His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider, one of the most visible prelates working on the restoration of the traditional Latin Mass and faith, has penned a nearly 5,000-word response to the Synod exclusively for our readers. Anyone may reproduce or link to this article, but all must reference Rorate Caeli as the source.
We want to express our heartfelt gratitude to His Excellency for taking the time to analyze and express his views on one of the most critical events in Church history -- one that he too sees as a "back door" to Holy Communion for adulterers, a rejection of Christ's teaching and a Final Report full of "time bombs."
In the coming days, we will also publish an interview with His Excellency, on a wide range of topics. For now, we bring you this important work, exclusively for our readers.
A back door to a Neo-Mosaic practice
in
the Final Report of the Synod
The XIV General Assembly of the Synod of the Bishops (October 4 – 25,
2015), which was dedicated to the theme of “The
Vocation and Mission of the Family in the Church and Contemporary World”,
issued a Final Report with some
pastoral proposals submitted to the discernment of the Pope. The document
itself is only of an advisory nature and does not possess a formal magisterial
value.
Yet during the Synod, there appeared those real new disciples of Moses
and the new Pharisees, who in the numbers 84-86 of the Final Report opened a back door or looming time bombs for the
admittance of divorced and remarried to Holy Communion. At the same time those
bishops who intrepidly defended “the
Church’s own fidelity to Christ and to His truth” (Pope John Paul II, Apostolic
Exhortation, Familiaris
Consortio, 84) were in some media reports unjustly labeled as
Pharisees.
The new disciples of Moses and the new Pharisees during the last two
Assemblies of the Synod (2014 and 2015) masked their practical denial of the
indissolubility of marriage and of a suspension of the Sixth Commandment on a
case-by-case basis under the guise of the concept of mercy, using expressions
such as: “way of discernment,” “accompaniment”, “orientations of the bishop,”
“dialogue with the priest,” “forum internum,” “a more fuller integration into
the life of the Church,” a possible suppression of imputability regarding the
cohabitation in irregular unions (cf. Final
Report, nn. 84-86).
This text section in the Final
Report contains indeed a trace of a Neo-Mosaic practice of divorce, even
though the redactors skillfully and, in a cunning manner, avoided any direct change
of the doctrine of the Church. Therefore, all parties, both the promotors of
the so-called “Kasper agenda” and their opponents, are apparently satisfied
stating: “All is OK. The Synod did not change the doctrine.” Yet, such a
perception is quite naive, because it ignores the back door and the pending time
bombs in the abovementioned text section which becomes manifest by a careful
examination of the text by its internal interpretive criteria.
Even when speaking of a “way of discernment” there is talk of “repentance”
(Final Report, n. 85), there remains
nevertheless a great deal of ambiguity. In fact, according to the reiterated
affirmations of Cardinal Kasper and like-minded churchmen, such a repentance
concerns the past sins against the spouse of the first valid marriage and the
repentance of the divorced indeed may not refer to the acts of their marital
cohabitation with the new civilly married partner.
The assurance of the text in the
numbers 85 and 86 of the Final Report
that such a discernment has to be made according to the teaching of the Church
and in a correct judgement remains nevertheless ambiguous. Indeed, Cardinal
Kasper and like-minded clerics emphatically and repeatedly assured that the
admittance of the divorced and civilly remarried to Holy Communion will not
touch the dogma of the indissolubility and of the sacramentality of marriage,
and that a judgement in the conscience in that case has to be considered as
being correct even when the divorced and remarried continue to cohabitate in a
marital manner, and that they should not be required to live in complete
continence as brother and sister.
In quoting the famous number 84 of
the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris
Consortio of Pope John Paul II in number 85 of the Final Report, the redactors censored the text, cutting out the
following decisive formulation: “The way to the Eucharist can only be
granted to those who take on themselves the duty to live in complete
continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples”.
This practice of the Church is based
on Divine Revelation of the Word of God: Written and transmitted through
Tradition. This practice of the Church is an expression of the uninterrupted
Tradition since the Apostles and, thus, remains unchangeable for all times.
Already Saint Augustine affirmed: “Who dismisses his adulterous wife and
marries another woman, whereas his first wife still lives, remains perpetually
in the state of adultery. Such a man does not any efficacious penance while he
refuses to abandon the new wife. If he is a catechumen, he cannot be admitted
to baptism, because his will remains rooted in the evil. If he is a (baptized)
penitent, he cannot receive the (ecclesiastical) reconciliation as long as he
does not break with his bad attitude” (De
adulterinis coniugiis, 2, 16). In fact, the above intentional censorship of
the teaching of Familaris Consortio
in n. 85 of the Final Report, represents
for any sane hermeneutics the very interpretive key for the understanding of
the text section on divorced and remarried (numbers 84-86).
In our days exists a permanent and omnipresent ideological pressure on
behalf of the mass media, which are compliant with the unique thought imposed
by the anti-Christian world powers, with the aim to abolish the truth of the
indissolubility of marriage – trivializing the sacred character of this
Divine institution by spreading an anti-culture of divorce and concubinage. Already
50 years ago, the Second Vatican Council stated that the modern times are
infected with the plague of divorce (cf. Gaudium et spes, 47). The same Council warns that Christian marriage
as Christ’s sacrament should “never be profaned by
adultery or divorce” (Gaudium et spes,
49).
The profanation of the “great sacrament” (Eph 5, 32) of marriage by
adultery and divorce has assumed massive proportions at an alarming rate not
only in civil society but also among Catholics. When Catholics by means of
divorce and adultery theoretically and as well as practically repudiate the
will of God expressed in the Sixth Commandment, they put themselves in a
spiritually serious danger of losing their eternal salvation.
The most merciful act on behalf of the Shepherds of the Church would be
to draw attention to this danger by means of a clear – and at the same time
loving – admonition about the necessarily full acceptance of the Sixth
Commandment of God. They have to call things by their right name exhorting:
“divorce is divorce,” “adultery is adultery” and “who commits consciously and
freely grave sins against the Commandments of God – and in this case against
the Sixth Commandment – and dies unrepentant will receive eternal
condemnation being excluded forever from the kingdom of God.”
Such an admonition and exhortation is the very work of the Holy Spirit
as Christ taught: “He will convict the world concerning sin and
righteousness and judgment” (John 16: 8). Explaining the work of the
Holy Spirit in “convincing sin,” Pope John Paul II said: “Every
sin wherever and whenever committed has a reference to the Cross of Christ-and
therefore indirectly also to the sin of those who 'have not believed in
him,' and who condemned Jesus Christ to death on the Cross” (Encyclical Dominum
et Vivificantem, 29). Those who conduct a married life with a partner who
is not their legitimate spouse, as it is the case with divorced and civilly
remarried, reject the will of God. To convince such persons concerning this sin
is a work moved by the Holy Spirit and commanded by Jesus Christ and thus an
eminently pastoral and merciful work.
The Final Report of the Synod unfortunately
omits to convince the divorced and remarried concerning their concrete sin. On
the contrary, under the pretext of mercy and a false pastorality, those Synod
Fathers who supported the formulations in the numbers 84-86 of the Report tried
to cover up the spiritually dangerous state of the divorced and remarried.
De facto, they say to them that their sin of adultery is not a sin, and
is definitely not adultery or at least is not a grave sin and that there is no
spiritual danger in their state of life. Such a behavior of these Shepherds is
directly contrary to the work of the Holy Spirit and is therefore anti-pastoral
and a work of the false prophets to whom one could apply the following words of
the Holy Scripture: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and
light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter" (Is
5:20) and: “Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive
visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading” (Lam 2:
14). To such bishops the Apostle Paul without any doubt would say today these
words: “Such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising
themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor 11:13).
The text of the Final Report of the Synod not only omits to convince unambiguously divorced
and civilly remarried persons concerning the adulterous and thus gravely sinful
character of their life style. It justifies indirectly such a lifestyle by
means of assigning this question ultimately to the area of the individual
conscience and by means of an improper applying of the moral principle of imputability
to the case of cohabitation of the divorced and remarried. In fact, the applying
of the principle of imputability to a stable, permanent and public life in
adultery is improper and deceptive.
The diminution of the subjective
responsibility is given only in the case when the partners have the firm
intention to live in complete continence and make sincere efforts therein. As
long as the partners intentionally persist to continue a sinful life, there can
be no suspension of imputability. The Final
Report gives the impression to intimate that a public life style in
adultery – as it is the case of civilly remarried – is not violating the
indissoluble sacramental bond of a marriage or that it does not represents a
mortal or grave sin and that this issue is furthermore a matter of private
conscience. Hereby one can state a closer drift towards the Protestant
principle of subjective judgement on matters of faith and discipline and intellectual
closeness to the erroneous theory of “fundamental option,” a theory already
condemned by the Magisterium (cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 65-70).
The Shepherds of the Church should
not in the slightest manner promote a culture of divorce amongst the faithful. Even
the smallest hint of yielding to the practice or to the culture of divorce
should be avoided. The Church as a whole should give a convincing and strong
witness to the indissolubility of the marriage. Pope John Paul II said that divorce
“is an evil that, like
the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be
faced with resolution and without delay” (Familiaris
Consortio, 84).
The Church has to help the divorced and remarried with love and patience
to recognize their own sinfulness and to help them to convert with one’s whole
heart to God and to the obedience to His holy will, which is expressed in the
Sixth Commandment. As long as they continue giving a public anti-witness to the
indissolubility of marriage and contributing to a culture of divorce, the
divorced and remarried cannot exercise those liturgical, catechetical and
institutional ministries in the Church, which demand by their own nature a
public life in accordance with the Commandments of God.
It is obvious that public violators for instance of the Fifth and
Seventh Commandments, such as owners of an abortion clinic or collaborators of a
corruption network, not only cannot receive Holy Communion but, evidently,
cannot be admitted to public liturgical and catechetical services. In an
analogous manner, public violators of the Sixth Commandment, such as divorced
and remarried, cannot be admitted to the office of lectors, godparents or
catechists. Of course, one must distinguish the gravity of the evil caused by
the life style of public promotors of abortion and corruption from the
adulterous life of divorced people. One cannot put them on the same footing. The advocacy
for the admission of divorced and remarried to the task of godparents and
catechists aims ultimately not the true spiritual good of the children, but
turns out to be an istrumentalization of a specific ideological agenda. This is
a dishonesty and a mockery of the institution of godparents or catechists who by
means of a public promise took on the task of educators of the faith.
In the case of godparents or
catechists who are divorced and remarried, their life continuously contradicts
their words, and so they have to face the admonition of the Holy Spirit through
the mouth of the Apostle Saint James: “But be doers
of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1:
22). Unfortunately, the Final Report in n. 84 pleads for an admittance of the divorced and
remarried to liturgical, pastoral and educational offices. Such a proposal
represents an indirect support to the culture of divorce and a practical denial
of an objectively sinful lifestyle. Pope John Paul II on the contrary indicated
only the following possibilities of participating in the life of the Church,
which for their part aim a true conversion: “They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to
attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to
works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up
their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of
penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace” (Familiaris Consortio, 84).
There should remain a salutary area of exclusion (non-admittance to the
Sacraments and to the public liturgical and catechetical offices) in order to
remind the divorced their real serious and dangerous spiritual state and, at
the same time, to promote in their souls the attitude of humility, obedience
and of longing for the authentic conversion. Humility means courage for truth,
and only to those who humbly subject themselves to God, will receive His
graces.
The faithful, who have not yet the readiness and the will to stop with
the adulterous life, should be spiritually helped. Their spiritual state is
similar to a kind of “catechumenate” regarding the sacrament of Penance. They
can receive the sacrament of Penance, which was called in the Tradition of the
Church “the second baptism” or “the second penance,” only if they sincerely
break with the habit of the adulterous cohabitation and avoid public scandal in
an analogous manner as do the catechumens, the candidates to the Baptism. The Final Report omits to call the divorced
and remarried to the humble recognition of their objective sinful state, because
it omits to encourage them to accept with the spirit of faith the
non-admittance to the Sacraments and to the public liturgical and catechetical
offices. Without such a realistic and humble recognition of their own real
spiritual state, there is no effective progress towards the authentic Christian
conversion, which in the case of the divorced and remarried consists in a life
of complete continence, ceasing to sin against the sanctity of the sacrament of
marriage and to disobey publicly the Sixth Commandment of God.
The Shepherds of the Church and especially the public texts of the
Magisterium have to speak in an utmost clear manner, since this is the
essential characteristic of the task of the official teaching. Christ demanded
from all His disciples to speak in an extremely clear manner: “Let what you say be ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from
evil” (Math 5: 37). This is valid all the more when the Shepherds of the
Church preach or when the Magisterium speaks in a document.
In the text section of the numbers 84-86 the Final Report represents, unfortunately, a serious departure from
this Divine command. Indeed in the mentioned passages the text does not plead
directly in favor for the legitimacy of the admittance of the divorce and
remarried to Holy Communion, the text even avoids the expression “Holy
Communion” or “Sacraments.” Instead, the text by means of obfuscating tactics, uses
ambiguous expressions like “a more full participation in the life of the
Church” and “discernment and integration.”
By such obfuscating tactics the Final
Report in fact put time bombs and a back door for the admittance of the
divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, causing by this a profanation of the
two great sacraments of Marriage and Eucharist, and contributing at least
indirectly to the culture of divorce – to the spreading of the “plague of divorce”
(Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes,
47).
When reading carefully the ambiguous
text of the text section “Discernment and integration” in the Final Report, one has the impression of
a highly skillful, elaborated ambiguity. One is reminded of the following words
of Saint Irenaeus in his “Adversus haereses”: “He who retains unchangeable in his
heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism, will
doubtless recognize the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from the
Scriptures, but will by no means acknowledge the blasphemous use which these
men make of them. For, though he will acknowledge the gems, he will certainly
not receive the fox instead of the likeness of the king. But since what may prove
a finishing-stroke to this exhibition is wanting, so that any one, on following
out their farce to the end, may then at once append an argument which shall
overthrow it, we have judged it well to point out, first of all, in what
respects the very fathers of this fable differ among themselves, as if they
were inspired by different spirits of error. For this very fact forms a proof from
the outset that the truth proclaimed by the Church is immoveable, and that the
theories of these men are but a tissue of falsehoods.” (I, 9, 4-5).
The Final Report seems to leave the solution of the question of the
admittance of the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion to local Church
authorities: “accompaniment of the priests” and “orientations of
the bishop.” Such a matter is however connected essentially with the deposit of
faith i.e. with the revealed word of God. The non-admittance of divorced who
are living in a public state of adultery belongs to the unchangeable truth of
the law of the Catholic faith and consequently also of the law of Catholic
liturgical practice.
The Final Report seems to inaugurate a doctrinal and disciplinary
cacophony in the Catholic Church, which contradicts the very essence of being
Catholic. One has to be reminded of the words of Saint Irenaeus, about the
authentic shape of the Catholic Church in all times and in all places: “The Church, having
received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole
world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also
believes the points of doctrine just as if she had but one soul, and one and
the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down,
with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the
languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one
and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not
believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in
Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those
which have been established in the central regions of the world (Italy). But as
the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world,
so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men
that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the
rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence,
teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master);
nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict
injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither
does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition
to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.” (Adversus haereses, I, 10, 2).
The Final Report in the section on the divorced and remarried carefully
avoids confessing the unchangeable principle of the entire Catholic tradition,
that those who live in an invalid marital union can be admitted to Holy
Communion only under the condition that their promise to live in complete
continence and avoid public scandal. John Paul II and Benedict XVI confirmed
strongly this Catholic principle. The deliberate avoidance of mentioning and
reaffirming this principle in the text of the Final Report can be compared with the systematic avoidance of the
expression “homoousios” on behalf of the opponents of the dogma of the Council
of Nicea in the fourth century - the formal Arians and the so-called
Semi-Arians - , who invented continuously other expressions in order not to
confess directly the consubstantiality of the Son of God with God the Father.
Such a declination from an open
Catholic confession on behalf of the majority of the episcopate in the fourth
century caused a feverish ecclesiastical activity with continuous synodal
meetings and a proliferation of new doctrinal formula with the common denominator
of avoiding terminological clarity i.e. the expression “homoousios.” Likewise,
in our days the two last Synods on Family avoided naming and confessing clearly
the principle of the entire Catholic tradition, that those who live in an
invalid marital union can be admitted to Holy Communion only under the
condition that their promise to live in complete continence and avoid public
scandal.
This fact is proven also by the
immediate unequivocal reaction of the secular media and by the reaction of the main
advocators of the new un-Catholic practice to admit divorced and remarried to
Holy Communion while maintaining a life of public adultery. Cardinal Kasper,
Cardinal Nichols and Archbishop Forte, for instance, publicly affirmed that,
according to the Final Report, one
can assume that a door in some way has been opened to Communion for the
divorced and remarried. There exists as well a considerable number of bishops,
priests and laity who rejoice because of the so-called “opened door” they found
in the Final Report. Instead of
guiding the faithful with a clear and an utmost unambiguous teaching, the Final Report caused a situation of
obscuration, confusion, subjectivity (the judgement of the conscience of the
divorced and forum internum) and an un-Catholic doctrinal and disciplinary
particularism in a matter which is essentially connected to the deposit of
faith transmitted by the Apostles.
Those who in our days strongly defend the sanctity of the sacraments of
Marriage and Eucharist are labeled as Pharisees. Yet, since the logical
principle of non-contradiction is valid and common sense still functions, the contrary
is true.
The obfuscators of the Divine truth in the Final Report are more like Pharisees. For in order to reconcile a
life in adultery with the reception of Holy Communion, they skillfully invented
new letters, a new law of “discernment and integration,” introducing new human
traditions against the crystalline commandment of God. To the advocators of the
so-called “Kasper agenda” are addressed these words of the Incarnated Truth: “You
made void the word of God by
introducing your own tradition” (Mark 7: 13). Those
who during 2,000 years spoke relentlessly and with an utmost clarity about the
immutability of the Divine truth, often at the cost of their own life, would be
labelled in our days as Pharisees as well; so Saint John the Baptist, Saint
Paul, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Athanasius, Saint Basil, Saint Thomas More, Saint
John Fisher, Saint Pius X, just to mention the most glowing examples.
The real result of the Synod in the perception of the faithful and of secular public opinion was that there has been practically only one focus on
the question of the admittance of the divorced to Holy Communion. One can
affirm that the Synod in a certain sense turned out to be in the eyes of public
opinion a Synod of adultery, not the Synod of family. Indeed, all the beautiful
affirmations of the Final Report on
marriage and family are eclipsed by the ambiguous affirmations in the text
section on the divorced and remarried, a topic which was already confirmed and
decided by the Magisterium of the last Roman Pontiffs in faithful conformity
with the bi-millennial teaching and practice of the Church. It is therefore a
real shame that Catholic bishops, the successors of the Apostles, used synodal
assemblies in order to make an attempt on the constant and unchangeable
practice of the Church regarding the indissolubility of the marriage, i.e. the
non-admittance of the divorced who live in an adulterous union to the
Sacraments.
In his letter to Pope Damasus, Saint Basil drew a realistic picture of
the doctrinal confusion caused by those churchmen who sought an empty
compromise, and an adaptation to the spirit of the world in his time: “Traditions
are set at nought; the devices of innovators are in vogue in the Churches; now
men are rather contrivers of cunning systems than theologians; the wisdom of
this world wins the highest prizes and has rejected the glory of the cross. The
elders lament when they compare the present with the past. The younger are
yet more to be compassionated, for they do not know of what they have been
deprived” (Ep. 90, 2).
In a letter to Pope Damasus and to the Occidental Bishops, Saint Basil
describes as follows the confused situation inside the Church: “The laws of the
Church are in confusion. The ambition of men, who have no fear of God,
rushes into high posts, and exalted office is now publicly known as the prize
of impiety. The result is, that the worse a man blasphemes, the fitter
the people think him to be a bishop. Clerical dignity is a thing of the
past. There is no precise knowledge of canons. There is complete
immunity in sinning; for when men have been placed in office by the favour of
men, they are obliged to return the favour by continually showing indulgence to
offenders. Just judgment is a thing of the past; and everyone walks
according to his heart’s desire. Men in authority are afraid to speak, for
those who have reached power by human interest are the slaves of those to whom
they owe their advancement. And now the very vindication of orthodoxy is
looked upon in some quarters as an opportunity for mutual attack; and men
conceal their private ill-will and pretend that their hostility is all for the
sake of the truth. All the while unbelievers laugh; men of weak faith are
shaken; faith is uncertain; souls are drenched in ignorance, because
adulterators of the word imitate the truth. The better ones of the laity shun
the churches as schools of impiety and lift their hands in the deserts with
sighs and tears to their Lord in heaven. The faith of the Fathers we have received; that faith we
know is stamped with the marks of the Apostles; to that faith we assent, as
well as to all that in the past was canonically and lawfully promulgated.” (Ep. 92, 2).
Each period of confusion during the history of the
Church is at the same time a possibility to receive many graces of strength and
courage and a chance to demonstrate one’s love for Christ the Incarnated Truth.
To Him each baptized and each priest and bishop promised inviolable fidelity,
everyone according to his own state: through the baptismal vows, through the
priestly promises, through the solemn promise in the episcopal ordination.
Indeed, every candidate to the episcopacy promised: “I will keep pure and
integral the deposit of faith according the tradition which was always and
everywhere preserved in the Church.” The ambiguity found in the section on
divorced and remarried of the Final
Report contradicts the abovementioned solemn episcopal vow. Notwithstanding
this, everyone in the Church – from the simple faithful to the holders of the
Magisterium – should say:
“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).
November 2nd,
2015
+
Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in
Astana
