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.
[…]
I wonder if those words “Before being believers, we are called to be human” are of Pope Leo’s or of an editor because it is a false counter positioning.
Indeed, a formal faith i.e. a faith without empathy (most often coupled with pride) can be cruel to others; often is – a typical case is a neophyte who is being completely inconsiderate of his family in his zeal to fulfill all the forms. Or someone who cruelly presses what he thinks are “the norms” of his faith onto others, without compassion and without giving them freedom.
However, a true compassion/empathy has its source only in God, in a living connection with Christ. Because of this, to say “Before being believers, we are called to be human” is wrong. A human being cannot become fully human = Christ-like without first believing in Christ and allowing Him to make him truly human. Faith and being human go together. Our Lord says “love your God with all your strength” and only then “love your neighbor as yourself”. I read it as only our total love for God Who is our Life can give us strength to love our neighbor as ourselves.
I would say that a parable of Samaritan represents not a dichotomy between faith and humanity but between a frozen deathly self-seeking “faith” without empathy and an alive (in God) faith which is a source of empathy.
PS I will add here that people who endured much atrocities early in life often find themselves becoming believers first and only then slowly recovering their true humanity which was abused. Christ teaches them how to be fully human, via granting them an intimate relationship with them, giving to them what their parents failed to give. Those are extreme cases but from my experience we are all impaired as humans and it is our relationship with Our Lord that makes us fully human.
Maybe the expression is simply a variation on the truth that grace builds on nature, or that one must first be a man before he can be a holy man, or that Christian virtue perfects natural virtues….it wouldn’t hurt if some men in high places really were men.
@ Anna
Am in complete agreement. Humanism absent of God is antithetical to true humanism.
In our humanity, we are Called to Holiness, and thus to be Believers in The Power And The Glory Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Incarnate, Our Savior, Jesus The Christ.
“Man does not live on bread alone, but on every Word That Comes Forth From The Word Of God.”
Our humanity comes from God, thus only in Loving God, can man’s humanity be fully realized.in Loving God, we desire Salvation not only for ourselves, but also for our beloved.
Christ Has Revealed Through His Life, His Passion, And His Death On The Cross, that no Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved. “He Is Risen.”
I think, when the Pope said: “Indeed, before being a religious matter, compassion is a question of humanity! Before being believers, we are called to be human.” that he was not using “before” as an indicator of what we must perfect first, but rather as a question of what is most fundamental. I.e., natural law has as its most fundamental principle that of loving good and hating evil, the next level requires acting in accord with our bodies, and the last includes the obligation to seek the truth.
I entirely agree that many (probably most) have some sort of obstacles in their life that cannot be approached strictly at its own level, but which requires religious faith to overcome, such that belief must invariably precede, in time, the acquisition of various natural virtues. But I don’t think that is what the Pope was trying to say. He’s discussing the building up of obligations from the most fundamental (natural law) to the highest (religious) rather than giving a temporal order requiring the fulfillment of the natural law before one may “graduate” to religion.
This bears a certain amusing resemblance to objections to JD Vance’s statements on ordo amoris, which is an order of priority, not of time. Many languages are ambiguous on what kind of progression is being moved through with “before”, “then”, etc., and expect us to pick it up from the context.
Amanda,
Thank you. It is unfortunate that the pope was not more clear. It is entirely likely that he intended to speak of a naturally human inclination to do compassionate good.
If we consider the attainment of an ‘age of reason’ (and/or the conversion to practice virtue in accordance with the Catholic faith), the natural inclination to good actually often does temporally precede the profession and practice of perfecting our belief.
“Before being believers, we are called to be human” – Well said. Human beings cannot afford to behave like robots. To give pleasure to a single heart by a single act is better than a thousand heads bowing in prayer – Mahatma Gandhi
Actually Dr Coelho, we’re not called to be human. We’re created human. We’re called to be Christians.
Here is Gandhi, on a Catholic web site, talking about pleasure, which he does not define.
I know a few people who would adamantly agree, having spent large portions of their lives giving pleasure. Jesus would not classify all acts (which give pleasure) as Christian.
It’s better to give pleasure to a single human heart than to give a thousand pleasures to the Divine Heart?
This is certainly one way to remember that Ghandi was a pagan.
There is plenty of evidence that catchy quotes and incessant hagiographies aside, the Ghandi public image conceals a very dark individual. One biography said he slept in the nude with his niece and other young women and the same source suggests he left his wife for a German bodybuilder. Even if this more salacious claims are true, there is enough well documented things that should put his character into question.
I’m not so sure Christians should affirmingly quote him so approvingly, adding to a mystique that maybe would be shattered if the entirety of his life was well known.
Great Soul by Joseph Lelyveld
While we may presume, with some degree of legitimacy as does Leo XIV, that our humanness should precede our faith in Christ Jesus [here Leo likely alludes to clericalism] – that proposition is acceptable insofar it is a man, Leo XIV, who is already a follower of Christ and is knowledgeable of Christ’s commandments.
Otherwise, the proposition is a fallacy.
That’s because not all out yonder are believers, and who have their own fallible positions. Insofar as Leo is Roman pontiff he speaks to the world at large. Consequently, his proposal will be interpreted as identical with secular humanism. Which is why I fully agree with Anna’s take on the issue.
I think one thing you can’t do is to co-operate with evil act because you are first meant to show compassion.
I am not referring to double effect situations.
Also by evil act I mean both the singular moment type as well as the practice or way of life en vivant.
What I am seeing is that this would apply immediately to both converted and unconverted according to each in his given setting; and it can apply at times to both converted and unconverted in the same setting at the same time over the same issue.
In addition, I believe, a wrong reading of and meaning to compassion are already in the root of Pelagianism. It has suggested to me (a long time) that even when you are not converted, the teaching of the faith speaks you in and with authentic and motivating sense.
Pelagianism speaks about the many errors people have been claiming as faith through the 20th Century and then using VATICAN II to say it is what the Church teaches. People who are caught in heresy like Pelagianism -any heresy- are easy prey to Modernism.
Converted and non-converted co-operating in evil occurs as well in the deployment of the deceptions of Modernism. In Modernism, the fact that you are not converted does not make you immune or clean of deception; and the fact you are converted makes you a poison at the level of faith.
Elias insofar as Modernism is a wide spread mentality/ideology, it’s become the norm for conveying Church doctrine as a fusion, the apposition of two diverse elements faith and secularism. An example:
“The future Pope replied: Pope Francis has made it very clear that he doesn’t want people to be excluded simply on the basis of choices that they make, whether it be lifestyle, work, way to dress, or whatever. Doctrine hasn’t changed, and people haven’t said yet, you know, we’re looking for that kind of change. But we are looking to be more welcoming and more open, and to say all people are welcome in the church” (Cdl Prevost interview by Francis X. Rocca, senior Vatican analyst for Ewtn News 2023 in NCReg).
Pope Leo to date appears to be practicing this outlook seen in his appointments, responses to queries. I don’t believe he intends the worst scenario, rather that he’s self assured things will work out, as Francis once said by the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, it’s the mirror perspective of Pope Francis’ dual messaging. It’s a seductive position reconciling all while claiming to retain the essence of the faith. The scenario occurring in Charlotte NC and Bishop Martin, the leak of details, was said by some to be a ‘test case’.
Personally, I can only express my opinion as a priest with long history that if the present policy, including the contentious actions of local ordinaries like Martin continue, we will not achieve unity. Division is assured. I hope Pope Leo XIV realizes this or will come to realize it.
Fr., the insight is just there and I put it here. And I must say, it is what the Church will teach. God be praised.
Borrowing once more the grammar of JPII, this “approach about teaching” is the “point of departure” of VATICAN II.
Which is to say it is meant to be THE point of departure. Nothing substitutes.
Thus we have to be noticing too how much there is littered all about the place and staggered along the timeline, trying out as substitutions and not hearing.
Yes. Agreed Elias the true doctrines will be preached. Although there will be the dilemma of interpretation for the faithful because two propositions are placed before them, one is to enter the Church with access to all the sacraments exactly as you are regardless of lifestyle.
The other is penance for the remission of sins, which requires conversion and change of manners. Weak Mankind fallen from grace is apt to choose the less demanding option.This is the new paradigm of mercy rather than rules.
If one were to invent a fundamental option that removed all concerns for attaining salvation I cannot conceive anything more alluring.
Christ Open Arms On The Cross are an Invitation to all who desire Holiness And Conversion, they are not a call to remain in our sins.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.” “Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.” “For where your treasure is there will your heart be also.”
We read: “Pope Francis has made it very clear that he doesn’t want people to be excluded simply on the basis of choices that they make, whether it be lifestyle, work, way to dress, or whatever [2023].”
Today and for some, “lifestyle” is code language for the homosexual lifestyle as an accepted subculture, and “way of dress” is anything from a rainbow banner to—in historical Revolutionary France—a prostitute dancing nude on the altar of Notre Dame Cathedral.
For the near future, might we remain confident that the Church and Pope Leo XIV will in time clarify the difference between a “welcome” mat and a doormat? As in Leo’s parsing of the unambiguous St. Augustine: “For you I am a pope [!], and with you I am a Christian.”
And, about the conceptually promiscuous term “whatever,” yours truly feels invited to link an author interview for his book entitled “A Generation Abandoned: Why ‘whatever’ [!] is not enough” (Hamilton Books, 2017).https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/03/29/a-generation-abandoned-why-whatever-is-not-enough/
Indeed, we hope so. As of now the first two appointments leave that questionable.
As to your book I’ve read years past, per gratis tuo and recall the important point you make about whatever. I do hope, although he appears to have that openness edge that can lead to a contained sense of tolerance [let’s say homosexual behavior] or laissez faire. A blessing in terms of a measured exception with conversion the end, or the curse of accommodation.
Also needed, a corrective to “progress theology” which looks ever more like the Islamic principle of “abrogation.”
A good SIGN would be a clear understanding of the difference between an “ecclesial assembly” and an adulterated synodality…Cardinal Grech’s dangling proposition for a “2028 Ecclesial Assembly” need not be further confused with the “hierarchical communion” of the Church (Lumen Gentium). Nor should it usurp the role of any “synod of bishops” or even ecumenical councils.
ABOUT legitimate and needed sense of ecclesial assembly, here’s something positive that Ratzinger had to say over forty years ago about the partial loss of the “ecclesial assembly”—or “communio”— probably at Trent…
In necessary response to Protestantism, a restored understanding of the distinct difference between the baptized and the sacrament of Holy Orders with the priest as more than a seeming “cult-minister” (Ratzinger’s term). This clarification led to too much of a separation of the laity from the clergy—the loss of communio—”the problem of the laity, which arose at this time and still haunts us today.” The “original meaning of the word ‘ecclesia’—that is, a ‘coming together’” (“Successio Apostolica,” as Chapter 2 in Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” Ignatius, 1982/Ignatius 1987).
Three years later, and again fully in step with Vatican II, Ratzinger added that “A Council [or a synod] is something that the Church DOES, but not what the Church IS” (“The Ratzinger Report,” 1985). The process isn’t the message.
SO, how to do—without recent distortion—both the ecclesial assembly/communio and distinct synods of bishops and future councils? Why not recognize the dicastery-for-the-doctrine-of-the- Faith as more than one voice in a flat roundtable/synod of dicasteries? Maybe even reinstituted as a Congregation? As if the Apostolic Succession has something foundational to offer our 21st-century experiment in global chaos theory?
With not much concentration, we might even surmise a good appointment as Prefect…
I have to agree that Pope Leo’s believers/human statement is troubling.
Theoretically if we lived perfectly by the interior rules of natural law we exhibit a divinely ordained degree of true humanness, which would substantiate Amanda’s comments on Natural Law. Natural Law is a reflexion of the Eternal Law. Although fallen man, meaning fallen human nature lacking the gifts of grace does not, cannot live out the natural law within as he should.
As such prior to embracing Christianity and the graces conferred by the sacraments Mankind, living an imperfect reflexion of the Eternal Law due to lack of grace, obscured attentiveness to the Natural Law Within – he develops his own form of humanism called secular. If we understand humanness to be a fulfillment of the Natural Law it’s requisite that he embrace Christianity to exhibit a natural law motivated humanness.
Nevertheless, there have been exceptions in human history of men who were not Christian and exhibited features of true humanness. Cicero, Aristotle, Cyrus are examples of those rarities.
A final note. It needs be kept in mind that the positive response of the secular non believer to Christianity is the work of grace, rather than their meritorious sense of humanness.
Also his passive “noticing of it”, I say. Doctrine itself is (already)pastoral.
That sometimes requires firmness. Hence the reductio in “rigidity” etc. also now left unattended.
God will correct it.
Same for believer.
Thanks to Fr. for kind attention. As we are wont to share around here: Bless.
Yes. It comes down to “The pope pointed out that haste, so present in our lives, very often impedes us from feeling compassion. One who thinks his or her journey must be the priority is not willing to stop for another”. Which is quite true.
However, he juxtaposed religion with humanness, as if the latter precedes the former, whereas that is true only when we make religion our priority to the extent of excluding the demands of charity. Although it’s our Christianity that emphasizes natural law and charity whenever and wherever it’s required.
We should by nature be disposed to charity, but the existential reality is original sin, and those without faith in Christ may not be so attentively disposed to the natural law and charity.
Addendum: However, he juxtaposed religion with humanness, as if the latter [supersedes] the former.
I have appreciated most of the homilies by Pope Leo that I have read so far, but this one, not so much. He falls into a popular sentimental reading of the parable which contrasts the “humanity” of tbe Samaritan with the insensitive, uncaring behavior of the priest and the Levite, with the implication being that religion doesn’t prevent believers fron lacking human compassion. But the issue set up in the parable is not whether these religious leaders are failing to practice compassion. Instead, they are failing to follow the part of the First Commandment about loving their neighbor as themselves. In other words, they are failing to practice what their religion requires. (I’m not sure who first pointed this out to me but it transformed my understanding if the parable.)
This is more apparent when you look at the framing of the parable. The questioner is seeking to test Jesus on his understanding of the Law, so when he asks Jesus ““And who is my neighbor?” , that is a challenge. When Jesus responds withe the parable and asks “Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers’ victim?”, the questioner has to admit that the Samaritan is the one treating the injured man as a neighbor and thus following the Commandment.
Mary, Thank you. The lesson then, seems to be that people without formal religion are capable of neighborly love, empathy, and compassion. People professing a religion does not guarantee they will act upon their religious beliefs. The road to acting like a pharisee is broad, and many travel there.
One final post on this OP:
Aquinas’ Catena Commentary on Luke contains thoughts of many Fathers. Lectio 8 and 9 on Luke Chapter 10 has Chrystotom, Bede, Augustine, Cyril, Basil, Theophyllus, Ambrose, among others.
Augustine’s analysis is most interesting. He sees:
the wounded man as fallen mankind, Adam and his descendents;
the thieves and robbers as the bad angels or demons;
the Levite and the priest (the Law and the Prophets), not willing/able to help;
the Samaritan, the man from the land estranged to man was the only one who could help, represents Christ, come down from Jerusalem (heaven) to Jericho (one of the oldest known inhabited cities on earth);
the inn-keeper, an apostle who continues Christ’s work;
Christ will ‘return’ to repay (reward) the inn-keeper for further debt he accrued in caring for the man’s wound.
Ambrose ends the section: “For relationship does not make a neighbor, but compassion, for compassion is according to nature. For nothing is so natural as to assist one who shares our nature.”