
Vatican City, Dec 5, 2017 / 05:19 pm (CNA).- Despite the recent inclusion of Pope Francis’ 2016 letter to the Buenos Aires bishops on Amoris laetitia in the Holy See’s official text of record, neither the Church’s discipline nor its doctrine have changed.
The move is the latest in the debate over the admission of the divorced-and-remarried to Communion. The Second Vatican Council, St. John Paul II, and Benedict XVI – as well as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts under them – all firmly opposed proposals to admit to eucharistic communion the divorced-and-remarried who do not observe continence.
The debate has received renewed impetus under Pope Francis. His 2016 apostolic exhortation on love in the family, Amoris laetitia, has been met with varied reception and interpretation within the Church. Its eighth chapter, entitled “Accompanying, Discerning, and Integrating Weakness,” deals with, among other things, the pastoral care of the divorced-and-remarried, those who may not be admitted to Communion unless they have committed to living in continence, eschewing the acts proper to married couples.
Yet, for many Church leaders and theologians, ambiguous language in that chapter has led to uncertainties about this practice, and about the nature and status of the apostolic exhortation itself. Some have maintained that it is incompatible with Church teaching, and others that it has not changed the Church’s discipline. Still others read Amoris laetitia as opening the way to a new pastoral practice, or even as a development in continuity with St. John Paul II.
Some Church leaders have noted that Amoris laetitia has led to the disorientation and great confusion of many of the faithful, and at least one respected theologian has argued that Francis’ pontificate has fostered confusion, diminished the importance of doctrine in the Church’s life, and cause faithful Catholics to lose confidence in the papacy.
Pope Francis has been understood to encourage those who interpret Amoris laetitia as opening the way to a new pastoral practice – as he seemed to do in a letter to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region, which is the subject of the latest furor.
His letter approves those bishops’ pastoral response to the divorced-and-remarried, based on Amoris laetitia. The response had said that ministry to the divorced-and-remarried must never create confusion about Church teaching and the indissolubility of marriage, but may also allow access to the sacraments under specific limits. These might include specific situations when a penitent in an irregular union is under attenuated culpability, as when leaving such a union could cause harm to his children, although the circumstances envisioned are not precisely delineated, which, some theologians say, has contributed to the confusion.
The Pope’s Sept. 5, 2016 letter addressed to Bishop Sergio Alfredo Fenoy of San Miguel said, “The text is very good and makes fully explicit the meaning of the eighth chapter of ‘Amoris Laetitia’. There are no other interpretations. And I am sure it will do a lot of good. May the Lord reward you for this effort of pastoral charity.”
It was reported this weekend that Pope Francis’ letter, as well as the pastoral response of the Buenos Aires bishops, were promulgated in the October 2016 issue of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, a Vatican publication in which official documents of the Pope and the Roman Curia are published, and through which universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated.
Dr. Edward Peters, a professor of canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, wrote Dec. 4 that the Buenos Aires document contains assertions “running the gamut from obviously true, through true-but-oddly-or-incompletely phrased, to a few that, while capable of being understood in an orthodox sense, are formulated in ways that lend themselves to heterodox understandings.”
He noted that what prevents the admission of the divorced-and-remarried to eucharistic communion is canon 915 “and the universal, unanimous interpretation which that legislative text, rooted as it is in divine law, has always received.” The canon states that those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
In an August 2017 post anticipating the possible publication in AAS of the Buenos Aires letter or the Pope’s commendation of it, Peters had written that “many, nay most, papal documents appearing in the Acta carry no canonical or disciplinary force.”
He wrote that “Unless canon 915 itself is directly revoked, gutted, or neutered, it binds ministers of holy Communion to withhold that most august sacrament from, among others, divorced-and-remarried Catholics except where such couples live as brother-sister and without scandal to the community.”
“Nothing I have seen to date, including the appearance of the pope’s and Argentine bishops’ letters in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, makes me think that Canon 915 has suffered such a fate.”
He added: “Neither the pope’s letter to the Argentines, nor the Argentine bishops’ document, nor even Amoris laetitia so much as mentions Canon 915, let alone do these documents abrogate, obrogate, or authentically interpret this norm out of the Code of Canon Law.”
While the Pope’s letter and the Buenos Aires bishops’ pastoral response do contain ambiguous “disciplinary assertions”, they are insufficient “to revoke, modify, or otherwise obviate” canon 915, Peters wrote.
Aside from the canonical problems with the admission of the divorced-and-remarried to eucharistic communion is the question of what it means that the Buenos Aires document and the Pope’s letter in support of it are intended to be a part of the Church’s Magisterium.
A rescript from Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, in the AAS notes that their promulgation was intended “as authentic Magisterium.”
The Magisterium is a part of teaching office of bishops, by which they are charged with interpreting and preserving the deposit of faith. In its 1990 declaration Donum veritatis, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith noted that the Magisterium “has the task of discerning, by means of judgments normative for the consciences of believers, those acts which in themselves conform to the demands of faith and foster their expression in life and those which, on the contrary, because intrinsically evil, are incompatible with such demands.”
Catholics are bound to assent to divinely revealed teachings with faith; to firmly embrace and retain those things which are required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the deposit of faith; and to give religious submission of intellect and will to doctrines on faith or morals given through the authentic Magisterium.
The critical question regarding Amoris laetitia is what, precisely, it teaches with regard to faith and morals, and what it doesn’t, or even, can’t, teach. On the latter question, especially, the Church’s existent doctrine is helpful.
Even while some bishops, such as those of the Buenos Aires region and those of Malta, have interpreted the apostolic exhortation as allowing a new pastoral practice, many others have maintained that it changes nothing of doctrine or discipline.
For example, while prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller said that Amoris laetitia has not eliminated Church discipline on marriage, nor has it has permitted in some cases the divorced-and-remarried “to receive the Eucharist without the need to change their way of life.”
“This is a matter of a consolidated magisterial teaching, supported by scripture and founded on a doctrinal reason: the salvific harmony of the sacrament, the heart of the ‘culture of the bond’ that the Church lives.”
The prefect of the CDF said that if Pope Francis’ exhortation “had wanted to eliminate such a deeply rooted and significant discipline, it would have said so clearly and presented supporting reasons.”
“There is however no affirmation in this sense; nor does the Pope bring into question, at any time, the arguments presented by his predecessors, which are not based on the subjective culpability of our brothers, but rather on their visible, objective way of life, contrary to the words of Christ,” Cardinal Müller stated.
It has been the constant teaching of the Church that marriage is indissoluble, that people not married to each other may not legitimately engage in acts of sexual intimacy, that the Eucharist may not be received by those conscious of grave sin, and that absolution requires the purpose of amending one’s life, even with a diminished or limited capacity to exercise the will.
And the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists … Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.”
St. John Paul II promulgated the Catechism in 1992 by the apostolic constitution Fidei depositum, in which he wrote that it “is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.”
“The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represents a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church … of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples, as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine.”
Critical to understanding the character of the Church’s teaching on these issues is a declaration the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts wrote in 2000 that canon 915’s prohibition on admitting to Holy Communion those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin is applicable to the divorced-and-remarried.
“Any interpretation of can. 915 that would set itself against the canon’s substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading,” it said.
This prohibition, the pontifical council continued, is “by its nature derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church.”
This declaration defines a kind of a limit on how the Magisterium can develop; by invoking divine law, the council says that no pastoral approach can transgress the norms of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. While considering questions of subjective culpability do not exceed those norms, the council’s directive explains that the Church can not, and will not, redefine the deposit of faith.
The deposit of faith has not been changed, and nor has canon law. Despite a great deal of anxiety and media attention, truth remains unchanged, and unchanging.
While some find the Pope’s writing to be ambiguous, truth is not. Amoris laetitia must be interpreted in a way that does not contravene truth.
Even when such an interpretation is not readily apparent.
[…]
Well, my goodness me! I think that I shall take up bank robbery for a living, and will go to Cardinal Marx to have my endeavors blessed before I head out for a heist. And while I’m at it, I’ll go out and commit perjury, but I’ll ask him for a blessing ceremony beforehand. And, y’know, there are some people who really annoy me, so I think I’ll poison or knife or shoot them – but I’ll be sure to get Cardinal Marx to “accompany me as an individual” as I do it.
It is a terrible thing to have evil on the loose in the Church, with corrupt leaders cooperating with it.
It must be exhausting to have to juggle so many “concrete situations” at once.
Perhaps I can hide some of those stabbed, poisoned, and shot annoyances in the concrete.
An internal contradiction of immense proportions. It is not possible to square this circle.
To be led away from Christ in the name of “mercy”.
Why doesn’t Cardinal Marx just convert to Anglicanism?
Dr Maike Hickson German born wife of Dr R Hickson and member of the John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family recently interviewed Dr Josef Seifert for 1Peter5 on his firing in Spain. Seifert cited Prof Gerhard Hover’s repudiation of intrinsic evil [Time is greater than space], the phi theological basis of Pope Francis’ New Paradigm, and basis for Cardinal Reinhard Marx’ position on homosexual union. From my Thomistic perspective “concrete circumstances” frequently cited by Pope Francis as moral determinants however mitigating or thought favorable cannot make an evil act good since the object of the act must be ordered to God. The moral law referencing human acts that are inherently evil reflect the divine law, and God who is neither subject to time or change. Evil is in the will of man, due to a willful privation of direction to a due end. If as Gerhard Hover argues time is reduced to the continuous motion of the Aristotelian tradition [form and absence of form which affects human acts] it must be taken as an excessive limitation [coarctata temporis acceptio]. Time Hover says is actually greater than the space by which it is measured. Human acts are of themselves transient in nature inclusive of their intrinsic moral nature. Time in this sense transcends the limitations of space and consequent restrictions like intrinsic evil. This theorem [Hover’s] effectively denies that evil is in contradiction to God. Evil must then exist as commensurate to the divine nature as good or evil, but dependent on human measurable time. Then nothing is intrinsically and forever evil to God. Since it is man that determines what is good or evil. That is apotheosis. Instead God unchanging undivided Pure Act and First Principle cannot be subject to moral divisibility that mirrors a Zoroastrian good and evil composite of justice, namely what is evil today is good tomorrow. In God there is no Darkness.
Hi ,
I’ve been a Catholic all my life, that’s almost 59 years.
This Cardinal Marx seems to have stopped being a Catholic AND DEFINATLY A CHRISTIAN, with his heinous attack on our Faith. How can you bless someone who quite clearly is facing an eternal punishment for their sin, and then inviting this perversion into any Christian church.
He should be guiding lost souls to the right path.
He is an insult to everything he is supposed to be, but more importantly what the Catholic faith is supposed to be.
I fear this could be a case of ” birds of a feather. He should get out of our Religion instead of soiling the already bad image Catholism already has with crimes against children.
This person or wanna be do gooder is a complete imbecile, if he finds his job too hard to do he should get out ,and stop damaging 2000 years of Christianity.
Hi Father Peter,
I find your comments very very deep and learned, complicated and difficult to understand.
But to simplify.
God does, many many times through the bible point out what is good and what is evil. This to me is where mankind finds the answers to life’s conundrums, so in ” the rule book” or bible every conceivable sin for mankind is addressed.
Now, if an individual commits certain sins throughout their lives and never seeks forgivenesses and most importantly, never ceases these sins – then their soul is lost for eternity. This may sound very harsh BUT this is Gods law and no matter how hurtful any individual may find this, this is the truth.
Now anyone who tries to alter the word and teachings of God is foolish because the Bible is foolproof, but NOT for the foolish.
To be truly fair to anyone who seeks advice and who genuinely does not know the answers it is best to make them fully aware of the dire eternal consequences of leading a sinful life.
God Bless
Brian.
I’m not sure about these German Marxes whether they be Reinhard or Karl. I’d rather take Groucho and Harpo.
Groucho Marx…. ” Love goes out the door and innuendo”.
Hi ,
I’ve been a Catholic all my life, that’s almost 59 years.
This Cardinal Marx seems to have stopped being a Catholic AND DEFINATLY A CHRISTIAN, with his heinous attack on our Faith. How can you bless someone who quite clearly is facing an eternal punishment for their sin, and then inviting this perversion into any Christian church.
He should be guiding lost souls to the right path.
He is an insult to everything he is supposed to be, but more importantly what the Catholic faith is supposed to be.
I fear this could be a case of ” birds of a feather. He should get out of our Religion instead of soiling the already bad image Catholism already has with crimes against children.
This person or wanna be do gooder is a complete imbecile, if he finds his job too hard to do he should get out ,and stop damaging 2000 years of Christianity.