Amoris Laetitia . . . Commentators Point To Bright Spots, But Also Dark Shadows

(Comment Box is Open)

By JOSEPH MATT

The much-awaited Amoris Laetitia, the Pope’s Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, has finally arrived, replete with all the fireworks its anticipation promised to deliver — at least judging from the headlines and commentaries that followed.
At first glance, by most accounts, much of the document appears sound, with a pastoral focus and upholding of Humanae Vitae.
The issues of concern that are garnering all of the headlines reside in chapter eight, especially footnote 351 — reflections of the Pope on pastoral situations that seem to blur the lines of Catholic teaching and beg for more clarification, at the very least.
Unfortunately for a document that should serve to clarify and illuminate Church teaching on matters of the family and marriage, which this document does in some instances, the problematic areas tend to do just the opposite. And that is what has Catholic media circles abuzz.
Judging from the commentary of some well-respected Catholic writers (some of whom are quoted below), Catholics throughout the world have been offered still more confusion and uncertainty in this latest papal exhortation.
It is important to put this document in its proper context, in the words of Walter Cardinal Brandmüller quoted in last week’s Wanderer: “The Pope is bound by the dogmas of the Church, as they are also to be found in the Church’s Catechism.The post-synodal document, Amoris Laetitia, is therefore to be interpreted in light of the above-presented principles, especially since a contradiction between a papal document and the Catechism of the Catholic Church would not be imaginable.”
Raymond Cardinal Burke in his recent commentary for the National Catholic Register (also see articles on pages 1A and 3A of this week’s print edition of The Wanderer) said that “a document which is the fruit of the Synod of Bishops must always be read in the light of the purpose of the Synod itself, namely, to safeguard and foster what the Church has always taught and practiced in accord with her teaching. In other words, a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, by its very nature, does not propose new doctrine and discipline but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.”
In light of all the pastoral references in the document, Cardinal Burke reminded us: “There can be no opposition or contradiction between the Church’s doctrine and her pastoral practice, since, as the Catechism reminds us, doctrine is inherently pastoral.”
That puts some perspective on this exhortation. However, it does not remove the confusion or mitigate its damaging consequences. Ambiguity should not and cannot resonate from the Chair of Peter.
It is no wonder such headlines such as these appeared in the secular press: “Pope Francis, Urging Less Judgment, Signals Path for Divorced on Communion” (The New York Times), “Pope Insists Conscience, Not Rules, Must Lead Faithful” (AP). These headlines would be nonexistent with a document that spoke with more clarity and purpose.
Christ’s teaching never required an army of interpreters and writers to parse this meaning and that meaning. The teachings of the Church are plain and simple. Why can’t papal exhortations be the same?
As we move forward, much discussion and clarification will have to take place. Not to mention much prayer!
Following are some brief analyses by some notable Catholic writers.
Robert Royal — in The Catholic Thing — first points to the good in the following areas of the exhortation:
“Openness to life (i.e., no contraception) in every marital act; the right to life, and the right — and duty — of health-care workers not to participate in abortion, euthanasia, and other anti-life medical procedures; denial that ‘homosexual unions [are] in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family’ (though persons with same-sex attraction should be ministered to); the need of children for both a mother and a father, and to be born of their own parents (even if sometimes with special needs), not via reproductive technologies that dominate human life or make children mere players in their parent’s life plans; the right of parents to control the education of their children and to receive assistance from the community in doing so.
“And much more, even extensive quotations from St. John Paul (notably absent from the Synod text) and Benedict XVI.”.
But Royal further writes:
“This [the issue of Communion for divorced-remarrieds] is not driven primarily by Scriptural and theological reasons. Indeed, the pope seems almost to think that mercy shortcircuits what have been regarded as the grounds for Catholic teaching on marriage: ‘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.’
“The image here is clearly intended to suggest that dutifully following traditional teaching is akin to stoning the woman taken in adultery. As if our Lord’s own words on indissolubility — and his warnings that divorce/remarriage is adultery (not mere ‘imperfection’ or ‘irregularity’), were somehow nullified by mercy (Luke 6:18; Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11, 1 Cor. 7:10, etc.).
“Amoris Laetitia hopes to resolve the situations of many in the modern world, but is far more likely only to add further fuel to the holocaust. It doesn’t take a crystal ball to predict that once Communion can be taken by the divorced/remarried in some circumstances, it will soon be assumed licit by all. And — why not? — by people in gay relationships, who probably have an equally good claim to mitigating circumstances.”
John Jalsevac and Patrick B. Craine writing for LifeSiteNews say:
“The pope bases his argument on a radical interpretation of the role of conscience — which he suggests could, in some cases, actually reveal to a person that God may in fact be ‘asking’ them to continue in a situation that does not achieve the ‘objective ideal’ of the Gospel.
“The pope writes that ‘individual conscience needs to be incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.’ He continues:
“ ‘Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal’.”
Edward Peters writes on his Canon Law Blog:
“Speaking of ‘Christian marriage, as a reflection of the union between Christ and his Church,’ Francis writes, ‘Some forms of union radically contradict this ideal, while others realize it in at least a partial and analogous way’ (AL, n. 292). This simple phrasing requires significant elaboration: forms of union that most radically contradict the union of Christ and his Church are objectively adulterous post-divorce pseudo-marriages; forms of union that reflect this union in a partial, but good, way are all natural marriages. These two forms of union are not variations on a theme; they differ in kind, not just in degree.
“Speaking of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2384 describes as ‘public and permanent adultery,’ Francis writes that some post-divorce marriages can exhibit ‘proven fidelity, generous self-giving, [and] Christian commitment’ (AL, n. 298). Many will wonder how terms such as ‘proven fidelity’ can apply to chronically adulterous relationships or how ‘Christian commitment’ is shown by the public and permanent abandonment of a previous spouse.”
“In AL 297, Francis writes: ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!’ To the contrary, it is precisely the logic of the Gospel that one can be condemned forever (CCC nn. 1034-1035). If one meant, say, that no one can be ‘condemned for ever’ by earthly authority, one should have said so. But, of course, withholding holy Communion from those in ‘public and permanent adultery’ is not a ‘condemnation’ at all, so the point being made is not clear.”
Phil Lawler from Catholic Culture remarks:
“There is a great deal of sound spiritual guidance in Amoris Laetitia. Particularly in the two central chapters that the Pope himself identifies as the core of his message. . . . Unfortunately, those aspects of the papal document — its greatest strengths — are not the topics that will command public attention. As the early news coverage already illustrates, readers will focus on primarily a single question: whether the Pope has opened the door for divorce-and-remarried Catholics to receive Communion. Although it is unfortunate that a rich and complex message is being reduced to a single issue, this single-minded coverage is not simply the fault of the mass media. Pope Francis has himself to blame.”
Fr. James V. Schall, SJ, writes from Catholic World Report:
“The burden of the Pope’s final discussion on marital problems — such as divorce, living together, and unfaithfulness — is to picture the Church, not as a judge or bureaucratic organization, but as a compassionate mother willing to listen and to stay with someone through his trials.
“It would be difficult to know what else to call this section but an exercise in sophisticated casuistry. Every effort is made to excuse or understand how one who is in such a situation is not really responsible for it. There was ignorance, or passion, or confusion. We are admonished not to judge anyone. And we are to welcome anyone and make every effort to make him feel at home in Church and as a neighbor. Attention is paid to victims of divorce who are treated unfairly, and especially children.
“But the prime interest is in mercy and compassion. God already forgives everything and so should we. The intellectual precision that the Holy Father uses to excuse or lessen guilt is cause for some reflection. The law cannot change but the ‘gradual’ leading up to understanding this failure to observe the law takes time and patience.
“But when we add it all up, it often seems that the effect of this approach is to lead us to conclude that no ‘sin’ has ever occurred. Everything has an excusing cause. If this conclusion is correct, we really have no need for mercy, which has no meaning apart from actual sin and its free recognition.”
Fr. Brian W. Harrison, OS, comments on LifeSiteNews:
“A proper understanding, appreciation and evaluation of this lengthy document will require considerable time, study, and prayerful reflection. But it is already quite clear from certain key passages that, with carefully crafted language, plausible arguments, and persuasive rhetoric, the Holy Father is quietly introducing revolutionary change into the heart of the Catholic Church’s moral teaching and pastoral/sacramental practice.
“He is not repudiating in principle the objective truth of any revealed dogma or moral norm; but at the level of praxis he is shifting the emphasis away from objective standards of right and wrong behavior and placing it instead on presumed subjective sincerity and individual conscience. Thus, in the name of Christ’s ‘mercy’, the exhortation tends to downplay the gravity of sin instead of maintaining the uncomfortable bipolar tension between the two that runs through the Gospels.”