
When Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) was released in April, it was already clear that an unusual moment in the life of the Church had been reached. The September disclosure of guidelines formulated by Argentinian bishops — and explicitly endorsed personally by the Holy Father himself in a very peculiar manner — has served to reinforce how misunderstood this unusual moment has become.
Pope Francis clearly wanted to change the Church’s practice on the admission of the divorced and civilly remarried to holy Communion, but could not get the synod of bishops to agree. It was an example of the Holy Spirit guiding the magisterium of the Church through the bishops against their head rather than in concert with him. Thus, on the contested question, Amoris Laetitia was ambiguous, employing hints buried in footnotes and deceptive citations of previous magisterial teaching.
It did not teach what its author clearly wanted to teach, which meant that it could still be read, with some difficulties, in continuity with what the Church had taught before.
What followed over the summer was an even more strange exercise of the magisterium by stealth, with an ambiguous text being supposedly clarified by interventions of no magisterial authority at all. The Holy Father himself has referred people to the interpretation of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, an admirable man and esteemed theologian, but who himself has been ambiguous on what the post-synodal apostolic exhortation means.
In any case, press interviews with a cardinal are not authoritative interpretations of magisterial texts. L’Osservatore Romano has run a series of commentaries arguing that Amoris Laetitia has changed the practice on reception of Communion as a sort of development of doctrine, but, again, the same lack of authority applies. The usual authoritative interpreter of magisterial texts, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, intervened strongly to argue that Amoris Laetitia had not changed the Church’s teaching on marriage and the Eucharist. Yet even he did so outside of an official text, delivering a lecture instead in Madrid.
For those who favored the original proposal, introduced by Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany in February 2014, of admitting to the sacraments those living in conjugal unions outside of a valid marriage, the last hope was that bishops would say explicitly what Amoris Laetitia only implies. That, at least, had the merit of being rooted in Amoris Laetitia itself, which called for bishops to draw up guidelines (300) to assist priests in providing pastoral care to such couples. Bishops, of course, are official teachers of the faith. That project, though, has not been going well for the “Kasper proposal.” Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, charged by the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to assist the bishops in their response, released guidelines for his own diocese, which maintained the practice taught by St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. The bishops of Poland and Costa Rica did the same. So, too, did the bishops of Alberta and the Northwest Territories in Canada.
Hence the excitement in some circles — and consternation in others — when the bishops of the Holy Father’s hometown, the Buenos Aires pastoral region in Argentina, apparently permitted the change in their pastoral region.
In what one presumes was a maneuver orchestrated in Rome, a draft of the Buenos Aires guidelines was leaked in the Italian press, along with a letter from Pope Francis to those bishops praising their guidelines as an authentic interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. The letter goes as far as to say that “there are no further interpretations,” according to a translation of the letter issued by Jesuit Father Antonio Spadaro, of the Italian magazine La Civilta Cattolica, the Holy Father’s de facto spokesman.
Finally here was proof of what the Pope meant in Amoris Laetitia! Such was the news that was trumpeted in headlines around the world, which was evidently the intent of the maneuverers in Rome. Yet the real news was something quite different altogether.
First, it is not news that Pope Francis does not hold to the tradition on this point. That was first indicated in April 2014, when he phoned a woman in Argentina who claimed — quite plausibly, as there was no correction in Rome — the Holy Father told her that, despite being divorced and living with a man outside of marriage, she should go to Communion and switch parishes if her pastor would not permit her to do so. The Holy Father’s position was confirmed at the conclusion of the 2015 synod, when he spoke of those who favored the tradition as desiring to throw “dead stones” at the suffering.
Second, the continuing news is that the Holy Father does not teach what he apparently believes, as neither a private phone call to a lady in Argentina nor a private letter, no matter how conveniently leaked, constitutes an exercise of the magisterium.
It is more than interesting to know what the Holy Father thinks, and certainly newsworthy if it appears to be at odds with settled teaching. But that Pope Francis expresses himself in unofficial ways that are difficult to square with the Catholic tradition — well, that is not news either.
Third, and most important, the Buenos Aires bishops did not, in fact, teach what the headlines said that they had taught.
The guidelines follow the document’s lead, but they are not the Kasper proposal. The bishops first speak about leading couples to live their whole lives in “the light of the Gospel.” That is not pious boilerplate, for on the question of divorce and remarriage, the Kasper proposal is the position of the Pharisees, corrected explicitly by Jesus in the Gospels. The guidelines explicitly state that, for many such couples, their path will not lead to reception of the sacraments. In cases where “both partners are Christians walking the path of faith,” the Buenos Aires bishops state that they should follow the traditional teaching and refrain from conjugal relations if they wish to receive the sacraments.
Only then do the guidelines speak about the situation — presumably for couples where one party is not a Christian or is not practicing the faith — where abstaining from conjugal relations is “not feasible.” The situation foreseen here is apparently that of one party desiring such abstinence, but the other refusing and threatening dire consequences in the absence of conjugal life. The first party then agrees to sexual relations against his or her will, for example, to preserve the welfare of the children.
In such cases, the practicing Catholic party may not be guilty of serious sin and could therefore, in some cases, be admitted to the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist. This case, it should be noted, could be treated in such a manner even before Amoris Laetitia, according to application of the standard principles of moral theology and confessional practice, analogous to the determination of the moral culpability of contraception when the spouses do not agree.
The Buenos Aires bishops then immediately warn that any such admission to the sacraments is not “unlimited” and that in some of these cases such admission would be “particularly outrageous.” Further, they hasten to add that in practice admission to Communion may be best done secretly, so as to avoid the scandal warned against, for example, in Familiaris Consortio, St. John Paul II’s 1991 apostolic exhortation on the role of the Christian family in the modern world. Administering holy Communion in secret is a rather clear indication that the Buenos Aires guidelines consider even this complex and unusual case to be on shaky ground.
The guidelines of the Buenos Aires bishops would not permit the approach of the Holy Father himself in the April 2014 phone call to Argentina. They would not permit the Kasper proposal. They, in fact, may not permit anything new at all, despite the clear desire to frame such things in such a way as not to hand their former archbishop another apparent defeat, this time is his own city.
The real news from Buenos Aires is that, in the very city where one presumes Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio had been privately advising such couples to go to Communion during his years as archbishop, the bishops did not endorse the Kasper proposal and offered guidelines that are far less permissive than reported.
Indeed, it is possible to read the Buenos Aires guidelines as consistent with the Church’s traditional teaching — not without some difficulty, to be sure, but that is true about Amoris Laetitia as a whole.
Far from breathing new life into the Kasper proposal, the Buenos Aires guidelines may well be where the proposal definitively died — and the Holy Father finally accepted it.
is editor in chief of
Convivium magazine.
The fact that you look at it as a “de facto rule” and a “mess” means nothing more than that this is your subjective take on the matter. What Pope Francis says in Amoris Laetitia is said clearly, and is in accordance with what the Pope affirms about the permanence of marriage as cited by Hoopes. It is a totally justified rejection of rigorist hermeneuttics. That rigorists call it “unclear” tells you something about rigorism, and confirms the point the Pope is making.
Timothy: That Pope Francis has not changed Catholic doctrine about the permanence (until death) of marriage is clear from the text cited by Tom Hoopes. It would be weird to think that Pope Francis suddenly changed his mind about that in Amoris Laetitia. Unfortunately there seem to be a substantial number of people who enjoy imposing unorthodox readings on words of the Holy Father in order to build up a case that the Pope is out to undermine marriage and to defend adultery. Such readings are perverse. Regarding this text I do not need to extrapolate anything: the meaning is clear. When I say that Pope Francis is asking pastors not to obsess about sex, I am referring to the teaching of Pope Francis regarding irregular situations as given in Amoris Laetitia and elsehere. Pope Francis insists, following a perfectly Catholic theology, that mortal sin is not in grave matter alone but in the conjunction of grave matter, clear consciousness and free will. The fact that there is contact between a pastor and a soul in an irregular situation already presupposes the working of grace: the duty of a pastor is to discern how the Holy Spirit is working in this soul and to be a docile collaborator of the Holy Spirit. Such a way of working is obstructed when the pastor obsesses on sex, when he becomes a sexual control freak instead of a pastor.
Also, and let me just finish my reasoning process from my last response, when an exception becomes a rule then that rule necessarily contradicts the original rule. That’s why it’s hard to accept the Pope on this and Tom’s misquote of him.
Timothy O’Rourke Jr.
I could not disagree with you more, Mr. Kuss. All that has happened here is that a remote possible hypothetical exception has become a concrete de facto rule. What a mess!
Timothy O’Rourke Jr.
Following Cardinal Schönborn I hold that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has made an important development of doctrine, fleshing out what was always implicit in Catholic doctrine: that the concrete reality of those in objective situations of sin must be considered, taking into account mitigating circumstances, that only by addressing the objective and the subjective (but real) factors together does one address the full objective reality of persons, which pastors are called to deal with, and that taking into account mitigating circumstances opens ways to the sacraments. The importance of this development must be recognized. There are critics of Pope Francis who say that he has undermined or denied the Catholic doctrine about marriage. He has not! (The text cited by Tom Hoopes is apposite here and the fact that it was made in the context of annulments does not matter. The Pope has not in Amoris Laetitia all of a sudden decided that he does not believe in the permanence of sacramental marriage: that is a perverse reading of the text but there seems to be a class of people hunkering after perverse readings of Pope Francis in order to confirm their prejudices. There are other other, indirect critics of Pope Francis (Father de Souza seems to belong here) who say don’t worry nothing has been officially changed in Church teaching in spite of a) the vague and ambiguous language the Pope uses or b) the nefarious intentions of the Pope. But Pope Francis has chosen the better part (the part of mercy) and that shall not be taken from him. He has developed doctrine, and his contribution to doctrine cannot be rolled back without severely damaging the work of the Good Shepherd. It will not be rolled back. It will stand.
Mr. Kuss, I cannot extrapolate the same meaning from the quote that you do, nor have I ever heard the Holy Father address this issue in the terms that you do. Can you elaborate? I will say that Christ, being the Good Sheppard, is good because he forgives sin. He Himself makes it a requirement for grace, of which the Eucharist is the exemplar.
Thanks, Tim
Timothy: If the Holy Father says something in clear terms, is that not clear enough for you? The Pope thus is not changing the Church’s doctrine about marriage. Rather he is saying something to the pastors of the Church: that they should not obsess about sex, bcause obsessing about sex they will not see clearly the total objective reality that a pastor must deal with. They will thus not be Shepherds in the image of the Good Shepherd. It is the sexual control freak who, being by definition a sadist, violates the sixth commandment. The Pope is telling us that marriage ought to be respected and therefore we should not obsess about sex.
Tom,
Also, your citation is out of historical context and comparative relevance. It was made in direct reference to fears that Mitis Iudex, which streamlined the annulment process, was tantamount to divorce. What this issue has involved into is giving the Eucharist to those who are still married not to those who have received an annulment and who were therefore never married. But that does not stop Mr.Kuss from drawing what can only be determined a false conclusion because of your intimated invalid premise. I suggest that you be careful.
Thanks,
Timothy O’Rourke Jr.
Tom,
All that is required is moral certainty. I am morally certain that the Pope is a heretic. Of course, this determination is outside of the law because I have no authority. However, while striving to be a competent Catholic, I do have a duty to try to inform others that is proportional to the manifest harm that Pope Francis is causing. If only I had your prestige…but then He gives us what our humility can bear. Anyway, no one can reasonably deny that the Church is suffering because of this. The point remains, if the Pope truly believed the meaning behind the words you cited why does he not just *formally* reaffirm them? It is not like there are not many other words and actions by the Pope that militate against your citation, right?
Timothy O’Rourke Jr.
Tom Hoopes: Thanks for this quotation from Pope Francis. These words of the Pope mean that the path to the sacraments which Pope Francis wants to open should in no sense be considered as an affirmation of a second marriage so long as the first valid sacramental marriage continues to exist (until the death of one of the spouses). This should be taken seriously and free the Pope from all the attacks that are made against him. Everything forbidden by the sixth commandment remains forbidden. Pope Francis has changed nothing in this regard and wants to change nothing, and can change nothing. He is not proposing that marriage can be trampled upon. He is proposing simply that the sacraments should be be offered to those in need of them. He is not proposing that sacraments can be trampled upon: neither marriage, nor penance, nor the Eucharist. He is proposing that priests live fully their calling to be Good Shepherds and not Rigorist Pharisees. The Catholic Church in its true doctrine does not obsess on sex. In this it follows our Lord who taught that the man who desires a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her. He who thinks that rules are everything is not only a rigorist but also a laxist at the same time. Pope Francis that we should be neither rigorists nor laxists but Good Shepherds.
Pope Francis said this in 2015:
“Those who think this is equivalent with ‘Catholic divorce’ are mistaken. Marriage is indissoluble when it is a sacrament. And this the Church cannot change. It is doctrine. It is an indissoluble sacrament.”
I guess I don’t understand why there is such utter certainty that he doesn’t believe this ...
Lyle,
The feeding of the poor is a mandate for Catholics and other Christians, like you and me. Not a mandate for the ridiculously large and growing federal government. Government needs to be smaller not larger; its main responsibility is for protecting its citizens and providing infrastructure for its citizens.
The US does not murder the poor. To say so is a lie and is slanderous and libel.
Subsidiarity is a Catholic principle and demands smaller gov’t.
The Apostle James says this about communicating our thoughts: “With [our tongue] we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so…. Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good life let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.” (James Chpt 3.)
Let us use our wisdom and communication skills to bless instead of curse.
Cardinal Raymond Burke, have signed a declaration of fidelity to the Church’s unchangeable teachings, of Malice to no one, Charity to all.
A direct demand of a cease of all United States military actions of murder of the poor. A United States demand of feeding of the poor across Africa and the Middle East with grain the United States hoards and is left to rot..
The entire Middle East central crisis today is hunger, starvation of millions of humans, in shortage of food, the United States can solve with grain the US has in abundance that could be sent to the Middle East and Africa, problem solved.
The whole marriage issue is a smoke screen to the real issues that can be solved and are important today.
Father Raymond J. de Souza you argue like a good employee who changes his perspective to fit management policy. It would be disloyal after all to criticize the CEO. Well Fr the Church is not an business and ethics are not situational. You are trying to cover for your boss because you can’t accept the truth or you are putting the best spin you can on Francis. Your loyalty is to Christ and His teaching and you like the Pope have to conform to it. No one living in adultery or living in any situation of mortal sin must approach Holy Communion. As the Sacrament has already been denigrated its obvious St Paul’s teaching is out but Francis thinks he can impose his false teaching. Sorry he can’t and we have had enough of having the Papacy hoodwink us for over 50 years.
Don, the Church cannot “update the “rite” of communion to reflect a forgiving Church” because is not within the Church’s authority. Forgiveness is not permission. Sin is sin; regardless of what we feel
Don Fisher:
Consider these words from Jesus:
“and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (MK 10:12)
Our Bishops are the voice of God. A person who willingly and knowingly lives a life contrary to the 2000 year teachings of Jesus (who speaks through His Bishops and Popes) are guilty of mortal sin. Theology is there to protect every Catholic from destroying themselves through sin. We are all called to be Holy as God is Holy, very few live up to this but the only way to Heaven is with the attitude with daily conversion and humility. It is through pride that human beings make up excuses for sin instead of facing our weaknesses and desiring to be better.
Again, Pope Francis’ own words confirm that Church teaching has not changed.
Pope Francis praised the “indissolubility of marriage,” saying that it “should not be viewed as a ‘yoke’ imposed on humanity, but as a ‘gift’ granted to those who are joined in marriage.” He added that “Divorce is an evil and the increasing number of divorces is very troubling.”
Catholics who have divorced-and-remarried need the fullness of Church teaching. They also need a wise pastoral and community response to their difficulties.
It is all a matter of integrity and honesty. If a Catholic is honest, then he/she will not present themselves to Holy Communion until they have rectified their situation. Otherwise the sin of sacrilege makes things worse. We are our worst enemies when we decide what is right and what is wrong. We harm ourselves when we deny the truth.
If a d&r person does not have the will to refrain from marital activity, then just refrain from Holy Communion until the time that they cooperate with Grace and get to that point. One only has to study the life of St. Augustine.
“I believe that Jesus’ strong statements about divorce and adultry reflect his desire…” Excuse me—you’ve just run way off the rails right there, even without the rest of the sentence. Jesus IS God the Son, the Eternal Word of the Father, who said “before Abraham was, I AM,” meaning that he is timeless. He also said that EVERYTHING he preached was from the Father. He said “Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of your hearts, but from the beginning it was not so.” He does not speak from his “desires” or from the limited perspective of someone who knows only his own time or place. What he said to the Apostles in the Gospels, he says right now, right here, to you and me. “Our faith teaches that we must be forgiving and tolerant.” Well, “our faith” is taught to us by JESUS through his own direct words in the Gospel and the magisterium of the Church. What he teaches, we do NOT change!
JCC you nailed it perfectly. Bravo
@ Don Fisher: “I believe that Jesus’ strong statements about divorce and adultery reflect his desire to protect woman in a patriarchal society where they could be divorced at will, and thereby, doomed to poverty.”
If that were the case, then why would Jesus not state this? Why would he say that adultery is the problem at all? Or why would he state that while one is not to separate from their spouse, which is bad enough, it’s the remarriage part that He condemns as adulterous? As regards to our faith teaching us that we must be forgiving and tolerant, this can never mean condoning or accepting something a morally licit. While the Church has to be welcoming and inviting, the Church proposes the teachings of Jesus for others to accept. But to accept these teachings means one does not get to come to Christ on their own terms. Jesus’ admonition is to repent and believe in the good news… remember the parable of the man who was welcomed and invited but refused to don the wedding garment???
Reply to a response to my posting: I believe that Jesus’ strong statements about divorce and adultry reflect his desire to protect woman in a patriarchical society where they could be divorced at will, and thereby, doomed to poverty. Woman were not treated fairly in such societies and men had all the power as is very much true today. Jesus’ statements provide some protection for divorced women. Our culture is not patriarchical today, in spite of some imperfections. Why can’t our Church teachings recognize this progress? Theological arguments are not helpful because they are obstruse and autocratic. Do you really believe that divorced and remarried couples should and will live like brother and sister? Our faith teaches that we must be forgiving and tolerant. Why can’t we update the “rite” of communion to reflect a forgiving Church?
We are at a critical juncture. We have to choose sides: either to uphold 2,000 years of teaching based on Christ’s own words or to use erroneous human cleverness to justify grave sin.
78 prominent Catholic leaders, including Cardinal Raymond Burke, have signed a declaration of fidelity to the Church’s unchangeable teachings. You can sign it too: http://www.filialappeal.org/full
Excerpts:
“We firmly reiterate the truth that, despite the variety of situations, personal and pastoral discernment can never lead divorcees who have attempted a civil marriage to conclude, in good conscience, that their adulterous union can be morally justified by ‘fidelity’ to their new partner, that withdrawing from the adulterous union is impossible, or that, by doing so, they expose themselves to new sins, or lack Christian or natural fidelity to their adulterous partner. We cannot talk of faithfulness in an illicit union that violates God’s Commandment and the indissoluble bond of marriage. The thought of loyalty between adulterers in their mutual sin is blasphemous.
“...We firmly reiterate the truth that divorcees who have attempted a civil marriage and who, for most serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, cannot satisfy the grave obligation to separate, are morally obliged to live as ‘brother and sister’ and to avoid scandal.”
Why would a disciple of Christ return to the teaching of the Pharisee?
The Word of the Living and Eternal God is not a dead stone.
His Command is not a guideline, it is the Way.
And if one letter is not true, then none of it is.
If the majority of the laity were as attuned to the fine distinctions as Fr. De Souza, this might not be an issue. But they are not, so it is. Expectations have changed, and so practice will change.
The morass of ambiguity Father had to wade through even to reach his conclusion underscores what a sorry state we are in under this papacy.
E. Christian Brugger points out that the Argentine document proposes “a split or double notion of moral truth: truth at the level of external, objective moral norms and truth at the internal, subjective level after contextualizing has taken place. It makes possible a conflict between truth at the two levels, thus justifying exceptions to objective moral norms such as the prohibition against adultery. Pope John Paul II censured this view over thirty years ago because, he said, it leads to the legitimization of ‘so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium’ and justifies ‘a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept’ (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenetentiae [RP] 56).
“This double notion of moral truth is at work in the guidelines of the Argentine bishops. They teach that when ‘complex circumstances’ prevail, and it’s impossible for remarried divorcees to obtain a declaration of nullity, ‘Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.’ But these Catholics are engaged in sexually active relationships with individuals other than their valid spouses. The objective and universal norm taught since the time of the apostles condemns all such extramarital acts as adulterous. Therefore, following the logic, there must be a fundamental split between the truth of the external, objective norm and the truth as it applies to individuals in their concrete subjective situations. The bishops’ hackneyed language of ‘journey’ and ‘discernment’ masks the true logic of their policy: In the face of complex circumstances, the universal moral truth that adultery is always wrong does not apply to some individuals.”
Don Fisher:
Is Jesus a punisher when “he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”(Mark 10:>11-12)???
Holy Communion is not a"RIGHT” but a “rite” and the d&r Catholic can receive it (just like any other sinful Catholic) After repenting of grave sin, going to Confession with a firm purpose of amendment; intending not to commit adultery again and then receiving absolution. The Bishops of Alberta have it right: if one is divorced and civilly remarried, one must refrain from sexual activity and live as brother and sister.
This is not a punishment but the correct pastoral approach. Would a faithful Catholic intentionally commit the sin of sacrilege? I would hope not.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/canadian-bishops-divorced-and-civilly-remarried-catholics-must-follow-right
Seems that some of the clergy wants us to be heretics and some others, like Fr de Souza, wants us to be stupid.
We can read, Father. We can read and comprehend.
Frankly I am getting rather tired of Pope Francis. I’m sick and tired of all the ” hints ” that what the Church has always clearly taught, is deficient, lacking in charity. I don’t like his style of tinkering around with the margins of moral doctrine. I think he is the wrong man for the job and will not be displeased to see him retire. Next time I hope the Cardinals do a better job at selecting and not be carried away with emotion.
“We can’t cave at all on this issue. Please, please read Fr. Gerald Murray so we can start standing up to this:”
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/01/16/cardinal-sarah-and-our-silent-apostasy/
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/05/19/no-power-to-redefine-marriage/
Come Holy Spirit Come! Come with wisdom on thy wings!
Sadly, that’s all I can say. Confusion reigns!!
Come Sweet Breath of God.
The situation presumably when one of the parties is not Christian is just the author’s assumption. Why does not the Pope or the Argentine bishops make things clear, and at least give some examples? Any bishop or priest can make a different assumption more in agreement with Cardinal Kasper. Thus, the way things are these days in the Church, any situation can be deemed an excuse to give communion to those in adulterous relationships. Moreover, why not apply the same assumption to those who cohabitate (whether of different of same sex) and who have not been married before? After all, there is no question here of a person having sexual relations with another person who is still married to somebody else. I am sorry, but I do not buy the argument.
Even after Pope Francis has endorsed the Argentine bishops’ document on Amoris Laetitia [http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/09/12/pope_endorses_argentine_bishops_document_on_amoris_laetitia/1257635] and insisted that
“there are no other interpretations” of his apostolic exhortation
Fr. de Souza would want to claim that this isn’t the approval of the Kasper’s proposal [which turns out to have been the pope’s proposal all along]?
*
Cf. Amoris Laetitia and Kasper’s Proposal - https://thewarourtime.com/2016/04/08/amoris-laetitia-and-kaspers-proposal/
*
For the record, the Argentine bishops’ document doesn’t say the divorced and civilly remarried who can be granted access in certain cases constitute a Christian and non-Christian couple
6) In other, more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, the aforementioned option may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, it is equally possible to undertake a journey of discernment. If one arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). These in turn dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the aid of grace.
Here is where Fr. De Souza’s otherwise excellent piece should have been a lot more explanatory. He says:
“In such cases, the practicing Catholic party may not be guilty of serious sin and could therefore, in some cases, be admitted to the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist. This case, it should be noted, could be treated in such a manner even before Amoris Laetitia, according to application of the standard principles of moral theology and confessional practice, analogous to the determination of the moral culpability of contraception when the spouses do not agree.”
The Magisterium, however, over the years has confirmed that Christ’s words seem to have left no room for exceptions in a case of remarriage, adultery and Communion. That is not the case regarding contraception, concerning which Father says one may apply “the standard principles of moral theology and confessional practice” for the determination of moral culpability when the spouses do not agree.”
So, on its face, we have a case of apples (adultery—Christ’s direct teaching telling us “no”) and oranges (contraception—with nothing even approaching such direct condemnation).
But that’s not so, according to Father. He is saying that it’s all oranges; that Christ’s words DO permit exceptions in a case of adultery remarriage and Communion when the spouses do not agree; i.e., that we don’t even need Amoris Laetitia to make such exceptions. But he does not explain how he gets around the years of Magisterium teaching to the contrary.
Why then did he bother to write this piece?
To the Bishops, our teachers: Do you really believe that it is fair and forgiving to punish persons who may have been divorced because of terrible mental or physical abuse, and have re-married into good and honorable relationships? Let them have Communion!
The Bishops teachings are based on theology. Theology is based on interpretations. In spite of those who believe nothing can change in our Church these interpretations have, in fact, changed over the past 2000 years. Most Catholics don’t care about these confusing arguments over what is sinful, especially when the outcome is perceived as being unfair. That’s why we have so many lapsed Catholics. Take action to let them come back!
If d&r persons are true to themselves, then they will do the right thing regardless of ambiguous documents and teachings. Catholics are required to pray and listen to the Holy Spirit; not jump through hoops in order to justify what is objectively grave matter.
I am tired of reading how d&r Catholics are somehow victims; they have put themselves into this position and are required to face the facts. There can be not “secrets” because God sees and knows Everything.
If you shove bread down a dead man’s throat, it will give him absolutely no nourishment. In the same manner, a person taking Holy Communion while in a state of grave sin receives no nourishment for the soul. Indeed, he commits another sin of sacrilege and does additional harm to his soul.
The Bishops of Alberta and the Northwest Territories in Canada have done an excellent job. It is time for the rest of the world’s Bishops to do the same.
Josh Kusch had a great article about communion for the divorced and remarried in light of JPII’s work. Aside from the fact that JPII’s Familiaris Consortio already explicitly prohibited communion in EVERY CASE unless the couple was continent, his Veritatis Splendor reiterated the impossibility of exceptions to absolute moral norms:
“The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception.” (VS 52)
“The negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the ‘creativity’ of any contrary determination whatsoever.” (VS 67)
“When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the ‘poorest of the poor’ on the face of the earth.” (VS 96)
I remain shocked that the Register, owned by Mother Angelica’s EWTN, published a piece that does exactly what JPII condemned: using “creativity” to devise “exceptions” condoning intrinsically evil behavior.
@ Cathy,
If that were the case, we would be like Luther. Schism is not the answer…prayer is. The fact is, Christ originated the Catholic church through St. Peter so, to leave then would mean leaving the one true church.
The bishop of Rome writes from the shadows to his home boys. It gets leaked, as it should.
What we all suspected is now quite clear.
Any questions?
It’s good to read that the confusion may be less profound than previously thought. But confusion rather than clarity is still the order of the day.
I am just absolutely shocked that Father actually has the temerity to draw a non-existent distinction between what he plainly admits the Pope publically wants and the Pope’s privately leaked discussions, even though they are also aimed at allowing in practice what the Pope has publically stated he wants, to which, at least, Father thankfully admits. The Pope does not have the luxury of privately held opinions that he publically discloses on purpose when those so-called private opinions are in direct support of what he publically wants: to change unchangeable Church teaching. The Pope is a de facto heretic and we all need to stop considering illogical verbal constructs to support what our disbelief cannot admit. The Pope is oath-sworn so as to never try to change unchangeable Church teaching whether in public or private. He is doing both. Our efforts would be better spent in not believing red-herrings so as to assuage our guilty consciences but rather to accept that the Pope is a de facto heretic who is need of our prayers. Moreover, we do the Kingdom no good in perverting logic to the extent to which Father has done here to protect the Pope when the Pope is plainly scandalizing the Flock he has sworn to protect, even “privately”.
Sincerely in Christ,
Timothy O’Rourke Jr.
Just another big ? thanks to Pope Francis!
I don’t believe that Pope Francis’ motives are at issue here. Who can pretend to know them or judge them without committing sin? It is what he has said and done that all the world can see. And no pope is the Catholic Church. One does not leave the Church or invite others to leave the Church because of their criticism of the pope who happens to be seated in the Chair of Peter at this time.
My fear is that the liberal priests of my parish will use these letters as an easy excuse to throww open the gates to the Eucharist and proclaim that there is no such thing as sin.
It is the critics of Amoris Laetitia who fall into logical contortions. Dr. Seifert (who I had as a professor at the University of Dallas) seems to say that “a gravely sinful act” does not need full knowledge and consent to be gravely sinful. Well the assumption Dr. Seifert is assuming what he wants to prove, which is that consciousness and will are irrelevant. He is confusing the matter of mortal sin with mortal sin. Knowledge and will are relevant, he is saying. In fact they are essential. Pope Francis is always talking about pastoral care. The pastor, whose authority comes from God, deals with concrete reality. He respects rules, but by the grace of God he comes in contact with concrete human reality in which the rules are not everything. That is the Catholic way of seeing things as opposed to the rigorist way of seeing things. Pope Francis is defending the Gospel.
To those who think adultery can in some cases no longer be a mortal sin, one journalist points out:
“A gravely sinful act, [some argue], is only a mortal sin if accompanied by full knowledge and full consent. Well, if you live by theological nuance you die by theological nuance, and experts such as Dr Josef Seifert and Fr Brian Harrison have given powerful reasons to think this point is irrelevant. The Catholic tradition, says Seifert, has never attributed ‘a lack of knowledge’ to people breaking fundamental precepts of the moral law; nor, says Fr Harrison, has it attributed ‘a lack of consent’ to adults who consciously choose a sinful course of action over a period of time.”
Dr. Seifert: http://www.pathsoflove.com/blog/2016/08/the-joy-of-love-by-josef-seifert-some-couples-allowed-to-receive/
Fr. Harrison: http://latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_harrison_diminished-imputability.html
Also, St. John Paul II explicitly upheld an absolute prohibition against adultery and said continence was necessary in every case. See Familiaris Consortio 84.
And here we go, it’s deja vu all over again, from the National Catholic Reporter ...
“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.
Confusion prevails, again. Pope Francis has created several new “spirit of Vatican II” dissenter moments. The “cafeteria” has been replenished. Very troubling.
“The greatest of virtue is to never say anything bad about any one…” Oh, come on Lyle! This is something that YOU can and do live up to? Never saying ANYTHING bad under any circumstances? You’ve never argued with someone? Never reprimanded a child for bad behavior? Never protested a wrongheaded political move? Never voiced any thoughts, no matter how well-founded, about what could be serious moral failings or lack of trustworthiness about another? Even if you had good reason to suspect immoral dispositions in another person, you would never DREAM of warning someone who might become his victim? You’d just smile and keep your mouth shut. And I’ll bet you have nothing but good thoughts and sweet things to see about BOTH Hillary Clinton AND Donald Trump! Yeah. Right. This pushes po-faced nonsense to the reach-for-the-barf-bag extreme. Spare me!
Do any of these worthies understand the confusion and damage being done to those in the pews by all this wrangling? Does anyone recall various biblical condemnations of scandal? A sorry pass we have come to.
Another attempt to justify the unjustifiable. It is really disgusting how this article actually endorses adultery.
So is this the latest conspiracy theory revolving around Pope Francis? He didn’t change anything but intended to do so. He doesn’t put into practice what he believes etc., etc. Shouldn’t Catholics who are suspicious of Pope Francis’ motives find another denomination where they will feel more at ease?
“The greatest of virtue is to never say anything bad about any one” I hope I remember that the next time you speak disrespectfully of the KC’s supreme Knight or of the United States and accuse it falsely of all sorts of things. Yeah I know! It’s considered to be Muslim virtue to mislead people and give false witness if it serves the cause of ISIS. Help me remember Lyle, will you please?
I hope that Fr. de Souza is right, and that “Far from breathing new life into the Kasper proposal, the Buenos Aires guidelines may well be where the proposal definitively died — and the Holy Father finally accepted it.” —but I doubt it, since the Holy Father seems determined to get this changed. I pray—we all should pray—that the bishops will stand firm on Church teaching, as difficult as it is. +
I have to wonder how very first world all this angst about the Pope is. Something tells me that the common faithful Catholic on the street in developing and third world countries has far bigger fish to fry and is just utterly grateful for a Pope who clearly has a tender heart for the poor.
America is not and never has been a Catholic country, and it shows.
Catholic doctrine teaches us that the essence of mortal sin is not in grave matter, but in the conjunction of grave matter, consciousness and free will. This is what Pope Francis is insisting on. It is pure Catholic doctrine. He is developing this doctrine, explicitating its consequences. His critics never come to grips with this. They say Divorced and remarried=people in mortal sin=people banned from communion. Pope Francis is saying that things are not that simple. Hi critics are saying that it is that simple. The critics have fallen for a sophism, not the Holy Father.
I think it is really this simple:
1) Pope issues vague document (Amoris Laetitia) hoping problem will go away
2) Bishops start issuing documents indicating nothing has changed, divorced and remarried cannot take communion
3) Pope gets worried. “That’s not what I wanted. But I was too cowardly to come and and say what I wanted in Amoris Laetitia, so something must be done!”
4) Pope asks his buddies from Argentina to issue document saying that divorced and remarried can take communion
5) Pope issues casual off hand letter that is leaked saying “No other interpretations are possible” which will stop bishops from issuing their letters saying that Catholic doctrine is unchanged.
He really has a cowardly way of refusing to say something directly
What??????
How can a person or group call themselves Catholic, and yet say or elude to saying or speaking ill of others???????
The greatest of virtue is to never say anything bad about any one, and that would definitely include the Pope in the highest regard.
“...The first party then agrees to sexual relations against his or her will, for example, to preserve the welfare of the children….”
Whatever happened to the immutable concept that one may never do an evil—even to bring about a greater good, no matter how big the good?
Furthermore: the Argentine letter clearly declares that AL “opens up the possibility” of the Eucharist. How does this square with this article’s contention that it “may not permit anything new at all”? Isn’t Communion during the objective state of adultery, while not living as brother and sister, new? While we’re contorting to justify the document, the clergy actually implementing it will be following the plain meaning: there’s no moral absolute involved in adultery anymore.
Also: disagreeing with your true spouse about contraception can’t really be the same as disagreeing over sex with the person you’re committing adultery with. Preserving a union with your real spouse can’t be the same as preserving the adulterous sexually active union that violates your marriage vows.
Also: “Fundamentally the Argentine draft stumbles…in thinking that an individual’s subjective, albeit sincere, conclusions about his or her eligibility for Communion per Canon 916 trumps the Church’s authority, nay her obligation, to withhold the sacrament in the face of certain objective, externally verifiable conditions per Canon 915…compromising the well-established interpretation of Canon 915 in the case of divorced-and-remarried Catholics necessarily calls into question the law’s applicability to cases of, say, ‘loving’ couples cohabitating outside of marriage, the ‘compassionate’ promotion of abortion or euthanasia, ‘honest’ persons entering “same-sex marriages”, and so on.”
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com
I sincerely hope we see a follow-up article addressing all these serious flaws. The faithful desperately need clarity, not seeds of doubt about moral absolutes.
I’m so sad that the Register published this instead of a strong denunciation of the letter, like the following:
“But these Catholics are engaged in sexually active relationships with individuals other than their valid spouses. The objective and universal norm taught since the time of the apostles condemns all such extramarital acts as adulterous… The bishops’ hackneyed language of “journey” and “discernment” masks the true logic of their policy: In the face of complex circumstances, the universal moral truth that adultery is always wrong does not apply to some individuals.”
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5069/the_catholic_conscience_the_argentine_bishops_and_amoris_laetitia.aspx
If you can be “coerced” into having sex for the sake of the children in an adulterous union, can’t you be “coerced” into same-sex acts in a gay union for the sake of those children? Can’t you be “coerced” to cohabitate? How do you determine when circumstances, financial or otherwise, are “dire” enough to justify you?
We can’t cave at all on this issue. Please, please read Fr. Gerald Murray so we can start standing up to this:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/01/16/cardinal-sarah-and-our-silent-apostasy/
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/05/19/no-power-to-redefine-marriage/
Unfortunately thee is still here the will to speak negatively about the Pope, as shown in the interpretation of a phone call with an Argentinian woman (If you do not know the concrete circustances of the case was it not better to avoid jumping in with your readiness to judge), and based on an assumption about the Pope’s being behind the Kasper proposal. (But which Kasper proposal? That which was carefully formulated at the beginning, or the cartoon version which was bandied about thereafter: which amounts to the blanket allowing all the divorced and remarried to communion. Is it not more fair to say that Amoris Laetitia really expresses the Pope’s mature thought and that this thought does not entail a radical break with the doctrine or discipline of the Church, but does represent a development of the pastoral teaching of the church, and that it in fact does justice to the complexity of reality? The assumption of the author is that if the
Pope does not change the rules he has done nothing, that everything stays where it was because rules have not been changed; in other words the assumption is that pastoral practice can be reduced to rules. This causes a rupture between pastoral practice and the Gospel
Sections
Home
Search




