"We need to acknowledge the great variety of family situations that can offer a certain stability, but de facto or same-sex unions, may not simply be equated with marriage."
“Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ—‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery’—the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.”
The Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D., a priest of the Society of the Oblates of Wisdom, is an Associate Professor of Theology in the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico in Ponce, P.R.. He is also parochial vicar of the parish of Saint Joseph the Worker in the city of Ponce, and a ‘Defender of the Bond’ for the island’s marriage tribunals. He was born in Australia and, after being raised as a Presbyterian, converted to the Catholic faith in 1972. In 1979 he began studies for the priesthood in the major seminary of Sydney, and after completing his Licentiate in Theology at Rome’s Angelicum university was ordained as a priest in Saint Peter’s Basilica in 1985 by His Holiness Pope John Paul II. In 1997 he gained his doctorate in Systematic Theology, summa cum laude, from the Pontifical Athenæum of the Holy Cross in Rome. Fr. Harrison, who has lived in Puerto Rico since 1989, is well-known as a speaker and writer. He is the author of two books and over 120 articles in Catholic magazines and journals in the U.S.A., Australia, Britain, France, Spain and Puerto Rico. His special interest in theological and liturgical matters, in keeping with the charism of the Oblates of Wisdom, is upholding a ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ between the teachings of Vatican Council II and the bimillennial heritage of Catholic Tradition.
Remember, when does doctrine change?The most troubling aspect of AL, however, is its treatment in Chapter 8 of those living in irregular sexual relationships. Not a few stalwart champions of the magisterium are reassuring us that, basically, all is well. Canonist Ed Peters insists that the exhortation effects no change in church law. That is true, but it misses the point. For in paragraphs 302 (last section), 304 and 305 Francis has sent a clear message to priests that in individual cases they can and should bypass, rather than apply, the law, making ‘pastoral’ exceptions to it according to their own ‘merciful’ discretion. Robert Moynihan and George Weigel assure us that there is no change of doctrine embodied in the new document. But that’s only half true. Moral doctrine (i.e., teaching proposed as divine law) will be effectively changed not only if the Pope directly contradicts it, but also if he undermines it by relaxing disciplinary measures needed to protect it. Lamentably, like a tiny mustard seed full of massive potential, this kind of change has now been carefully planted in the fertile soil of two footnotes to an Apostolic Exhortation.
"Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world." Thomas J. Rosica from Richard Gaillardetz
In notes 336 and 351 to paragraphs 300 and 305 respectively, the Holy Father breaks with the teaching and discipline of all his predecessors in the See of Peter by allowing at least some divorced and civilly remarried Catholics (with no decree of nullity and no commitment to continence) to receive the sacraments. Since “discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists" owing to a variety of mitigating psychological and other factors, Francis affirms in n. 351 that the Church’s “help” to these Catholics living in objectively illicit relationships can “in certain cases . . . include the help of the sacraments”. The context indicates that this means mainly Penance and Eucharist. Commentators of all beliefs and none have almost universally interpreted the footnote in that sense, and their widely trumpeted claims have been confirmed by eloquent silence from the See of Peter.
"It is important to read all of what Cardinal Burke wrote and to read it slowly and carefully. He is not condemning the exhortation, but he is certainly not praising it either. His approach is clearly one of a Canonist. It is reasoned and rational. He makes it clear, it is the "opinion" of Francis, it is not infallible, it is not magisterial. Reading between the lines, one can surmise, he is disgusted."The Few, the Faithful, the Traumatised
The Sheepdog
The so called fight-or-flight response originates in the autonomic nervous system – that part of everyone which acts unconsciously, responding to a deeply ingrained biological urge to protect oneself from imminent harm. This system is present in both humans and animals, the difference being that humans have the gift of reason, and are largely able to moderate through their conscious mind the autonomic urges to protect oneself. When a person is traumatized, ostracized, and emotionally or physically beaten down, the PTSD that results inhibits the ability of the rational mind to intervene in these processes.
In the years since the Second Vatican Council, the Church has been attacked by dark forces, the most insidious of which, “the Spirit of Vatican II”, (which is in complete opposition to the actual Council) “has entered the church through some crack or fissure”. These dark forces have inspired legions of evil and wicked bishops and careerist priests to join forces to batter down by whatever means necessary those who have tried to hold back the advancement of the forces of Baal into the Holy of Holies.
Looking back along the road the church has travelled since the Council, one may observe the battered and bloody spiritual corpses that are strewn along its length. These were those faithful, priests and lay alike, who tried to resist those forces, but were vanquished by the darkness. And so having our rational mind unable to fully function because of trauma, we revert to our instincts – we fight ferociously and indiscriminately or we flee the battle in an attempt to circle the wagons and isolate our families in an extreme way, from what is happening. Those of us who are still around, still faithful, have been traumatized by having to witness such evil by the hands that have been anointed to offer the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. A truly Satanic perversion of grace indeed. How can we not be traumatized? How can we not be fearful? How can we not be angry, suspicious, and even paranoid? We have most, if not all, the features of PTSD.
Our rational mind and soul is so beaten up that it is often not strong enough to overpower the instinctual urge to attack that which we perceive is the source of our trauma. We began to act like animals, relying on pure instinct, without the aid of reason. This is what happens when the faithful Catholics are cornered, isolated, and poked with the stick of heresy by the very men who should be their shepherds and pastors: they scratch and bite at everyone who may approach to offer to help, even their friends. They become paranoid and see in everyone who might not fully agree with their approach to what is a common problem as an adversary. I have PTSD, and I am doing well. I have my fight-or-flight response under control, but many of my friends do not, and some of them have started turning on me in the post A-L frenzy. How do we combat this? PRAY PRAY PRAY before you have conversations. Fast from things you are entitled to. Mortify your senses, and most importantly, as often as you can, get on your knees before Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament and hurl your hurt, your agonies, your betrayal, and your doubts at the foot of the altar. If you ask Him to bear this burden with you He will. Our trials, sufferings, and agonies have NO VALUE except to the extent that we conform them to the Passion of Our Lord. That ability, given by God Himself when He created us, is what makes us different from animals. And this advice from a saintly Bishop from LaCrosse, Wisconsin is what saved my soul from turning in on itself in anger. Cardinal Burke has been the subject of attack these days. Having recovered from my PTSD to a point where my rational soul is back in control, I must say, having known him personally for many years, that he deserves the benefit of the doubt: because he knows things we don't, and he’s playing the long game. I'd bet my life on that. What he certainly isn’t doing is caving or compromising, although those of us who are traumatized and have not sufficiently recovered our rationality can’t see that, and it’s not their fault. It’s the fault of the men who caused the trauma in the first place.
I may find the first two paragraphs of his piece in the NCR difficult to swallow as well, and I find it hard to accept his proposition that A-L is somehow a non-magisterial document. I would certainly like to hear him expound on those particular areas because there is certainly more than meets the eye. I may ask him privately, as my “Ghostly Father”. He has an infinitely greater chance of being correct than I simply because he is so much holier than I.
But if my choice is to publicly attack him and not give him the benefit of the doubt (if ANYONE deserves that, it is Burke), then the problem lies with my sinful pride, my own rash judgement, and not Burke's character or faithfulness to tradition. So I’m NOT going to start attacking the only bishop who ever cared about my immortal soul. I'm not willing to do to him what they accuse him of doing to us.
305. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel 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. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”. Along these same lines, the International Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions”. Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.
351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).Those who want to will use this to open the door, even though "in law" it has not been done.
"Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world."
If there were any doubts that Pope Francis is a stealth reformer of the Roman Catholic Church, the apostolic exhortation he released last week (Amoris Laetitia, or the "Joy of Love") should settle the matter. A straightforward reformer of the church seeks to change its doctrines. A stealth reformer like Francis, on the other hand, keeps the doctrines intact but invokes such concepts as mercy, conscience, and pastoral discernment to show priests that it's perfectly acceptable to circumvent and disregard those doctrines in specific cases. A doctrine officially unenforced will soon lose its authority as a doctrine. Where once it was a commandment sanctioned by God, now it becomes an "ideal" from which we're expected to fall short. Before long it may be treated as a suggestion. Eventually, repealing it is no longer controversial — or perhaps even necessary.
… An Apostolic Exhortation which bears the title “The joy of love,” but that makes us cry. This exhortation is a summary of the two synods on marriage. It is very long and contains many things that are right, that they are beautiful, and after building a beautiful building, a beautiful boat, the Supreme Pontiff has made a hole in the keel of the boat, along the waterline. You all know what is happening. Needless to say, the hole was made by taking all possible precautions, thus it is needless to say that the hole is small: the boat sinks! Our Lord himself said that even an iota, not a single iota will be taken away by the law of God. When God speaks, his words do not admit exceptions, when God commands, he is of infinite wisdom that has provided for all possible cases. There is no exception to the law of God. And now, suddenly, it is claimed that this law of marriage, which keeps saying that “marriage is indissoluble” (the repeats this sentence, it must be said), then it says you can, despite everything, have exceptions in the sense that these so-called divorced and remarried in this state of mortal sin may be in a state of grace, and therefore could receive communion. It is very serious! Very serious! I think they do not sufficiently measure the seriousness of what has been said. Needless to say, are small exceptions put there in the corner; that’s how it went to Communion in the hand and as I explained with the little hole in the vessel is appropriate, the boat sinks! “
“It can no longer be said, according to Pope Francis, that all those living in an ‘irregular situation’ are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace,” Cupich said....Asked in what specific situations he would allow a divorced and remarried person to receive Communion, Cupich refused to rule anyone out.http://www.cruxnow.com/cns/2016/04/12/cupich-pope-has-intuition-about-where-people-live-their-lives/
“I wouldn’t exclude anyone,” he said. “I would like our pastors to have discussion in all of those folks who are in these kinds of situations. … I know in my experience as a pastor, if you’ve seen a marriage then you’ve seen one marriage. There is no instance that can be replicated. Every situation has its variables that are part of it.”
"Will this Pope re-write controversial Church doctrines? No. But that isn't how doctrine changes. Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world."
“Without putting limits on integration, as appeared in the past...”
by Antonio Spadaro, S.J.
The exhortation incorporates from the synodal document the path of discernment of individual cases without putting limits on integration, as appeared in the past. It declares, moreover, that it cannot be denied that in some circumstances “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified” (“Amoris Lætitia” 302; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1735) because of various influences. [. . .]
Therefore, the pontiff concludes, if one takes into account the innumerable variety of concrete situations, “it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since ‘the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases’, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same” (AL 300). [. . .]
So the consequences or effects of a norm do not necessarily have to be the same, which “is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists” (AL 3000, footnote 336). “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end” (AL 305).
And - it is specified - this help “in certain cases can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy.’ I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak’” (AL 305, footnote 351).
FROM JOHN PAUL II TO FRANCIS
If we go back to “Familiaris Consortio,” we can verify that the conditions it set up 35 years ago were already a concretization more open and attentive, with respect to the previous time, to personal experience.
On the civilly divorced and remarried, the apostolic exhortation of Saint John Paul II (1981) affirmed: “I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life” (FC 84).
On access to the sacraments, John Paul II reiterates the previous norm, and nonetheless affirms that the civilly divorced and remarried who are living their conjugal life together, raising their children together and sharing in everyday life, can receive communion.
But he sets up a “condition” (which is at another level with respect to the norm): that of taking on “the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples” (ibid.).
So in “Familiaris Consortio” the de facto norm does not apply always and in all cases. In the situation described there is already an “epieikeia” concerning the application of the law in a concrete case, because if continence eliminates the sin of adultery, it nevertheless does not suppress the contradiction between the conjugal rupture with the formation of a new couple - who nonetheless live bonds of an affective character and of coexistence - and the Eucharist.
With regard to sexual relations, the formulation of Saint John Paul II required that the couple “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence.” In “Sacramentum Caritatis” Benedict XVI had incorporated this concept, but with a different formulation: “The Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God's law, as friends, as brother and sister” (SC 29). The “encouragement to commit themselves” implies a journey and places the accent better and in a more adequate way on the personal dimension of conscience.
Pope Francis moves forward in this direction when he speaks of a “dynamic discernment” that “must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized” (AL 303). An irregular situation cannot be turned into a regular one, but there are also journeys of healing, of exploration, journeys in which the law is lived step by step. [. . .]
NOT A “CHURCH OF THE PURE,” BUT OF JUST AND SINNERS
“Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors,” the pontiff writes, “we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage” (AL 303). This is a culminating point of the apostolic exhortation, in that it attributes to conscience - “the most secret core and sanctuary of a man, where he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths” (GS 16; AL 222) - a fundamental and irreplaceable spot in the evaluation of moral action. [. . .]
The conscience “can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal” (AL 303).
This passage of the exhortation opens the door to a more positive, welcoming, and fully “Catholic” pastoral practice, which makes possible a gradual exploration of the demands of the Gospel (cf. AL 38).
In other words, it does not say here at all that one’s weakness should be taken as a criterion for establishing what is good and what is evil (this would be what is called the “gradualness of the law”). Nonetheless there is affirmed a “law of gradualness,” meaning a progressiveness in knowing, in desiring, and in doing the good: “Reaching for the fullness of Christian life does not mean doing that which abstractly is most perfect, but that which is concretely possible.” [. . .]
With the humility of its realism, the exhortation “Amoris Lætitia” situates itself within the great tradition of the Church, reconnecting with an old Roman tradition of ecclesial mercy for sinners.
The Church of Rome, which since the 2nd century had inaugurated the practice of penance for sins committed after baptism, in the 3rd century was just about to provoke a schism on the part of the Church of northern Africa, led by Saint Cyprian, because it did not accept reconciliation with the “lapsi,” those who had become apostates during the persecution, who were in fact much more numerous than the martyrs.
In the face of the rigidity of the Donatists in the 4th and 5th centuries, as later in the face of the Jansenists, the Church of Rome always rejected a “Church of the poor” in favor of the “reticulum mixtum,” the “composite net” of just and sinners of which Saint Augustine speaks in “Psalmus contra partem Donati.”
The pastoral practice of “all or nothing” seems more sure to the “rigorist” theologians, but it inevitably leads to a “Church of the pure.” Valuing formal perfection before all else and as an end in itself brings the risk of unfortunately covering up many behaviors that are in fact hypocritical and pharisaic.
http://it.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/04/11/papa_i_dottori_della_lettera_sono_chiusi_alle_profezie/1221766
“Mi fa male quando leggo quel passo piccolo del Vangelo di Matteo, quando Giuda pentito va dai sacerdoti e dice ‘Ho peccato’ e vuol dare… e dà le monete. ‘Che ci importa! - dicono loro, così - Te la vedrai tu!’. Un cuore chiuso davanti a questo povero uomo pentito che non sapeva cosa fare. ‘Te la vedrai tu’. E andò ad impiccarsi. E cosa fanno loro, quando Giuda se ne va ad impiccarsi? Parlano e dicono ‘Ma, povero uomo’? No! Subito le monete: ‘Queste monete sono a prezzo di sangue, non possono entrare nel tempio’ … la regola tale, tale, tale, tale… I dottori della lettera!”.
"It hurts when I read that passage smaller than the Gospel of Matthew, when Judas repented goes by the priests and says, 'I have sinned' and wants to give ... and gives the coins. 'Who cares! - They say, so - You will see it yourself! '. A closed heart before this poor repentant man who did not know what to do. 'You will see her you'. And he went and hanged himself. And what they do, when Judas goes away and hanged himself? They speak and say 'But, poor man'? No! Immediately coins: 'These coins are the price of blood, they cannot enter the temple' ... the rule that, this, this, this ... The doctors of the letter. "
Francis saves some of his most startling and liberating comments for the latter part of the exhortation. After having made an earnest appeal for the primacy of conscience and individual discernment within the context of the faith community, Francis says this: "It can no longer simply be said that all those in any 'irregular' situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace."http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2016/04/11/two-views-on-what-amoris-laetitia-really-means/
How extraordinary!
That means those who cohabitate without the benefit of marriage are not to be perceived a priori as "living in sin"— nor is anyone else, for that matter. We do not have states of life that are deemed sinful, or beyond the reach of grace. Rather, we have individuals who must be encouraged, no matter what their state in life, to be continually transformed by the grace of inclusion and mercy.
Joyous indeed.
Father Edward L. Beck, C.P. is an on-air commentator for CNN on issues of Faith and Religion.
It is important to read all of what Cardinal Burke wrote and to read it slowly and carefully. He is not condemning the exhortation, but he is certainly not praising it either. His approach is clearly one of a Canonist. It is reasoned and rational. He makes it clear, it is the "opinion" of Francis, it is not infallible, it is not magisterial. Reading between the lines, one can surmise he is disgusted. "Will this Pope re-write controversial Church doctrines? No. But that isn't how doctrine changes. Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world."
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one worked, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition."
18
Si, dicente me ad impium: Morte morieris, non annuntiaveris ei, neque locutus fueris ut avertatur a via sua impia et vivat, ipse impius in iniquitate sua morietur, sanguinem autem ejus de manu tua requiram.
|
18
If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.
|
18
When I threaten I the sinner with doom of death, it is for thee to give him word, and warn him, as he loves his life, to have done with sinning. If not, he shall die as he deserves, but for his undoing thyself shalt be called to account.
|
Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment 301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”,339 or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”.340 Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well;341 in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.342
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
