On Correcting the So-Called "Correctio Filialis", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is part three of a three part series. The previous installment is accessible HERE.

I need to emphasize in revisiting and expanding upon the first part of this series something that gets to the very heart of what is involved with the pompously titled Correctio Filialis de Haeresibus Propagati (henceforth referred to as the so-called “correctio filialis”) and its authors/advocates. Namely, there is a lack of the fundamental principle of charity. Not a few of these sorts continually manifest this attitude towards the popes. Certainly this does not apply to all the signatories. But included among the signatories are a number of folks who have basically made it a career of stubbornly refusing to submit to the Roman Pontiff.{1}

It is a fundamental principle of the Catholic spiritual tradition to not rashly presume the worst in others. Before touching on their seven accusations of heresy, let us consider this factor of no small importance. What do the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition have to say about those who are quick to presume the worst possible interpretation of the words and statements of another? Time and space constraints will only allow us to touch quickly on a few so without further ado:

Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable one will just as certainly choose the worst.{2}

St. Francis de Sales also said that we are not "[to] weigh so carefully the sayings and doings of others, but let your thought of them be simple and good, kindly and affectionate."{3} Does any of this resemble the actions and statements of the folks who authored or signed onto the so-called “fraternal correction”? Hardly! St. Francis had more to say on this as well:

Man's judgment is hasty, because the chief malice of sin lies in the intention and counsel of the heart, which is shrouded in darkness to us. Moreover, man's judgments are hasty, because each one has enough to do in judging himself, without undertaking to judge his neighbour. If we would not be judged, it behooves us alike not to judge others, and to judge ourselves. Our Lord forbids the one, His Apostle enjoins the other, saying, "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged."{1 Cor. xi. 31} But alas! for the most part we precisely reverse these precepts, judging our neighbour, which is forbidden on all sides, while rarely judging ourselves, as we are told to do.

We must proceed to rectify rash judgments, according to their cause. Some hearts there are so bitter and harsh by nature, that everything turns bitter under their touch; men who, in the Prophet's words, "turn judgment to wormwood, and leave off righteousness in the earth." {Amos v. 7} Such as these greatly need to be dealt with by some wise spiritual physician, for this bitterness being natural to them, it is hard to conquer; and although it be rather an imperfection than a sin, still it is very dangerous, because it gives rise to and fosters rash judgments and slander within the heart... 

Then there are people whose judgment is solely formed by inclination; who always think well of those they like, and ill of those they dislike...

What remedy can we apply? They who drink the juice of the Ethiopian herb Ophiusa imagine that they see serpents and horrors everywhere; and those who drink deep of pride, envy, ambition, hatred, will see harm and shame in every one they look upon. The first can only be cured by drinking palm wine, and so I say of these latter,--Drink freely of the sacred wine of love, and it will cure you of the evil tempers which lead you to these perverse judgments...{4}

The reader should not be surprised in light of everything that will be covered in this note that there is a degree of "hearts...bitter and harsh by nature" involved here. It is extremely difficult to be a self-styled "traditionalist" of the sort that would write or sign onto the so-called “correctio filialis” to not have some degree of this malady. It calls for patience and understanding on the part of others despite the fact that many self-styled "traditionalists" -particularly the apologist types- do not have an attitude that is conducive to gaining the sympathies of others. St. John of the Cross also spoke of such people in his masterpiece The Dark Night of the Soul:

You will find that many of these persons are very insistent with their spiritual masters to be granted that which they desire, extracting it from them almost by force; if they be refused it they become as peevish as children and go about in great displeasure, thinking that they are not serving God when they are not allowed to do that which they would. For they go about clinging to their own will and pleasure, which they treat as though it came from God; and immediately their directors take it from them, and try to subject them to the will of God, they become peevish, faint-hearted, and fall away. These persons think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God… 

These persons who are thus inclined to such pleasures have another great imperfection, which is that they are very weak and remiss in journeying upon the hard road of the Cross; for the soul that is given to sweetness naturally has its face set against all self-denial, which is devoid of sweetness…{5}

The problem with these sorts of folks is they are involved in a great facade of authentic Catholicism. It is similar to the rich man who kept all the commandments but was unable to part with his great possessions to gain treasure in heaven (Matt. xix,16-22; Mark x,17-22; Luke xviii,18-23). There is a lack of consolations in classical Catholic spirituality precisely because it is intended to wean the soul from the kinds of attachments the writers and signatories of the so-called “correctio filialis” repine for and promote.

St. John of the Cross further indicted these sorts of people in the following words:

And many of these would have God will that which they themselves will, and are fretful at having to will that which He wills, and find it repugnant to accommodate their will to that of God. Hence it happens to them that oftentimes they think that therein they find not their own will and pleasure is not the will of God; and that on the other hand, when they themselves find satisfaction, God is satisfied. Thus they measure themselves by God acting quite contrary to that which He Himself taught in the Gospel, saying: 'That he who should lose his will for His sake, the same shall gain it and he that desires to gain it, the same shall lose it.'

These persons likewise find it irksome when they are commanded to do that wherein they take no pleasure. Because they aim at spiritual sweetness and consolation, they are too weak to have the fortitude and bear the trials of perfection. They resemble those who run fretfully away from everything that is hard, and take offense at the Cross, wherein consist the delight of the spirit. The more spiritual a thing is, the more irksome they find it, for as they seek to go about spiritual matters with complete freedom and according to the inclination of their will, it causes them great sorrow and repugnance to enter upon the narrow way, which says Christ, is the way of life.{6}

The foundation of this principle is also enunciated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) in the section treating on the Eighth Commandment when it says “[t]o avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way” (CCC 2478). For “[e]very good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it” (CCC 2478) and “detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity” (CCC 2479).

Having written here and elsewhere{7} about how the composers and many of the signers of the so-called “correctio filialis” possess serious doctrinal and moral problems that permeate their general outlook on these matters{8} as well as an appalling lack of charity and spiritual maturity{9}, let us move onto the core theses of the so-called “correctio filialis” at this time.

In beginning an examination of their manifesto, it bears noting that when you sign your name to something, that means you are subscribing to the contents of what you sign onto. Therefore, every signatory to at least a macro extent{10} is subscribing to the seven parts of the accusation being made against the Roman Pontiff including this:

By these words, deeds, and omissions, and by the above-mentioned passages of the document Amoris laetitia, Your Holiness has upheld, directly or indirectly, and, with what degree of awareness we do not seek to judge, both by public office and by private act propagated in the Church the following false and heretical propositions:{11}

It is frankly impossible to charitably interpret the above phrasing as anything less than an accusation of either material or formal heresy against Pope Francis. I have dealt with this already on a prior occasion{12} but the wording here is unambiguous. Either they are (i) accusing the pope of formal heresy by inferring he could be aware that he is "propagating heresy" or (ii) inferring that he is “propagating heresy” but is perhaps not so aware which would mean an accusation of material heresy. I will not rehash here the gravity of these kinds of accusations except to refer to prior material written on it{13} and move on to a point by point examination of each of the seven heresy accusations.


1). ‘A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin.’

Granting the accusers their claim{14},it is still incumbent upon them to prove it and this they do not do. Pope Francis did not teach the heresy they ascribe to him. Instead, he recognizes as did Our Lord that “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matt xxvi,41; Mark xiv,38). It is a teaching of the Council of Trent that we have a weakness where sin is concerned and are capable of failing despite our best intentions otherwise due to our fallen nature.{15}

In the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL), Pope Francis acknowledges along with Trent and the CCC that there are a diversity of factors that can make an objectively grave act not an automatic mortal sin subjectively speaking.{16} Or, to be more precise: an objective mortal sin is not in every case an actual mortal sin. This is perfectly in harmony with Catholic doctrine; ergo, the first accusation of heresy stands refuted.

2). ‘Christians who have obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom they are validly married and have contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of their spouse, who live more uxorio with their civil partner, and who choose to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of their act and full consent of the will to that act, are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin, and can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity.’

Two points: (i) the above statement as phrased is a heresy (ii) Pope Francis does not teach it anywhere in Amoris Laetitia. The second accusation appears to be a variation of the first of the five Dubia questions. For that reason, I direct the reader to prior material{17} sufficient to refute the second charge of heresy.


3). ‘A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action.’

The above accusation omits the criteria of full deliberation; therefore, it is not strictly speaking a heresy. Even if it was formulated correctly, there is no credible evidence presented to substantiate the assertion that Pope Francis taught it{18} so the third charge stands refuted.


4). ‘A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience.’

It is a profoundly uncharitable reading of the Pope’s words to see this claim in anything he has written. Readers who are interested can view elsewhere where I have refuted in detail this pathetic fourth charge of heresy.{19}


5. ‘Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God.’

Pope Francis has not taught this. I have dealt in detail elsewhere and in more than enough detail to refute the fifth charge of heresy being attributable to the teachings of Pope Francis.{20}


6. ‘Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely unlawful on account of their object.’

Pope Francis nowhere taught this heresy. I dealt with the essence of this accusation already in my response to the Dubia so briefly:

Question #2 suffers from the same kind of presuppositional flaws as Question #1 does above. The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) acknowledges that objective mortal sin is not always in individual circumstances actual mortal sin. How is that a denial of Veritatis Splendor's teaching on the existence of intrinsically grave sins? Simple, it is not. But again, that cannot be explained with a simple yes or no answer and the cardinals who issued this "Dubia" should know this as it is a pretty fundamental Catholic moral theology issue.{21}

That is sufficient to refute the sixth charge of heresy.


7). ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it.’

This is an argument on matters of Church discipline, not a heresy. It involves the questions of who can and cannot receive communion and the authority to make this determination. I have dealt in detail with this element elsewhere:

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)...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)... 

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.{22}

Neither magisterial teaching{23} nor Church history countenances the interpretation of the so-called “correctio.” For example, the Council of Florence abrogated some perennial disciplines of their own of longer standing than the current communion reception discipline:

It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning.{24}

Lest anyone tries to claim it was Jesus who was abrogating said perennial disciplines, there are others made by the Apostles and their successors of perennial duration which were eventually done away with:

It firmly...declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food...[S]ince the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased. It condemns, then, no kind of food that human society accepts and nobody at all neither man nor woman, should make a distinction between animals, no matter how they died...many things that are not proscribed can and should be omitted, as the apostle says all things are lawful, but not all are helpful.{25}

The Council of Florence admits of perennial disciplines and practices abrogated by Jesus Himself as well as prescriptions by the Apostles when the Council of Florence makes clear their authority to abrogate a perennial discipline from the Council of Jerusalem which the Apostles themselves claimed was “good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts xv,28-29).

Or as phrased elsewhere by this writer in a less irenic moment:

I find it interesting that those who whine often about Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia accept without complaint the vicious novelties of that apostate Callistus. Why he obliterated tradition when he appealed to Matthew 16:18 to justify radical and unprecedented reforming of penance protocols from the tradition of only being allowed to receive the sacrament of penance once in a lifetime and for adultery, fornication, and murder to actually be forgiven in said sacrament instead of only after a lifetime of penance. Who did he think he was? And just think: he never bothered to answer the written critiques of Hippolytus and Tertullian -basically dubias of their age from custodians of the TRUE tradition!{26}

So the perennial disciplines of the Church can be abrogated and/or obrogated at the discretion of those who have the authority to do so in the Church as the authorities and historical examples given above demonstrate.{27} Ergo, the seventh charge of “heresy” stands refuted.

To summarize and conclude this writing:

The writers and many of the signatories to the so-called “correctio filialis” have serious doctrinal and moral problems permeating their general outlook{28} in their public statements. In some cases, these problems span more than a decade or two. They cannot be taken seriously as possessing the "filial devotion" (Correctio Filialis de Haeresibus Propagatis pg. 1) they claim to possess any more than Fr. Martin Luther could who made similar pleas to Pope Leo X.{29} While there are some who may have signed their names either out of ignorance{30} or because of some general affinity with a few of the outlooks taken by the writers of the text{31}, the general tenure and presuppositions evince the diseased and rebellious mindset of not a few of the so-called “traditionalist” wing of the Church.{32} When such folks make public or notorious statements{33}, they can be spoken of freely and condemned publicly{34} for their noxious statements which are occasions of sin and scandal to anyone who does not inhabit their artificially narrow world.{35}

The seven accusations of heresy leveled by the so-called “correctio filialis” crowd have been more than adequately refuted viz their application to Pope Francis so there is no more that needs to be said. Hopefully these spiritually diseased and disobedient children will have the humility to repent of their publicly embarrassing spectacles and seek forgiveness for their sins. And hopefully Pope Francis will be more merciful to them than they would have him be to others who "have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom. iii,23) as well.


Notes:

{1} "[A]s judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy (James ii,13), it only makes sense that with the judgment one pronounces they will likewise be judged (cf. Matt vii,2). In light of their rigourous approach to how all of those who are in irregular marital situations should be treated, the Gospel is clear that what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you (Mark iv,24). Therefore, we cannot presume any subjective inculpability for these folks but must presume their objectively grave mortal sin is automatically a subjective (or actual) mortal sin as well." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]

{2} 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 Charity

{3} 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 Charity

{4} St. Francis de Sales: From Introduction to the Devout Life Book I, Ch. XXVIII (circa 1619)

{5} St. John of the Cross: From Dark Night of the Soul Book I, Ch. VI (circa 1578)

{6} St. John of the Cross: From Dark Night of the Soul Book I, Ch. VI (circa 1578)

{7} See the note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories for details.

{8} For those who question my approach in the present note in how I address the so-called “correctio filialis” folk, consider these words of St. Francis de Sales:

"Public, notorious sinners may be spoken of freely, provided always even then that a spirit of charity and compassion prevail, and that you do not speak of them with arrogance or presumption, or as though you took pleasure in the fall of others. To do this is the sure sign of a mean ungenerous mind. And, of course, you must speak freely in condemnation of the professed enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics--it is true charity to point out the wolf wheresoever he creeps in among the flock. 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." [St. Francis de Sales: From Introduction to the Devout Life Book I, Ch. XXVIII (circa 1619)]

{9} See footnotes one through six.

{10} This is as far as I will go to give any of the signatories any benefit of the doubt and presume that they signed the document out of some level of ignorance of what they were doing.

{11} All of the seven points of the so-called “correctio filialis” where the “propagation of heresy” accusation was made (though not footnoted above) were taken from Correctio Filialis de Haeresibus Propagatis, Page 17 (circa July 16, 2017)

{12} See footnote seven.

{13} See footnote one and also this:

"To put it bluntly: each of these signatories have by affixing their names to this so-called 'filial correction' objectively committed a mortal sin indirectly against faith. They should therefore refrain from receiving Communion until they have repented of this sin, abjured their signature to this so-called 'filial correction' and received absolution. Until they do these things, they are in the very definition of a state of mortal sin and would commit sacrilege if they were to partake of the Eucharist." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]

{14} "If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema." [Council of Trent: From Session VI Decree on Justification Canon XVIII (circa January 13, 1547)]

{15} "If anyone says that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the contrary, that he can during his whole life avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema." [Council of Trent: From Session VI Decree on Justification Canon XXIII (circa January 13, 1547)]

{16} See the previous note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia for details.

{17} "Question #1 as phrased above involves certain presuppositions and drastically over-simplifies the situations of the divorced and remarried.[...] It cannot for those reasons be answered in a one word yes or no format; therefore, to ask for an answer in that form as the four cardinals do comes off to these eyes as rather questionable viz their motives for reasons I specified in the previous note." [Excerpt from the Note More on the Controversial Dubia Subject (circa April 10, 2017)]

{18} "It seems that what really gets to a lot of the critics of Amoris Laetitia is that Pope Francis is basically taking from them a prior apologetical/argumentation club that they liked to beat others with.[...] The idea that “[t]he Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations” (AL 301) is not new.[...] 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.[...] Pope Francis is basically 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." [Excerpt from the Note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)]

{19} See the previous note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia for details -paying particular attention to the sections dealing with the subject of conscience and how its correctly understood both in longstanding Catholic principle as well as documents of the Church’s Magisterium including in the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

{20} See footnote nineteen.

{21} Excerpt from the Note More on the Controversial Dubia Subject (circa April 10, 2017)

{22} Excerpt from the Note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)

{23} See the references cited in the excerpts from footnote twenty-two.

{24} Council of Florence: Excerpt from the Bull of Union with the Copts promulgated by Pope Eugenius IV (circa February 4, 1442)

{25} Council of Florence: Excerpts from the Bull of Union with the Copts promulgated by Pope Eugenius IV (circa February 4, 1442)

{26} Excerpt from the Note Miscellaneous Musings on the Critics of Amoris Laetitia and Pope Francis (circa October 4, 2017)

{27} See the sources referenced in footnotes twenty-two and twenty-six as well as footnotes twenty-four and twenty-five.

{28} See footnotes one and thirteen above as well as the note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]

{29} Since the “correctio” crowd spend some time focusing on statements of Pope Francis regarding Martin Luther, it is only fitting to point out what and who their so-called “correctio filialis” sounds far too eerily like:

"Most Holy Father, prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, I offer myself with all that I am and have . . . I will acknowledge thy voice as the voice of Christ." [Fr. Martin Luther: Letter to Pope Leo X (circa May 30, 1518)]

"I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted . . . It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better." [Fr. Martin Luther: Letter to Pope Leo X (circa January 6, 1519)]

These sources were referenced from a work of mine first published back in the year 2000. In the interest of giving proper credit, I originally got them from a piece written by former friend Dave Armstrong in a paper he compiled titled The Orthodox and the Heterodox Luther (circa 1992)

{30} See footnotes five and ten.

{31} The material referenced in footnotes two through six is applicable here.

{32} "Then there are people whose judgment is solely formed by inclination; who always think well of those they like, and ill of those they dislike. To this, however, there is one rare exception, which nevertheless we do sometimes meet, when an excessive love provokes a false judgment concerning its object; the hideous result of a diseased, faulty, restless affection, which is in fact jealousy; an evil passion capable, as everybody knows, of condemning others of perfidy and adultery upon the most trivial and fanciful ground. In like manner, fear, ambition, and other moral infirmities often tend largely to produce suspicion and rash judgments." [St. Francis de Sales: From Introduction to the Devout Life Book I, Ch. XXVIII (circa 1619)]

{33} See footnotes one and eight.

{34} See footnote eight.

{35} See the Note Bluntly on Lay Ecclesial Hypocrisy (circa June 1, 2017) for some details on this.

Points to Ponder:

"The light obtained by setting straw men on fire is not what we mean by illumination." [Adam Gopnik]

France vows to rebuild Notre Dame Cathedral after devastating fire — live updates

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

To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I wrote some draft texts eighteen months ago that constituted a preliminary response to the signatories of a then recent so-called "correctio filialis" (filial correction) of Pope Francis. A variety of circumstances prevented me from publishing them at the time or in subsequent months. However, as we are about to enter into Holy Week 2019, it seems appropriate to address this matter but not in precisely the same way I originally planned.

The material below is close to seventy percent different than that original first draft with a different approach taken for the most part compared to my earlier intentions. The words from the so-called "correctio filialis" will be in bolded green font throughout. Without further ado...

With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness. 

There are many areas where these folks go astray but the one undergirding their entire enterprise is a fundamental one: they claim directly or otherwise that a pope can teach heresy. As I noted earlier in this year when addressing this issue:

The Church does teach and has always taught that a pope cannot teach heresy. However, to be clear, she has 'always taught' this the same way she has 'always taught' things like papal primacy, the immaculate conception, and papal infallibility. This is not hard to demonstrate but because of the variegations of Church history, it can be tedious to do so.{1}

I realize that this claim will be shocking to not a few of those who support such enterprises as the so-called "correctio filialis" but as with traditional spiritual instruction, there is a lacuna of knowledge by self-identified "conservatives" and supposed "traditionalists" on these matters as they pertain to doctrine as well. A good degree of the misunderstanding is a plethora of works written by theologians of the Church setting forth various hypotheses on popes being heretics. The reason for this seeming difficulty was explained by the present writer as follows:

The aftermath of the Protestant circumstance shook the church's foundations in ways that were unprecedented. Unlike the schism between west and east which was centuries in the making[...], the breaks by the Protestants were sharper and more sudden in nature. This shook the Catholic Church to its core and in the process of looking for answers, the question began to be floated about what if this movement were to seat one of its own in the Chair of Peter, what would happen then? That is when the theological titans of that age began to posit various hypotheses to try and explain this.

In this environment, theologians like Tommaso Cajetan, Robert Bellarmine, Francisco Suarez, John of St. Thomas, Melchior Cano, Albert Pighus, and others floated various hypotheses of what one would do in the event of a heretical pope. However, the floating of a hypothesis does not mean you per se concur with it. The Church all along witnessed to the converse hypotheses by the fact that she never proclaimed anyone who professed the idea that a pope actually could teach heresy as a Doctor of the Church or elevated such persons to the altars via canonization. Furthermore, most of the proponents of heretical pope hypotheses attempting to explain what would happen if a pope was to teach heresy personally abhorred the very notion and did not believe it themselves. Suarez did not believe a pope could teach heresy, thought the very idea was inconceivable, and that the position that he could not do so was pious and probable, to be held[...], but not certain in his time. Because he did not view it as certain, he attempted to set forth some hypotheses on the matter. Pighus believed it was impossible period either to teach heresy or even for a pope to be a private heretic. Alphonsus Ligouri adhered to the Bellarmine position.{2}

And what became subsequently of these various hypotheses propounded by learned theologians like Suarez and Cajetan?

Suarez's attempted hypothesis was condemned in 1692 by Pope Alexander VIII when he proscribed the 4 Gallican Articles one of which was a variation of Suarez's pro-offered hypothesis. Similarly the hypothesis of Cajetan was no longer defendable formally after that time though Bellarmine claimed it could not be defended in his view prior to that.[...] Bellarmine went further than most and believed not only that a pope could not teach heresy but that it was pious and probable to believe that he could not even be a secret or internal heretic. The first of his beliefs (that a pope could not teach heresy) is what was known in his treatise on the subject of the Roman Pontiff as the fourth opinion. Bishop Gasser explained it in his Relatio as follows:

"As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: 'It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.' From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion."[...] 

To be clear, what Gasser was saying was not merely that it was pious and probable to hold that a Pontiff could not err in matters of faith but that one could go further and believe piously and probably the pope could not even be heretical as a particular person or in his person whatsoever. Bishop Gasser made it clear that Pastor Aeternus was correctly interpreted as teaching what Bellarmine outlined in his fourth opinion or the one Bellarmine himself called the most common and certain opinion. And from the moment the First Vatican Council made Bellarmine's fourth opinion their own, the issue of whether a pope could or could not be a heretic or teach heresy was dogmatically settled as a matter of doctrine in the negative by an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.{3}

Because of the above facts, the core argument made by the so-called "correctio filialis" is itself doctrinally flawed and in need of correction. It is not possible for a pope to teach heresy, period. Yet what do the signatories by affixing their names to the aforementioned document claim? Well, from all objective appearances, the signatories have run afoul of Catholic doctrine. This is evident not only in the title of their manifesto{4} as well as what I have seen of the content of said manifesto. It also makes rational sense as well because to accuse the Roman Pontiff of propagating heresy is no different from accusing him of teaching material heresy. Furthermore, the claim that [t]he signatories do not venture to judge the degree of awareness with which Pope Francis has propagated the 7 heresies which they list. But they respectfully insist that he condemn these heresies, which he has directly or indirectly upheld is a subtle attempt to infer that Pope Francis may have taught formal heresy as well.

This is a position that no matter which way you go with it flatly rejects the fourth opinion of Bellarmine which was dogmatized by the First Vatican Council. And as to teach and to propagate are synonymous with one another; ergo, these signatories have objectively proclaimed with their words and actions a position that is proximate to heresy. What goes hand in hand with such a censure?

Theological Note: Proximate to faith. 

Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God... 

Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error. 

Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.{5}

To put it bluntly: each of these signatories have by affixing their names to this so-called "filial correction" objectively committed a mortal sin indirectly against faith. They should therefore refrain from receiving Communion until they have repented of this sin, abjured their signature to this so-called "filial correction" and received absolution. Until they do these things, they are in the very definition of a state of mortal sin and would commit sacrilege if they were to partake of the Eucharist.

Frankly, no more needs to be said on their little charade than that.{6}

We are permitted to issue this correction by natural law, by the law of Christ, and by the law of the Church, which three things Your Holiness has been appointed by divine providence to guard. By natural law: for as subjects have by nature a duty to obey their superiors in all lawful things, so they have a right to be governed according to law, and therefore to insist, where need be, that their superiors so govern. By the law of Christ: for His Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to rebuke Peter in public when the latter did not act according to the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2).

St Paul never accused St Peter of propagating heresy so their analogy falls flat.{7} Furthermore, as these folks are themselves objectively in a state of mortal sin by asserting a claim proximate to heresy, they are unfit to present themselves at communion lest they profane the Sacrament. Now I realize there will be some vociferous objections to my claim here so I will conclude with the rationale behind it.

According to biblical principles, as judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy (James ii,13), it only makes sense that with the judgment one pronounces they will likewise be judged (cf. Matt vii,2). In light of their rigourous approach to how all of those who are in irregular marital situations should be treated, the Gospel is clear that what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you (Mark iv,24). Therefore, we cannot presume any subjective inculpability for these folks but must presume their objectively grave mortal sin is automatically a subjective (or actual) mortal sin as well.

It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith. [St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine As Cited By Bishop Vincent Gasser in His Vatican Relatio on Pastor Aeternus (circa July 1870)]

Notes:

{1} Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 11, 2019)

{2} Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 11, 2019)

{3} Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 11, 2019)

{4} Correctio Filialis de Haeresibus Propagatis which translates as Filial Correction on the Propagation of Heresies.

{5} Sixtus Cartechini, S.J: Excerpt From De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (circa 1951)

{6} For those wondering about the Dubia, I dealt in early 2017 with the theological problems in the missive of the four cardinals. That subject can be revisited in a 2019 Lenten Reflections thread HERE.

{7} St. Paul in his correction did not accuse St. Peter of heresy. Basically, St. Paul said his piece and that was that. There was no persistence in arrogantly opposing St. Peter until the latter accepted the presumptive correction. And while St. Thomas taught that subordinates could correct a superior, the so-called "filial correction" is not a correction of the type that St. Thomas proposed or that St. Paul utilized.

Not Impossible: 5 Ways Japan Could Have Won World War II (And Changed History)

Full text of Benedict XVI: 'The Church and the scandal of sexual abuse'

The Several-Storied Thomas Merton

Points to Ponder:

[P]ut away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. [1 Peter ii,2]

On Burying Hatchets, Building Bridges, Facilitating Authentic Dialogue, Etc. in 2019 and Beyond:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is a continuation of sorts to a brief musing I posted at the start of Lent this year.

To pick up and expand on that thread, I have made it a point in recent years to seek to repair bridges where I had at least a hand in their falling into disrepair if not been destroyed altogether. With that in mind, it seems appropriate to revisit a template of sorts I set down in years past for dealing with these matters. To wit:

The present writer wants to take this moment to call attention to three topics in particular which were composed as a direct result of both public as well as private correspondence on key issues which affect proper dialogue.

As one who has seen certain disturbing patterns over and over again in many dialogues on a variety of subjects, it is only natural that eventually attention would be called to them by us in proportion to how little they were recognized by the parties utilizing them. That pattern started in late 2003, picked up steam in 2004, and then really came to fruition in 2005 and 2006 publicly in a number of postings as well as privately at times with certain individuals. We had presumed (naively in retrospect) that not a few people who should have known better would realize upon having those matters pointed out to them but some of them quite evidently did not.[...]

When considering that some of the persons in mind who were running afoul in key areas were not unintelligent, it struck us that the subjects in question would do well to be fleshed out individually in a series of postings dealing directly with certain approaches to argument in general rather than merely addressing them in the sequence of longer posts on other subject matters which was previously our wont. For one thing, in the latter form, they may not be as evident to a casual reader of those threads due to how many other interconnected issues were dealt with. But without further digression, here are four examples of exposition on often overlooked key factors that can impede authentic dialogue on a whole variety of subjects in order from oldest to newest:

On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)

On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)

More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Appeals Thereof -Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean (circa March 24, 2007)

On Ad Hominem, Revisiting Argumentum Ad Vericundiam, and Considering the Core Principle That Is Behind Any Argumentation/Logical Fallacy (circa June 1, 2007)

Included in the above threads is a discussion thread from an astute friend who provided us with both some appreciated criticisms as well as the opportunity to clarify a couple of additional key elements in the overall matrix of the oft-misused "appeal to authority" (Lat. argumentum ad vericundiam) in argumentation.

While those threads are hardly the only ones which could be noted, they were nonetheless significant in that the subjects they covered are almost never discussed directly. As a result of that informational lacuna, the problems the posts outline are rarely realized by those who fall prey to them: a failure that results inexorably in said problems being perpetuated across a broad continuum of subjects discussed. (To the detriment of authentic and potentially productive dialogue on subjects where passionate diversity of opinions can often persist.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 11, 2008)]

From nearly the beginning of this website once we found our footing here{1}, it has been my intention to facilitate dialogue across a sphere of subjects. While our understanding of these matters was less formed than it would later become, the study of and writing on these matters from an ecclesial perspective was only the start of the principles involved being applied across the entire spectrum of personal interactions. As warranted, guidelines for authentic dialogue would be further delineated in the cauldron of contemporary controversies until finally a more permanent template was set down in 2008 which explicitly embodied the principles we had written on in the five year period preceding it. I revisited that material in 2018 for what was intended to be a column in the abortive WherePeterIs project{2} and when the latter fell through, it was published to this website instead.

It is my hope that these principles of authentic dialogue can not only serve to help in building bridges and burying hatchets not only where the present writer is concerned but also that in some small way they will benefit others as well in their dialogual journeys.


Notes:

{1} Or as noted before in years past:

[Y]our host has refused to purge his archives of stuff which in retrospect he regrets posting. Part of the reason for this is principles as we have been critical of others for trying to airbrush the historical record at their own sites to avoid telling the truth about their past actions or statements in a given point of time. But another reason is that life itself is a process of growth and development across a broad continuum. This includes weblog writing and interests.

We have no problem admitting that it took a bit of time before this weblog really started to take a discernible shape and some of the features and/or principles which have become standard or typical over time were in the "finding their feet" stage early on. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 15, 2007)]

{2} For the background on that situation, see these links if interested:

Lighting Candles Instead of Cursing the Darkness (originally published on June 16, 2018)

On My Resignation From Where Peter Is, General Concerns For The State Of Public Discourse There and Elsewhere, Etc. (circa August 6, 2018)

Points to Ponder:
(From Yours Truly)

Unless I am at a place like a cigar lounge, I always smoke cigars outside. Its one of my rules if you will.

Jesus Was A Socialist (Hippie Heretic)

I was asked in private correspondence to respond to the link above so below is substantially what my initial musings on it were...

The writer of the piece attempts an anachronistic projection of later hypotheses and concepts into earlier biblical times and is a classic apples and oranges ploy. As a result, their essay comes off basically as an attempt to cut and paste verses to support a preconceived point of view. In the case of socialism, the guy is a socialist by his own admission but then refuses to define what that term means and he looks for similarities to some interpretations of socialism in the Gospels and treats those as if they are socialist. But as he has not bothered to define his terms in advance, he can basically make them say whatever he wants them to say. (Apologists of all sorts play these same kinds of games.)

Are there similarities in some socialist points and some Gospel passages? Sure there are. There are also similarities in some capitalist or market based points and some Gospel passages. (For example, the parable of the talents.) Similarity is not the same as identity however. I made the point in a recent Lenten reflection that the Gospel is not right wing or left wing but these terms are inadequate to explain the phenomenon involved. And a key point the socialist does not seem to point out is that socialism involves not voluntary sharing of ones goods and possessions with the less fortunate (that is charity after all) but involves some governing entity arbitrarily seizing ones goods and possessions and giving them to someone else without any concern as to whether the owner of said goods and possessions actually wants to do this or not. The key to the various Gospel passages he cites (as well as the Acts passage) from what I can tell is the importance of detachment from goods and possessions.

A phrase that can be said to apply here is this: "we can possess wealth, we should not however let wealth possess us" and that is they key. But wealth is more than money and property. In a certain sense, it can be said to be anything which stands between us and God. To the extent that anything stands between, it is a problem even if the good or principle is itself neutral or even good (i.e. spouses, children, particular liturgical preferences, particular religious devotions, favourite sports teams, particular political or social viewpoints, etc). That is the key that the writer of the piece above in attempting to promote a "Jesus was a socialist" hypothesis fails to grasp.

On Rash Judgments:
(A Lenten Reflection)

We must proceed to rectify rash judgments, according to their cause. Some hearts there are so bitter and harsh by nature, that everything turns bitter under their touch; men who, in the Prophet's words, "turn judgment to wormwood, and leave off righteousness in the earth." (Amos v, 7) Such as these greatly need to be dealt with by some wise spiritual physician, for this bitterness being natural to them, it is hard to conquer; and although it be rather an imperfection than a sin, still it is very dangerous, because it gives rise to and fosters rash judgments and slander within the heart.

Others there are who are guilty of rash judgments less out of a bitter spirit than from pride, supposing to exalt their own credit by disparaging that of others. These are self-sufficient, presumptuous people, who stand so high in their own conceit that they despise all else as mean and worthless. It was the foolish Pharisee who said, "I am not as other men are." (Luke xxviii, 11)

Others, again, have not quite such overt pride, but rather a lurking little satisfaction in beholding what is wrong in others, in order to appreciate more fully what they believe to be their own superiority. This satisfaction is so well concealed, so nearly imperceptible, that it requires a clear sight to discover it, and those who experience it need that it be pointed out to them. [St Francis de Sales: From Introduction to the Devout Life Ch. XXVIII (circa 1619)]

POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION CHRISTUS VIVIT

Points to Ponder:

With a cigar like in life, you got to have some length, and some girth. [D.L. Hughley]

Will It Stick? Examining the Hot Start of the Mariners Offense

The Seattle Mariners did a complete fire sale in the off-season and were preparing to take a step back this year to jump forward in the 2020-2024 years. So far, they are profoundly performing above expectations -honestly, I never saw this coming. And since I came into this season for them with literally zero expectations, this has been a most pleasant surprise up to now.

Points to Ponder:

We should not have an 'open mind' because that means we grant plausibility to anything, however, we should have a discerning mind. [Mike Mentzer]

Points to Ponder:

It's an art to enjoy living. Cigars enable you to enjoy living. [C.G.B. Bernard]

On the Subject of Conscience and Sacramental Reception:
(A Lenten Reflection)

It helps in the Lenten season for folks to reflect more on themselves and their particular tendencies to better get a grasp of where improvement is needed spiritually as well as otherwise. With those who at sundry times and in in divers manners have concerned themselves with the subject of conscience and sacramental reception, one area that I have never quite understood in the entire debate surrounding chapter eight of Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) is the problem not a few critics of it have with the idea of some folks who are divorced and remarried who have undergone a process of discernment with a priest who nonetheless in conscience feel they are "at peace with God" over their situation and who therefore receive communion.

Indeed, among the biggest bellyachers on AL are Catholics who in a number of other areas frequently slander, libel, denigrate, ridicule, and express contempt and/or profound disrespect for the Roman Pontiff and the last Ecumenical Council. There is no shortage of folks who do these things often (read: multiple times per day!) yet they still judge themselves as "at peace with God" and thus as fit to receive communion. The odds are pretty good that they do not accuse themselves of these sins in the confessional which means they receive unworthily themselves. They are therefore in no position morally or spiritually to judge anyone else yet they do it all the time.

Furthermore, unlike sex between divorced and remarried couples which while certainly sinful is nonetheless infrequent as a rule overall, these folks slander, libel, denigrate, ridicule, etc with far greater frequently. There is a true example of "look[ing] at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but not notic[ing] the log that is in your own eye" (cf. Matt vii,3) and yet those doing this are generally too proud to see or in any way acknowledge it. And even if they do, they inexorably make excuses for why what they did was somehow not making them unworthy of receiving communion unlike those heathen adulterers when in actuality their situation is even worse than that which they presume to pompously array themselves against.

It would seem appropriate for folks this Lent who spend their time obsessing on the matter above to honestly examine themselves and see if their attitudes really do match that of historical heretics and schismatics who also considered themselves more orthodox than thou and if they find themselves in need of repentance and conversion to do so.

THE UNKNOWNS: The Untold Story of America’s Unknown Soldier And WWI’s Most Decorated Heroes Who Brought Him Home

Points to Ponder:

There is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father. [Pope Francis]

Mending Wall

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.

I let my neighbour know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
"Stay where you are until our backs are turned!"

We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, "Good fences make good neighbours."

Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
"Why do they make good neighbours? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down." I could say "Elves" to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.

He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbours."

[Robert Frost]