Pope reacts to 'rigid' critics [CWN]

[Don_Ruggero]

No one is suggesting that the answer is maybe. Some people are upset that individual pastors are given the authority to confer with the individuals actually involved and conclude that the answer is “no,” apparently because those people would prefer the answer to be “yes.” Why they think it is any of their business is beyond me.

Or, one might add, beyond being any of their business, that they have any ability or prerogative to insert themselves into the matter.

 

[pnewton]

Or, if there IS a correct implementation that is to be common across the whole Church, cannot a bishop expect clarification?

The Holy Father** is **engaged in dialogue with bishops’ conferences. No, there need not be or should be a common implementation.

 

[Thomas_White]

We have a case now of one bishop producing an implementation guideline, as requested by the Pope, and another bishop referring to it a “naive, at best”. Is it meant to be up to each bishop to create their own guidelines as they see fit?, in which case, what case is there for one bishop to criticize another bishop’s guidelines. Or, if there IS a correct implementation that is to be common across the whole Church, cannot a bishop expect clarification?

Exactly so. If each bishop is to develop his own implementation guidelines, then of course there will be a multiplicity of them. The difficulty then is that what is sinful under one bishop will be–inevitably-- permissible under another. If bishops should in turn delegate this responsibility and determination to individual priests, the difficullty will only worsen.

I can understand the rationale for this approach in a multitude of circumstances; however, I also understand that the approach is the dominant one in modern Ethics. The great difficulty is that this mode of thinking is known as ‘moral relativism’, and it is this I find troubling. It is contrary to the concept of Absolute Truth, a position the Church has always maintained.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The Holy Father** is **engaged in dialogue with bishops’ conferences. No, there need not be or should be a common implementation.

Precisely. Indeed, beyond “need not” and “should not,” there actually could not be a common implementation.

That is why the formula is often appended to these sort of directives: “in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops.”

The level and scope at which discretion is retained, according to the directive of the competent ecclesiastical authority, would then be what is used in the application as delineated by the guidelines.

When one is actually doing this in daily pastoral life and practice, one is drawing from multiple sources to arrive at what is to be done in a given concrete application…it could be, for example, by way of a combination of sacramental theology + moral theology + liturgical norms + universal law + particular law + experience + the application of guidance received.

The facility to do this is usually among the last thresholds that a priest attains in his priesthood. Indeed, priests ordained 10 or 20 or 30 years may turn to their brothers older in ordination to seek their insight in how to deal with a given unique situation that they tentatively confront. Which, of course, is why there are those things in the life and functioning of a diocese where the bishop will say that a given matter is to be referred to him “or to one of the most senior priests of the diocese” since they have, one trusts, the most accumulated store of both knowledge and wisdom. Presuming, of course, that he is not so senior that he has gone senile.

 

[Thomas_White]

Precisely. Indeed, beyond “need not” and “should not,” there actually could not be a common implementation.

That is why the formula is often appended to these sort of directives: “in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops.”

The level and scope at which discretion is retained, according to the directive of the competent ecclesiastical authority, would then be what is used in the application as delineated by the guidelines.

When one is actually doing this in daily pastoral life and practice, one is drawing from multiple sources to arrive at what is to be done in a given concrete application…it could be, for example, by way of a combination of sacramental theology + moral theology + liturgical norms + universal law + particular law + experience + the application of guidance received.

The facility to do this is usually among the last thresholds that a priest attains in his priesthood. Indeed, priests ordained 10 or 20 or 30 years may turn to their brothers older in ordination to seek their insight in how to deal with a given unique situation that they tentatively confront. Which, of course, is why there are those things in the life and functioning of a diocese where the bishop will say that a given matter is to be referred to him “or to one of the most senior priests of the diocese” since they have, one trusts, the most accumulated store of both knowledge and wisdom. Presuming, of course, that he is not so senior that he has gone senile.

Is this then the method, in practice, that ‘Humanae Vitae’ (for example) has been implemented (i.e., that “there actually could not be a common implementation”) in the great multiplicity of circumstances globally? I respectfully ask this question in all seriousness.

 

[patricius79]

Are you saying there can’t possibly be any extension of that, where someone in an irregular situation lacks full knowledge or complete consent? I would guess that a pastor talks to people in complex situations about their dilemmas more times in the course of a few months than I probably will over the course of my entire life. I tried to come up with a hypothetical irregular situation earlier in the thread where maybe one of the elements for a mortal sin was missing (although I don’t know, and I’m also not too creative).
.

I think I see your point. As long as they are trying–despite their conditioning and bad habits–to follow the moral law, which forms the basis of our conscience.

I don’t think anyone here denies this.

I’m not sure everyone here would affirm it.

 

[patricius79]

Is this then the method, in practice, that ‘Humanae Vitae’ (for example) has been implemented (i.e., that “there actually could not be a common implementation”) in the great multiplicity of circumstances globally? I respectfully ask this question in all seriousness.

Has Humanae Vitae been implemented? A priest told me that we have failed to implement this teaching. There is a priest from Oklahoma City, as well, who commonly speaks about the Sacrament of Matrimony. He said the Synod on the Family would fail unless it addressed the failure of the clergy to proclaim the Church’s teaching on Matrimony and sex. I suppose some would say that’s negative or rigid. But maybe he’s right.

 

[Thomas_White]

Has Humanae Vitae been implemented?

‘Humanae Vitae’ was promulgated by Pope Paul VI. It is its implementation that is questionable, at least in the U.S. However, it would seem beyond question that Pope Paul VI intended that the encyclical be fully implemented and then followed by the faithful.

 

[Richca]

It would be impossible to create rules for every single situation that a person might encounter, which is one reason why a person needs to have a conscience formed by the Church so that they can properly discern God’s will. And if a conscience is properly formed to begin with we wouldn’t encounter some of these situations at all.

I think God is competent to legislate laws that are binding in every situation. In fact, the Church teaches in the CCC (and St John Paul II in the encyclical The Splendor of the Truth) that the negative precepts of the Law or the Ten Commandments, are exceptionless norms. For example, the commandment Thou shall not commit adultery is binding under all circumstances and situations. There is no situation or circumstance in which adultery can be committed lawfully. It is a grave sin always and everywhere. It is an intrinsically evil and bad act and remains so even in the case where a sinner’s culpability was entirely taken away.

 

[Richca]

I don’t see how they could, unless they are intending to live without sex in the irregular marriage.

Maybe the idea here is that the priest is going to substitute for marriage tribunals in deciding if the first marriage is valid, and if he think’s it’s not, then he blesses the second marriage…?

Interesting, I have sort of thought about this myself in the situation where the first marriage was declared valid by a marriage tribunal though one or both of the spouses in the case think it must be invalid. However, according to Canon Law, I don’t think a parish priest has any authority to declare a first marriage invalid when the marriage tribunal declared it valid. I think the decision of the marriage tribunal must be accepted on faith and an expression of God’s will. The party involved can appeal the decision at least one or two times. If the same verdict is reached after two, three or more times, I think a person has got to try and except this as God’s will for them. Jesus said “he who does not take up his cross and follow after me cannot by my disciple.”

In the case where the first marriage has not gone before a marriage tribunal, the marriage tribunal is pretty much the first step to take for the divorced and remarried who are seeking to follow Christ in earnest.

 

[Richca]

We must be obedient to the Pope in matters of doctrine, moral teaching, and discipline. That doesn’t mean we can’t have questions as we try to understand his meaning. My understanding is that A.L. was written in response to the question of whether civilly remarried Catholics may receive Communion. If so, I don’t understand why the Pope wouldn’t have affirmed that they may not, unless they have Confessed their sin, with a firm intention to live in complete continence. Or if he did affirm this in the document, or in response to the many questions about it, then I would like to see that.

From footnote 329 in Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis appears to at least hint at that couples in irregular marriages need not abstain from all sexual activity. In the body of the exhortation #298, he says “The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious
reasons, such as the children’s upbringing,
a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.” He is quoting St John Paul II in this passage from the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris
Consortio. In such a situation where the couple cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio teaches that the couple must live in complete continence to approach the sacraments of confession and holy communion.

However, Pope Francis says in footnote 329 following the quote from #298 above "In such situations [where the couple cannot satisfy the obligation to separate for serious reasons], many people, knowing and accepting the possibility
of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them,
point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it
often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of
the children suffers.” Some cardinals, bishops, and priests interpret this to mean in conjunction with other passages and footnotes of AL that Pope Francis has opened some kind of door that not all couples in irregular marriages need abstain from all sexual activity to approach the sacraments which appears to be in contradiction to the Church’s prior teaching if not the gospel of Jesus Christ itself. See also the guidelines to Amoris Laetitia from the Argentine bishops which Pope Francis has given approval of in a private letter.

Recently, Bishop Marcello Semeraro, bishop of Albano, Italy, and secretary of the Council of 9 Cardinals chosen by Pope Francis to be his personal advisers, is reported to have said the following (in quotation marks) in a recent presentation of Amoris Laetitia in Spain:

Regarding the regulation for Catholics who have entered a second civil union after a prior sacramental marriage (and civil divorce) to live as brother and sister in order to receive the sacraments, Bishop Semeraro qualified: “What would it mean that people who have children live as brother and sister? The step forward of Amoris Laetitia, with respect to Familiaris Consortio, is that they [the civilly remarried] can express their affection in their situation, and this is where the accompaniment and guidance of the spiritual director would enter into play.” He added with more clarity: “It is not a brother and sister relationship but a conjugal relationship. They are people who have children and have responsibilities in their relationship.” (Source Lifesitenews: Papal advisor: Amoris Laetitia sees cohabitation as a ‘conjugal relationship’)

 

[CrossofChrist]

I think God is competent to legislate laws that are binding in every situation. In fact, the Church teaches in the CCC (and St John Paul II in the encyclical The Splendor of the Truth) that the negative precepts of the Law or the Ten Commandments, are exceptionless norms. For example, the commandment Thou shall not commit adultery is binding under all circumstances and situations. There is no situation or circumstance in which adultery can be committed lawfully. It is a grave sin always and everywhere. It is an intrinsically evil and bad act and remains so even in the case where a sinner’s culpability was entirely taken away.

That’s not under dispute. Let me repeat: the issue at hand is not whether or not there are intrinsic evils or whether or not adultery is an intrinsic evil. The matter on that particular issue is about to what extent a person is subjectively culpable for his/her actions (that is, to what degree they have full knowledge or complete consent). Because someone commits an objectively grave act, even with frequency, does not necessarily mean they have done so with full knowledge or complete consent.

If the Pope has decided that under some circumstances it is possible that a person who is divorced/remarried may receive the sacraments, who am I to judge? (I’m no one to judge, per Canon 1404 and Vatican I’s First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ.) If the Pope has decided he/she may have diminished culpability (to the point where there is no mortal sin) when he/she is unchaste because it would be “difficult to practice for the stability of the couple”, and because that “person believes he/she would incur a subsequent fault by harming the children of the new union”, I will listen since he is the teacher for the entire church. Also, that in no way diminishes the fact that adultery is always a grave sin; it merely helps with discerning to what extent a person is culpable.

As far as the comments you were actually replying to in what you quoted, I was speaking in a more general way, thinking about Pope Francis’ recent interview where he discusses how early in his life he learned about morality primarily in terms of “yes” and “no”, as well as some of my own personal life experience. If one doesn’t really work to form one’s conscience and just learns “yes” and “no”, when they come to a situation that is beyond the scope of what they know they will either become paralyzed or act without giving thought to the Church.

Let me further illustrate what I am saying (these are pretty simple situations but they give a glimpse of what I am trying to communicate). We are called to be charitable to all people, but the golden rule doesn’t give us a concrete answer to how we should treat someone who is angry, how to respond to a nonreligious coworker who asks why they should go to Mass on Sunday, etc. Someone who has learned primarily in terms of “yes, allowed” and “no, not allowed” and not with a primary focus on forming his/her conscience will not be prepared for concrete scenarios. If someone responds to the question about attending Mass by saying “It is a grave sin that leads to damnation if I do not go,” they are speaking with accuracy, but it leaves a pretty bad impression, as if one should go to Mass to avoid a vengeful God’s wrath rather than out of joy for God’s love. Forming one’s conscience should be done out of love for God to discern God’s will; that should necessarily include learning about the moral law but it goes beyond that.

A rigidity of the sort that I am thinking of can lead to an excessively scrupulous attitude, or drive a person away from the Church by thinking it is primarily concerned with a moral code and overly concerned about prohibitions.

 

[Thomas_White]

Recently, Bishop Marcello Semeraro, bishop of Albano, Italy, and secretary of the Council of 9 Cardinals chosen by Pope Francis to be his personal advisers, is reported to have said the following (in quotation marks) in a recent presentation of Amoris Laetitia in Spain:

Regarding the regulation for Catholics who have entered a second civil union after a prior sacramental marriage (and civil divorce) to live as brother and sister in order to receive the sacraments, Bishop Semeraro qualified: “What would it mean that people who have children live as brother and sister? The step forward of Amoris Laetitia, with respect to Familiaris Consortio, is that they [the civilly remarried] can express their affection in their situation, and this is where the accompaniment and guidance of the spiritual director would enter into play.” He added with more clarity: “It is not a brother and sister relationship but a conjugal relationship. They are people who have children and have responsibilities in their relationship.” (Source Lifesitenews: Papal advisor: Amoris Laetitia sees cohabitation as a ‘conjugal relationship’)

(Emphasis added)

If this is so, what would be the relevance of any “accompaniment and guidance of the spiritual director”?

 

[_Abyssinia]

From footnote 329 in Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis appears to at least hint at that couples in irregular marriages need not abstain from all sexual activity. In the body of the exhortation #298, he says “The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious
reasons, such as the children’s upbringing,
a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.” He is quoting St John Paul II in this passage from the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris
Consortio. In such a situation where the couple cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio teaches that the couple must live in complete continence to approach the sacraments of confession and holy communion.

However, Pope Francis says in footnote 329 following the quote from #298 above "In such situations [where the couple cannot satisfy the obligation to separate for serious reasons], many people, knowing and accepting the possibility
of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them,
point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it
often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of
the children suffers.” Some cardinals, bishops, and priests interpret this to mean in conjunction with other passages and footnotes of AL that Pope Francis has opened some kind of door that not all couples in irregular marriages need abstain from all sexual activity to approach the sacraments which appears to be in contradiction to the Church’s prior teaching if not the gospel of Jesus Christ itself. See also the guidelines to Amoris Laetitia from the Argentine bishops which Pope Francis has given approval of in a private letter.

Recently, Bishop Marcello Semeraro, bishop of Albano, Italy, and secretary of the Council of 9 Cardinals chosen by Pope Francis to be his personal advisers, is reported to have said the following (in quotation marks) in a recent presentation of Amoris Laetitia in Spain:

Regarding the regulation for Catholics who have entered a second civil union after a prior sacramental marriage (and civil divorce) to live as brother and sister in order to receive the sacraments, Bishop Semeraro qualified: “What would it mean that people who have children live as brother and sister? The step forward of Amoris Laetitia, with respect to Familiaris Consortio, is that they [the civilly remarried] can express their affection in their situation, and this is where the accompaniment and guidance of the spiritual director would enter into play.” He added with more clarity: “It is not a brother and sister relationship but a conjugal relationship. They are people who have children and have responsibilities in their relationship.” (Source Lifesitenews: Papal advisor: Amoris Laetitia sees cohabitation as a ‘conjugal relationship’)

Canon lawyer Ed Condon says in the following article regarding the Sacraments and Amoris Laetia:

When Francis refers to the sacraments his is referring, and this is explicit in the text, first of all to Confession, which is our primary means of encountering the mercy of God. It is within this context that he insists that pastors consider the full complexity of a person’s situation and never think that “it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives.”

The period of pastoral accompaniment and discernment described in Amoris Laetitia is, effectively, an extended guided examination of conscience leading to Confession.

It is in the light of this period of discernment that the person or couple can find their place in the life of the parish of which Francis says “necessarily requires discerning which of the various forms of exclusion currently practised in the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional framework, can be surmounted.”

And for some this will mean being able to take Communion. But, crucially, when discussing these situations and the huge scope for different circumstances, the Pope refers to two documents in particular, St. John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio, and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts’ Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful Who are Divorced and Remarried.

These documents both articulate the significance which individual circumstances can have, but also make it clear that only couples in irregular marriages who live a life of marital abstinence can receive Communion, and this is left absolutely intact by Francis.

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/04/08/francis-has-left-church-teaching-on-communion-for-the-divorced-and-remarried-absolutely-intact/

Bold text my emphases.

 

[pnewton]

Has Humanae Vitae been implemented? A priest told me that we have failed to implement this teaching. There is a priest from Oklahoma City, as well, who commonly speaks about the Sacrament of Matrimony. He said the Synod on the Family would fail unless it addressed the failure of the clergy to proclaim the Church’s teaching on Matrimony and sex. I suppose some would say that’s negative or rigid. But maybe he’s right.

Both the synod and Amoris Laetitia does address matrimony.

 

[Giuseppesiri58]

While I don’t blame him for trying to lead his brother Cardinal back into full obedience to Pope Francis, this is extremely disheartening that the divided parties have been so far reaching in this.

The 4 Cardinals are disobedient of nothing. To imply this publicly is not a wise thing to do.

 

[Giuseppesiri58]

‘Humanae Vitae’ was promulgated by Pope Paul VI. It is its implementation that is questionable, at least in the U.S. However, it would seem beyond question that Pope Paul VI intended that the encyclical be fully implemented and then followed by the faithful.

Humanae Vitae was ignored by scores of priests and protested by many

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/Paul%20VI-a_blast_from_the_past.htm

However unlike today’s climate when 4 Cardinals are called disobedient for submitting a Dubia and attacked as rigid heretics the scores of Humanae Vitae protesters were called heroic pastoral voices when in reality they were openly defying the Supreme Pontiff.

 

[Richca]

(Emphasis added)

If this is so, what would be the relevance of any “accompaniment and guidance of the spiritual director”?

Good question. This new teaching and morality expressed by some of the clergy is seemingly at odds with the Church’s perennial teaching from Holy Scripture and Tradition concerning sexual activity and the conjugal act. On the one hand, the Church has always taught that sex is only lawful between lawfully wedded spouses in marriage. On the other hand, now we are hearing from some that at least in some cases it is okay to have sex with someone who is not your lawful spouse. and it may even be considered that the sexual relations are a good and virtuous act. Is this not adultery? Where’s the logic in this? Can both of these teachings be held by the Church at one and the same time? And how do you square this with God’s commandment Thou shall not commit adultery and Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce as well as what God says through St Paul that marriage is a sign of the indissoluble union of Christ and the Church?

 

[Giuseppesiri58]

Or, one might add, beyond being any of their business, that they have any ability or prerogative to insert themselves into the matter.

Marriage is a public vocation and Sacrament that is efficacious to the whole of God’s people. In some domiciles, scandal and the damage to the community is virtually unavoidable. In particular, places like the small town and Catholic dense midwest.

I believe the Great Saint John Paul II addressed the issue of public scandal in the document Familiaris Consortio.

 

[JPUSC]

Ah, there’s the rub with the view that there is a “gray area” and “ambiguity” in Church doctrines. Some priests have no problem bending the rules and teachings of the Church. Why would they expect faithful Catholics to be obedient to them when they themselves are disobedient to the Church? Some pastors have no problem stepping on the toes of the faithful who want to follow the guidelines of the Church when it comes to the issues of faith, morals, and liturgy. Exactly who is being rigid here? Is it the faithful who yearn to be obedient to Holy Mother Church, or is it those who say that the buck stops with them?..

Another term commonly lobbed at faithful Catholics is legalism. That is to say that obedient Catholics are told they need to be wary of being “legalistic” in following the laws of the Church…

“Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (22-1, 3).

Is this to say that the Church is rigid? If you say that, you are saying in effect that God is rigid (and thank God that he is! Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever”). Ephesians chapters 1, 4, and 5 speak of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, of which Jesus is the head. He is the bridegroom of the Church, and thus the two are one. If you follow the teachings of the Church, you are being obedient to Christ. These are not man-made rules and regulations. They are the laws of God, and he asks us to be obedient to them, not in a rigid way but in a way of obedience which leads us to holiness and sanctification.

Sadly, in the Western world it seems sometimes that those who are faithful to the teachings of the Church are in the minority. However, given the revelations in the past few months about some of our shepherds, we will see more faithful Catholics emerge from the ashes. Alas, so too will many, as a result of “gray areas” and “ambiguity” from some of those shepherds, leave the Church.

• Catholic Answers
  catholic.com/magazine/articles/does-being-faithful-mean-you-are-rigid