The meaning of Amoris
laetitia according to Pope Francis
John R. T. Lamont
The teaching
of the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia has been the subject of a
great deal of debate since the promulgation of that document. Various
interpretations of this teaching have been presented, and the differing
interpretations have been used both to denounce the document as heretical and
to defend it as in harmony with the teaching of the Church. Pope Francis has
recently acted to clarify the meaning of the most contentious section of Amoris
laetitia through a statement in the October 2017 issue of the Acta
apostolic sedis, the journal that publishes the official acts of the Holy
See (the title of the journal is generally abbreviated as AAS). The meaning and
consequences of this clarification are of the first importance, and need to be
carefully and accurately examined.
The meaning and authority of the AAS statement
The statement
in the AAS has three components: i) a letter from Pope Francis to the bishops
of the Buenos Aires region concerning their pastoral degree on the application
of Chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia, ii) the pastoral decree itself, and
iii) a statement by Cardinal Parolin, the Secretary of State, asserting that
the Supreme Pontiff has ordered the publication of the two preceding components
in the AAS as statements of the authentic magisterium. The letter from Pope
Francis is given the title of ‘Apostolic letter’ in the AAS statement, a title
it did not bear when originally issued.
The statement
in the AAS has a high degree of authority. The term ‘authentic magisterium’ is
explained in para. 25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium, and in
canon 752 of the Latin Code of Canon Law. The exercise of the authentic
magisterium is not infallible, and hence does not require the assent of faith
from Catholics, but it does require the religious submission of mind and will,
a submission that includes sincere adherence to the assertions being taught.
The covering statement by Cardinal Parolin, the publication of the above
documents in the AAS at the command of the Pope, and the new title of
‘Apostolic letter’ given to Pope Francis’s original letter to the Buenos Aires
bishops, confirm that the relevant contents of the documents are teachings of
the authentic magisterium of the Catholic Church. This is a rather roundabout
way of conveying an official teaching of the Church, since this teaching is given in a letter about a
letter about an apostolic exhortation, but this form of expression is not
entirely without precedent or unsuitable in itself. There are precedents for a
Pope issuing a teaching by endorsing a statement previously made by bishops. It
does however mean that the statement needs to be carefully analyzed in order to
identify the content of the teaching it conveys.
The essential
starting point for such an analysis is the realization that the AAS statement
is not making a claim about Catholic faith and morals as such. It is making an
assertion about the meaning of another document, the apostolic exhortation Amoris
laetitia. This assertion does not in itself endorse the meaning of the
relevant section of Amoris laetitia as being a teaching of Catholic
faith or morals, or as being a legitimate exercise of papal authority
concerning discipline or canon law. It simply describes what chapter 8 of Amoris
laetitia is in fact saying. A magisterial teaching concerning the meaning
of a given text is not as such an endorsement of the truth of that text. Such
teachings can in fact be statements that the meaning of a given text or texts
is not compatible with the Catholic faith. An example of such a teaching is the
bull ‘Ad sanctam Beati Petri sedem’ issued by Pope Alexander VII in 1656, in
which he reiterated the teachings of his predecessor Innocent X to the effect
that five heretical Jansenist propositions were in fact to be found in the
works of Jansenius. It is true that Pope Francis’s statement in the AAS does
not qualify the meaning it attributes to Amoris laetitia as heretical.
But it does not assert that this meaning is orthodox either. It is silent on
this topic. Amoris laetitia itself is a document that makes assertions
about faith, morals and Church discipline. The statement in the AAS does not
add to any degree of teaching authority that is possessed by Amoris laetitia.
It simply clarifies what chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia is itself
teaching. The level of authority of the statements of Amoris laetitia has
been a subject of considerable debate among theologians. This debate will not
be recapitulated or continued here; suffice it to say that although Amoris
laetitia is probably not a mere statement of personal opinion on the part
of the Pope that lacks any teaching authority at all, it is not clearly
presented as a teaching of the authentic magisterium in the way that the AAS
statement is.
This method
of clarification on the part of Pope Francis could be criticized as
disingenuous, since many Catholics will be inclined to assume that the
religious submission of mind and will that is required by the AAS statement is
also due to the teachings of chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia. However, the
AAS statement does in itself give a determinate answer to requests for
clarification of the teaching of Amoris laetitia that have been made to
the Pope. The answer itself is not a novel one; the meaning it assigns to Amoris
laetitia corresponds to the meaning that has been discerned in the document
by a number of commentators, such as the signatories to the correctio
filialis that was sent to the Pope. In fairness to Pope Francis, it could
be said that his explaining Amoris laetitia by citing his previous
statements is a reference to the fact that his intention and meaning has been
clear all along to objective observers, and that anyone who looked at his
actions during the Synod on the Family and his many statements on the subjects
raised in chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia should have been able to tell
that he meant what the AAS statement says he meant in that chapter.
What exactly
does the AAS statement give as the meaning of chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia?
Pope Francis’s letter to the Buenos Aires bishops states that their pastoral
latter gives the only correct interpretation of that chapter. It is the
pastoral letter itself, therefore, that provides the explanation of Amoris
laetitia that is being endorsed as correct by the authentic magisterium of
the Church. This letter does not address everything that is contained in
chapter 8. It deals with the possible access to the sacraments of Catholics who
have civilly divorced their living spouse and are living in a new union with
another person. A number of rather general statements are made about the
pastoral care of such persons. The passages of the pastoral letter that make
clear recommendations about access to the sacraments for these persons are
found in its paragraphs 6 and 7. Paragraph 6 states that under some
circumstances, when a couple of this kind are unable to practice continence and
live together as brother and sister, Amoris laetitia permits them to
receive absolution and to receive the Eucharist, despite the fact of engaging
in a sexual relationship with someone who is not their spouse, and without
imposing the preconditions of intending to abandon or actually abandoning this
sexual relationship. This statement is expressed in the following words: ‘If it
comes to be recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations that
mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), especially when a person
believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming the children of the new
union, Amoris laetitia offers the possibility of access to the
sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351).’
Paragraph 7
simply states that this permission is not to be understood as a universal
entitlement to receive the sacraments regardless of the circumstances of the
couples in question. The character of the restrictions suggested is important. Both
the statement of the Buenos Aires bishops and Amoris laetitia itself
describe the conditions for admitting civilly divorced and remarried Catholics
in very general terms that cannot serve as criteria for identifying which
persons should and which should not be admitted to the sacraments. In practice,
therefore, the decision about admitting such persons to the sacraments depends
entirely on the decision of the individual priest. The proposal of Amoris
laetitia is to replace a discipline governed by law with the lawless, and
hence tyrannical, authority of the priest. The practical result of abandoning
the current law will of course be the unrestricted access to the sacraments
that Amoris laetitia forbids, but its intent of imposing clerical rule
untrammelled by any law casts light on the goals and mentality of its author.
The AAS
statement thus establishes as correct an understanding of Amoris laetitia that
has been presented by many people in the Church as the obvious meaning of that
document, whether they support or oppose this understanding. It agrees with the
statements of Cardinal Kasper on Amoris laetitia; it also agrees with
the authors and signatories of the correctio filialis, who condemn this
understanding as the second of the heresies they accuse Pope Francis of
upholding.
The meaning of Amoris laetitia in the light of the
AAS statement
What are we
to make of this assertion of Amoris laetitia, now that its meaning has
been settled by the AAS statement? One position is that of Cardinal Kasper,
according to which the assertion is a legitimate exercise of papal teaching and
disciplinary power that must be accepted and followed by all Catholics. Another
position is that of the correctio filialis, according to which the
assertion denies a divinely revealed truth and must be rejected as a heresy.
In order to
answer this question, it is best to begin with two undoubted facts about the
passages in Amoris laetitia that
are addressed by the AAS statement.
1). While it would be rash to deny any magisterial authority
at all to Amoris laetitia, it is certain that no part of that apostolic
exhortation is infallibly taught. The possibility of its claims being false
therefore cannot be excluded.
2). It is also certain that the positions of Amoris laetitia
referred to by the AAS statement are in flat contradiction with the
teaching of another papal document, the apostolic exhortation Familiaris
consortio of Pope John Paul II issued in 1981, as a sequel to the 1980
Synod of Bishops. The text of Familiars consortio on this topic is so
important and pertinent that it should be cited at length.
84. Daily experience unfortunately
shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a
new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this 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. The Synod Fathers
studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people
and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have
been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second
marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their
disposal her means of salvation.
Pastors
must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful
discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have
sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned,
and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid
marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the
sake of the children's upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain
in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never
been valid.
Together
with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the
faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they
do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized
persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. 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. Let
the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother,
and thus sustain them in faith and hope.
However,
the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not
admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They
are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition
of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church
which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is
another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the
Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the
Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
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."[John Paul II,
Homily at the Close of the Sixth Synod of Bishops, 7 (Oct. 25, 1980)].
Similarly,
the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and
their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor,
for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies
of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the
impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would
thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly
contracted marriage.
By
acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His
truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers,
especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by
their legitimate partner. With firm confidence she believes that those who have
rejected the Lord's command and are still living in this state will be able to
obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have
persevered in prayer, penance and charity.
Familiaris consortio here clearly states what Amoris laetitia denies;
the divorced and remarried who do not undertake to live as brother and sister
cannot be granted absolution, and cannot be admitted to eucharistic communion.
This is not the full extent of the contradiction between the two documents. Familiaris
consortio explicitly considers those ‘hard cases’ that Amoris laetitia
raises, such as persons who are subjectively convinced that their previous
marriages were not valid, those who have been unjustly abandoned by their
spouses, and those who enter into or remain in civil partnerships for the sake
of their children’s upbringing. It teaches that these ‘hard cases’ cannot be a
basis for changing the Church’s discipline concerning absolution and reception
of the Eucharist. It agrees with Amoris laetitia in saying that the
Church cannot abandon to their own devices those Catholics who have entered
into second unions. However, its understanding of what it means for the Church
to not abandon these people is the opposite of the one proposed by Amoris
laetitia. Familiaris consortio describes the pastoral help of the
Church in these cases as having the object of enabling such persons to cease
their adulterous and bigamous relations. Amoris laetitia does not
propose this as the object of their pastoral care; instead it proposes that in
some cases they should be assisted to live their adulterous and bigamous
relations in a good way.
The
teaching of Amoris laetitia on divorce and the sacraments is thus
virtually a negative image of the teaching of Familiaris consortio. This
is not a coincidence. The passage of Familiaris consortio cited above
was composed to reject a progressive position on these subjects that was widely
held in the Church, and that was put into practice by many priests and bishops.
Pope Francis and his supporters hold this progressive position, and did not
agree with Familiaris consortio when it was issued. Now that he holds
the supreme power in the Church, Pope Francis has issued Amoris laetitia
in order to do away with the traditional teaching enunciated in Familiaris
consortio and present the progressive view held by himself and his supporters
as the teaching of the Church.
The
complete opposition between Familiaris consortio and Amoris laetitia on
these topics effectively disposes of Cardinal Kasper’s claim that the teaching
of Amoris laetitia must be accepted by Catholics. One cannot appeal to
papal authority to show that the teaching of one apostolic exhortation must be
accepted over the completely contradictory teaching of another apostolic
exhortation, since both exhortations are papal teachings of the same sort. This
cancelling out of papal authority claims leaves us with the question of which
of these contradictory teaching should be believed by Catholics. What has to be
done to answer this question is to determine which of the contradictory
positions is actually true. To decide between them, we must consider their
respective positions in the light of divinely revealed truth.
The assertions of Amoris laetitia and Christ’s teaching on
marriage
The
position of Amoris laetitia is not entirely clear on one subject, even
after the AAS statement. We know that Amoris laetitia recognizes
‘limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability’ for the situations
of the civilly divorced and remarried living more uxorio with one
another, and that in consequence permit them to be absolved and to receive the
Eucharist. But the character of these limitations is not plainly specified.
There are two possible ways in which such a specification could be made. The
limitations in question could be understood as circumstances that make the
actions and lives of such persons objectively good, and hence not in need of
forgiveness. This is certainly what is suggested by the text of Amoris
laetitia. However, these limitations could instead be understood as
circumstances that do not make the actions and lives of such persons
objectively good, but do make them subjectively guiltless for their
cohabitation and sexual relationship. Both these understandings have been
presented by defenders of Amoris laetitia; hence both of them need to
examined in the light of the teachings of the faith, even though the former one
seems much more likely to be the actual meaning of the document.
With
Familiaris consortio, on the other hand, there is no doubt about its
position about whether the civilly divorced and remarried can be admitted to
reception of the Eucharist; such admission is forbidden under all
circumstances. Unfortunately, the reason that it gives for this position is not
equally clear. It states that this law is based on the Sacred Scriptures, but
it does not specify how it is based on the Scriptures. This is the crucial
issue in the debate. Is this absolute refusal actually commanded in the
Scriptures, or does it follow with logical necessity from what is stated or
commanded in the Scriptures? To
judge how the teaching of Familiaris consortio is related to the
Scriptures, we need to consider the chief Scriptural passages that are relevant
to this teaching. These are the following:
Exodus 20.
14. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Luke 16.
18. Every one that putteth away his wife, and
marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put
away from her husband, committeth adultery.
Mark 10.
2 And the Pharisees coming to him asked him:
Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 But he answering, saith to them: What did
Moses command you?
4 Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill
of divorce, and to put her away.
5 To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of
the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation, God
made them male and female.
7 For this cause a man shall leave his father
and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.
8 And they two shall be in one flesh.
Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together,
let not man put asunder.
10 And in the house again his disciples asked
him concerning the same thing.
11 And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put
away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if the wife shall put away her
husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.’
Matthew 19.
And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him,
and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not
read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And
he said:
5 For this cause shall a man leave father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
7 They say to him: Why then did Moses command
to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?
8 He saith to them: Because Moses by reason
of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from
the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put
away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth
adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of
a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.
11 Who said to them: All men take not this
word, but they to whom it is given.
12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so
from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and
there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.
He that can take, let him take it.
1 Corinthians 5.
9 I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep
company with fornicators.
10 I mean not with the fornicators of this
world, or with the covetous, or the extortioners, or the servers of idols;
otherwise you must needs go out of this world.
11 But now I have written to you, not to keep
company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a
server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a
one, not so much as to eat.
1 Corinthians 6.
9 Know you not that the unjust shall not
possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers,
10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with
mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor
extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 7.
10 But
to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart
not from her husband.
11 And if she depart, that she remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away
his wife.
1 Corinthians 11.
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread,
and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread,
or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of
the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself: and so let
him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of
the Lord.
The
qualification of the ban on divorce in Matthew19:9 has been the subject of much
debate, but it is not significant for our topic. The term ‘fornication’
translates the Greek word ‘porneia’, which is a general term for sexual
immorality. Catholics have understood the passage as either giving permission
for separation but not divorce, or as referring to marriages that are null
because contracted within the prohibited degrees of affinity (these marriages
are referred to by the term ‘porneia’ in 1 Corinthians 5:1 and Acts 15:20, 29).
Protestants have understood the passage as providing a real exception to the
ban on divorce, that permits divorce and remarriage under certain
circumstances. None of these understandings have any bearing on the teaching of
Amoris laetitia. Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage is
repeated by Amoris laetitia, and the possibility of admission to the
sacraments that is the subject of the AAS statement is one that applies
precisely to those whose marriage has not been dissolved, but who are living more
uxorio with someone else.
How,
then, can we say that the teaching of Familiaris consortio is based on
the above Scriptural passages? We should first note that these passages do not
limit themselves to condemnation of adulterous relations with a person with
whom one has contracted a form of marriage. They also condemn the act of
divorce itself, and the act of contracting a form of marriage with someone
other than one’s spouse independently of the adulterous relations that may be
involved in the relationship contracted. These actions are thus themselves
grave sins. There has not even been any discussion of how the civilly divorced
and remarried can be permitted to receive the Eucharist despite having
committed these sins; the discussion has largely been restricted to considering
the compatibility of receiving the Eucharist with the sin of engaging in
adulterous relations with one’s civil partner. This restriction will be
followed here, as it is only on this subject that a case for this compatibility
has been made.
With respect
to Eucharistic discipline, the possibility of the civilly divorced and
remarried receiving the Eucharist can be excluded in two ways. The first way is
through a divine commandment addressed to the civilly divorced and remarried
that absolutely forbids them to receive the Eucharist. The second way is
through a divine commandment addressed to priests and bishops absolutely
forbidding them to dispense the Eucharist to persons who are civilly divorced
and remarried.
The above
passages undoubtedly express an absolute prohibition upon persons who are
civilly married to someone who is not their spouse choosing to receive the
Eucharist. They state that those guilty of grave sins may not receive the
Eucharist, that adultery is a grave sin, and that those who divorce their
spouse and marry someone else commit adultery. The Scriptural texts are much
clearer on this subject that they are on many doctrines that have been solemnly
defined as divinely revealed. Many supporters of Amoris laetitia would
deny this, because they deny that there are any exceptionless moral
prohibitions, and claim that the Scriptures do not contain prohibitions of this
sort. This claim repeats a thesis of proportionalism, a moral theory that was
hotly debated during the pontificate of John Paul II and was condemned by him
in the encyclical Veritatis splendor. The debate over proportionalism
will not be recapitulated here. It is not of great moment for the examination
of Scriptural teaching, because there is no reputable case to be made for the
Scriptures adhering to the proportionalist understanding of moral norms. This
understanding came into existence many centuries after the completion of the
New Testament, and is entirely alien to all of the varied historical and
intellectual circumstances in which the Scriptural books were composed. The
Scriptural commandment forbidding adultery is meant precisely as an absolute
prohibition.
Some
defenders of Amoris laetitia have recognized the existence of this
absolute prohibition, but have argued that it can be reconciled with the
reception of the Eucharist by divorced and remarried persons when these persons
are not fully culpable for their situation. The argument is that reception of
the Eucharist is forbidden for those in a state of mortal sin, but not for
those in a state of venial sin; but it is possible for persons who are
committing a seriously sinful act to not be fully responsible for the act they
are doing, and hence to be sinning venially rather than mortally; so reception
of the Eucharist cannot be absolutely ruled out for such persons.
In order for
this situation to obtain, the civilly divorced and remarried would have to
either not give full consent of the will to their situation, or else not be
fully knowledgeable about its being a sinful one; and this lack of consent
and/or of knowledge would have to be blameless on their part. Their lack of
knowledge would have to be a lack of knowledge of law, or lack of knowledge of
fact.
It is difficult
to conceive how a person in his right mind could have sexual relations with
someone to whom he is not married, but not be aware of this fact. People who
are not in their right mind would not be sinning by living in an adulterous
relationship and receiving the Eucharist, because they are not responsible for
their actions. But their lack of sin would not mean that what they are doing is
permissible.
Many people
do lack knowledge of Catholic teaching on marriage and divorce, but the
difficulty here is how such a lack of knowledge could be blameless, since we
are responsible for knowing the basic
moral rules that apply to our state of life. It is also difficult to see how
persons lacking knowledge of the sinfulness of adultery and the permanent
nature of marriage could validly contract marriage in the first place, since
their ignorance bears upon two things that are essential to the nature of
marriage. Conditions under which one could divorce one’s spouse, marry someone
else, and engage in adulterous relations with that person, but not fully
consent to do these things, are also difficult to conceive of.
However, we
may concede for the sake of the argument that such persons could exist. The
question that then arises is whether or not the Scriptural prohibition on the
reception of the Eucharist by serious sinners applies to them. This depends on
whether the prohibition bears solely upon the state of being in mortal sin that
results from the culpable commission of grave sins, or whether it bears upon
the commission of a grave sin as such.
It is
certainly true that Catholics are forbidden to choose to receive the Eucharist
when they are in a state of mortal sin. But it does not follow from this that
it is the defiled state of the soul in mortal sin that furnishes the sole
reason for the prohibition on grave sinners receiving the Eucharist, so that
the absence of this defiled state of soul removes the basis for this
prohibition. The Scriptural passages that express this prohibition do not
qualify it by saying that those who commit grave sins with full knowledge and
consent of the will must not choose to receive the Eucharist. What the
Scriptural texts say is that committing grave sin is a bar to reception of the
Eucharist. It is not hard to see why this commandment is not qualified by
adding that the grave sin in question is one that is done with full knowledge
and consent of the will. The Eucharist is the holiest thing in the universe,
and nothing evil can be permitted to approach it. In the hypothetical case of a
person blamelessly living in an adulterous relationship, the evil of mortal sin
in the person’s soul is lacking, but the objectively evil act, with its
violation of the order of justice and its evil consequences, remains. Reception
of the Eucharist by a person committing this evil would be a profanation of the
sacrament, and hence is contrary to divine law. As the Dictionnaire de
théologie catholique states, receiving communion in a state of merely
material sin is in itself a very grave sacrilege, because objectively speaking
it involves a profanation of the body and blood of Jesus Christ (‘la communion,
faite en état de faute matérielle, est par elle-même un très grave
sacrilège, puisque, objectivement parlant, il y a profanation du corps et du
sang de Jésus-Christ’; DTC III, ‘Communion eucharistique’, col. 505.)
This does not
mean that the hypothetical persons who blamelessly engage in an adulterous
relationship are necessarily committing a sin if they receive the Eucharist.
They may be committing a sin in doing so, if they realize that they are
violating a divine commandment to not receive it. But their extraordinary
condition might also include a blameless ignorance and/or lack of consent of
the will about this commandment to not receive the Eucharist, as well as about
the commandment not to commit adultery. In such a case their choosing to
receive the Eucharist would not be sinful. But this would not be due to the
prohibition against adulterers receiving the Eucharist admitting of any
exceptions; it would be due to the deficiencies in knowledge and will that
alleviate or remove their guilt for violating this further commandment.
It is thus
certain that the Scriptures forbid the civilly divorced and remarried to choose
to receive the Eucharist. Does it also state that priests are absolutely
required to refuse the Eucharist to such persons?
There are two
reasons why such a prohibition might exist. One reason is that such reception
of the Eucharist is itself a grave sin. A priest would refuse to permit the
reception of the Eucharist under such circumstances in order to prevent this
sin, the desecration of the Eucharist that it involves, and the public scandal
that would result. This reason is clearly a cogent one.
It could be
argued that it would not apply to the private distribution of the Eucharist to
persons of the kind described above, who for some extraordinary reason are not
culpable for their adulterous relations and their decision to receive the
Eucharist without abandoning these relations. But the reception of the
Eucharist by such persons is a profanation of the sacrament, even if they are
guiltless for committing adultery and choosing to receive it. Distributing the
Eucharist to them would thus be cooperation in the profanation of the sacrament.
Moreover, it could not benefit the persons receiving the Eucharist in any way,
because the benefit that is sought in receiving the Eucharist is grace and
union with Christ. This benefit will not be granted by a communion that
profanes the Eucharist, even if the persons receiving it are guiltless of the
profanation that occurs.
The other
reason for the priest refusing the Eucharist under these circumstances is the
existence of a divine command that forbids giving the Eucharist to public grave
sinners. Such a command is to be found in a number of places in the Scriptures.
There are several Scriptural texts that command the expulsion of public grave
sinners from the Christian community. We may take it that such expulsion
includes refusal of the Eucharist. 1 Corinthians 5:1-6 refers to the expulsion
of a man for an irregular marriage (to his father’s wife). The chapter then
generalizes this measure in verses 10 to 11 (quoted above), commanding the
expulsion of a number of categories of public sinners, and concludes ‘Put away
the evil one from among yourselves’ (v. 13). 1 Timothy 1:20 refers to another
such expulsion. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 states ‘And we charge you, brethren, in the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother
walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received
of us.’ These passages together constitute a clear Scriptural mandate, and
indeed a clear command, to refuse the Eucharist to public sinners. This
includes public adulterers such as the civilly divorced and remarried. Some
obvious reasons can be suggested for this Scriptural command; respect for the
meaning and function of the Eucharist as the bond of union in Christ, the
avoidance of the desecration of the Eucharist by a sacrilegious communion, and
the prevention of the spiritual harm caused to those who make sacrilegious
communions. To them may be added the grounds that Familiaris consortio
provides for the specific prohibition on giving the Eucharist to the civilly
divorced and remarried.
Pope Francis and heresy
The AAS
statement thus settles an important and much-debated question. It establishes
that Pope Francis in Amoris laetitia has affirmed propositions that are
heretical in the strict sense; that is, propositions that contradict truths
that are divinely revealed and that must be believed with the assent of faith.
It has not only established this; it has made it a religious duty for Catholics
to believe that this is the case. Pope Francis is the Pope, and as such he has
the power to exercise the papal teaching authority within the limits set to
that authority by divine law. In the AAS statement, he has required Catholics
to give religious assent of mind and will to the assertion that Amoris
laetitia contains propositions that are heretical.
The heresy in
question is distinctive, as it goes farther than previous denials of Catholic
teaching on marriage. Amoris laetitia does not uphold the Mosaic
permission on divorce, or the Protestant teaching on divorce, against Christ’s
teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. If it did, it would be less
extreme. The Mosaic law permits divorcing one person and then marrying another.
It does not permit cohabiting with one person while being married to a
different one, as Amoris laetitia does. The latter permission in
practice dissolves the notion of marriage altogether.
The
profession of heresy in the AAS statement together with Amoris laetitia
is unambiguous, but indirect. The AAS statement endorses a further statement
that attributes a heretical meaning to the statements of Amoris laetitia.
This indirect form of expression forms part of a strategy for promoting the
heresy that is being professed. A natural understanding of Amoris laetitia would
discern this heresy in it, but the words of that apostolic exhortation did not
completely exclude an orthodox understanding of it. By initially permitting
this latitude of understanding, Pope Francis ensured that Catholics who
rejected the heresy in question would nonetheless rally to the defence of the
document, out of blind loyalty to the papacy, timidity, careerism, or a simple
feeling of obligation to give the Roman Pontiff every benefit of the doubt.
These defenders of Amoris laetitia were very effective in confusing the
issue and leading Catholics to think that the document was acceptable and was
being unjustly attacked. The indirect character of the AAS statement avoids
embarrassing these defenders, and indeed enables many of them to continue their
defence. The meaning of the statement does not have to be confronted unless one
follows a chain of reasoning about it, which many conservative Catholic
apologists are happy to refrain from doing.
Its indirect
character also weakens the opposition of those conservatives who realize that
it is promoting heresy. Pope Francis has found that such conservatives are
weak, vacillating, and afraid to oppose him personally. Cardinal Raymond Burke,
the most high-profile conservative of this sort, has gone from saying that Amoris
laetitia is not an act of the papal magisterium to saying that it is
impossible to understand Amoris laetitia in a heterodox sense because it
is a magisterial document. A direct statement of heresy might back such persons
against the wall and embarrass them into contradicting it. The AAS statement
also serves to mock and humiliate conservatives, because it constrains them to
reject a legitimate magisterial teaching in order to preserve their silence
about Amoris laetitia.
The heresy
that the AAS statement establishes as present in Amoris laetitia does
not make Pope Francis guilty of the canonical crime of heresy. This is an
important point, because the crime of heresy is the only offence for which a
pope can and should be removed from office. In order to commit the canonical
crime of heresy, it is not sufficient to publicly state that a heretical
proposition is true. One must also refuse to retract this proposition when
warned by ecclesiastical authority that it is heretical and cannot be held by
Catholics. The pope does not have an ecclesiastical superior, so the authority
in his case would have consist in the authority to teach rather than the
authority to command. This authority is possessed by Catholic bishops, who have
the right and the duty to warn the pope when he upholds heresy. In the case of
Pope Francis this has not been done.
The fact that
Pope Francis has not been authoritatively told that he is upholding heresy does
not mean that he is simply in error about marriage, divorce and the Eucharist.
One does not have to commit the canonical crime of heresy in order to knowingly
reject the teaching of the Catholic Church. Most deliberate heretics do not
commit this crime, because they are not told by ecclesiastical authority to
abjure their heresies. Pope Francis knows that he is contradicting Catholic
teaching on this subject; he has composed Amoris laetitia precisely to
reject the exposition of this teaching that is to be found in Familiaris
consortio. He may think that that adhering to the Catholic faith does not
require assenting to the past teachings of the magisterium. It is likely in
fact that he does think this; this modernist position is generally held by
progressive clerics of his school of thought, and he has shown signs of
agreement with it in a number of statements. But acceptance of modernism is
itself a more profound and universal form of heresy than rejection of specific
divinely revealed truths, since it does away with the whole notion of divine
revelation and faith in its teachings. There is no parallel to this betrayal in
the entire history of the Papacy. St. Peter denied Christ out of fear, and
later repudiated his action. Pope Francis is attacking Christ’s teaching in a
planned and systematic fashion because he is opposed to it.
It would be
wrong however to think that Pope Francis is the worst scourge afflicting the
Church. The election of a bad man as Pope can never be entirely ruled out. In a
healthy Church the problem of a heretical Pope can and will be dealt with by
the Catholic bishops, just as the immune system of a healthy body will react to
disease and eradicate it. The immune system of the Church at the present is not
operating. The bishops of the Catholic Church have remained silent about the heresy
in Amoris laetitia, and have thereby abandoned the faithful. The
heretical statements of Amoris laetitia have not been presented to the
faithful as something that they can take or leave. Pope Francis has stated in
official magisterial documents that they are papal teachings that they must
accept. He has been supported in this by a large number of bishops. Pope
Francis has thereby put pressure on all the Catholic faithful to reject
divinely revealed truth. The faithful are not protected against this pressure
by the bishops of Kazakhstan, or elsewhere, issuing a statement upholding the
truths that Francis is denying. When encountering a difference of opinion
between a papal document and a letter from a handful of Kazakh bishops, the
faithful will naturally take the papal statement to be of higher authority. In
order to protect the faithful from the attack on their belief and salvation
that is being made through Amoris laetitia, it is necessary to address
the falsehoods in that document itself, and to condemn them by appealing to an
authority that justifies the rejection of a non-infallible papal letter; the
authority of divine revelation expressed in the Scriptures and repeated by the
magisterium of the Church. This appeal does not have to be a canonical warning
to Pope Francis that could serve as the first step in his deposition. Such a
canonical warning would have to be addressed to the Pope himself, and warn him
of the nature of his crime and the consequences of persisting in it. It would
be sufficient to take the lesser step of simply addressing the faithful to
condemn Amoris laetitia as heretical. Aside from Bishops Bernard Fellay
and Henry Gracida, no Catholic bishops have done this.
This almost
unanimous betrayal of their office by Catholic bishops, and the episcopal
infidelity that this betrayal reveals, is the fundamental problem in the
Church. Without this massive infidelity there would have been no constituency
to elect Pope Francis in the first place, and if he had nonetheless managed to
be elected he would not have been able to mount an overt assault on the faith.
If this fundamental problem is not solved, the repudiation of the heresies in Amoris
laetitia or even the deposition of Pope Francis will not produce any
lasting benefit. Other evils of a similar kind will recur, since the causes of
Pope Francis’s career and actions will remain. A basic reform of the Church
that addresses and eradicates these causes is what is needed.
(Copyright John R.T. Lamont,
2018).
