Pope Francis’ Exhortation on the Family an ‘Organic Development of Doctrine’

[godisgood77]

At a Vatican press conference to present Pope Francis’ new exhortation on the family, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn said there is “an organic development of doctrine” in “Amoris Laetitia” (“The Joy of Love”) when compared to a similar text, “Familiaris Consortio,” written by St. John Paul II after the 1980 Synod on the Family.

Read more here…

The Cardinal chosen to present the Pope’s Exhortation gives us great guidance on how the Pope intended his document to be received relative to it’s authority and teaching weight.

 

[Pulvis]

Blessed Pope John Paul II from Veritatis Splendor

1. In order to justify these positions, some authors have proposed a kind of double status of moral truth. Beyond the doctrinal and abstract level, one would have to acknowledge the priority of a certain more concrete existential consideration. The latter, by taking account of circumstances and the situation, could legitimately be the basis of certain exceptions to the general rule and thus permit one to do in practice and in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law. A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called “pastoral” solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a “creative” hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept.
   No one can fail to realize that these approaches pose a challenge to the very identity of the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and God’s law. Only the clarification made earlier with regard to the relationship, based on truth, between freedom and law makes possible a discernment concerning this “creative” understanding of conscience.

 

[SyroMalankara]

At a Vatican press conference to present Pope Francis’ new exhortation on the family, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn said there is “an organic development of doctrine” in “Amoris Laetitia” (“The Joy of Love”) when compared to a similar text, “Familiaris Consortio,” written by St. John Paul II after the 1980 Synod on the Family.

Read more here…

The Cardinal chosen to present the Pope’s Exhortation gives us great guidance on how the Pope intended his document to be received relative to it’s authority and teaching weight.

What exactly developed? Seems like the document is mainly a pastoral approach for clergy.

 

[godisgood77]

What exactly developed? Seems like the document is mainly a pastoral approach for clergy.

You should read the article… but here is the gist of it.

*His statement on the development of doctrine came in response to a question as to whether paragraph No. 84 of “Familiaris Consortio” is still valid given that in footnote No. 351 of “Amoris Laetitia,” Pope Francis opened the possibility that divorced and remarried Catholics could, in certain circumstances, receive the sacraments of reconciliation and Communion. St. John Paul II had ruled out such a possibility, unless the couple—who for serious reasons cannot separate—“take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”

The Austrian cardinal describes Francis’ opening as “a classic case” of “the organic development of doctrine.” He explained that here “there is not a change [of doctrine],” but there is “the organic development of doctrine,” along the lines that John Henry Newman had envisaged. He recalled that just as John Paul II had “developed doctrine” in “Familiaris Consortio,” so, too, Francis has done the same in “Amoris Laetitia.” He suggested that one might even say that this new development was in some way “implicit” in No. 84 of “Familiaris Consortio,” which looked at three different situations. In any case, the cardinal said, “There is continuity in teaching here, but there is also something really new. There’s a real development [of doctrine], not a rupture.”*

 

[JimG]

So this was Cardinal Cardinal Schönborn’s take on the matter, not Pope Francis’.

 

[PatrickSebast]

So this was Cardinal Cardinal Schönborn’s take on the matter, not Pope Francis’.

Yes, but he was officially assigned to respond to questions on this document by the church/Francis. And while we might get a couple comments out of Francis during some interview in the future it is likely that this particular question is not going to be given to him or addressed by him. So…pretty much this is the closest we can expect to get to a direct response.

 

[asd72]

You should read the article… but here is the gist of it.

*His statement on the development of doctrine came in response to a question as to whether paragraph No. 84 of “Familiaris Consortio” is still valid given that in footnote No. 351 of “Amoris Laetitia,” Pope Francis opened the possibility that divorced and remarried Catholics could, in certain circumstances, receive the sacraments of reconciliation and Communion. St. John Paul II had ruled out such a possibility, unless the couple—who for serious reasons cannot separate—“take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”

The Austrian cardinal describes Francis’ opening as “a classic case” of “the organic development of doctrine.” He explained that here “there is not a change [of doctrine],” but there is “the organic development of doctrine,” along the lines that John Henry Newman had envisaged. He recalled that just as John Paul II had “developed doctrine” in “Familiaris Consortio,” so, too, Francis has done the same in “Amoris Laetitia.” He suggested that one might even say that this new development was in some way “implicit” in No. 84 of “Familiaris Consortio,” which looked at three different situations. In any case, the cardinal said, “There is continuity in teaching here, but there is also something really new. There’s a real development [of doctrine], not a rupture.”*

But look at this section of text from the year 2000. It is talking about the prohibition of the divorced and remarried receiving Holy Communion.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS
DECLARATION
II. CONCERNING THE ADMISSION TO HOLY COMMUNION OF FAITHFUL WHO ARE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED

1. The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is 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. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: “This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

 

[JimG]

I’ve read several commentaries which pretty much said that the exhortation did not change doctrine. I doubt that doctrine is changed by a footnote. But we’ll see what happens.

 

[OraLabora]

I’ve read several commentaries which pretty much said that the exhortation did not change doctrine. I doubt that doctrine is changed by a footnote. But we’ll see what happens.

The issue of who can or cannot receive in divorce and remarriage is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. That everyone must be in a state of grace to receive communion has always been the doctrine of the Church.

What the exhortation suggests is that not every remarried Catholic is automatically in a state of mortal sin due to not all 3 conditions for mortal sin being met. Of the three conditions, two are more or less subjective, and subjective interpretation is a question of discipline, not doctrine or dogma.

Some clergy take a narrow view of those two subjective conditions, suggesting that it is not possible for the D & R to not be mortally culpable, or that just being in a state of ongoing sin makes them ineligible (which technically would invalidate all of us because we are always in a state of sin). Others take a wider reading suggesting that like all sin, as the CCC clearly states, mortal culpability cannot always be assumed in the case of the D &R. Clearly the Holy Father falls into that camp. And he is, after all, the Pope.

The two doctrines at play though, that marriage is indissoluble and that reception of communion requires one to be in a state of grace, have not been altered by the exhortation. It’s not really an organic development of doctrine but an organic development of its application.

 

[JimG]

The issue of who can or cannot receive in divorce and remarriage is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. That everyone must be in a state of grace to receive communion has always been the doctrine of the Church.

What the exhortation suggests is that not every remarried Catholic is automatically in a state of mortal sin due to not all 3 conditions for mortal sin being met. Of the three conditions, two are more or less subjective, and subjective interpretation is a question of discipline, not doctrine or dogma.

Some clergy take a narrow view of those two subjective conditions, suggesting that it is not possible for the D & R to not be mortally culpable, or that just being in a state of ongoing sin makes them ineligible (which technically would invalidate all of us because we are always in a state of sin). Others take a wider reading suggesting that like all sin, as the CCC clearly states, mortal culpability cannot always be assumed in the case of the D &R. Clearly the Holy Father falls into that camp. And he is, after all, the Pope.

The two doctrines at play though, that marriage is indissoluble and that reception of communion requires one to be in a state of grace, have not been altered by the exhortation. It’s not really an organic development of doctrine but an organic development of its application.

Okay. A possible change in how doctrine is applied. I suppose the worry is that doctrine could be applied in a way that implicitly negates doctrine.

Personally, I’m agnostic on the issue of culpability. It’s not up to me to decide on culpability.

I just think that regardless of culpability, parties in a second marriage need to know whether their first marriage is valid, or not. And then decide whether it’s appropriate to receive communion if they are in fact living in an invalid second marriage.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I wonder why all this being stated on a public external Synod/Forum/ through Media? Why can’t the Pope simply state this to his bishops and/or priests and keep it from any interpretation? This giving of Communion has nothing to do with laity, neither does counseling parishioners. Seems the entire thing should be kept between the confessor and confessee, no need for the rest of us to speculate, guess, interpret or anything. It would have been prudent, in my opinion, for the Pope to simply state this to his brother bishops at their ad limina.

The way this has been handled is reminiscent of prison - everyone is innocent and was framed, and is an expert on the law. Publicly mentioning the exceptions, difficulties and impossibilities of not living in adultery or fornicating while receiving Communion probably just encourages more self-justification and continued reception. The popular reading of the Exhortation makes it more difficult for priests, in my opinion, since now any approach can be met with 'Pope said my conscience… " or “it’s difficult but…” and “mercy”.

 

[Pulvis]

I wonder why all this being stated on a public external Synod/Forum/ through Media? Why can’t the Pope simply state this to his bishops and/or priests and keep it from any interpretation? This giving of Communion has nothing to do with laity, neither does counseling parishioners. Seems the entire thing should be kept between the confessor and confessee, no need for the rest of us to speculate, guess, interpret or anything. It would have been prudent, in my opinion, for the Pope to simply state this to his brother bishops at their ad limina.

The way this has been handled is reminiscent of prison - everyone is innocent and was framed, and is an expert on the law. Publicly mentioning the exceptions, difficulties and impossibilities of not living in adultery or fornicating while receiving Communion probably just encourages more self-justification and continued reception. The popular reading of the Exhortation makes it more difficult for priests, in my opinion, since now any approach can be met with 'Pope said my conscience… " or “it’s difficult but…” and “mercy”.

“I wonder why all this being stated on a public external Synod/Forum/ through Media?”

Your last paragraph may be your answer.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

The issue of who can or cannot receive in divorce and remarriage is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. That everyone must be in a state of grace to receive communion has always been the doctrine of the Church.

What the exhortation suggests is that not every remarried Catholic is automatically in a state of mortal sin due to not all 3 conditions for mortal sin being met. Of the three conditions, two are more or less subjective, and subjective interpretation is a question of discipline, not doctrine or dogma.

Some clergy take a narrow view of those two subjective conditions, suggesting that it is not possible for the D & R to not be mortally culpable, or that just being in a state of ongoing sin makes them ineligible (which technically would invalidate all of us because we are always in a state of sin). Others take a wider reading suggesting that like all sin, as the CCC clearly states, mortal culpability cannot always be assumed in the case of the D &R. Clearly the Holy Father falls into that camp. And he is, after all, the Pope.

The two doctrines at play though, that marriage is indissoluble and that reception of communion requires one to be in a state of grace, have not been altered by the exhortation. It’s not really an organic development of doctrine but an organic development of its application.

That makes sense, although the ignorance and free will argument would allow be a “get out of grave sin” card until our Pastors (hence the emphasis on their approach) guided a couple who was living in ignorance into the light of their sin, as they do for each of us with our sins.

Once that veil is lifted, at least one more condition has been met (full knowledge), and there are very few scenarios where the condition for free will/lack of coercion (if you will) would apply. Having a very difficult situation is not the same was having a situation where you literally cannot be expected to take up a cross.

The logical step for our shepherds from this would be a greater emphasis on marriage, and what our Church teaches, and once the laity is no longer weighed down unfairly by ignorance, they can be dealt with individually as to how best manage their unfortunate situation, short of doing nothing and keep receiving. While some cases may pass the test for a lack of free will to choose otherwise, most will not, and it is those who use help in correcting things if possible, or managing things where they are, while refraining in those cases.