Deliberate Ambiguity

By JUDE P. DOUGHERTY

(Dr. Dougherty is dean emeritus of The School of Philosophy of The Catholic University of America.)

+ + +

Authors and telecasters use it when they are not sure of the facts. Politicians often employ it in creating legislation that subsequently permits freedom of contradictory interpretation by courts, regulators, and prosecutors. Pope Francis, who never speaks clearly, uses it to such an extent that in doctrinal matters what was certain before has become problematic.
Readers of these pages are aware that Gerhard Cardinal Mueller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has assured Catholics that the dogmatic teaching of the Church concerning the reception of Communion for the divorced and remarried has not changed. Raymond Cardinal Burke, former prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, has said the same thing.
Cardinal Mueller in performing his duty is fulfilling one of the purposes of a congregation that was established by Paul III in 1542. Pope Paul charged the congregation with the task of spreading sound Catholic doctrine and defending those elements of Christian tradition which seemed in danger because of new and unacceptable doctrine.
In early May of this year, Archbishop Bruno Forte, speaking openly to an audience in his Diocese of Chieti-Vasto, reported that during the Synod on the Family, Pope Francis told him, “If we speak explicitly about Communion for the divorced and remarried, you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.” Forte offered the opinion that with the promulgation of Amoris Laetitia, in effect, the reformers in the camp of Walter Cardinal Kasper got what they wanted.
Emeritus Professor Robert Spaemann of the University of Munich, at the end of an interview with Anian Christoph Wimmer, expressed the sentiments of many of his colleagues here and abroad when he said of Amoris Laetitia (see The Wanderer, May 12, 2016, p. 1A):
“Every single cardinal, but also every bishop and priest is called upon to preserve uprightly the Catholic discipline of the sacraments within the realm of his responsibility and to confess it publicly in case the Pope is not ready to make corrections….In the years to come it may take a later Pope to officially make things right.”
It must be noted that Spaemann holds an honorary degree from The Catholic University of America and has briefly lectured there.
Examining the text of Amoris Laetitia we find that footnote 315 calls attention to the fact that in an objective situation of sin it is possible for the miscreant to be subjectively innocent. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
“In order to commit a mortal sin, grave matter is not enough; full knowledge and deliberate consent are also required.”
Here is the dilemma. A confessor may become aware that a penitent has not confessed a sin because he has no idea that it is a sin. If this be the case, the penitent can validly receive absolution. But the confessor is obliged to set matters straight by correcting the malformed conscience and by guiding the penitent through the process of forming a correct conscience. The key question then becomes: “Can this doctrinally well-founded practice be extended to the divorced and remarried?” The answer is “No.” The penitent, once made aware that his conduct is at odds with the teaching of the Church, must refrain from Holy Communion.
Pope Francis’ ambiguous teaching on marriage and the family as well as on other matters lends itself to interpretation by a secular media all too willing to promote a progressive interpretation of any document, indicating that the Church has changed its former teaching. Certainly, this internal waffling has the effect of undermining confidence in the moral authority of the Church.
His academic positions apart, what gives Robert Spaemann authority is the natural law tradition which he represents and to which the Church herself is accountable. The Church did not invent morality, but over the centuries it has promulgated the highest moral principles known to mankind. Clearly, discipline related to the divinely instituted sacraments is her province. Through the sacraments she has taught and promoted personal moral behavior. That achievement has contributed beyond measure to the creation of Western culture.
At a time when Europe is under siege by a militant Islam, the West needs the moral voice of the Church more than ever. Regrettably, at her highest level she seems disengaged, uncertain in the exercise of her traditional authority.
True, the Church has experienced rough sailing in times past and has recovered after decades. But this time Western civilization itself, detached from its classical sources, seems to be at stake. The stakes have never been so high. With mainline Protestants capitulating to the liberal Zeitgeist, the Church alone can teach authoritatively. Proper diagnosis is the first step in the cure of any illness. Perhaps that is subtly underway as lay voices are raised against an uncertain leadership.