Cardinal Muller: no need to clarify Amoris Laetitia [CC]

[Blue_Horizon]

Of course. The majority of Catholics will in all likelihood end up endorsing the interpretations of AL as implemented by the bishops of Argentina (supported by the Pope), Malta, Atlantic Canada, etc. Communion will be given to remarried divorcees, assisted suicides and - inevitably - cohabiting homosexual and lesbian couples, with most wondering what the fuss is about.

Yes, just as has happened with lethal self defence. You let ordinary people get away with killing a stranger in their home and they will end up endorsing the same for school teachers who give their kids bad marks or shop assistants who don’t let customers bargain down the prices. Where will it all end. .

 

[billy15]

It is interesting how different Bishop Conferences or Dioceses around the world implement AL.
There is the Argentinian one which we know accords very well with the intent of AL.
Then there is Philadelphia, very quick to get out Guidelines which pay lip service to AL but is really just business as usual.
Now Malta, which does seem a little hairy but maybe that’s the translation.

I find it unfortunate that the US was unable to wait and reflect as a whole and come out with a single set of Guidelines.

I don’t find it unfortunate at all that certain dioceses in North America published their guidelines last year. Why would it be unfortunate? That includes the dioceses and archdioceses of Philadelphia, Portland, Calgary, Edmonton, and the others from Alberta. In addition, Bishop Conley of the Diocese of Lincoln pointed his clergy, in a letter he wrote them, to three specific interpretations of Amoris laetitea, saying, “I have provided these particular documents because they reflect the most faithful interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, and covey the interpretation that is to be considered normative in the Diocese of Lincoln.”

The three documents Bishop Conley cited were the guidelines from Philadelphia, the guidelines from the (arch)dioceses in Alberta, and the guidelines from the Diocese of Phoenix. Phoenix’s bishop, Thomas Olmsted, agrees with the interpretation given by Archbishops Chaput, Sample, and the others, emphasis mine:

As a good shepherd, Pope Francis focuses special attention on those who walk on the edge of despair because of personal failures and problems they have suffered in their families, and because of the complex and contradictory situations in which they find themselves now. He calls for deeper and sustained pastoral accompaniment of these suffering families, assuring them that they are welcome in the Church family, and that we are eager to seek ways to integrate them more fully into our local communities. This situation does not, it is important to note, mean that the Catholic persons are excommunicated from the Church. They should be encouraged to pray, attend Mass, and rectify the situation in communication with their pastor, who remains their pastor despite the case of objective sin. Accompaniment is possible and should be the case in our parishes.

This does not, however, include receiving Holy Communion for those who are divorced and remarried. Pope Francis specifically calls those in this situation “to seek the grace of conversion” (#78). Throughout Amoris Laetitia we see a continuity with the Church’s Magisterium especially that of Blessed Paul VI, St. John Paul II, and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI which reaffirm the constant tradition of the Church

So while I agree with you that it’s “interesting how different Bishop Conferences or Dioceses around the world implement AL”, I think that your comments about Archbishop Chaput paying “lip service” and being too quick to publish his archdiocese’s guidelines are ridiculous for two reasons.

First, you can see that at least nine different (arch)dioceses in North America agree with Archbishop Chaput’s guidelines. Are men like Bishop Olmsted also paying simply “lip service” to AL, or are they simply reiterating constant Church teaching when referring to AL?

Second, you seem to hold an odd position similar to that of Cardinal Kevin Farrell who said just prior to receiving his red hat, "[The implementation of AL]has to be done in communion with our bishops. I think that it would have been wiser to wait for the gathering of the conference of bishops where all the bishops of the United States or all the bishops of a country would sit down and discuss these things.”

At the end of September, the former head of the USCCB, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, said that a report had been sent to Rome on the “reception and implementation [of AL]. As noted in the report, the church in the United States has already eagerly begun to implement the teaching [of AL]". Who exactly produced the report that Archbishop Kurtz speaks of? The US bishops’ ad hoc committee for implementing AL. Who headed that committee? Archbishop Charles Chaput. He also attended the synods in 2014 and 2015.

The Archbishop has done nothing wrong or misguided, and for anyone to suggest as much is pretty sad. All Archbishop Chaput did was reiterate the definitive teaching of the Church, as articulated by St. John Paul II: any divorced and civilly remarried couples who have not received an annulment cannot be admitted to Holy Communion unless they live in continence as “brother and sister”. Did you happen to see Archbishop Chaput’s statements regarding the Cardinal’s comments that mirror your own? When asked why he felt it was important to issue guidelines on AL back in July of 2016, the archbishop answered, emphases mine:

 

[billy15]

Because both the final synod document and Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia encouraged local bishops to do so. Actually you ask a rather odd question. It’s more sensible to ask: Why would a bishop delay interpreting and applying Amoris Laetitia for the benefit of his people? On a matter as vital as sacramental marriage, hesitation and ambiguity are neither wise nor charitable.

You’ll recall, I’m sure, that I was a delegate to the 2015 synod and then elected and appointed to the synod’s permanent council. So I’m familiar with the material and its context in a way that Cardinal-designate Farrell may not be. Amoris Laetitia was issued on April 8. Our guidelines were actually ready by June 1, after consulting our Priests’ Council, Archdiocesan Pastoral Council, auxiliary bishops, seminary faculty, and a variety of liturgical, canonical and theological experts, both lay and clergy — all of whom made excellent suggestions…

I think every bishop in the United States feels a special fidelity to Pope Francis as Holy Father. We live that fidelity by doing the work we were ordained to do as bishops. Under canon law — not to mention common sense — governance of a diocese belongs to the local bishop as a successor of the apostles, not to a conference, though bishops’ conferences can often provide a valuable forum for discussion. As a former resident bishop, **the cardinal-designate surely knows this, which makes his comments all the more puzzling in the light of our commitment to fraternal collegiality.
**

In addition, Archbishop Chaput, in this same interview, gives solid reasoning as to why he and the other 9 bishops I mentioned interpret AL the way they do, showing that he’s not just paying “lip service” to AL in his guidelines; he and the other bishops are reiterating constant and orthodox Church teaching on this issue concerning divorced and civilly remarried Catholics:

I wonder if Cardinal-designate Farrell actually read and understood the Philadelphia guidelines he seems to be questioning. The guidelines have a clear emphasis on mercy and compassion. This makes sense because individual circumstances are often complex. Life is messy. But mercy and compassion cannot be separated from truth and remain legitimate virtues. The Church cannot contradict or circumvent Scripture and her own magisterium without invalidating her mission. This should be obvious. The words of Jesus himself are very direct and radical on the matter of divorce.

 

[Wandile]

Well if this was stated by a Pope, or even two, your argument from authority would be well made. Without that it seems little more than circular.

"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith,* do not follow him.***"

• Venerable Pope Pius IX

 

[Stat_Crux]

Yes, just as has happened with lethal self defence. You let ordinary people get away with killing a stranger in their home and they will end up endorsing the same for school teachers who give their kids bad marks or shop assistants who don’t let customers bargain down the prices. Where will it all end. .

An error of false-equivalence. Self-defence has been part of the Church’s teaching for centuries. The action is not the death of the attacker, but the defence of oneself or somebody else. If the attacker does not attack, they are not killed by the defender. That is also the argument behind the concept of a just war (e.g. the allies World War II) and the moral justification used by the Church in explaining why it is legitimate for nations to have armies and for soldiers to “kill” in the act of carrying out their duties of defense.

 

[Stat_Crux]

I don’t find it unfortunate at all that certain dioceses in North America published their guidelines last year. Why would it be unfortunate? That includes the dioceses and archdioceses of Philadelphia, Portland, Calgary, Edmonton, and the others from Alberta. In addition, Bishop Conley of the Diocese of Lincoln pointed his clergy, in a letter he wrote them, to three specific interpretations of Amoris laetitea, saying, “I have provided these particular documents because they reflect the most faithful interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, and covey the interpretation that is to be considered normative in the Diocese of Lincoln.”

The guidance document produced by Archbishop Sample of Portland is particularly good, succinct and clear in its teaching. It also provides some examples of how the AL can be misinterpreted. We know of it here in the UK, along with Archbishop Chaput’s guidance too.

 

[Randolph]

Some interpretations of AL seem to posit that sex outside of marriage remains “mortally sinful”, but that there are circumstances under which one can continue to repeatedly and deliberately carry on regardless. In the same way, the “liberal” interpretation of AL does not propose that the first valid marriage can be dissolved, but that one could in good conscience ignore that fact and carry on regardless as though the present civil marriage, in effect, “overrides” the valid sacramental marriage. They never come out and say they, but that seems to be the essential substance of what’s being proposed.

I know those who support the traditional interpretation of the Church’s teaching on divorce and remarriage are often accused of being “legalistic”. But from my perspective, saying that something hasn’t changed, but then coming up with a justification for changing and ignoring the actual objective situation sounds more like a lawyer’s way of arguing than anything the traditional teaching would put forward.

If we need a theology degree to understand what God is apparently asking us to do, and understand why it doesn’t contradict the past teaching of the Church, then one might well ask why Christ thought it best to start sharing His word by walking around the Holy Land sharing such an esoteric, complicated philosophy with illiterate Judean peasants

Well written, Stat-Crux. I could not have stated better myself. Thank you.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The comments from Fr. Dwight Longenecker in Posts #71 and 72 of this thread are enlightening of the way such matters ought to be handled. I would highlight just one sentence of his commentary: “What troubles me in the Maltese bishops’ document is that it opens the door to complete subjectivity.”

The secular culture has already soaked us in subjectivity. For the Church to advocate subjectivity only adds fuel to the fire, and helps no one.

Fr. L.'s complete commentary can be found here:
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2017/01/questions-archbishop-malta.html

FrL here does seem to make mountains out of molehills and see ghosts and shadows without due cause.

His Susan and John example was pretty simplistic and straightforward and his resolution obvious. I thought his reasoning and explanation for not granting Communion access was a little wet:

“I said “Because your teenaged sons are watching. They thought again and I explained. “You see, your kids know about your previous marriages right?” They nodded.”

But perhaps that is a casuality of simplifying the example.

It has been many years since I officiated at Catholics weddings or pastorally prepared young couples or mediated their disputes. However common sense, if not AL itself, makes it pretty obvious this couple need to be led to reflect on the previous marriages and why they obviously believe they were not real marriages. Some education on the importance and value of faithful commitment in Catholic marriages would seem in order and from there discern whether that was what they intended in their original young marriages…likely not. This would lead to discerning the importance of those values in their present relationship and the disjunction between where they are now and where they were then. That would naturally lead to the importance of regularising the legally conflicted situation that still obtains … and so naturally lead in to the necessity of petitioning the local marriage tribunal to resolve the contradictions inherent in their situation. Obviously Communion would not even be on the table until this attempt had been made.

All very clear, I really do not see what the problem is with the example FrL gave.
I would not call his handling of it exactly an “Accompanying” process as he does not seem to have given any indication of discernment re whether they have done the right thing re possible out-standing obligations re the first marriages.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

An error of false-equivalence. .

I am not here arguing for the goodness of some allegedly “adulterous” situations … Pope Francis has already done that.

I am simply demonstrating the chicken-licheness of the implicit “thin edge of the wedge” opinion aired below that somehow allowing some of those who have been “made adulterers” possible access to Communion in a discernment process will be the end of the Catholic world and ethical teaching as we know it.

Lets lighten up a little.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith,* do not follow him.***"

• Venerable Pope Pius IX

As others have rightly noted, by all means do not avail yourself of the new possibilities made available to you by AL if you one day find yourself in an irregular situation and you do actually met the discernment criteria mentioned.

But please allow others who do not share your view that AL is contrary to Catholic Faith to do so if the directives are still in force. And you may even like to welcome them into full Communion with Jesus and your Parish on the happy day the PP allows them Communion access.

If I was aware of that day I at least would want to whether or not I personally like the new directives.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In addition, Archbishop Chaput, in this same interview, gives solid reasoning as to why he and the other 9 bishops I mentioned interpret AL the way they do, showing that he’s not just paying “lip service” to AL in his guidelines; he and the other bishops are reiterating constant and orthodox Church teaching on this issue concerning divorced and civilly remarried Catholics:

Surely it is lip service to AL if the Philly Guidelines do not allow any possibility of access to the sacraments for some active irregulars as AL and the Arg Draft allow?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t find it unfortunate at all that certain dioceses in North America published their guidelines last year.

If you are referring to my contribution you may have misunderstood.
I was lamenting that the US Bishops Conference did not come out with unified Guidelines for the USA as a whole.

Many contributors find it difficult that couples can be treated one way in this town and completely different in the next.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Well written, Stat-Crux. I could not have stated better myself. Thank you.

It’s also worth noting that the initial theological groundwork for the “liberal” interpretation of AL was carried out by Cardinal Walter Kasper in his small book “The Gospel of the Family”. In that, he discusses the Orthodox Church’s teaching of a “penitential” pathway in which the divorced individual acknowledges their responsibility for the breakdown of the initial Marriage (a process of “oikonomia”), confesses their sin, and is allowed to remarry as a “pastoral mercy”. They can only remarry once however, three times would be “naughty” for some no doubt arbitrary reason.

Unfortunately, the debate at the two Synods on the family showed that the acceptance of such a practice in the Catholic Church would not have been acceptable in achieving the required 2/3 majority vote. Indeed in the first Synod it did not make a 2/3 majority.

It seems then that those who support this view are now pinning their argument on the broader text of AL, which is open to a wider range of possible interpretations. AL makes no overt reference to allowing remarriage in Church, and nothing of a formal “penitential pathway” before returning to Communion. This interpretation does however end up at the same conclusion: Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried, no obligation to live as brother and sister, and de-facto recognition of a union between two (sacramentally) unmarried individuals (i.e. a cohabiting couple) as being on the same level as a valid marriage.

What is telling however, is that despite the theological and practical framework of Cardinal Kasper’s proposal having been rejected at both Synods, those who supported his perspective are still interpreting AL as allowing a change in Church teaching on access to the Eucharist and Absolution in Confession. That the justification/rationale now used has changed but the desired outcome is reached anyway suggests that such an interpretation is not based on the method used, or how/why it is possible, but the outcome alone. In other words the justifying argument used is irrelevant. The individuals who hold this view now appear to have already decided that the civilly divorced and remarried should receive Communion, and are willing to adopt any argument which advances them towards this desired outcome. In my experience as a scientist, this is not the way in which one goes about searching for the truth.

A robust academic response against Cardinal Kasper’s book can be found in another book called “Remaining in the Truth of Christ”, colloquially known as “The Five Cardinal’s Book”, which was published around the time of the two Synods that AL is based on. The discussion over AL is only the latest result of a debate in the Church that has been going on for the last 30 or 40 years, and no doubt will continue well after the dust has settled in the current phase.

We can only hope that this debate, now taking place on a much more public stage, is resolved for the benefit of all involved and Christ’s Church.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Indeed, a parish priest might find that following his bishop’s interpretation of A.L would force him to act against his own conscience and against what he has learned in seminary. Not a good position to be in.

Yes, indeed. I have been thinking about this. These kinds of conflicts have been a major part of Church life forever, all denominations. The problem is that now it is all in the open and we are all (all levels of the Church) sitting at our computers on social media, Catholic or otherwise. We all see it unfold when in the past this was all behind the curtain. I blame Francis in part - he called the two Synods for a ‘world’ discussion; parts of the Vatican office itself fed the media various documents - remember the infamous midterm report or whatever it was. The problem started when the Synods aka Holy Spirit did not ring the right bells, sing the right song - hence AL and the development of doctrine… on and on and on we go.

Back to the main point, I do think many have different individual viewpoints in the clergy, just as the laity do. And then are receiving the local Bishop’s official line. (the West Coast will say something different from Texas who say something different from Malta who will say something different from Ghana who will say something different from…) Basically do it yourself time. This is a problem if you want to keep truth, Gospel. Not to sound like a broken record, but this is just the start of applying ‘flow’ discernment too. It has legs.

 

[Stat_Crux]

It’s also worth noting that the initial theological groundwork for the “liberal” interpretation of AL was carried out by Cardinal Walter Kasper in his small book “The Gospel of the Family”. In that, he discusses the Orthodox Church’s teaching of a “penitential” pathway in which the divorced individual acknowledges their responsibility for the breakdown of the initial Marriage (a process of “oikonomia”), confesses their sin, and is allowed to remarry as a “pastoral mercy”. They can only remarry once however, three times would be “naughty” for some no doubt arbitrary reason.

The other consequence of Cardinal Kasper’s proposal for a “penitential pathway” having been rejected at the Synods is that the practical implementation of the “liberal” interpretation of AL would now go, in some ways, beyond that taught in the Orthodox Church. Whilst I will say the Orthodox Church’s teaching doesn’t appear to reconcile with Catholic teaching, it at least provides a structure and a formal process that people have to go through. It also involves a different liturgical service for the remarriage, which is more “penitential” in character. However, the interpretation of AL put about by some (e.g. the way some are interpreting the recent Maltese guidance) would suggest no formal structured process is necessary, and that it rests solely on the conscience of the individual Catholic to decide when they should or should not receive Communion, with no remarriage or “legitimisation” of the new union in Church necessary.

It’s imperative that the confusion over how we interpret AL comes to an end at some point.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Lets lighten up a little.

From a contemporaneous account of Bishop John Fisher’s famous public declaration in defence of Henry VIII’s marriage to Catharine of Aragon, for which he refused to recant and was subsequently martyred:

Therefore, both in order not to procure the damnation of his soul, and in order not to be unfaithful to the king, or to fail in doing the duty that he owed to the truth, in a matter of such great importance, he presented himself before their reverend lordships to declare, to affirm, and with forcible reasons to demonstrate to them that this marriage of the king and queen can be dissolved by no power, human or Divine, and for this opinion he declared he would even lay down his life. He added that the Baptist in olden times regarded it as impossible for him to die more gloriously than in the cause of marriage; and that as it was not so holy at that time as it has now become by the shedding of Christ’s Blood, he could encourage himself more ardently, more effectually, and with greater confidence to dare any great or extreme peril whatever. He used many other suitable words, and at the end presented the book which had been written by him on the subject.

Bishop John Fisher is perhaps not as well known as his friend Thomas More, and less of his writings survive, but for his resistance to Henry VIII’s attack on the Church in England we remember him to this day. That can’t be said of his brother Bishops, of whom none stood up to Henry VIII’s threats.

If the Sacraments instituted by Christ himself, as the fruits of His Crucifixion for our sake, for the salvation of souls aren’t important or worth speaking up for, why do we all bother to call ourselves Christian? Our motivation to go to Mass every Sunday is not so that we can eat biscuits, chat and drink tea in the parish hall afterwards. It is a declaration of belief in Christ and Catholic identity to stand a say the Creed at Mass and receive Communion. Something which in my country for about 100 years after Fisher uttered those words was a death sentence. For another 200 years or so after that to be Catholic in England meant you were excluded from any public office or position of responsibility.

Genuinely no offence intended towards you, but that’s the Catholic heritage I come from.

 

[Randolph]

The other consequence of Cardinal Kasper’s proposal for a “penitential pathway” having been rejected at the Synods is that the practical implementation of the “liberal” interpretation of AL would now go, in some ways, beyond that taught in the Orthodox Church. Whilst I will say the Orthodox Church’s teaching doesn’t appear to reconcile with Catholic teaching, it at least provides a structure and a formal process that people have to go through. It also involves a different liturgical service for the remarriage, which is more “penitential” in character. However, the interpretation of AL put about by some (e.g. the way some are interpreting the recent Maltese guidance) would suggest no formal structured process is necessary, and that it rests solely on the conscience of the individual Catholic to decide when they should or should not receive Communion, with no remarriage or “legitimisation” of the new union in Church necessary.

It’s imperative that the confusion over how we interpret AL comes to an end at some point.

Thank you for your great insights. Beyond the issue of Communion for couples in irregular situations, I would like to know your thoughts on the role of conscience with pastoral accompaniment in regard to other committed/known mortal sins. Namely, can it somehow be an “anesthetic” and subsequently a cure to the disease, if you will?

 

[FollowChrist34]

From a contemporaneous account of Bishop John Fisher’s famous public declaration in defence of Henry VIII’s marriage to Catharine of Aragon, for which he refused to recant and was subsequently martyred:

Bishop John Fisher is perhaps not as well known as his friend Thomas More, and less of his writings survive, but for his resistance to Henry VIII’s attack on the Church in England we remember him to this day. That can’t be said of his brother Bishops, of whom none stood up to Henry VIII’s threats.

If the Sacraments instituted by Christ himself, as the fruits of His Crucifixion for our sake, for the salvation of souls aren’t important or worth speaking up for, why do we all bother to call ourselves Christian? Our motivation to go to Mass every Sunday is not so that we can eat biscuits, chat and drink tea in the parish hall afterwards. It is a declaration of belief in Christ and Catholic identity to stand a say the Creed at Mass and receive Communion. Something which in my country for about 100 years after Fisher uttered those words was a death sentence. For another 200 years or so after that to be Catholic in England meant you were excluded from any public office or position of responsibility.

Genuinely no offence intended towards you, but that’s the Catholic heritage I come from.

What a fantastic post (sorry I am not following these arguments in the threads through all the posts). But I will say the Catholic Church is very blessed to have you. Now, whether you still have a Catholic Church…perhaps grab some tea and a biscuit, mellow out. Seriously, thanks for your posting. Well done.

 

[Stat_Crux]

What a fantastic post (sorry I am not following these arguments in the threads through all the posts). But I will say the Catholic Church is very blessed to have you. Now, whether you still have a Catholic Church…perhaps grab some tea and a biscuit, mellow out. Seriously, thanks for your posting. Well done.

Tea = check
Biscuit (x2) = check
Mellow

 

[jeannetherese]

Surely it is lip service to AL if the Philly Guidelines do not allow any possibility of access to the sacraments for some active irregulars as AL and the Arg Draft allow?

Father Longenecker’s article addresses access to the sacraments, noting that this has always been an option as he addresses the confusion surrounding differing interpretations of A.L. :

"But they are already welcome to participate in these sacraments. If they are divorced and remarried they can go to confession and confess that they are in an irregular relationship and receive absolution. Then they may seek a decree of nullity and attempt to live as brother and sister until such time that their relationship can be regularized. In that sense they have always been able to go to confession. Nothing has changed.

They also have always been able to participate in the Eucharist. Indeed, they are encouraged to do so. What they are not encouraged to do is to receive communion. The Bishops of Malta, in remaining ambiguous on this point, are being either naive or disingenuous. Do they mean that the divorced and re-married may receive communion or not? They may certainly participate in the Eucharist. In this sense nothing is new, but by “participate in the Eucharist” the lax will conclude that this means to receive communion whereas the rigid will conclude that it means they should come to Mass, but NOT receive communion.

Consequently, the bishops of Malta, in their well meaning attempt to clarify the issue have only continued the relativistic ambiguity. Rather than clearing the waters they have only muddied it further."

Source:
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2017/01/questions-archbishop-malta.html