On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia:(Musings of your humble servant at
Rerum Novarum)
Though this is the second part of a three series; at the same time, it can mostly stand apart from the others. Nonetheless, part one in this series is accessible HERE.
So there is no confusion at the outset, I need to be very clear on a principle which will be presupposed throughout this examination. To wit:
Pope Francis possesses the authority to make decisions pertaining to Church discipline as "the pope, whom Christ placed over the entire Church to judge concerning the necessity of change for various reasons of circumstance" (Pope Gregory XVI: Enc. Let. Quo Gravior §6). So as "the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right...to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification" (Pope Pius XII: Enc. Let. Mediator Dei §58), Pope Francis is well within his right on these matters having "received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See” (Vatican I: Dogm. Const. Pastor Aeternus §2).
As possessing that divinely conferred prerogative, Pope Francis can at his discretion allow persons who are guilty of objective mortal sin to receive holy Communion as long as judging by their own conscience and with the guidance of their confessor or pastor they are not in a state of unrepentant actual mortal sin. The minimum requirement for reception of Communion is baptism and to not be conscious of unrepentant actual mortal sin. What we are about to delve into will presume the first point and from there address elements pertaining to the second point because that seems to be the sticking point for so many critics on these matters.
So having restated some basic principles pertaining to the prerogatives of the Supreme Pontiff as well as the minimum requirements for valid reception of communion, let us begin this examination, in looking at how some episcopal conferences have claimed they will approach implementing the Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia (AL). I will do this by looking at one such set of guidelines; namely, the
Guidelines for the Dioceses of Malta. Of all the guidelines I have heard thrown around by those who take issue with
Amoris Laetitia and its implementation by various dioceses, this one is apparently among the most extreme with regards to what a lot of these folks consider to be (to put it nicely), unacceptable.{1} There are fourteen such guideline points, so let us look at them in order.
It bears noting at the outset of this examination that what we are dealing with here is
a set of implementation guidelines issued by the Malta bishops to their brother priests. Nonetheless, as I highly doubt anyone of good will could find anything to gripe about in the introductory letter portion of said guidelines{2}, let us pass over that for the sake of brevity and touch now on each point of implementation from the
Guidelines for the Dioceses of Malta as briefly as it seems suitable to do.
1. Above all, we must always keep in mind that our pastoral ministry towards persons who live in complex family situations, is the same ministry of the Church who is Mother and Teacher. As priests, we have the duty to enlighten consciences by proclaiming Christ and the full ideal of the Gospel. At the same time, in the footsteps of Christ himself, we have the duty to exercise the “art of accompaniment” and to become a source of trust, hope, and inclusion for those who request to see Jesus (see Jn 12, 21), especially for those persons who are most vulnerable (see AL, 291, 296, 308; EG 169). In the case of couples with children, this inclusion is necessary not only for the couple but also for “the care and Christian upbringing of their children, who ought to be considered most important” (AL 299; see also AL, 245-246).
I have not heard thus far of any complaints about this guideline.{3} In a nutshell, priests have the duty to help enlighten consciences with the fullness of the Gospel but also to accompany and guide those who seek the Lord who are vulnerable. This is particularly the case for those couples with children.
2. When we meet or come to know of persons who find themselves in so called “irregular” situations, we need to commit ourselves to enter in dialogue with them and to come to know them in a spirit of authentic charity. If, subsequently, they show a genuine desire or accept to engage in a serious process of personal discernment about their situation, we should accompany them willingly on this journey, with true respect, care and attention. They “should be made to feel part of the Church. ‘They are not excommunicated’ and they should not be treated as such, since they remain part of the ecclesial community’” (AL 243). Throughout this process, our role is not simply that of granting permission for these people to receive the sacraments, or to offer “easy recipes” (see AL 298), or to substitute their conscience. Our role is patiently to help them to form and enlighten their own conscience, in order that they themselves may be able to make an honest decision before God and act according to the greatest good possible (see AL 37).
In a nutshell: Priests who come across or know those who find themselves in situations that are not regular need to approach such folks charitably and if said folks show a desire to accept or engage in serious discernment on their situation, the priests should guide them with care and attention. Such folks are not excommunicated{4} and need to know they are part of the Church. The role of the priest is not to merely grant permission to receive the sacraments or offer easy solutions but
“to help them form and enlighten their consciences so they make an honest decision before God” (AL 37).
As I anticipate the subject of conscience is at the heart of so much of what the critics of AL and certain forms of its implementation take issue with, let us briefly touch on this matter before resuming a look at the various guideline notes. From the
Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) on the issue of conscience -all footnotes interspersed where applicable:
1777 Moral conscience,[Cf. Rom 2:14-16.] present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.[Cf. Rom 1:32.] It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:
Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.[John Henry Cardinal Newman, "Letter to the Duke of Norfolk," V, in Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching II (London: Longmans Green, 1885), 248.]
1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection: Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.[St. Augustine, In ep Jo. 8,9:PL 35,2041.]
1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.{5}
There is more to say on the subject of conscience which is of no small importance. However, we will get to that in due time; meanwhile, onto the next guideline note.
3. Before dealing with the pastoral care of those disciples of the Lord that have gone through the experience of failure in their marriage and are now living in a new relationship, we would like to address the situation of those who cohabit or who have only married civilly. These situations call for “pastoral care that is merciful and helpful” (AL 293) and “require a constructive response seeking to transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage and family in conformity with the Gospel” (AL 294). In pastoral discernment it is important to distinguish between one situation and another. In some cases, “the choice of a civil marriage or, in many cases, of simple cohabitation, is often not motivated by prejudice or resistance to a sacramental union, but by cultural or contingent situations” (AL 294) and, therefore, the degree of moral responsibility is not the same for all cases. “Let us remember that a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties” (AL 305, EG 45).
So prior to dealing with the pastoral care of those in irregular situations due to marriage failure, etc., the guidelines touch on how to approach “
those who cohabit or have only married civilly.” The focus here is on seeking to understand each particular situation so that the proper degree of moral responsibility in each case is better grasped so that an applicable remedy can be offered; namely to try and
“transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage and family in conformity with the Gospel” (AL 294). In other words: to regularize their situation with the Church. The greater the number of
“cultural or contingent situations” (AL 294) or other factors involved, the tougher the knot to untie. However, to be able to prescribe a viable course of action, the individual situation needs to be one the priest is thoroughly acquainted with.
4. We now address our ministry with persons who are either separated and divorced, who have entered a new union. If during the discernment process with these people, a reasonable doubt arises concerning the validity or consummation of their canonical marriage, we should propose that these people make a request for a declaration of the nullity or dissolution of their marriage bond.
I highly doubt once again{6} that this area is one that the critics would have a problem with so let us move on to the next one.
5. Throughout this discernment, an adequate distinction should be made between one situation and another, because not all cases are the same. “One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous selfgiving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations ‘where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.’ There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of ‘those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid.’ Another thing is a new union arising from a recent divorce, with all the suffering and confusion which this entails for children and entire families, or the case of someone who has consistently failed in his obligations to the family. It must remain clear that this is not the ideal which the Gospel proposes for marriage and the family” (AL 298).
In other words, while recognizing that the ideal proposed for the Gospel is not present in many of these situations,
adequate distinctions need to be made on a case by case basis rather than treating every case exactly the same. I doubt this is all that controversial either{7} so let us move to the next point now.
6. It would be appropriate that throughout this process of discernment, we accompany these people to make “an examination of conscience through moments of reflection and repentance”, in which they “should ask themselves: how did they act towards their children when the conjugal union entered into crisis; whether or not they made attempts at reconciliation; what has become of the abandoned party; what consequences the new relationship has on the rest of the family and the community of the faithful; and what example is being set for young people who are preparing for marriage” (AL 300). This applies in a special way for those cases in which a person acknowledges his or her own responsibility for the failure of the marriage.
Briefly: priests throughout the discernment process are to encourage and aid these people to make examinations of conscience on various points pertaining to their situation as well as considering by their actions
“what example is being set for young people who are preparing for marriage” (AL 300). Again, I doubt this is all that controversial{8} so let us move onto the next point.
7. Throughout the discernment process, we need to weigh the moral responsibility in particular situations, with due consideration to the conditioning restraints and attenuating circumstances. Indeed, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision,” (AL 301) or even diminish imputability or responsibility for an action. These include ignorance, inadvertence, violence, fear, affective immaturity, the persistence of certain habits, the state of anxiety, inordinate attachments, and other psychological and social factors (see AL 302; CCC 1735, 2352). As a result of these conditioning restraints and attenuating circumstances, the Pope teaches that “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” (AL 301). “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). This discernment acquires significant importance since, as the Pope teaches, in some cases this help can include the help of the sacraments (see AL, note 351).
This point covers a key lynch pin to everything in a certain sense. The focus on potential attenuating circumstances in given situations can at times limit culpability or responsibility for particular actions. This is a matter to be discerned in the aforementioned situations
by priests in confessionals with the parties in question. Or as I noted elsewhere on this subject:
The bottom line is this: the principle that every objectively grave act or situation is not automatically mortally sinful is not new. St. Alphonsus Ligouri wrote on this in the seventeenth century, heck St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on it in the thirteenth century. St. John Paul II noted in 1984 that "[c]learly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner's subjective culpability" (Ap. Ex Reconciliato et Paenitentia). All Pope Francis has done is take that principle and apply it to the subject of divorce and remarriage. The argument is not that the latter is not wrong or seriously sinful of course but instead that "[i]t can no longer simply be said that all those living in any ‘irregular situation’ are living in a state of mortal sin" (Ap. Ex. Amoris Laetitia). Discernment of individual cases is needed and that is for penitents and their confessors to do, not those outside the specific situation, be they folks on Facebook, folks who write for periodicals, or even Cardinals of the Church. This is really not all that difficult for those who are not determined to be obtuse about it.{9}
It seems that what really gets to a lot of the critics of
Amoris Laetitia is that by putting so much focus on the imputability factors in the mortal sin calculus that Pope Francis is taking from them a prior apologetical/argumentation club that they liked to beat others with.{10} The idea that
“[t]he Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations” (AL 301) is not new.{11}
A consistent application of that data to all situations where grave matter is present however has long been lacking where the subject of marriage is concerned.{12} Pope Francis is putting an end to the double standard where this issue is concerned and saying it will henceforth be discerned in the same manner as any other is. And as his authority for making such a decision is one I trust should not have to be mentioned again to those making the complaints{13}, let us move onto the next guideline point now.
8. “By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God” (AL 305). This calls for more prudent instruction in the law of gradualness, (see AL 295) in order to discern the presence, the grace and the working of God in all situations, and help people approach closer to God, even when “not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law” (AL 295).
To touch briefly on the subject of the law of gradualness before moving on with the next guideline point:
Saint John Paul II proposed the so called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”.[Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 34: AAS 74 (1982), 123.] This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law. For the law is itself a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception; it can be followed with the help of grace, even though each human being “advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of God’s definitive and absolute love in his or her entire personal and social life”[Ibid., 9: AAS 74 (1982), 90.]{14}
This is in essence a more systematic formulation of a fundamental principle enunciated long ago by Pope Gregory the Great when he advised his brother bishops on how to prudently go about laying the groundwork for evangelizing of a pagan culture and how to acculturate their symbols.{15} While that factor may puzzle the more historically obtuse among the papal critics{16}, let us move onto the next point anyway at this time.
9. Throughout the discernment process, we should also examine the possibility of conjugal continence. Despite the fact that this ideal is not at all easy, there may be couples who, with the help of grace, practice this virtue without putting at risk other aspects of their life together. On the other hand, there are complex situations where the choice of living “as brothers and sisters” becomes humanly impossible and give rise to greater harm (see AL, note 329).
In other words, not all situations in this area are black and white and thus should not be treated as such.
This is why there is importance in working with a confessor to help someone diagnose their particular situation rather than try and cram someone into a one size fits all template as was unfortunately not uncommon in years past.{17}
10. If, as a result of the process of discernment, undertaken with “humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it” (AL 300), a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (see AL, notes 336 and 351).
Here is the issue in a nutshell:
it deals with those who have gone through a humble and discreet process of discernment with a confessor who has sought to inculcate in them with great care the fullness of Church teaching. If after this has happened the person is nonetheless serene in conscience with their situation, then they could receive the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist. Why would this be at all possible? Because one of the most fundamental principles in Catholic doctrine and understanding is
the importance of following one’s conscience even if the latter is in error: a principle with a long and distinguished pedigree I might add:
For Aquinas, every conscience binds, even an erring one. This means that if there is something that you believe you cannot do (after having taken care to form your conscience as well as you can), even if the Church commands it, then you cannot do it without committing a sin. Likewise, if there is something you believe you must do, even if the Church forbids it, then you must do it or else commit a sin.{18}
This understanding of conscience was enunciated as well by the Second Vatican Council in the Declaration
Dignitatis Humanae:
On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.{19}
In other words,
those who have gone through a humble and discreet process of discernment with a confessor even if their conscience is still not free from all objective errors, they are still bound to follow it. And the thickets of endeavouring to rightly form a conscience or repair a poorly formed one contain no small number of potential roadblocks along the way: something Pope John Paul II himself recognized in general:
It is important to note therefore that a world which is divided into blocs, sustained by rigid ideologies, and in which instead of interdependence and solidarity different forms of imperialism hold sway, can only be a world subject to structures of sin. The sum total of the negative factors working against a true awareness of the universal common good, and the need to further it, gives the impression of creating, in persons and institutions, an obstacle which is difficult to overcome.
If the present situation can be attributed to difficulties of various kinds, it is not out of place to speak of "structures of sin," which, as I stated in my Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, are rooted in personal sin, and thus always linked to the concrete acts of individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them and make them difficult to remove. And thus they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people's behavior.
"Sin" and "structures of sin" are categories which are seldom applied to the situation of the contemporary world. However, one cannot easily gain a profound understanding of the reality that confronts us unless we give a name to the root of the evils which afflict us.{20}
We reached quite some time ago more or less a societal meltdown where a proper understanding of marriage is concerned. Among the various “
structures of sin” is a society that has become shorn of all the supports for marriage that were common in past eras. The once rare bird of divorce has become so common that there is no small degree of general blindness to just how damaging it is to society in general. What used to be taken for granted as what marriage is and constitutes has been literally bastardized in every conceivable respect -even to the point to where there are folks who now believe that people of the same sex can marry. The potential degree of impediments to valid marriages is literally off the charts now compared to in the days when divorce was both rare as well as societally stigmatized.
Recognizing these realities as well as the principles pertaining to conscience as traditionally understood above, it has been judged as appropriate in some circumstances by Pope Francis to try and draw folks who have been shattered by the circumstances surrounding marriage in modern society and to try and re-graft into the vine branches that for various reasons had been broken off{21} recognizing the principles of gradualness in the apprehension of objective truths. The Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia points this out when referencing part of the a text from the
Pontifical International Theological Commission titled
In Search of a Universal Ethic: A New Look at the Natural Law which reads in fuller form{22} here:
This is an approach which, within a pluralist society like our own, takes on an importance that cannot be underestimated without considerable harm. Indeed, it takes account of the fact that moral science cannot furnish an acting subject with a norm to be applied adequately and almost automatically to concrete situations; only the conscience of the subject, the judgment of his practical reason, can formulate the immediate norm of action. But at the same time, this approach does not abandon conscience to mere subjectivity: it aims at having the subject acquire the intellectual and affective dispositions which allow him to be open to moral truth, so that his judgment may be adequate. Natural law could not, therefore, 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 a decision.{23}
Appropriating the above principle in its recommendation for pastoral action, Pope Francis in
Amoris Laetitia had this to say:
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.{24}
How is such a situation to be ascertained in individual cases? Well, by the very thing that the
Usual Suspects whine about but which in virtually any other circumstance they would complain does not happen enough:
in the confessional with a confessor! It is one thing to long recognize that
“[c]onscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity” (Gaudium et Spes 16) and another to apply it with consistency.{25} But as this point has been dealt with at enough length, let us move on now.
11. During this discernment process, we should examine with these people, how “their participation can be expressed in different ecclesial services”, particularly within “the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional frameworks” (AL 299). One should not exclude that these people be considered suitable to be godparents. On the other hand, “if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others”. It is our duty to preach anew “the proclamation of the Gospel message and its call to conversion”. Moreover, there could also be ways in which the person participates in the life of the community, such as in the social field, in prayer meetings, or as suggested by his or her personal initiative, together with our discernment (see AL 297).
Part of the discernment process is helping folks find ways to participate in different ecclesial services. Obviously, the degree and areas of possible participation{26} would vary on a case by case basis. And as those
“flaunt[ing] an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or want[ing] to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others” (cf. AL 297), they should be treated differently from those who have gone through a humble and discreet process of discernment with a confessor even if their conscience is still not free from all objective errors.
12. In this journey of accompaniment, we must listen to and give value to the suffering of the persons who are innocent victims to separation, divorce or abandonment. Conditions of poverty make this pain even more traumatic. Forgiving an injustice suffered and endured is far from easy, but grace makes this journey possible (see AL 242).
The above guideline is a truncation of the following passage from
Amoris Laetitia:
The Synod Fathers noted that “special discernment is indispensable for the pastoral care of those who are separated, divorced or abandoned. Respect needs to be shown especially for the sufferings of those who have unjustly endured separation, divorce or abandonment, or those who have been forced by maltreatment from a husband or a wife to interrupt their life together. To forgive such an injustice that has been suffered is not easy, but grace makes this journey possible. Pastoral care must necessarily include efforts at reconciliation and mediation, through the establishment of specialized counselling centres in dioceses”.[Relatio Synodi 2014, 47] At the same time, “divorced people who have not remarried, and often bear witness to marital fidelity, ought to be encouraged to find in the Eucharist the nourishment they need to sustain them in their present state of life. The local community and pastors should accompany these people with solicitude, particularly when children are involved or when they are in serious financial difficulty”.[Ibid., 50.] Family breakdown becomes even more traumatic and painful in the case of the poor, since they have far fewer resources at hand for starting a new life. A poor person, once removed from a secure family environment, is doubly vulnerable to abandonment and possible harm.{27}
Since I cannot imagine the above guideline could be a problem even for the
Usual Suspects{28}, I am moving on to the next point now.
13. While exercising our ministry, we must be careful to avoid falling into extremes: into extreme rigour on the one hand, and laxity on the other. This process should be an invitation to harness certain attitudes, such as pastoral charity, honesty, discretion, an ongoing conversion, and love for the Church and her teaching (see AL 267, 300); attention to what God made “from the beginning” (see AL 61-66); humility in order to shed our sandals in front of the sacred ground of the other (see Ex 3, 5; EG 169); the wish sincerely to seek God’s will, and to be able to present the fragrance of Christ’s presence and his personal gaze (see EG 169).
Again, as I cannot imagine the above guideline could be a problem even for the
Usual Suspects{29}, I am moving on to the next point now.
14. In order to avoid any cause for scandal or confusion among the faithful (see AL 299), we must do our utmost in order to inform ourselves and our communities by studying and promoting the teachings of Amoris Lætitia. This teaching requires us to undergo a “pastoral conversion” (EG 25). Together with the Pope, we do understand those who would prefer a “more rigorous pastoral care”, but together with him, we believe that “Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, ‘always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street’” (AL 308).
The final footnote involves of course the priests of the dioceses thoroughly studying and promoting the teachings of the Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia. They recognize that in doing this it will undergo a “
pastoral conversion” and cite as their reference point here a portion of Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation
Evangelii Gaudium:
I am aware that nowadays documents do not arouse the same interest as in the past and that they are quickly forgotten. Nevertheless, I want to emphasize that what I am trying to express here has a programmatic significance and important consequences. I hope that all communities will devote the necessary effort to advancing along the path of a pastoral and missionary conversion which cannot leave things as they presently are. “Mere administration” can no longer be enough.[Fifth General Conference of the Latin American and Caribbean Bishops, Aparecida Document, 29 June 2007, 201.] Throughout the world, let us be “permanently in a state of mission” [Ibid., 551.]{30}
In substance, what the
Guidelines for the Dioceses of Malta do is providing guidelines to the priests of their dioceses to better aid those of good will who are suffering due to irregularities in their marriage/life situations
“through ‘a responsible personal and pastoral discernment” (AL 300). As far as those who would further kvetch about this despite everything noted above, they should recall how the Catholic spiritual tradition exhorts people to follow those who would give spiritual direction of the sort these guidelines seek to help facilitate:
Do not fear that your director may be mistaken in what he prescribes for your guidance, or that he does not fully understand the state of your conscience because you did not explain it clearly enough to him. Such doubts cause obedience to be eluded or postponed and thus frustrate the designs of God in placing you under the direction of a prudent guide. It was the priest's duty to have questioned you further had he not understood you, and that he did not is positive proof that he knew enough to enable him to pronounce a safe judgment. God has promised his special help to those that represent Him in the direction of souls. Is not this assurance enough to induce you to obey with promptness and simplicity as the Holy Scripture commands?
God does not show the state of our souls as clearly to us as He does to him who is to guide us in His place. You should be quite satisfied then, if your director tells you that the course you follow is the right one and that the mercy and grace of your Heavenly Father are guiding you in it. You should believe and obey him in this as in all else, for as St. John of the Cross tells us "it betrays pride and lack of faith not to put entire confidence in what our confessor says"...
We should allow obedience to regulate not only our external actions, but likewise our mind and will. Hence do not be satisfied with performing the works it prescribes, but let your thoughts and desires also be moulded according to its direction. In fact, it is in the interior submission that the merit of spiritual obedience essentially consists.{31}
It is a standard canon among the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition to exhort people to place full confidence in their confessor on matters of sin. For those who would resist these principles, they would place themselves outside the wellspring of the Catholic spiritual tradition for as St. John of the Cross noted
"it betrays pride and lack of faith not to put entire confidence in what our confessor says" (cf. Light and Peace). Furthermore, it manifests itself in a rebellious, disobedient, and frankly schismatic mindset to presume that someone knows better about the state of their soul than would a confessor whom they had unburdened themselves to.
And for those who would stand outside of this situation and make rash judgments on the state of the soul of another?
No surer sign of an unprofitable life than when people give way to censoriousness and inquisitiveness into the lives of other men. Of course exception must be made as to those who are responsible for others, whether in family or public life;--to all such it becomes a matter of conscience to watch over the conduct of their fellows. Let them fulfil their duty lovingly, and let them also give heed to restrain themselves within the bounds of that duty...
Most people permit themselves absolute latitude in criticizing and censuring rulers, and in calumniating nationalities, according to their own opinions and likings. But do you avoid this fault; it is displeasing to God, and is liable to lead you into disputes and quarrels...
Do your best kindly to check the scandal-bearer, and if you know anything favourable to the person criticized, take pains to mention it.{32}
To ensure that this final point on disobedience by these arrogant and presumptuous sorts who would presume to correct others of which they know so little is established
“by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (cf. Matt. xvi,18; Deut. xix,15), here are a couple other indictments on these folks from the spiritual tradition:
Saint Bernard says there is no need for the devil to tempt those who ignore obedience and permit themselves to be guided by their own light and deterred by their fears, for they act the devil's part towards themselves.{33}
And one more:
[W]ho abased Himself more than [Jesus] did! He was sated with insults, jibes, and mockings. He caused pain to Himself in His bodily life, in order to please Me. And who was more patient than He? for His cry was never heard in murmuring, but He patiently embraced His injuries like one enamored, fulfilling the obedience imposed on Him by Me, His Eternal Father. Wherefore in Him you will find obedience perfectly accomplished. He left you this rule and this doctrine, which gives you life, for it is the straight way, having first observed them Himself. He is the way, wherefore He said, 'He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.' For he who travels by that way, travels in the light, and being enlightened cannot stumble, or be caused to fall, without perceiving it. For he has cast from himself the darkness of self-love, by which he fell into disobedience; for as I spoke to you of a companion virtue proceeding from obedience and humility, so I tell you that disobedience comes from pride, which issues from self-love depriving the soul of humility.
The sister given by self-love to disobedience is impatience, and pride, her foster-mother, feeds her with the darkness of infidelity, so she hastens along the way of darkness, which leads her to eternal death.{34}
To be clear,
I am not taking issue with those who have humble but legitimate difficulties with the principles underlying these guidelines. In many respects, they are imprisoned by a prior approach to these matters which may have had its merit in prior ages when circumstances were dramatically different. However, when the Roman Pontiff sees fit to make modifications to the application of church discipline, the failure to approach these matters
in a humble spirit and shorn of arrogant presumption is a different matter altogether. It is in this area that I take issue with the public critics of not only the
Guidelines for the Dioceses of Malta but a whole host of issues that spring from the same font; namely that of pride and disobedience.
As I see it, they have two options with this:
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever...
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life".{35}
Many of these same folks would (or have!) written long apologias on John 6 and exhorted those who do not believe in the Real Presence that they should set aside their difficulties and have faith. Yet despite paying lip service to Church doctrines on papal primacy and jurisdiction as well as indefectibility, they show by their pompously arrogant approach to these matters to not really believe what they claim to believe when the rubber of abstraction meets the road of reality. They would seem to prefer to follow the disciples who turned their backs on Jesus rather than the Apostles who as Simon Peter made clear stuck with him even though they did not understand at that moment what He was saying.
Hopefully those who have legitimate difficulties with the
Guidelines of the Dioceses of Malta, other guidelines like them, and the general direction that Pope Francis evidently wants to go with the Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia can prayerfully consider what I have written above and come to a different way of seeing these matters. If that is still not possible for them, then hopefully they will at least be a lot more humble in how they approach these matters in the future and consider practicing a form of “reverent silence.” After all,
“[e]ven a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent” (Proverbs xvii,28).
I follow my conscience, and when reason persuades me I make little account of moralists. [St Alphonsus Ligouri (circa 1764)]
Notes:
{1} "
On January 17th, 2017, the Osservatore Romano, the official journal of the Holy See, published the guidelines issued by the archbishop of Malta and the bishop of Gozo for the reception of the Eucharist by persons living in an adulterous relationship. These guidelines permitted the sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist by some persons in this situation, and stated that in some cases it is impossible for such persons to practise chastity and harmful for them to attempt to practise chastity. No criticism of these guidelines was made by the Osservatore Romano, which presented them as legitimate exercises of episcopal teaching and authority. This publication was an official act of the Holy See that went uncorrected by yourself." [Excerpt from Correctio Filialis de Haeresibus Propagatis, Page 8 (circa July 16, 2017)]
{2} At least I hope I am not wrong in this presumption!
{3} See footnote two.
{4} Well, not anymore anyway. (It used to be different and there is some controversy over when exactly this was changed.)
{5}
Catechism of the Catholic Church: From Part III, Article 6, Section I on
The Judgment of Conscience (
circa October 11, 1992)
{6} See footnote two.
{7} Unless I find out later on it is. (At which time, it could be addressed in a separate piece if necessary.)
{8} See footnotes two and seven.
{9} Excerpt from the Note
Very Briefly On the Dubia (
circa March 13, 2017)
{10} By putting so much focus on the imputability factors in the mortal sin calculus, Pope Francis from all appearances is rejecting as no longer a viable theological position the idea that in the cases of those who are in irregular situations that the objectively grave situation itself
ipso facto constituted a state of actual mortal sin and thus a
defacto presumption of a loss of sacramental grace.
{11} Particularly where marriage and sexual matters are involved.
{12} See footnote nine.
{13} In the event I have underestimated the obstinence of certain folks, review again the second and third paragraphs of this note.
{14} Pope Francis: Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia §295 (
circa March 19, 2016)
{15} "
[S]urely it is impossible to efface all at once everything from their strong minds, just as, when one wishes to reach the top of a mountain, he must climb by stages and step by step, not by leaps and bounds." [Pope Gregory the Great: Letter to Abbot Mellitus, Epsitola 76, PL 77: 1215-1216 (circa 601)]
{16} Since when has ignorance prevented papal critics from boldly proclaiming their own defacto infallibility when criticizing the pope in areas where he governs by divine right?
{17} For reasons I have already touched on in this note and shall not reiterate at this time.
{18} Joseph M. Magee, Ph.D.: Aquinas Online’s
Thomistic Philosophy Page Article
On Conscience
{19} Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: Declaration
Dignitatis Humanae §3 (
circa December 7, 1965)
{20} Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis §36 (
circa December 30, 1987)
{21} To use for illustration purposes some imagery from
St. Paul in Romans 11.
{22} As one complaint I have seen from the
Usual Suspects is that
Amoris Laetita does not quote some sources in greater length (apparently 264 pages was not long enough for them!), I quote the passage referenced in footnote 22 at greater length.
{23} Pontifical International Theological Commission: Expanded Excerpt from
In Search of a Universal Ethic: A New Look at the Natural Law Section 59 (
circa 2009) truncatedly referenced in Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia §305 (
circa March 19, 2016)
{24} Pope Francis: Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia §305 (
circa March 19, 2016)
{25} "
One might speak of an interaction between a function of control and a function of decision. Thomas sees this sequence according to the Aristotelian model of deductive reasoning. But he is careful to emphasize what is peculiar to this knowledge of moral actions whose conclusions do not come from mere knowing or thinking. Whether something is recognized or not, depends too on the will which can block the way to recognition or lead to it. It is dependent, that is to say, on an already formed moral character which can either continue to deform or be further purified. On this level, the level of judgment (conscientia in the narrower sense), it can be said that even the erroneous conscience binds. This statement is completely intelligible from the rational tradition of scholasticism. No one may act against his convictions, as Saint Paul had already said (Rom 14:23)." [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: Excerpt from Conscience and Truth Presented at the 10th Workshop for Bishops (circa February 1991)]
{26} Particularly sacramental participation.
{27} Pope Francis: Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia §242 (
circa March 19, 2016)
{28} See footnote two.
{29} See footnote two.
{30} Pope Francis: Apostolic Exhortation
Evangelii Gaudium §25 (
circa November 24, 2013)
{31} Fr. R. P. Quadrupani:
Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Ally Their Fears (circa 1795) From the Section on
Spiritual Direction
{32} St. Francis de Sales:
Introduction to the Devout Life Chapter XXVIII (circa 1619)
{33} Fr. R. P. Quadrupani:
Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Ally Their Fears (circa 1795) From the Section on
Spiritual Direction
{34} St. Catherine of Siena OP:
Treatise on Obedience from her
Dialogues (circa 1370)
{35}
John vi,53-67
