The Maltese directive makes
answering the ‘dubia’ urgent
Some observations in the wake of this weekend’s developments.
by Edward N. Peters
January 15, 2017
When a highly placed Italian prelate declares that “only a blind man cannot see” that confusion is the ecclesiastical order of the day, and that such confusion has as its fundamental source Pope Francis’ Amoris laetitia,
matters have reached crisis level.
[With all due respect to Dr. Peters, matters have been at a genuine crisis level in the Church for some time now - in terms of splitting the Church along the line that delimits orthodoxy and the bimillennial Tradition of the Church from open heterodoxy and technically-not-yet-heresy on fundamental doctrine. But if you want to set a date for this crisis erupting full-blown, then yes, you have to count from the publication of AL, which wins hands-down and unchallenged as the most divisive papal document there ever has been. In comparison, the storm over Humanae Vitae was minor in comparison (since everyone who believes artificial contraception is a right and a quick convenient fix had been doing it anyway and would go on doing it), and the hostility to Summorum Pontificum a weak blip in the widescreen view of all those comfortably ensconced in the undemanding protestant-clone world of Novus Ordo liturgy.]
Catholics who have not followed the intense three-year debate over (among other things) admitting to holy Communion divorced-and-remarried Catholics who are living as married persons should stop reading this post and go get caught up on current events. But for those sufficiently aware of the doctrinal and disciplinary issues at stake I offer some observations in the wake of this weekend’s developments.
The bishops of Malta, by declaring that
divorced-and-remarried Catholics who are living as if they were married “cannot be precluded from participating in … the Eucharist” have done grave violence to the unbroken and unanimous ecclesiastical tradition barring such Catholics from reception of holy Communion without — and let me stress this,
without — doing violence to the actual text of Francis’s Amoris laetitia. That, folks, is the central problem.
AL does not — again, let me repeat, does not — declare ministers of holy Communion bound to give the sacrament to divorced-and-remarried Catholics living as if married. Francis's phrasing in several key passages of is (I have argued)
malleable enough to allow bishops such as Chaput and Sample to reiterate the traditional Eucharistic discipline or, as the Buenos Aires bishops did, simply to pass ambiguous criteria down to local pastors to sort as best they can.
[But Church teaching should not be malleable or flexible to suit anyone's purpose: it always ought to be firm and clear, in which, as the Lord says "Let your Yes mean Yes, and your No mean No". Why does everyone other than the authors of the FIVE DUBIA and their unconditional supporters seem to give Bergoglio a pass on this? To do so is not being objective, it is having a big inexplicable blind spot. The calculated equivocation of AL - and therefore, its fundamental dishonesty - is its primary underlying problem.]
But precisely because key passages of Amoris are also flexible enough to allow bishops to do as the Maltese have done and require Church ministers to distribute the Eucharist to Catholics who engage in “public and permanent adultery”
(CCC 2384) — not to mention conferring absolution on penitents who express no purpose of amendment in regard to such conduct — all this, without doing violence to the actual text of Amoris, one cannot but agree with Cdl. Caffarra and others that this hitherto unimaginable sacramental disunity is rooted directly in Amoris laetitia.
This ability of AL simultaneously to sustain orthodox, non-committal, and heterodox interpretations in matters of the gravest ecclesiastical import is exactly why the Four Cardinal’s dubia so urgently need answering — if not by Francis himself (and no one can force Francis’s hand) then at least by Francis’s right-hand man in matters of faith and morals, Cdl Muller of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to whom the dubia was also (few seem to have noticed) addressed.
[Not exactly. He was copy-furnished the letter to the pope, not sent a separate letter. The Four Cardinals know Vatican protocol well enough to have known that sending Mueller the letter in his own right as CDF Prefect would have been useless - precisely because Mueller cannot say anything to them as CDF Prefect without the approval of the pope. In other words, the Four Cardinals (three of whom were co-authors with Mueller of the pre-2014 Synod Five Cardinals' Book) were doing Mueller a good turn by sparing him the embarrassment of having to answer a letter of DUBIA directly addressed to him, while still acknowledging that the DUBIA are properly within the competence of the CDF to address. As it is, he chose to cop out on them, substantially (AL is perfectly A-OK and does not call forth any DUBIA) and procedurally (the Four Cardinals ought not to have made their letter public).
Of course, the stakes involved in the DUBIA jumped dramatically over the weekend, not simply by the Maltese bishops making plain what sort of sacramental abuses Amoris could tolerate within its terms, but by the decision, taken at who-knows-what level, to publish the Maltese document in L’Osservatore Romano, that “instrument for spreading the teachings of the successor of Peter".
Obviously the pope is not the editor of L’OR and it is possible that the decision to publish the Maltese document took Francis unawares. But insofar as L’OR is unquestionably the pope’s newspaper, people will be watching to see whether, directly or indirectly, there will appear some ‘distancing’ between Francis and the Maltese approach to sacraments for divorced-and-remarried Catholics. [You think??? From your pen to God's ear!]
I pray there does appear such papal distancing; I pray that the Maltese bishops repent of their failure to “exercise vigilance so that abuses do not creep into ecclesiastical discipline especially regarding …the celebration of the sacraments” (Canon 392 § 2); and I pray that the teachings of Christ and his Church penetrate our minds and hearts more deeply.
And I fervently pray to the Most Holy Trinity - more than I have every prayed for anything for myself, and with every invocation to God that I make throughout the day - that the Holy Spirit may overcome whatever 'Spirit' this pope has been listening to, enlighten him accordingly so that he may truly be a worthy Vicar of Christ on earth and the leader of the Roman Catholic Church he was elected to be. Through the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima, Mother of Perpetual Help - Mary, under all her titles as Mother of God, all the saints known and unknown, and the host of heavenly angels. Amen.
Canonist Peters followed up with an analysis of the latest pitiful attempt by Bergoglio apologist Austin Ivereigh to 'defend' AL - which appears to be, at best, yet another blatant act of dishonesty on the part of the Bergoglian Bergoglites, the same DISHONESTY that characterizes their lord and master's habitual misrepresentation of Scriptures, including Jesus's own words, to falsely support his personal agenda as pope...
Discussing law with people
who don’t know what it actually says
Austen Ivereigh's misrepresentation of the law illustrates why the AL debate is becoming,
to use Ivereigh’s term, so infuriating for defenders of ecclesiastical tradition.
by Edward N. Peters
January 16, 2017
Austen Ivereigh, in a Crux essay that adds little of substance to what has been said over and over again in regard to Amoris laetitia, fatally misquotes the central canon at issue in the Amoris debate.
His misrepresentation of the law illustrates better than anything I could say here about why the Amoris debate is becoming, to use Ivereigh’s term, so infuriating for defenders of ecclesiastical tradition. The ‘pro-Amoris’ wing simply does not know, or care, what the law in question actually says. Ivereigh writes:
Amoris never questions either Canon 915, which demands that Communion be withheld from those who “obstinately persevere in grave sin,”, nor the following canon, that people conscious of grave sin should not present themselves to receive Communion… But while Amoris is very clear about not wanting to create new norms or laws, it is also very clear about fostering a new attitude.
First, Amoris never “questions” Canon 915 because it never mentions Canon 915!, but much more importantly — and crucially for his essay —Ivereigh misquotes the text of Canon 915 in regard to the central issue here.
Canon 915 does NOT say that holy Communion must be withheld from those who “obstinately persevere in grave sin”, it says that holy Communion must be withheld from those who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin”. The difference, as has been explained copiously, is night and day.
Canon 915, controlling a minister’s decision to give holy Communion to a would-be communicant, is not, not, not, about reading communicants’ personal consciences (as if ministers could do that anyway). It is about assessing a would-be communicants’ public behavior (such as their having entered civil marriage subsequent to divorce).
Thus, virtually all of the Amoris discussions about individual assessments of conscience or, as the Maltese bishops put it, about “being at peace with God” (points that might figure in the application of Canon 916), is irrelevant to the operation of Canon 915, the modern canon resting on ancient roots that prevents ministers from giving holy Communion to Catholics in these circumstances.
[Apropos, having been a news editor in the first quarter-century of my working life, it is incumbent upon the editors of Crux to fact-check what their contributors allege. Ivereign is no canonist, however 'copiously' he may have written about the life of the Church. Nor is John Allen. So someone ought to have checked out what exactly Canon 915 says before Crux went ahead and published yet another article from their already most prolific contributor based on his dogged and repeatedly limp defenses of AL. Or, at the very least, publish a disclaimer to the effect that, in the absence of fact-checking (which every editorial desk ought to do these days becausde the Internet makes it so easy to do), Crux does not vouch for the accuracy of all the facts presented by their contributors.]
But it’s impossible to discuss the implications of the legal qualifier “manifest” in Canon 915 if public figures such as Ivereigh don’t even admit the word is there.
Misrepresenting the plain text of canon law on the central point at issue in the Amoris debate is not, I suggest, how should one go “about fostering a new attitude” toward law.
P.S. I followed the link to something Andrea Gagliarducci mentions in passing in his latest Monday Vatican column - in which he says,
In fact, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith already responded some years ago to a similar question [about communion for unqualified RCDs] coming from a French priest, made public some time ago on the official Vatican website.
The link was to LifeSite News of November 14, 2014, picking up in turn from Rorate caeli on that day - not long after the first Bergoglian 'family synod'- (therefore not some years ago, as Gagliarducci claims) - which, in turn, picked up from an article by the renowned Abbe Claude Barthe in L'Homme Nouveau... I am ashamed to say I completely missed this article at the time (the 'big news' then having been Cardinal Burke's dismissal from the Roman Curia and appointment to be Patron of the Knights of Malta).
by Abbe Claude Barthe
Translated for Rorate caeli by Fr. Paul McDonald from
L'HOMME NOUVEAU
November 12, 2014
The question of the situation of Catholics who are divorced and civilly remarried was especially discussed at the extraordinary assembly of the Synod on the theme, "The pastoral challenges of the family in the context of the evangelization," that ended in Rome on October 18.
A text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in response to a question sent by a priest, has just added, on a specific point concerning the pastoral work related to these persons, an important element, that is particularly clarifying in the general disturbance of the spirits.
This response has the advantage of putting forward the problems related to the Eucharistic communion of the remarried divorced. It in fact settles what must be the attitude of priests who work in the ministry of reconciliation for those same remarried divorcees.
Therefore, we publish here the full text here, respecting its format:
[Responsum] To the Question of a French Priest: “Can a confessor grant absolution to a penitent who, having been religiously married, has contracted a second union following divorce?”
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responded on October 22, 2014:
“We cannot exclude a priori the remarried divorced faithful from a penitential process that would lead to a sacramental reconciliation with God and, therefore, also to Eucharistic communion.
Pope John Paul II, in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (n. 84) envisaged such a possibility and detailed its conditions: ‘Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.
This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’.’ (cf. also Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, n. 29)
The penitential process to be undertaken must take into consideration the following elements:
1 – Verify the validity of the religious marriage in the respect of truth, all the while avoiding giving the impression of a kind of ‘Catholic divorce’.
2 – See eventually if the persons, with the aid of grace, can separate from their new partners and reconcile with those from whom they had separated.
3 – Invite remarried divorced persons who, for serious reasons (for instance, children), cannot separate from their partner to live as ‘brother and sister’.
In any event, absolution cannot be granted if not under the condition of being assured of true contrition, that is, ‘a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future’ (Council of Trent, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, c. 4).
In this line, a remarried divorcee cannot be validly absolved if he does not take the firm resolution of not ‘sinning for the future’ and therefore of abstaining from the acts proper to spouses, by doing in this sense all that is within his power.”
Luis F. Ladaria, SJ
Titular Archbishop of Thibica,
Secretary
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
L'Homme Nouveau's article continues with Fr. Barthe's comment on the responsum:
The Congregation does not just quote n. 84 of Familaris Consortio. It details with realism the concrete steps the minister of the Sacrament of Penance, the confessor , must take in exploring the case.
It is important to note that the Congregation, in the framework of the question submitted, does not give a complete treatment as to how the minister might exhort and convince, in regard to the holiness of marriage, the continuing existence of the marriage despite the civil union that has been adulterously contracted, the mutual responsibilities of the separated but true spouses, the scandal given, the graces of the sacrament that continue to be given to the spouses, etc.
The Responsum touches upon and regulates only the questions the Confessor must address, listening to what the penitent avows, to know if he may concretely absolve, in the name of Christ, in virtue of his sacramental ministry, and, under what conditions he may do so.
Even if, in the context of the diffusion and the discussion of heterodox theses, the Responsum gives the impression of being "rigid", in reality it opts for the greatest kindness possible towards the sinner, realistically taking into account the sinful situation created by the institution of a new union after the divorce, and seeking prudently to draw the sinner out of that situation, without "quenching the smoldering wick."
One may say that Congregation places itself, according to the tradition of the Holy See, in the framework of the Roman school of theology, that of Saint Alphonsus Liguori, who combated the French rigorists.
The Response therefore details the different steps or markers that the confessor will rapidly explore in the tribunal of penance:
The possible future finding of the invalidity of the sacramental marriage which could set everything right. In some cases the apparent possibility of that invalidity would appear with evidence, and this would lead to a deepened investigation. Even so, the Congregation makes sure to clarify that the questions must not scandalize, in giving the impression that this is all just "Catholic divorce".
Above all the confessor will try to find out if the penitent thinks that a reconciliation between the two spouses is thinkable and possible. Because, according to St. Augustine: "God does not command you to do impossible things, rather, in commanding he invites you to do what you can, and to ask for what you cannot."
The Council of Trent adds, glossing St. Paul, "and God helps you and makes you able" (Dz 1536) [1]. The Responsum translates this as, "with the help of grace". Let us add that there can be children of the sacramental union deeply hurt by the separation of their parents.
In any case, only serious reasons can justify staying together in the adulterous union created by the second civil union or other cohabitation. They would include the presence of children of the second union, but also the advanced age of the couple, and the risks of rupturing a cohabitation which is now only a friendship.
In any case the penitent must make the firm resolution to live with his or her new partner as "brother and sister". This supposes on the part of the penitent to be able to put into action such an arrangement, which will seem possible and plausible to the confessor, thus demanding the deferral of sacramental absolution for a future confession.
This supposes for the penitent and his or her second partner, to take the measures and make the resolutions necessary for living virtuously, despite what the moralists call "the occasion of sin". Experience proves that it is not impossible.
But only a proportionate reason (the education of children) authorizes staying in the danger of sinning. Otherwise, the Congregation goes right to the point, without treating the question of scandal, or of how such an apparently adulterous couple can be seen approaching the sacraments.
The conclusion of the Responsum is particularly interesting. In effect it regulates the particular case of the absolution given to a divorcee who has contracted a new union with respect to the general principle concerning the integrity of the sacrament of Penance, and by way of the consequence of the legitimacy of the absolution that the minister of the sacrament grants.
The "acts of the penitent" are necessary: contrition, avowal of one's sins, and the satisfaction or "penance", and especially the kind of contrition required by divine law for the remission of sins. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith quotes from the Council of Trent (Dz 1676): so that his sin be remitted, the penitent must be animated, with respect to the evil he has committed, with a sorrow of soul and a detestation of this sin and the resolution to not sin in the future.
Since AL was published last April, the discussion about it has become so frenetic - not a day goes by without a new significant development or commentary about it - that even the most inveterate followers of the debate tend to focus only on the latest wrinkle on the AL landscape (at the moment, it is Maltagate).
I find it strange that no one up to now - not even Cardinal Mueller, or the Four Cardinals themselves, for that matter - has cited this unconditional 2014 RESPONSUM from the CDF to the central practical DUBIUM about AL. Of course, it is pre-AL, but whether AL has changed doctrine or not, this RESPONSUM remains valid, should it not? However, the pope certainly cannot say that at all in honesty, and Mueller cannot say it now because it will definitely be construed as insubordination and rank disobedience to the pope.
Oh what a tangled web Bergoglio has woven around himself once he had set out to deceive! In AL, he and his writers affirmed heterodoxies violating the moral truths of the faith - no, make that MORAL TRUTH on general - that are really heresies casuistically formulated so that they cannot be technically called heresies by canon law definition.]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 17/01/2017 17:00]