'BUT HIS WORD IS THE PROBLEM!' -The subtitle for the commentary in the above post might well apply to the current status of the German bishops' interfaith communion guidelines vis a vis Jorge Bergoglio's position in the issue. Fr. De Souza gives a generous interpretation of this pope's seemingly quick turnabout on the issue, and likens it to his turnabout on the Chilean abuse issue though it took him about three years to acknowledge that the latter issue even existed without, however, specifically apologizing, much less reversing, his adamant nomination of Karadima protege Juan Barros to be Bishop of Osorno, which he continues to be (and as all the other Chilean bishops continue in position notwithstanding their coup de theatre 'en masse' resignation two weeks ago... Can one ever trust the word of someone who chooses to be equivocal rather than decisive ("Let your No mean No and your Yes mean Yes" as Jesus advises), to confuse rather than to clarify?
Pope Francis's intercommunion 'reversal'
Three weeks after he told the German bishops to find a ‘possible unanimous’ solution
on their own, he has now told them to abandon their proposal instead.
by Father Raymond J. de Souza
June 8, 2018
In the aftermath of the papal visit to Chile and subsequent events in the sex-abuse crisis, the idea of Pope Francis doing a complete U-turn can be expected. The Holy Father also had done so on his principal financial reforms, reversing them and then leaving the project to languish.
Nevertheless, his recent reversal on the German “intercommunion” proposal was unusually swift. Three weeks after he instructed the German bishops to find a “possible unanimous” solution on their own, Pope Francis told them to abandon their proposal instead.
Is it possible that there is a link between the Chile reversal and the German reversal? Namely, that public criticism from senior cardinals prompted the Holy Father to reverse course?
At first glance, it would seem to be implausible. On the most disputed initiative of the pontificate — Amoris Laetitia and its (ambiguous) admission to Holy Communion of those living in a conjugal union outside of a valid marriage — Pope Francis has been steadfast in not changing course. Indeed, he elected not to answer the DUBIA posed by four cardinals who asked for clarification on the teaching of AL.
So do Chile and Germany indicate a change in practice?
In Chile, Pope Francis went on his visit knowing full well that the major sectors of Chilean society — including the leadership of the Chilean bishops — vigorously opposed his appointment of Bishop Juan Barros to the Diocese of Osorno, due to accusations that he had witnessed sexual abuse by his mentor, Father Fernando Karadima, Chile’s most notorious abuser, who was disciplined by the Vatican in 2011.
During the papal visit, Pope Francis did not budge on his position, even lashing out at those who criticized him, accusing them of the grave sin of calumny.
Then Cardinal Seán O’Malley of Boston, the chairman of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, publicly criticized the Holy Father for his remarks — and by implication, his handling of the Bishop Barros matter.
Pope Francis initially accepted the reprimand, but stood by his decision. But soon after, he reversed course and reopened the whole matter, eventually leading to the entire Chilean episcopate offering their resignations.
The turning point, after three years of intense and heated controversy, was Cardinal O’Malley’s criticism.
In the case of the German proposal, the reversal took exactly three weeks.
In February, the German episcopal conference voted by two-thirds in favor of a draft proposal to admit Protestants married to Roman Catholics to Holy Communion. Long-standing practice — and canon law — admits only Catholics to the sacraments. In special cases of “grave necessity,” a Protestant who shares the faith of the Catholic Church in the Real Presence may be admitted. That is judged by the local bishop and most clearly relates to emergencies when death is imminent.
While not fully congruent with canon law, the practice is sometimes found where, for example, a Protestant is admitted to Holy Communion who regularly attends Mass with a Catholic spouse and shares the faith of the Church, but faces serious obstacles in becoming Catholic. Even then, it is usually limited to particular occasions and not a regular practice.
The German proposal went far beyond even that.
They proposed that the very desire of the couple to receive Holy Communion together constituted the “grave necessity” required, and therefore it was possible for such Protestants to habitually receive Holy Communion.
The proposal was very clearly contrary to traditional practice, but had the enthusiastic support of Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich, the president of the German bishops’ conference, and two-thirds of his confreres. Nevertheless, Cardinal Rainer Woelki of Cologne, supported by six other bishops, wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in Rome objecting and requested that Rome block the proposal.
In response, Cardinals Marx and Woelki and other German bishops were summoned to Rome for a May 3 summit with various heads of Roman departments. At the end of that meeting, Archbishop Luis Ladaria, the prefect of the CDF, declined to give an answer, but conveyed to the Germans that the Holy Father himself desired that they should continue to discuss the matter and find, if possible, unanimity on the matter.
Given that the whole reason for the meeting was the lack of unanimity, it appeared that Pope Francis was signaling that he was desirous that the minority who appealed to Rome might find a way to embrace the draft proposal.
Then came a veritable thunderbolt. Cardinal Willem Eijk, the archbishop of Utrecht, Netherlands, wrote a blistering commentary in the Register, published only four days after the Vatican meeting. His language was not diplomatic.
“The response of the Holy Father … that the [German bishops] should discuss the drafts again and try to achieve a unanimous result, if possible, is completely incomprehensible,” Cardinal Eijk wrote. “The Church’s doctrine and practice regarding the administration of the sacrament of the Eucharist to Protestants is perfectly clear.”
It was not a carefully worded rebuke like Cardinal O’Malley offered in January. It was not formulated in the form of legitimate, limited questions like the dubia on Amoris Laetitia.
Cardinal Eijk said baldly that Pope Francis got it massively wrong and, for good measure, pointed out it was not the first time.
“The Holy Father should have given the delegation of the German episcopal conference clear directives, based on the clear doctrine and practice of the Church,” Cardinal Eijk wrote. “He should have also responded on this basis to the Lutheran woman who asked him on Nov. 15, 2015, if she could receive Communion with her Catholic spouse, saying that this is not acceptable, instead of suggesting she could receive Communion on the basis of her being baptized and in accordance with her conscience.
By failing to create clarity, great confusion is created among the faithful, and the unity of the Church is endangered.”
Message received.
[Apparently!]
By mid-May, the CDF was working on a draft letter to the German bishops doing exactly what Cardinal Eijk said should be done. On May 24, Archbishop Ladaria — in the interim named by Pope Francis to become a cardinal in June — met with the Holy Father to agree upon the text of the letter, which was then addressed to Cardinal Marx the next day. Pope Francis had changed his mind. The draft proposal was dead, no matter how many German bishops were in favor of it.
There was another intervention along the lines of Cardinal Eijk, by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, writing in
First Things. However, his commentary was published May 23, further amplified by an interview in Crux May 28. By that time, though, the Holy Father had already reversed course.
It was Cardinal Eijk’s intervention that appears decisive. [That's speculative at best. I wouldn't be surprise if one of these days, the Dutch cardinal received some form of retribution from the Vatican for his daring letter!]
Do the Chilean and German examples mean that that Holy Father is adopting a different style in response to rebukes from his cardinals? It remains to be seen. But it does seem clear that, while in previous pontificates, the norm was to offer criticism privately through official channels,
the most effective way to effect change in this pontificate is by recourse to public statements. [That's a rash conclusion to make on the basis of two apparent 'reversals', considering that nothing whatsoever before all this has caused Bergoglio to change one iota on his belligerent insistence on immigrationism, the benevolence of Islam, climate catastrophism,the unmitigated evil of capitalism and the free market economy, and apostate Catholic positions!]
“It is not a sin to criticize the Pope here!” Pope Francis said May 21, addressing the Italian bishops. Indeed, it may be the preferred way that the Holy Father likes to be served. [Best to wait and see, shall we, Fr De Souza? Can an old dog ever learn a new trick? And are you inching back to your post-Conclave pro-Bergoglio enthusiasm? I, of course, tend to be skeptical, as Steve Skojec at 1P5 is.]
Why it is premature to celebrate Vatican's
apparent rejection of intercommunion
by Steve Skojec
June 5, 2018
When the story first broke in April that the CDF had, with the pope’s explicit blessing, rejected the German Bishops’ intercommunion handout, people weren’t sure what to think. Nobody had seen the communication, and it was very intentionally kept under wraps by the Vatican.
[Subsequently, of course, the Vatican announced after a meeting of some German bishops, pro and con, with the CDF in Rome, that the Pope had ordered them to settle the question among themselves 'unanimously' - a rather stupid instruction considering that only seven out of the 200-plus German bishops had openly opposed it!]
At the time, I issued a cautionary note about thinking that this meant, somehow, that Pope Francis disapproves of the idea of intercommunion. The preponderance of evidence pointed to the contrary. I documented a number of indicators in support of the conclusion that Francis favors intercommunion — but on the basis of individual “discernment.”
I speculated at the time that it was perhaps the attempt by the German bishops at codifying this approach — putting it in writing and distributing it — that made it unpalatable to him. Too concrete. Too formal. Not enough smoke or mirrors.
This week, as more information from that CDF decision has been revealed, I’ve seen people rather jubilantly exclaiming that on this issue, it looks like Francis is orthodox. Taken on its own,
it’s an interesting thing to see people grasping at straws for evidence that the pope is acting like a Catholic. But understandable searching for hope aside, I think such conclusions are unwarranted. Sad to say that you should probably put that champagne back on ice.
But don’t just take my word for it. Longtime Vatican observer Marco Tosatti wrote in a piece today:
A month ago [on May 3, 2018] a meeting took place in Rome (not including the Pope) between a few of the protagonists of the conflict and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Luis Ladaria, which seemed to produce only an interim outcome. So much so that a few German bishops, favoring intercommunion, gave positive interpretations of the meeting in public.
This was also the case with the official statement of the Vatican about the meeting, which said that the matter was still unresolved, and that Ladaria told the bishops who participated that Pope Francis desired that they “find, in a spirit of ecclesial communion, a possibly unanimous agreement.”
But the matter stirred up very strong and openly negative reactions on the part of cardinals and others invested in the matter: from Cardinal Willem Eijk of Utrecht [Holland], Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia [USA], the Prefect-emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal Gerhard Mūller, Cardinals Walter Brandmüller and Francis Arinze, to name only a few.
And to many people the pretext used by the German bishops to justify giving the Eucharist to Protestant spouses “gave rise to a situation of a serious spiritual emergency” and appeared to be an extremely, too thin veil [for their true intentions].
It took a few weeks for a document to appear, dated May 25, which responded with an almost complete “No” to the German proposal, yet without being too harsh towards Cardinal Marx, the chief counselor of the Pope, and the collective body of the German bishops’ conference, with its affinity for the most progressive positions.
[More correctly, the letter only asked the German bishops not to publish their handout on intercommunion because it was 'not ready for publication' and giving three reasons why not. That is a significant distinction which, I am surprised, Tosatti missed.]
Tosatti then provided a translation of the text (from Sandro Magister), which stated:
Our meeting of May 3, 2018, demonstrated that the text of the [proposed] subsidy raised a series of problems of notable relevance. The Holy Father therefore judged at the end that the document was not mature enough to be published.
“Not mature enough to be published.” It’s an interesting turn of phrase. You’ll note that on Magister’s site, the English translation says “not ready for publication”, while our translator has chosen the more literal version of the text. Either way, however,
the point here is that the objection isn’t that the document is simply theologically incorrect — it’s that it’s not quite ready for prime time. The objections given by Ladaria were covered by Maike Hickson yesterday, so I won’t repeat them all here.
But the point that is arguably most prohibitive — the legal restrictions of canon 844 — is one about which the CDF Prefect says there are “open questions” in “some areas of the Church.” For that reason, Ladaria says, the matter has already been sent to “the competent Dicasteries of the Holy See” so that they can “produce a timely clarification to these questions at the level of the universal Church.”
Sadly, as we’ve come to recognize in the current pontificate, Vatican “clarifications” are often anything but.
These comments of Ladaria were addressed specifically by Tosatti in his own analysis, and it bears repeating here:
This last provision is a point of great uncertainty, because it would seem that it allows the diocesan bishop the possibility of acting as he believes best: and if this hypothesis is true, it would permit on a case-by-case basis what is not permitted on the general level. The fourth paragraph of Canon 844 reads:
“If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.”
It is clear that it will now be necessary to await the “timely clarification.” And to record that, at least for the moment, the initiative has been blocked, thanks to the courage and frankness of a handful of bishops.
Tosatti does not stand alone. The German Catholic theologian and author Dr. Markus Büning (who has been a bit hot and cold on Francis over the past couple of years) assessed the situation — and the positive reaction it has received in some quarters– as follows:
In my view, there exists no reason at all for jubilation. Because the reasons as given by the Rome letter are really theologically nearly without any clear statement, since it is written in the form of vague allusions. One withdraws into mere formal and purely canonical reasons. Additionally, one tries now, obviously, on the level of the Universal Church, to set up respective rules. Therefore, there remains much insecurity!
Much insecurity indeed. I told you in 2016 that I believed intercommunion was going to be the next big progressive push from the Vatican after Amoris Laetitia. Although female deacons and a married priesthood seem now to be vying for first place on the docket, I stand by my conclusion that intercommunion is a goal Francis wants to see achieved. This dustup with the German Bishops is, I think it’s fair to say, one of style and not of substance.
One gets the impression that Archbishop Ladaria stands on more solid theological ground than many expected as the pope’s handpicked Jesuit in the Church’s chief doctrinal position, but
no matter how competent a theologian he is, I’d be surprised to see him able to hold this ground for long against the gale force winds of change that are blowing these days in Rome.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 10/06/2018 22:16]