Archbishop Chaput: Pope Francis cannot contradict John Paul II on Communion

[TMC]

I don’t know that the two popes are in conflict either. While Pope Francis is less clear than Popes John Paul and Benedict, Amoris Laetitia can be read in line with Catholic teaching. But if there is a conflict, it has not been pointed out HOW Pope John Paul II would be wrong. And if Pope John Paul was indeed wrong, then it would seem that the CDF was also in error, along with Pope Benedict, as well as the Council of Trent’s statements on marriage, etc.

And yet Pope Francis is Pope, and his role is not just to sit and parrot past Popes. His role is to continue to develop doctrine and expand the Church’s understanding. If it were always true that the previous leadership’s teaching trumps the current leadership’s teaching, then we would still be confessing publicly, still banning interest, still condemning the Jews, still insisting that only Catholics are saved, and so on and so on.

 

[pnewton]

Here’s the part in the linked interview:

It seems to me that it’s impossible for us to contradict the words of Jesus, and it’s also impossible for a teaching to be true 20 years ago not to be true today when it’s the teachings of the pope. The teachings of Pope Francis can’t contradict the teachings of John Paul II when it is a matter of official teaching.

Man, I love this guy. He is a man of greater education and authority than any of us, and even then he introduces, his thoughts, “it seems to me.” This is the humility we should all have with our opinions. I have said numerous times there is a range of opinions in the Catholic Church where orthodoxy is not an issue, as the “-doxy” part is not universally agreed upon. So, no, Pope Francis cannot contradict St. John Paul in matters of doctrine.

I am still convinced this controversy will result in a better understanding an teaching of the relationship of sin and receiving communion. Amoris Laetitia was clear on on the matter of marriage though, lest anyone skipped to the “good parts” and failed to read the whole thing.

 

[Ender]

Evil is in the eye of the beholder not the thing beheld.

It is surely true that an act does not become evil simply because someone believes it to be so, but it is equally true that an evil act does not become good simply because someone believes that it is. Evil is not in the eye of the beholder; it is a real thing not beholding to the opinions of others.

There is no necessary implication that all active irregulars are so gravely sinning that they may not be allowed to Communion.

This degree of vagueness leads to misunderstanding. The issue seems pretty straightforward: is a person who has been divorced and civilly remarried committing adultery? If the answer is yes then what is the argument that that person should receive communion? If the answer is no, then there is no bar to communion, but what is the basis for such a conclusion?

Pope Francis clearly rejects such an opinion

There is nothing clear about where this issue has gone. That’s the problem.

Ender

 

[Ender]

And yet Pope Francis is Pope, and his role is not just to sit and parrot past Popes.

Well, yes, that is in fact a large part of his responsibility.*The true sense of this teaching authority of the Pope consists in his being the advocate of the Christian memory. The Pope does not impose from without. Rather, he elucidates the Christian memory and defends it. *(Cardinal Ratzinger)

His role is to continue to develop doctrine and expand the Church’s understanding.

This is true only to the point where it expands doctrine. It is not true to the point where it contradicts it.*As developments which are preceded by definite indications have a fair presumption in their favour, so those which do but contradict and reverse the course of doctrine which has been developed before them, and out of which they spring, are certainly corrupt; for a corruption is a development in that very stage in which it ceases to illustrate, and begins to disturb, the acquisitions gained in its previous history. *(Cardinal Newman in Chapter 5 of Development of Christian Doctrine)

If it were always true that the previous leadership’s teaching trumps the current leadership’s teaching, then we would still be confessing publicly, still banning interest, still condemning the Jews, still insisting that only Catholics are saved, and so on and so on.

There is nothing in your comment that suggests truth can be known, let alone that the Church knows it. If you believe Pope Francis can reverse what JPII taught then you must also accept that whoever follows Francis can reverse him as well. Where does that leave us? Are we really to believe that it is the pope who determines right and wrong, that his words alone can make moral what was once evil and vice versa?*Such a modern, voluntaristic concept of authority can only distort the true theological meaning of the papacy. *(Ratzinger)
Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

It is surely true that an act does not become evil simply because someone believes it to be so…

Ender

It seems to me that this point is a reversal of your previous position. Am I wrong? Just curious.

 

[Thomas_White]

It seems to me the difficulty is the apparent contradiction between the words of JPII and Pope Francis on the issue, rather than who said what first (or last).

 

[Ender]

It seems to me that this point is a reversal of your previous position. Am I wrong? Just curious.

Not exactly. Here’s my comment:*It is surely true that an act does not become evil simply because someone believes it to be so…
*Right and wrong exist independently of my opinion. My believing that something neutral or positive is wrong doesn’t affect its objective nature. Although it does make it wrong for me to do it (the position I expressed previously) it doesn’t make it wrong for you to do it because it is not objectively a wrong.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It seems to me the difficulty is the apparent contradiction between the words of JPII and Pope Francis on the issue, rather than who said what first (or last).

Just so. If AL is interpreted as the Malta bishops have done, then it would contradict not just JPII but Trent, BXVI and what the church has universally taught. That really is a rather significant problem.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is surely true that an act does not become evil simply because someone believes it to be so, but it is equally true that an evil act does not become good simply because someone believes that it is. Evil is not in the eye of the beholder; it is a real thing not beholding to the opinions of others.

I really wish you would get some formal theological training Ender if you feel God is calling you to take such strong public positions. Certain conscience will not be enough to save you if you are to blame for its poor formation as you so often remind others .
And poorly formed it is in the moral theology conversations you seek to partake in. You know this. Book learning, no matter how bright you are, is no substitute for a critical professor or failed exams and assignments. Books don’t talk back and say, Ender do you know you are violating me?

And the matter you are confused on here is thinking that objective grave matter (material sin) is more offensive to God than actual moral fault (formal sin). The two are not joined at the hip as you surely know by now. The only evil of such concern to God is of the heart.

This degree of vagueness leads to misunderstanding. The issue seems pretty straightforward: is a person who has been divorced and civilly remarried committing adultery?

Human, can a marriage bond be seen? Can a Tribunal always recognise when it has actually never been. It’s getting pretty vague there by my reckoning, especially when the person concerned as always reckoned something was wrong from the start.
Sure you can call the legal thing. But that only gives us certainty re technical adultery…not about unworthiness or mortal sin before God.
But of course Ender doesn’t care, he just wants pseudo material certainty even if it is only of man. Building of great pyramids always involves collateral damage, and anways a few innocent casualties keeps the natives in order.

If the answer is yes then what is the argument that that person should receive communion? If the answer is no, then there is no bar to communion, but what is the basis for such a conclusion?

Hmmn, let me think…perhaps the criteria mentioned in AL and judged objectively by the PP.
What Canon has ever denied giving Communion to all those materially guilty of breaking a commandment?

There is nothing clear about where this issue has gone. That’s the problem.
Ender

As you are the man who seeks clarity all the time would you be clear whether or not you accept Pope Francis’s new directives regardless of how well others may or may not impossible, I mentioned them? If anyone is vague on this home truth I suggest you are?

 

[Ender]

I really wish you would get some formal theological training…

And I wish yours showed through in your arguments.

And poorly formed it is in the moral theology conversations you seek to partake in.

I at least understand the difference between an assertion and an argument.

And the matter you are confused on here is thinking that objective grave matter (material sin) is more offensive to God than actual moral fault (formal sin).

I think if you addressed my comments we might make some progress; your responses usually have nothing whatever to do with what I’ve actually said. I don’t pretend to know what is more offensive to God, which is why I don’t address the subject.

Human, can a marriage bond be seen? Can a Tribunal always recognise when it has actually never been. It’s getting pretty vague there by my reckoning, especially when the person concerned as always reckoned something was wrong from the start.
Sure you can call the legal thing. But that only gives us certainty re technical adultery…not about unworthiness or mortal sin before God.

Again, quite literally none of this addresses anything I’ve said. You’ve made some unwarranted assumptions about what I believe and have responded to your own fantasies about my state of mind.

But of course Ender doesn’t care…

What I care about is what I write about. I’m disappointed you haven’t picked up on that.

Hmmn, let me think…perhaps the criteria mentioned in AL and judged objectively by the PP. What Canon has ever denied giving Communion to all those materially guilty of breaking a commandment?

Just so everyone is clear about what question you were presumably answering, here is what I asked:* is a person who has been divorced and civilly remarried committing adultery? If the answer is yes then what is the argument that that person should receive communion? If the answer is no, then there is no bar to communion, but what is the basis for such a conclusion?*I really don’t know what position you’ve taken. Is your answer yes, no, or maybe?

As you are the man who seeks clarity all the time would you be clear whether or not you accept Pope Francis’s new directives…

What directives? The new ones found by the Malta bishops, or the old ones found by Archbishop Chaput et al? How can I say whether I accept or reject them if there is no agreement on what they are?

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

BH:
As you are the man who seeks clarity all the time would you be clear whether or not you accept Pope Francis’s new directives…?

Ah, yes Ender is “confused” rather than stand up and take a clear, non vague, stand against AL and Pope Francis

Remind me which of the two sets of Guidelines Pope Francis (wrote in a letter) fully understood AL: Malta or AB Chaput?

But of course, you don’t know, you are “confused”.
For the letter was personal only, we cannot be sure it was his, it wasn’t issued Magisterially, it didn’t have the official “outbox” stamp, blah, blah, blah.

If this sort of passive aggressive carry on against Pope Francis and AL isn’t the same “murmuring” of disaffected Hebrews chided in the OT I don’t know what is .

And do remind me what Canon has ever denied giving Communion to all those materially guilty of breaking a commandment? If you cannot find one then its time to stop busy-bodying why PPs do what they are now allowed to do.

 

[Thomas_White]

Not exactly. Here’s my comment:*It is surely true that an act does not become evil simply because someone believes it to be so…
*Right and wrong exist independently of my opinion. My believing that something neutral or positive is wrong doesn’t affect its objective nature. Although it does make it wrong for me to do it (the position I expressed previously) it doesn’t make it wrong for you to do it because it is not objectively a wrong.

Ender

I get it. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[irenaeus1]

Are you for real? God save us from binary lay moralists.
You just defined moral physicalism.

When we speak of evil we are talking “moral disorder” which is over and above “physical disorder.” Moral fault by definition involves “intention” which has a rather heavy subjective component.

A typical untrained layman’s understanding of “sin” and “sinning”.

Of course, older resentful brother types for some reason like to oppose a mercy that goes beyond justice (but which does not oppose justice).

If you want to offer a correction or clarification, you can do so without attacking and insulting the poster. It would be appreciated if you would address the content of the post rather than affronting the individual making the post.

If I am using imprecise language, I apologize. But when I stated that evil is objective, I meant that a particular act involving grave matter that is knowingly and freely chosen is always and everywhere evil; i.e., what is often called intrinsically evil, moral evil, or morally evil. You may say that the person choosing to do this requires a subjective judgment, but the conclusion itself is not subjective; i.e., it is not to be judged truly evil by one person and the same situation to be judged morally licit or morally neutral by another.

 

[JimG]

Just so. If AL is interpreted as the Malta bishops have done, then it would contradict not just JPII but Trent, BXVI and what the church has universally taught. That really is a rather significant problem.

Ender

It is a significant problem. It is at the heart of the many calls for clarification.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If you want to offer a correction or clarification, you can do so without attacking and insulting the poster. It would be appreciated if you would address the content of the post rather than affronting the individual making the post.

If I am using imprecise language, I apologize. But when I stated that evil is objective, I meant that a particular act involving grave matter that is knowingly and freely chosen is always and everywhere evil; i.e., what is often called intrinsically evil, moral evil, or morally evil. You may say that the person choosing to do this requires a subjective judgment, but the conclusion itself is not subjective; i.e., it is not to be judged truly evil by one person and the same situation to be judged morally licit or morally neutral by another.

I am sorry Irenaeus I am unable to pursue this somewhat absurd discussion with you.
Yes I believe your language is “imprecise” and the time needed to bring you up to speed with the way that I believe Catholic moralists (including the CCC and Magisterial statements) use the concepts and terms you are juggling here just makes it an unfruitful proposition sorry. All I can do is observe to undecided lurkers the weaknesses in what you actually said.

My apologies if you felt I insulted your person as opposed to your words and way of thinking.

 

[Ender]

Ah, yes Ender is “confused” rather than stand up and take a clear, non vague, stand against AL and Pope Francis.

The interpretation given by Archbishop Chaput is the one most consistent with the eternal teaching of the church. Inasmuch as Pope Francis has refused to clarify the issue, the interpretation most consistent with that teaching seems most likely to be right. Your assumptions about what is true based on hints, suggestions, and personal comments are not convincing. A significant change to a significant doctrine requires something a bit more official.

How is this purported change to be explained? Is it no longer necessary to tie new doctrines to old teaching? Are doctrines no longer to be based on the truths expounded on in the past; are we now left with “'Cus the pope says so?” You may be able to explain what the new change is, but you have no explanation for why what was disallowed before is allowed now. Other than 'cus the pope says so.

And do remind me what Canon has ever denied giving Communion to all those materially guilty of breaking a commandment? If you cannot find one then its time to stop busy-bodying why PPs do what they are now allowed to do.

I would answer this if I could understand it. By Canon do you mean canon law? As you know, Canon 915 states that communion must be denied in certain circumstances. And let me point out yet again that right and wrong are not such fickle concepts that they can be switched back and forth by whatever pope happens to opine on them. Either priests are justified in giving communion to the divorced and civilly remarried or they are not, but the standard that governs that action cannot be arbitrary. The act is either right or wrong, and no one can give them permission to do it if it is wrong.

Ender

 

[irenaeus1]

I am sorry Irenaeus I am unable to pursue this somewhat absurd discussion with you.
Yes I believe your language is “imprecise” and the time needed to bring you up to speed with the way that I believe Catholic moralists (including the CCC and Magisterial statements) use the concepts and terms you are juggling here just makes it an unfruitful proposition sorry. All I can do is observe to undecided lurkers the weaknesses in what you actually said.

My apologies if you felt I insulted your person as opposed to your words and way of thinking.

My feelings are immaterial. Address and critique the content of the post without resorting to personal insults of the poster. I’m sure lurkers would appreciate this as well.

 

[irenaeus1]

Are you for real? God save us from binary lay moralists.
You just defined moral physicalism.

A typical untrained layman’s understanding of “sin” and “sinning”.

Can you give an example then when human sex trafficking is ever morally licit?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The interpretation given by Archbishop Chaput is the one most consistent with the eternal teaching of the church. Inasmuch as Pope Francis has refused to clarify the issue, the interpretation most consistent with that teaching seems most likely to be right. Your assumptions about what is true based on hints, suggestions, and personal comments are not convincing. A significant change to a significant doctrine requires something a bit more official.

Ender are you familiar with the psychological protection mechanism known as “denial”. Sometimes referred to as the first stage of grief, of letting go a cherished but now falsely held belief?
You still pretend to be “confused”, yet deep down you really do know that Pope Francis has fully endorsed the Malta Guidelines as accurately interpreting his teachings. Most sane Catholics even of lesser intelligence and education than yourself de facto accept this now.

It was entirely predictable you would grasp at straws and try to credibly assert that …

[Pope Francis’s] hints, suggestions, and personal comments are not convincing. A significant change to a significant doctrine requires something a bit more official.

It’s over my friend, the cleaners are collecting the rubbish and turning off the lights but you don’t want the show to be over even though everybody around you knows this and has left already. Nobody sane is any longer pushing the line that you still are, that Francis has not made his views clear on how to understand AL.

You seem to think there must be more or stronger indications from Francis only because you cannot let go of the certainty and joy you experienced from your prior understanding of Church. But now that understanding has come to an end, it wasn’t quite what you thought it was.

Look, I feel genuinely sorry for all those here who find themselves in your position. But a point comes when an intelligent person must face the objective realities presented to them and trust there is a resolution…or go somewhat mad and essentially become a “flat earther” condemned to intellectual irrelevancy.

That is where you are at, someone needs to tell you. I am sure deep down you already know this Ender, that is why you are unable to regain your old emotional stability. And it never will come back so long as you do not respect the deep small part of your mind that keeps whispering to you it really is over, you really do know what Francis means. Part of your former objective intellective pespicacity is being held in suspension by your grieving heart. As long as you refuse assent to this intellectual talent of yours for objective assessment you will not find peace. You know deep down that what I say about Pope Francis is true and your deepest mind actually agrees with me. But you refuse assent to this because of the difficult consequences.

All I can say is that I have once been where you are. Both directions, staying or proceeding, are extremely painful. There is no shame accepting that maybe I got it wrong. Yes, walking in intellectual darkness until we can reintegration new truth is difficult at first, but trust your own skills, and Church guidance, to achieve this again. Yes it does take time and means less certainty and more trusting in the Holy Spirit. Like riding a bike.

Are doctrines no longer to be based on the truths expounded on in the past; are we now left with “'Cus the pope says so?” You may be able to explain what the new change is, but you have no explanation for why what was disallowed before is allowed now. Other than 'cus the pope says so.

You deep down already know the answers to your own questions here I think.
The answer ultimately is yes, because the Pope says so, not necessarily because he is totally right, but because it is always right to follow him when we don’t really know for sure ourselves. Clearly he cannot be at odds with true doctrines of the past, even if we cannot yet see that.
BTW I am in my own mind quite able to explain what was disallowed before is allowed now but I also understand you do not yet possess or trust the tools I use to form that conclusion.

And for that reason, from this point on, I will no longer be your direct nemesis on CAF.

 

[Ender]

Nobody sane is any longer pushing the line that you still are, that Francis has not made his views clear on how to understand AL.

Well, nobody other than the four bishops who submitted the dubia, the Canadian bishops (who spoke out on the matter), the Polish bishops, the aforementioned US bishops, the Colombian bishops, etc.

You know deep down that what I say about Pope Francis is true…

And this is the disconnect: it is between you me, not Pope Francis and me.

Ender:

Are doctrines no longer to be based on the truths expounded on in the past; are we now left with “'Cus the pope says so?”

The answer ultimately is yes, because the Pope says so…

So the sun revolved around the Earth during the time Pope Urban said it did? You may be satisfied with according the pope the authority to decide right and wrong but it’s not an ability the church has ever recognized.

Clearly he cannot be at odds with true doctrines of the past, even if we cannot yet see that.

Well there you go. If he’s not at odds with true doctrines of the past then here are the options: the past teachings on communion for the divorced and remarried were all wrong and therefore not true doctrines, or your interpretation of what is allowed now - which is at odds with past doctrines - is incorrect.

BTW I am in my own mind quite able to explain what was disallowed before is allowed now but I also understand you do not yet possess or trust the tools I use to form that conclusion.

And for that reason, from this point on, I will no longer be your direct nemesis on CAF.

The cuttlefish defense: when cornered scuttle away to safety behind a cloud of noxious ink.

Ender