors, [though it should be said that they themselves often are on the editorial boards which deem their putting of notes and words worthy,] and publishers,) believe to be suitable for use in Liturgy as recipients of an award was met with some amusement, some ridicule and some outrage on the Book of Faces.
One of those outraged linked to his blog
He linked to a post I would have thought Eye of the Tiber material, the gist of which was this award recipient's veneration (in the religious sense,) of a tragically, and senselessly murdered gay man, who seems to have been a generally nice guy all of whose stances were politically correct.
And IT links to... well, it turns out their is a dealer in "religious" goods who actually sells this "icon."
The artist, allegedly a Franciscan brother, gives halos to a remarkable range of... persons, and also includes many actual saints and blesseds. (Also, some truly lovely and holy depictions of our Blessed Mother, and of Christ Himself with characteristics and coloring of ethnic minorities.) Einstein with a halo. Ss Pepertua and Felicity posed for a Benettons ad. Merlin, (yes, THAT merlin.)
And the Aboriginal American cross-dresser, We'wha, (I believe that is also the spelling for the way they young folks nowadays pronounce, pitch and inflect, "Wait... whaaat?"
Well, SOMEBODY pray for us...

Saturday, 14 January 2017

The Woman Taken in An Other-Than-First Marriage

"This woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”
They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him.
Jesus asked, "So, is this a formal dubium?"
And they answered,"Well, uhm... I dunno... so what if it is?"
And He spoke, "Then I might not answer you. So.... in what diocese do you live?"
And one said, "Uhm.... Malta?"
But yet another declared, "I'm from Philly."
And they were sore confused.
But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Again he bent down and wrote on the ground.
And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him.
Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
She replied, “No one, sir.”
Then Jesus said, "Are you at peace with God?"
The woman replied, "Yeah, I guess so..."
“Neither do I condemn you. Go, from now on try to make it work with your current partner, okay?”

Tuesday, 10 January 2017

Watching "Night Manager" Pick Up Some Golden Globes, I Thought About How A Crux Columnist Might Apply Amoris Laetitia in THIS Hard Case

Wonder what kind of spiritual direction is available in Mallorca...
Jed, of course, is as fictional as Irma, and the man with whom she is living in sin isn't warm and cuddly like Tony.
But when you think about it, breaking off sexual relations with her guy would have more immediate, more dire consequence, so really...
“But, Father, can’t I go to communion?”
As we sit in the confessional, Jed, a divorced Catholic, living with a man to whom she is not married, looks at me with pleading eyes. She is asking me a direct question.
As I respond, I must follow the guidelines that Pope Francis described in Amoris Laetitia, issued after the discussions and discernment of two Synods of Bishops on family life. I’m called to accompany Jed. I’ll need to exercise prudence throughout what may be a long, gradual process of helping Jed understand, appreciate, and fully carry out what God is asking of her.
Along the way, I must “avoid judgments which do not take into account the complexity” of Jed’s situation. Pastoral discernment is not needed if all I have to do is tell Jed what the rules are and then order her to obey them. I am not allowed to treat the Church’s moral commands as if they were stones that I must hurl at Jed’s life.
In a process of discernment and accompaniment, I must understand that “it is possible that in an objective situation of sin - which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such - a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.”
At this point, I have spoken many times, over almost two years, with Jed in the sacrament of Reconciliation. Over the course of our many conversations and prayers, I have come to know a great deal about her life.
Jed is from New York, where she married and had a child with her high school sweetheart, when they were both twenty-one. She doesn't remember much about him anymore. Jed now describes herself at that time as really just a “cultural” Catholic.
Neither she nor her child's father had ever really thought about their faith seriously. Their families were Catholic. Everyone they knew was Catholic. It was just assumed that when you got married, it would be in the Catholic Church.
She says that the first year of their marriage was “wonderful.” Although it was tough to make ends meet, they were managing.
But then he became a completely different person,” she told me.
Eventually when he would drink he would become physically and verbally abusive. He would always apologize the next day, and promise it would never happen again. But, it always happened again. He began to regularly “brag” about his affairs with other women.
Then he abandoned her and their child. Jed had no idea what to do. She couldn’t find work.
So, in desperation, Jed looked for a sugar daddy and left the child to live with some of her family who thought she was a skank.
After traipsing around Europe, Jed met Roper. They began dating and it felt like love. Jed described Roper as exciting and rich beyond dreams of avarice. He had a reputation as a philanthropist “He is so considerate, always surprising me with little gifts and taking me out.” Eventually they settled on a private island off Majorca with armed guards. Roper's son from a failed marriage lived with them.
Roper was not Catholic and hadn’t really ever gone to church, but he supported Jed in her decision to begin practicing again
Jed was awakened to her Catholicism. She wanted to be a good Catholic and grow in her relationship with God. She especially wanted to be able to go to communion.
Jed had no idea where her child's father might be. She didn’t really even know if he was still alive. She had no church or legal documents with her when she went to Europe, and her family would hardly speak to her much less help.
She wanted to get married but Roper, who smacked her around wasn't interested. Although Jed is convinced that she was just too young to get married the first time, it also seems that she wouldn’t have any real grounds for requesting an annulment in that her child's father’s problems did not develop until after they were married.
“But, Father, can’t I go to communion?”
Jed and I had discussed what the Church teaches concerning communion for those living. I had explained to her that if she and Roper lived as “brother and sister” then she could go to communion. She told me that Roper thought that idea was crazy. As he was used to getting what he wanted, Jed was afraid of what might happen to their relationship if they were no longer able to grow in their love through physical intimacy.
She knew Roper could handle the prospect of committing to complete celibacy for the next 70 years. Plus, both she and Roper were fond of children
Jed told me that every Sunday after she gets home from Mass with little Donald, she cries all day. She is so heartbroken that she cannot make her communion with the Lord and receive his grace in the sacrament.
Her despair is so great that as a pastor who also has a counseling degree, I am concerned that her spiritual and psychological health is being harmed by her attending Mass and not being able to receive communion. Although I have not said so to Jed, I have wondered if it would be better for her to attend a non-Catholic church.
She has told me that Roper has begun refusing to attend Mass because he can’t bear to be a part of what is causing her so much anguish. Even little Donald wants to know why Jed always cries after Mass.
“But, Father, can’t I go to communion?”
After more than a year of accompanying her, how do I answer her direct question? If she were to just come up for communion, I couldn’t deny her. First of all, everything I know about her relationship has come from within the sacrament of Confession. Outside of the sacrament, I can’t “use” that information in any way, certainly not by publicly denying her communion.
Even if I did know of Jed’s circumstances apart from Confession, no one else in the parish does. And there are ways wose situations of manifest public sin so there is no danger of scandal. I would also not know on any given Sunday if she and Roper had decided to begin living as “brother and sister.”
Jed certainly does not have an attitude of defiance or lack of love for the Church and its teaching. Given these circumstances, if she were to come forward at communion, I would not be allowed by the Church to publicly refuse her.
But I am not dealing with whether I will deny her communion. I am dealing with one of the faithful who is asking me a direct question, and she deserves a direct answer.
Jed certainly has the true “humility, discretion, and love for the Church and her teaching” that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has said is necessary before someone in this situation might be able to go to communion. She is in a “sincere search for God’s will” and has a “desire to make a more perfect response to it.”
Amoris Laetitia has described a number of things that I must consider as I offer pastoral care to Jed. First of all, I can see no real guilt on Jed's part for the failure of her marriage. While she is sad that she and Roper, she also believes that God has put Roper in her life for her well-being. Despite not being married, and that he beats her, their relationship in some other respects appears to have benefits.
And as she sends money to her mother, Roper in effect supports her child. I share Jed's concern that attempting life-long celibacy might endanger the seeming faithfulness and the continuance of their relationship which would certainly not be for the good of her child or his. And Jed is a good influence on Roper. I believe the end of their relationship would harm all four of them.
In this case, I have come strongly to believe that Jed would be greatly aided by the grace of the sacrament of Communion. Without it, I fear that she will stop coming to Mass, and perhaps should. I believe it may be possible that someday in the future, perhaps after another two or three children, that Jed and Roper may be able to embrace a life as “brother and sister.” Or their former spouses could die.
“But, Father, can’t I go to communion?”
Based on everything I know as a priest concerning sin, conscience, hope, Jesus, the teaching of the Church, and particularly the instruction the Church has received from Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia, I tell Jed, “If you sincerely believe in your conscience that this is how Christ can aid your growth in holiness, then, yes. You may go to communion.”
After Mass the following Sunday, Jed greets me with tears in her eyes - this time tears of joy. Even Roper doesn't seem to be in too foul a humor.
Jed tells me, “For all these years at every Mass when it was time for communion, I have felt as if Jesus turned his back to me. Today, for the first time, I felt as if Jesus embraced me and told me that he loved me!”

Friday, 6 January 2017

I don't care what the US liturgical calendar says....

...a Blessed Epiphany!
(And I feast on this Friday...black forest ham, Mancahgocidre, fruitcake and eclairs)
Image result for gregorian epiphany "Reges Tharsis"

Saturday, 3 December 2016

"My Dad's really mad at me, He's always ticked off about something...."

A friend posted
"Jesus told St. Faustina that He comes to every soul three times at the time of death." My ex-husband committed suicide, and I have always hoped that at the hour of his death that he realized that God wasn't the Big Meanie in the Sky that he had been fighting."
I repeat this because I have been looking for ways to explain various situations, doctrines, practices, etc. of the Faith - to children.
It's hard.
It's really hard.
Sometimes when you are fooled, rather, you've fooled yourself into thinking you've succeeded, you find yourself like the couple who thought they'd succeed with their children and the Ten Commandments.
"Hey," said a small one at bedtime, who really glommed onto the 6th, "We should write a book! Curious George commits Adultery!"
Anyway, I'm not sure this is good, or true, or non-insulting to the Chosen People, but it occurred to me recently, that the Big Meanie in the Sky, the one in the Old Testament that Abraham had to try to wheedle  the safety of the Gomorrahans out of, had a bit in common with the parents of adolescents.

Teenagers often completely misunderstand the emotions on adults' faces.
"My parents are pissed off because I went and and did xxx ...." when the expression on Mom and Dad'sf aces was really terror and relief at the stupid and dangerous thing their child has just survived.

Is the Angry Father glowering down from the heavens, the vengeful law-giver simply a misinterpretation on the part of adolescent humanity?

Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of ...

... you thought I was going to say, "Christ," didn't you?
No, the'res more than one answer, boys and girls.
It turns out ignorance of scripture leaves a gaping lacuna in the study of sexual sociology.
To whit:
The work of sociologists has long been concerned with the relationship between urbanization and sexuality, especially in the form of visible clusters or neighborhoods typified by specific sexual moralities or practices. Identification of 'vice areas' and, latterly, 'gay villages', has been a stock in trade of urban sociology since at least the time of the Chicago School.
Really? at least since the 1920s or '30s?
No one noticing the phenomenon, and how it would affect both the denizens of such areas and, you know..... visitors, and, when you think about it, migration from said urban enclaves, a bit earlier?

Notes From a Dying Tablet

It's old, it was dirt cheap, and it's starting to malfunction so frequently, and freeze requiring restarts thats it is almost useless.
So, I'm going through everything actually on it, rather than preserved for posterity somewhere in the ether, and I am at a loss - why did I once think it necessary to remember that Sheldon Cooper's proposed nicknames for Amy Farrah Fowler included Princess Corncob, Gollum, and Fester?

The Pope Gives Definitive, Clear Answer to Questions of Divorce, Remarriage and Sacraments

Assuming post-synodal exhortations are magisterial, (I am not convinced they are) and magisterial teachings may lawfully be developed, but not negated, (of this, I am convnced.)
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.
This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."
Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

Well, that answers that.

So, dubia schmubia.

Thursday, 24 November 2016

Monsignor Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz SJ of the Galactic Twitter Hyperspace Amoris Laetitia Planning 'Splaining Council Congregation

“Answers to dubia are devices that allow some people to reconcile point A to contradictory point B very fast while other people reconcile point B to point A very fast. People who believe point C, being a point contradicting both A and B, are often given to wonder what's so great about point A that so many people from point B are so keen to understand it, and what's so great about point B that so many people from point A are so keen to understand it. They often wish that people would just once and for all work out what the hell they wanted to believe and be able to laugh when people compare them to one of Brad Dourif's more unsavory characters.”
"Crewman Lon Suder?"
"But what ARE the answers? no one will tell us!"
“But the answers to the dubia were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
 “That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
 “Yes,” said Cardinal Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in a footnote on page 237 of the longest document in papal history - I stopped counting at 59,000 - and in a contradictory private letter, which was marked... well, 'private', and they were in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
 "Well, there you are."

Sunday, 20 November 2016

Why the hate?

I wonder why some elderly people, who were raised with the old Latin Mass, nevertheless hate it. And I ask myself: Why so much rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.
But who am I to judge?

The Pope said this, or something similar.

I think....

The Poor, the Marginalized, the Outcast, the... Shepherd?

I reflected on something listening to the readings this morning, not for the first time.
I'm sure everyone has heard the standard Christmas sermon more than once, the one where the shepherds play a large, heart-tuggin part.
"Isn't it remarkable," says Father, "that the angel firt gives the glad tidings to the lowliest of the lowly, the shepherds. Shepherds was despised by decent people in the first century, they were not allowed -"

Wait a minute.
David was a shepherd.
Abraham was a shepherd.

God promises, over and over again in the Old Testament, to send a Shepherd to govern His people! was He thus threatening to shame them?

Or, despite what The First Nowell says, are sermonizers making too much of the poverty of the shepherds the better to preach on the purported "preferential option for the poor"?

(Exodus, of course, instructs the chosen people NOT to "favor the poor in a lawsuit".)

Tuesday, 15 November 2016

"Purposefully Making Christ Anonymous"

A compelling faux dialogue between an older parish priest and a younger.
A bit of polemic, some improbable as conversation, but it covers some very important matters about liturgy, the "new evangelization", misguided empowerment of the laity, and above all, catechesis - that is, the handing on as if an echo The Truth.
If the standards are set low, it sends the message that what is taking place is not of great importance.  Therefore it makes sense that about 70 % of Catholics do not believe in the true-presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Even our social-justice events rarely speak the name of Jesus and give him the glory in such activity.  We have pushed God aside as a politically incorrect name to avoid mentioning.  We are purposefully making Christ anonymous, and someone who loves Him wouldn’t do that…ever.

Chomsky is Right and He's Wrong

In sharing this, I wish to declare up front that I believe in climate change, I believe human agency is behind some of it and I believe there are steps we can take to either slow or exacerbate it.
I know to some FbTw & IR LFs this means I am only common-sensical, to other Fb Tw & IRL Fs that I am a Useful Idiot. Fine, not germane to my point.
My point is that hyperbole helps no one convince others, and ignoring or belittling others' priorities is unlikely to sway them to your POV.
And I believe anyone of faith, (and despite the rise of the "nones" we are mostly people of faith, even if we belong to the Temple of I'mNotReligiousButI'mSpritual,) anyone who believes that this life is not the whole of our existence, would have trouble with this line of reasoning:
"Humans are facing the most important question in their history..."
Because yes, they are, but,
...whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know."
ain't it.
The most important question is faced by each of us individually and in concert, and we face it today and we have all faced it throughout human existence.
The long term inhabitability of the rock on which we live only matters in so far as it is useful to us in the pursuit of virtue, which lies in valuing our fellow man.
Damaging the earth and the environment is wrong because it makes the lives of the least fortunate among us harder or even impossible.
That is why, pace Pope Francis, care for the earth, specifically, will never be one of the chief works of mercy - hypothesizing some sci-fi scenario of destruction of this planet from without, and mass emigration to some other world in some other star system possible demonstrates that preservation of this particular planet and its environment is only a means, not an end.
Care for Creation (which I believe is what the Holy Father said,) is vital, morally speaking, care for the earth no more so than care for the sidewalk in front of my house on which my neighbor might tip.
So any agenda, any plan, any ideology for arriving at the best we as a race, as a species can be, that prioritizes the atmosphere, a river, other species, in other words mere resources while countenancing the murder of our inconveniently resource-grabbing unborn fellow human beings, is so self-contradictory and short-sighted as to be doomed to failure.
Strangely, the author of the article seems to realize it deep down:
The consequences of this election cannot be understated, and we will have to live with them forever.
Why yes, yes we will.

Monday, 14 November 2016

Amoris Laetitia - Pope Francis Explains It All For You

Wait now, what?
No, of course not. But the request has been made, the dubia submitted.
Out of “deep pastoral concern,” four cardinals have taken the very rare step of publicizing five questions they have sent Pope Francis in a bid to clear up “grave disorientation and great confusion” surrounding his summary document on the Synod on the Family, Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love).
The cardinals — Italian Carlo Caffarra, American Raymond Burke, and Germans Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner — sent the five questions, called dubia (Latin for ‘doubts’) to the Holy Father and Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on Sept. 19, along with an accompanying letter.
You've gotta admire the charitable persistence of these men.
And this seems an apt quotation with when considering what the ambiguities we so far have concerning the Holy Father's document:
The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love.
-- Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P.