"I will not accept an obfuscated speech nor a skilfully masked back door to a profanation of the Sacrament of Marriage and Eucharist."
Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza
Romana
April 10, 2016
With the post-synod Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris
laetitia, published on April 8th, Pope Francis has officially given his opinion
on marital moral issues which have been under discussion for two years now.
At the Consistory of 20th and 21st of February 2014,
Francis had entrusted the task of introducing the debate on this theme to
Cardinal Kasper. Cardinal Kasper’s
theses, according to which the Church must change Her matrimonial praxis,
formed the leit motiv of the two Synods on the Family in 2014 and 2015 and now
forms the basis of Pope Francis’ Exhortation.
In the course of these two years, illustrious
cardinals, bishops, theologians and philosophers have intervened in the debate
to demonstrate that there must be an intimate coherence between the Church’s
doctrine and praxis. Pastoral care in fact, is based on dogmatic and moral
doctrine. “There cannot be pastoral care that is in dissonance with the
Church’s truths and morality, in contrast with Her laws and not oriented to the
ideal achievement of the Christian life!”
revealed Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, in his opening address at the
Umbrian Ecclesiastical Tribunal on March 27th 2014.
In the weeks preceding the post-synod Exhortation,
public and private interventions to the Pope from cardinals and bishops
intensified, in the aim of averting the promulgation of a document crammed full
of errors, revealed by the great number of amendments that the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith had made to the draft. Francis did not back off, and
seems to have entrusted the last re-writing of the Exhortation, or at least
some of its key passages, into the hands of
some of his trusted theologians who attempted to reinterpret St. Thomas
in the light of Hegelian dialectic.
From this a text has emerged that is not ambiguous,
but clear - in its vagueness. The theology of praxis in fact excludes any
doctrinal affirmation, by leaving the outlining of human conduct and acts to
history. For this, as Francis affirms, “it is understandable” that on the crucial
issue of the divorced and remarried, “that neither the Synod nor this
Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical
in nature and applicable to all cases” (no.300). If we are convinced that
Christians, in their conduct, need not conform to absolute principles, but
should listen to “the signs of the times” it would be contradictory to
formulate rules of any kind.
Everyone was expecting the answer to one basic
question: Can those who have remarried civilly after a first marriage, receive
the Sacrament of the Eucharist? The Church has always given a categorical no to
this question. The divorced and remarried cannot receive Communion since their
life situation objectively contradicts the natural and Christian truth on
marriage, signified and effected by the Eucharist (Familiaris Consortio 84).
The answer of the post-synod Exhortation is, instead:
along general lines -- no, but “in certain cases” -- yes. (no.305, note 351).
The divorced and remarried in fact must be: “integrated” and not excluded
(299). Their integration “can be expressed in different ecclesial services,
which necessarily requires discerning which of the various forms of exclusion
currently practiced in the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional
framework, can be surmounted” (no 299) without excluding sacramental discipline
(no.336).
What is obvious is this: the prohibition to receive
Communion for the divorced and remarried is no longer absolute. The Pope does
not authorize, as a general rule, Communion to the divorced, but neither does
he prohibit it.
In an interview with “Il Foglio”, March 15th 2014,
Cardinal Caffarra, against Kasper, stressed: “Here doctrine is being touched.
Inevitably. It can be said that this is not so, on the contrary, it is so. A
practice is introduced, that in the long run, determines, not only in Christian
people, this idea: there is no marriage that is absolutely indissoluble. And
this without question is against the will of the Lord. There is absolutely no
doubt about it”.
For the theology of praxis, rules don’t count, only
concrete cases. And what is not possible in the abstract, is possible in the
concrete. However, as Cardinal Burke noted well: “If the Church permitted the
reception of the sacraments (even in one case only) to a person who is in an
irregular union, it would mean that, or marriage is not indissoluble and thus
the person is not living in a state of adultery, or that Holy Communion is not
communion with the Body and Blood of Christ, which instead necessitates the
person’s correct disposition, that is to say, contrition for the grave sin and
a firm resolution to sin no more.” (Interview with Alessandro Gnocchi, IL
FOGLIO, October 14th, 2014).
Furthermore, the exception is destined to become the
rule, since the criteria to receive Communion in Amoris laetitia, is left to
the “personal discernment” of the individuals. This discernment takes place through
“conversation with the priest, in the internal forum” (no. 300), “case by
case”. However, which pastors of souls
will dare forbid the reception of the Eucharist, if “the Gospel itself tells us
not to judge or condemn (no.308) and if it is necessary “to integrate everyone”
(no. 297) and “[appreciate] the constructive elements in those situations which
do not yet or no longer correspond to [the Church’s] teaching on
marriage?”(no.292).
The pastors wishing to refer to the Church’s
commandments, would risk acting – according to the Exhortation -- “as arbiters
of grace rather than its facilitators” (no 310). “For this reason, a pastor
cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in
“irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one
used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses
and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and
wounded families.”
This unprecedented language, harsher than the hardness
of heart that reproaches “the arbiters of grace”, is the distinctive trait of
Amoris laetitia, which, not by chance, Cardinal Schonborn defined as “a
linguistic event” during the press conference of April 8th. “My great joy for
this document” the Cardinal from Vienna said, is in the fact that it
“coherently goes beyond the artificial, exterior, clean division between
regular and irregular”.Language, as always, expresses content. The situations
the post-synod Exhortation defines as” the so-called irregular” are those
of public adultery and extramarital
cohabitations. For Amoris laetitia, they
fulfill the Christian marriage ideal, even if “in a partial and analogous way”
(no. 292). “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 (no.305), “In certain cases, this can include the help of the
sacraments”(note 351).
According to Catholic morality, circumstances, which
comprise a context wherein an action is carried out cannot modify the moral
nature of the acts, thus rendering right and just an intrinsically evil action.
Yet the doctrine of absolute morality and of the intrinsece malum is neutralized by Amoris laetitia, which is
conformed to the “new morality” condemned by Pius XII in numerous documents and
by John Paul II in Veritatis splendor. Situation ethics allow the circumstances
and, in the final analysis, the subjective conscience of man, to determine what
is good and what is evil. Extramarital sexual union is not considered
intrinsically illicit, but inasmuch as it is an act of love, assessable
according to the circumstances. More
generally, evil does not exist in itself just as grave or mortal sin
does not exist. The leveling-out between people in a state of grace (regular
situations) and people in a state of permanent sin (irregular situations) is
not only linguistic: it seems to be subject to the Lutheran theory simul iustus
et peccator, condemned by the Decree on justification at the Council of Trent
(Denz-H, nn. 1551-1583).
The post-synod Exhortation is much worse that Cardinal
Kasper’s report, against which there has rightly been directed much criticism
in books, articles and interviews. Cardinal Kasper had asked some questions;
the Exhortation, Amoris laetitia, offers an answer: open the door to the
divorced and remarried, canonize situation ethics and begin a process of
normalization of all common-law cohabitations.
Considering that the new document belongs to the
non-infallible ordinary Magisterium, it is to be hoped that it is object of an in-depth
analytical critique, by theologians and Pastors of the Church, under no
illusion of applying “the hermeneutic of continuity” to it.
If the text is catastrophic, even more catastrophic is
the fact that it was signed by the Vicar of Christ. Even so, for those who love
Christ and His Church, this is a good reason to speak and not be silent. So, let’s make ours, the words of a
courageous Bishop, Athanasius Schneider:
“Non possumus!” I will not accept an obfuscated speech
nor a skilfully masked back door to a profanation of the Sacrament of Marriage
and Eucharist. Likewise, I will not accept a mockery of the Sixth Commandment
of God. I prefer to be ridiculed and persecuted rather than to accept ambiguous
texts and insincere methods. I prefer the crystalline “image of Christ the
Truth, rather than the image of the fox ornamented with gemstones” (Saint
Irenaeus), for “I know whom I have believed”, “Scio, Cui credidi!” (2 Tim 1:
12). (Rorate Coeli, 2 Novembre 2015).
[Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana]
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Antes de postar seu comentário sobre a postagem, leia: Todo comentário é moderado e deverá ter o nome do comentador. Comentário que não tenha a identificação do autor (anônimo), ou sua origem via link e ainda que não tenha o nome do emitente no corpo do texto, bem como qualquer tipo de identificação, poderá ser publicado se julgar pertinente o assunto. Como também poderá não ser publicado, mesmo com as identificações acima tratadas, caso o assunto for julga impertinente ou irrelevante ao assunto. Todo e qualquer comentário só será publicado se não ferir nenhuma das diretrizes do blog, o qual reserva o direito de publicar ou não qualquer comentário, bem como de excluí-los futuramente. Comentários ofensivos contra a Santa Madre Igreja não serão aceitos. Comentários de hereges, de pessoas que se dizem ateus, infiéis, de comunistas só serão aceitos se estiverem buscando a conversão e a fuga do erro. De indivíduos que defendem doutrinas contra a Verdade revelada, contra a moral católica, de apoio a grupos ou ideias que contrários aos ensinamentos da Igreja, ao catecismo do Concílio de Trento, ferem, denigrem, agridem, cometem sacrilégios a Deus Pai, Deus Filho, Deus Espírito Santo, a Mãe de Deus, seus Anjos, Santos, ao Papa, ao clero, as instituições católicas, a Tradição da Igreja, também não serão aceitos. Apoio a indivíduos contrários a tudo isso, incluindo ao clero modernista, só será publicado se tiver uma coerência e não for qualificado como ofensivo, propagador do modernismo, do sedevacantismo, do protestantismo, das ideologias socialistas, comunistas e modernistas, da maçonaria e do maçonismo, bem como qualquer outro tópico julgado impróprio, inoportuno, imoral, etc. Alguns comentários podem ser respondidos via e-mail, postagem de resposta no blog, resposta do próprio comentário ou simplesmente não respondido. Reservo o direito de publicar, não publicar e excluir os comentários que julgar pertinente. Para mensagens particulares, dúvidas, sugestões, inclusive de publicações, elogios e reclamações, pode ser usado o quadro CONTATO no corpo superior do blog versão web. Obrigado! Adm do blog.