
It’s a foreboding sign when a newly installed Cardinal does not fully comprehend the nature of adultery.
In a recent interview with LifeSite News, Cardinal Jean-Paul Vesco, OP, from the diocese of Oran in North Africa, claimed that adultery only occurs “when you have two people in your life at the same time.” According to the Cardinal, in a situation where “a person who was widowed … remarried a person who was divorced … neither one nor the other is an adulterer.” Church “discipline,” which maintains that this is an adulterous relationship unless there has been a declaration of nullity, has caused unnecessary suffering for these people.
Cardinal Vesco is especially troubled about someone who has been betrayed or abandoned by his or her spouse and wants to start a new life with a second marriage. He goes on to lavishly praise Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia for correcting the “enormous injustice” that he attributes to an oppressive Catholic theology, a relic of the Church’s inflexible dogmatism.
Cardinal Vesco certainly doesn’t favor divorce, but he seems unperturbed that the problematic doctrine he proposes might begin to normalize divorce among Catholics. Moreover, he is loath to hold people accountable when their marital bond is dissolved. Divorce, he suggests, is merely “an accident in life.” This sort of thinking, however, ignores the selfish egoism or hedonistic self-gratification that is often at the root of a marital breakup. It also emancipates couples from the responsibilities of marriage. In an effort to accommodate moral weakness, the distinction between what is eternally true and what is pastorally and morally feasible becomes deeply blurred.
Yet we know from the words of Jesus that marriage is a unique communion of two persons “who are no longer two, but one flesh” (Mk.10:8-9). Severing the ties that bind a married couple, therefore, is not possible because of the intrinsic indissolubility of the marital bond. Divorce and remarriage contradict the original and eternal order of creation. Thus, in answering the Pharisees’ question about the permissibility of divorce, Jesus proclaims:
For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife except for unchastity [porneia], and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Mt.19: 7-9)
There is no opening for remarriage, even for those who have been forsaken by a faithless spouse.
Cardinal Vesco, on the other hand, seems indifferent to these sacred words, along with their anthropological presuppositions and implications. This doctrine on indissolubility, anchored so firmly in Scripture, has endured for two millennia and has been reaffirmed in encyclicals, including Casti Connubii, and at the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council. Matrimony is an exclusive and permanent union that cannot be fractured by the human will. Nor can it somehow be “accidentally” dismantled. Adultery, therefore, is not reducible to polyamorous relationships. If marriage is truly indissoluble, any sexual activity by a married person outside of that unbreakable marital union is a form of adultery.
The Church’s unassailable position is also supported by the logic of spousal love, which is at the foundation of marriage. Spousal love represents total, reciprocal self-donation whereby a man and woman freely give their whole bodily self to the other and spiritually interpenetrate each other. Thus, marriage is indissoluble because if love is truly based on the value of the person, it will endure forever. For the gift of self to be total and unconditional, it cannot have temporal boundaries. Nor can that gift be withdrawn without losing its character as a complete gift of self. Love that can be casually set aside is not spousal love, but rather the “liquid love” of the postmodernists.
As the St. Pope John Paul II explains, “if the person were to withhold something or reserve the possibility of deciding otherwise in the future, by this very fact he or she would not be giving totally” (Familiaris Consortio 11). Indissolubility and exclusivity necessarily flow from the very nature of spousal love.
Cardinal Vesco’s vision, which sweeps away Jesus’ rigorous teaching on marriage and divorce, is part of the legacy of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia. This apostolic exhortation, which is riddled with doctrinal ambiguities, has been the source of great confusion on these issues. Rather than bring our ambient culture in line with eternal Christian principles, it seeks to more closely align Catholicism with the belief system of modern society. In this way, it ends up secularizing the Catholic faith.
Amoris Laetitia misapprehends God’s authoritative commands as “rules” that express “ideals” to which we should all aspire. Given our disposition to noetic and moral frailty, it’s not possible for everyone to follow these rules, especially those that proscribe certain forms of sexual immorality. Some Catholics, declares Pope Francis, are simply “not in a position…to fully carry out the objective demands of the law” (295). He proceeds to explain that those in irregular situations, such as Catholics divorced and remarried without an annulment, are not necessarily living in a state of mortal sin, since “a subject may know the rule, yet…be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise” (301).
The Church’s traditional understanding of indissoluble, monogamous marriage is not a moral necessity but one of those lofty ideals. While this “ideal” cannot be nullified, the encyclical indicates, more flexibility is necessary for those who cannot live up to its demands. Further, the Church must begin to modify its traditional doctrines on marriage, even if it does so in ways that are essentially contradictory. Accordingly, divorced Catholics in a second marriage are described as being in an “irregular union” rather than an adulterous relationship. For various reasons, they have fallen short of the marital ideal. Moreover, “a pastor cannot feel that it is enough to apply moral laws to those living in ‘irregular’ situations as if they were stones to throw at people” (305). Instead of throwing those stones like the Pharisees in John’s Gospel, the Church should accommodate these individuals and provide an opportunity for them to become full members of the Catholic community.
Hence, Amoris Laetitia states, after a period of discernment and accompaniment, divorced and remarried Catholics can receive sacramental absolution and the Holy Eucharist—even if they do not live chastely in the second relationship. What’s conveniently overlooked is the necessity of compliance with negative moral precepts such as the prohibition against adultery because they are absolute and admit of no exceptions. Any view to the contrary is incompatible with revealed truth.
The great mystery of marriage deserves far more deference to Scripture and Tradition than we find in the comments of Cardinal Vesco or in the teaching of Amoris Laetitia. The pragmatism of Pope Francis and the Cardinal reflects a dangerous desire of the modern Church to lighten the burden of moral norms and abolish the asceticism of Christian morality. It would be far better, however, to humbly approach God’s revelation about marriage and other moral matters not as burdensome rules to be sometimes circumvented but as the “universal source of saving truth” (Dei Verbum, 7).
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Cardinal Vesco, O.P., yet another proof that the red-hat test is less trustworthy than the red-face test.
The Church was given the right to forgive or not. So if it chooses not to hold bound what was traditionally held bound why argue with it?
Holy Matrimony is a sacrament based on a covenant sworn between the husband and the wife when they swear vows. Covenants are supposed to be permanent, involve the exchange of persons, and establish kinship bonds.
*
Christ’s New and Everlasting Covenant, on which the Church was founded, was linked to the Eucharist by Christ in the Institution at the Last Supper. The Eucharist is the living embodiment of this covenant. Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is His Bride. The battle over marriage and worthy reception of the Eucharist is one over covenant and covenantal fidelity. Whether the Church and her members are capable of keeping their covenants, promises, and vows. We need more teaching about the purpose and meaning of covenants in the Church. Too many modern views look like hookup spirituality. Spiritual co-habitation. If Satan can turn us into a church full of covenant breakers and/or people incapable of even making covenants to begin with this strikes a blow against Christ’s New and Everlasting Covenant and His salvific act on the Cross, which the Eucharist embodies. Satan is playing for all the marbles, and is using our sexual weaknesses against us to further his agenda.
Dear God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – rid our Church of apostate bishops who teach falsehoods. Give us faithful Catholic clerics who will teach us in Truth because unless there is Truth, there can be no Love. Amen.
What is this obsession Christians have about that fellow Jesus who lived so many thousands of years ago?
Pope Bergoglio is right. Focusing on such aa shadowy figure from the past is backwardist and rigid.
(Sigh.)
Fellow Forwardist, please read my latest story of myself, with a very forward Forward by Cardinal Vesco:
Forward with Francis and Me!
It has easily outsold Fr. Spadaro’s flat contribution to the Amoralist Laetitia Series:
1+1=3, the Math of Pastoral Humility
And the cheeky missive by Fr. Martin, despite the passionate praise of Cardinals Hollerich and Radcliffe:
Bless Us, Father, for We Have Not Sinned.
Also, did you enjoy my last masterpiece?
Heal Me with Your Nose, the Art of the Eskimo Embracing
The fearless Forwardist, Cardinal Fernández, wrote a scintillating preface, particularly praising my poetry.💋
“How was God
so cruel
as to give you that nose…
There is no one who resists me,
tikanni,
smell it (God’s Fool).🐽
Yo, Brineyman,
This from the “Liturgy of the Hours,” for the first Monday of the second Week of Ordinary Time (today!):
“…But why is it that we are not all wise when we have received the knowledge of God, which is Jesus Christ? Why do we perish in our stupidity, not knowing the gift the Lord has given us?” (from a letter to the Ephesians by St. Ignatius of Antioch, bishop and martyr).
Thank you for telling the Truth of Christ versus Amoralist Laetitia, daring to displease the Forwardists.
“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.‘“. (John 14:6)
“But turning and looking at His disciples, (Christ) rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”. (Mark 8:33)
“If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” (Matthew 27:40)
Nebraska gifted the Capitol this morning with a purely American song, visions of fields of wheat, snow strewn mountains in anticipation of a kind of marriage of a man to his country.
Marriage between man and woman is a life and blood commitment that the Apostle says portents a great mystery [leadership of a nation is an endowment that is, if blessed by God a commitment to a people and their highest God given values]. That mystery of the love that Christ has for his bride the Church, encompasses the love of God for each individual person, a love given to many yet for each person absolute, a giving realized in our created end in the beatific vision. That bond, that earnest commitment is forever in this life, and is completed for each of us forever in our intimate knowledge of God.
To excuse divorce, remarriage outside the Church, unions that are not between a man and woman, is not the work of God. Rather that of men of a lesser god.
GOD is generous in forgiving us when we sin. Mistakes are encouraged to be confessed and try again to do better.
However, make a mistake and marry someone who is a con artist, abusive, does not care for what is right or wrong we condemn ourselves to living with a horror. If we divorce, we will live our lives alone. This one mistake, error in judgement there is no making right.
Q: What is adultery?
A: Adultery is a mortal sin.
Next question.
You – you will never be a member of The College of Cardinals!
Thank you. This confusion in the church needs to be brought into the light of Truth!
lnteresting! Jesus said “hardness of heart” led to the allowance of divorce and remarriage; the newly elevated cardinal suggests hardness of heart leads to *not* allowing it. What was it Isaiah said about calling evil good and good evil?
How long, O Lord, how long? You said that unless those days be shortened, no flesh should be saved. How long, Lord?
It is clear that certain factions of the Catholic Church are teaching error and it is also clear it seems to be increasing with each appointment made by Bergoglio. What will it take?!!!
Excellent article, reminding us once again that Amoris Laetitia “seeks to more closely align Catholicism with the belief system of modern society” such that “it ends up secularizing the Catholic faith.” Put bluntly, by embracing secular values and distorting Christ’s teaching, Amoris Laetitia amounts to a formal manifestation of the infestation of evil in the Church.