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.
[…]
The U.S. Bishops have just been silenced! This saddens my neart. As long as Pope Francis and his supporters are in charge, this evil will continue to prevent Graces to flow into the Church. I pray that the suffering and prayers of our good priests and faithful members of our Church be accepted as reparations for sins committed by those who held power and continue to hold power in the Church established by Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Lord have mercy on us. Christ have mercy on us. Lord have mercy on us. Christ hear us. Christ graciously hear us.
“The U.S. Bishops have just been silenced! ”
Its about time! May they all be converted!
“We cry for the injustices perpetrated upon victims of abuse. We vow to fight a clerical culture that tolerates the abuse of authority. When abuse occurs, it is our sin and we must take it as such. These are not the sins of the media or the products of vast conspiracies. These are things we must recognize and fix. Our Holy Father has said it must end, and it must — not simply because he has said it, but because each of us in our hearts know that this is the only right thing to do.”
– Archbishop Christoohe Pierre
Apostolic Nuncio
Archbishop, with all due respect, the nuanced sychophantic speech that emanates from the “official” channels of The Church is for lack of a better word despicable. Its as though the shepherds are protecting the shepherds and slaughtering the sheep. Where is your compassion? Why do a last minute power play on the US bishops when you just spent an entire month with them. Couldn’t you resolve what you know was coming then? As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
“It is clear the the Holy See is taking the abuse crisis seriously,” Cupich said.”
Maybe it’s clear to him, but it isn’t clear to me.
The Vatican may be serious about the abuse crisis. But that means only that the Vatican is against pedophilia. And that is applaudable. But the Vatican is not at all serious about homosexuality. It condones homosexuality. James Martin thinks gay sex is as normal as hetero sex. The Vatican supports James Martin. Gave him a job at the Vatican.
The Pope is not the boss of the U.S. bishops. The bishops should simply decline to comply with the Vatican’s directive.
Yes, be obedient to God, not to the Pope.
Yet another reason Pope Francis needs to step down. He is a liability to the Church and doing everything in his power to sabotage efforts to curb sexual abuse.
The Vatican’s decision to prevent the USCCB from voting on reform may convince secular authorities in the USA that the Church is not serious in protecting those vulnerable to sexual predators. I look for more states to launch grand jury investigations similar to that of Pennsylvania. I fear the Church has lost its last chance to be proactive and if any reform takes place, it will come from the secular arm.
It’s like we are witnessing the corruption in the era of the Reformation all over again, and there were no serious attempts at reform until after the armies of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V sacked and looted Rome. It may take a similar chastisement for the Church Hierarchy to take this crisis seriously.
Canon 333 of the Code of Canon Law states, in part, that the Pope “obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them….” I’m not sure what exactly that means, but my prior post may have been in error.
Cupich interrupted to give the Vatican spiel to show who really was boss.
Personally, I think as this does not have to do with Doctrinal questions, it is time for some spine from our bishops, and to practice some good old fashioned Civil Disobedience.
Until they show that spine, and until they expose this rampant corruption, and not allow it to be swept under the rug of decades…
NOT ONE THIN DIME….except to charities and parishes I KNOW are Faithful.
I watched the 9 o’clock EWTN broadcast and the guy (forgot his name) who reported Cupich’s statement said it was his clear impression that Cupich knew what was coming and was ready for it.
And did you see the expression on Archbishop Chaput’s face as His Royal Highness spewed forth? (He could be seen behind Cupich, to the left.) Archbishop Chaput looked shocked and angry – and rightly so.
Somewhere in the mix are at least two longer-term risks:
(a) a threat to the sacramental seal due to aggressive state Attorney’s General probes (think Australia), and (b) the possible and even unintended mission creep of the lay investigation initially focused on sexual abuse and embedded homosexuality, e.g., eventually extending into disposal of Church properties to cover future lawsuits?
“Trusteeship” was an issue in early 20th century America, and 16th-century lay takeover of the Church by nation-states was an outcome of the Reformation (triggered by the comparatively trivial abuse of “indulgences” salesmanship).
Whether further delay helps or worsens the malignant and potentially far-reaching big picture is high-end Calculus. A different Vatican action could have been to simply announce, however late, a Visitation, and then to order the announced pause on pending USCCB actions.
Now the proof is in the pudding–a very short four days in February. Announcement of an extended and more functional session could be a good sign.
It is not “high end calculus”. It is not rocket science.
The bishop of Rome planned the timing of this kick to the bishops groin perfectly.
Francis holds DiNardo, et al, in complete contempt: just as he does the American pewsitter.
The states attorneys general will have an absolute field day with this.
So be it.
This was all scripted by the Holy See, make no mistake about it.
The diminutive Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago is Pinocchio to the Pontiff’s Geppetto.
Rod Dreher, in The American Conservative, reacts to the news from Baltimore:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-pope-is-the-problem/
There is a Tweet from Mark Brumley, president of Ignatius Press.
Bergoglio likes controlling votes whether it’s here or at the Youth Synod where voting was pushed through for the final document whether someone really considered what they’re voting for or not.
Adios, Aristotle and Aquinas. Welcome to the hyper-voluntarist “spirituality” of Bergoglio, Spadaro and yes, Martin.. where the “Ignatian” has a lot in common with Machiavelli and Nietzsche.
This is really a dangerous game though, where the folks playing at being crazy are actually crazy. This nervous breakdown, masquerading as new and improved, once in slow motion is now ever-escalating. This acting out won’t be resolved in family or by the family doctor but by the decisive interventions of that less spiritual, secular part of our psychiatric team known in the broadest sense as “the authorities” or “the cops.”
Should we also pray? Yes. Many rosaries…numbers of rosaries similar to those Bergoglio disparaged when he became Bishop of Rome.
If my child is stricken with dangerous illness, a life threatening,,but my husband due to poor judgement,,delay the life saving treatment,will i commit disobedience if i will bypass him?The situation is the same in the church..Men of goodwill must act now…
Actually it makes sense for them to wait until the February. Though it would’ve been better had the Holy See told them earlier than at last minute.
No, it does NOT make sense for the U.S. Bishops to wait until February. They’ve had a conflagaration on their hands since this summer. If it’s complexity around the issues, this is precisely why they need their November meeting for part 1 and February for a part 2 for addressing the current crisis. There’s a good chance that the lavender mafia led by Cupich–which wants to reduce the sexual abuse crisis to clericalism only, or about any other theory, as long as the topics of homosexuality and gay power cliques are not also brought into a serious forensic examination–was alarmed by a November 2018 study produced by Fr. Paul Sullins’ (Ph.D., sociology)and issued by the Ruth Institute that corrects the gay-friendly PC conclusions of the otherwise very pertinent John Jay Report. Every single U.S. bishop received a copy of this study, which establishes a high correlation between homosexuality among priests and clerical sexual abuse. Corrupt forces within the Vatican and their proxies in the U.S. were at risk of facing uncomfortable questions and even possibly an organized push back against those who wish to ignore the pink elephant in the room.