By MAIKE HICKSON
After reading the Instrumentum Laboris (working document) for the upcoming October 2015 Ordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family, when it was first published in June, the author of this short article was somewhat stunned and increasingly troubled. Yet I was soon helped by others to acquire a better understanding.
It is therefore with much gratitude that I try in the following to present a short synopsis of an excellent analysis and critique of that Instrumentum which a coalition of pro-life and pro-family organizations, Voice of the Family, published on August 5. The author of this analysis, Matthew McCusker, presents on 19 pages the many grave problems which this official Vatican document presents (visit this website for his analysis: http://voiceofthefamily.info/wordpress).
In the following, I shall concentrate on four main aspects of McCusker’s lucid critique: contraception; Holy Communion for the “divorced and remarried”; homosexuality; cohabitation. All these areas are of considerable importance for any family which strives for holiness and for the salvation of the souls of all of its members, especially the vulnerable little children.
McCusker states at the beginning that the Vatican document provides a key to the interpretation of the whole working document when it says that it wants “to read both the signs of God and human history, in a twofold yet unique faithfulness which this reading involves.” With this kind of formulation, there are two different sources of authority: “the signs of God” and “human history.”
As McCusker puts it: “. . . it follows that whenever there is a clash between their mutual demands, a compromise must be found. When this approach is adopted, the natural moral law is no longer regarded as immutable but rather as subject to change over the course of time.”
As to the important question of contraception in the context of marriage and the family, McCusker observes that the Instrumentum Laboris “refuses to use the word ‘contraception’ or make any direct reference to any contraceptive method, despite the devastating consequences of the use of contraceptives in many areas of human life, not least the killing of unborn children by abortifacient methods.”
The document does not directly say anywhere that the use of contraceptives is immoral.
Concerning the question of the “remarried” divorcees, McCusker says that the so-called Kasper Proposal is still contained in the working document, in spite of the fact that the paragraphs relating to it had been rejected by the Synod Fathers in 2014.
In paragraph 121, the Church is accused of practicing “forms of exclusion” in current “liturgical and pastoral practice” and, therefore, the Instrumentum proposes to “reflect on the opportunity to eliminate these forms of exclusion.” A “greater integration” of such purportedly excluded couples is desired.
As McCusker comments: “The document shows no concern for Catholics who may be confused or scandalized by such an approach or for parents whose efforts to guide their children to live according to the moral law will be undermined.”
Paragraph 123 then presents the idea that there could be a “way of penance” for the “remarried” divorcees where the party concerned judges his or her own failures. A priest then “might come to a sufficient evaluation as to be able to suitably apply the power of binding and loosing to the situation.”
As McCusker rightly points out, the whole tone in the document is lenient toward those couples in objectively sinful situations. The document even says that some of these situations “are not always intentionally chosen,” as if an abandoned spouse is forced to enter into another marriage outside of the Church’s law.
The area close to this topic — the matter of cohabitation in its various forms — is dealt with in a similar tone and fashion. McCusker stresses that the paragraphs of the working document dealing with this topic “never clearly state that ‘civil marriage’ is not a valid marital bond. In fact they imply the opposite. The authors seem to suggest that it is possible for baptized persons to have a form of marriage that is not sacramental and which can then be ‘upgraded’ to sacramental marriage.”
When speaking of the question of homosexuality, a similar leniency, or laxity, can be observed in the document. For McCusker, paragraph 8 of the document seems to suggest “the possibility of giving approval to same-sex unions on some level,” quoting the text’s ambiguous claim of a putative necessity for “defining the specific character of such unions in society,” and thus the call for “a more thorough examination of human nature and culture which is based not simply on biology and sexual differences.”
These vague and equivocal formulations, in my judgment, also imply that the debate is still open as to what the Church’s moral assessment of homosexual conduct is and has to be; and, going even further, whether the Church’s traditional understanding of homosexuality was not in itself in error and wrong due to her insufficient understanding of human nature and culture.
Having studied in the recent past some of the very problematic texts coming from mostly German progressivist theologians, I (along with others) have observed that a clear line of argument is to be found there, according to which basic premise “homosexuality” was not even yet known in biblical times and that, only with the help of modern human sciences, can the world now continue growing in a better understanding of homosexuality as another acceptable form of “love.”
Often one hears now the argument that homosexuality is a biologically determined condition which therewith lessens any moral culpability of the individual practicing homosexual. A grave omission of the working document is certainly that, in this context, words such as “sin” and “a near occasion of sin” are omitted. Not telling the Catholic family of today that homosexual conduct and erotic acts are sinful, is a grave omission, a lack of true mercy and charity, as it seems.
To return to McCusker’s own critique. One important aspect he considers to be especially dangerous is the fact that the working document undermines parents as the primary educators of their children. He says:
“Paragraph 86 contains a direct attack on the rights of parents. The paragraph states that ‘the family, while maintaining its privileged spot in education, cannot be the only place for teaching sexuality.’ This statement is directly contrary to Catholic teaching.”
Catholic teaching has always said that parents are the first and foremost educators of their children. And as McCusker points out, this certainly applies when it comes to such a sensitive topic as the matter of purity, modesty, and sexuality! The same undermining tone is to be found when the working document then speaks of the “role” of women.
McCusker criticizes the document for seeming to be in favor of modern working women and against the underdeveloped world’s women who still live in traditional family structures. He states that the Church should clearly affirm the importance of the presence of the woman at home, also and foremost for the sake and the well-being of the children. In the face of an ever-growing aggressive feminism, the working document does not express any resistance against this growing trend toward the destruction of the integrity of the family unit by working mothers and the special strains and dislocations they must then face.
It was for me disturbing to read in the working document the proposal that women should be involved more in “the decision-making process” in the Church and “in the governing of some institutions; and their involvement in the formation of ordained ministers.” While many priests bemoan that they are already beset by an ever-growing presence of women at the altar and in the sacristy and in parish committees — with a weakening effect upon priestly vocations — the Church now proposes an even stronger presence of women in places where priests should be left sufficient and protective space for their own unique and honorable vocation and duty?
Another aspect, which Matthew McCusker only lightly touches upon, I find to be of high importance. Paragraph 128 of the working document reads as follows:
“Some suggest that mixed marriages might be considered as cases of ‘grave necessity,’ in which it is possible that a baptized person who is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, yet shares the Church’s faith in the Eucharist, be allowed to receive the Eucharist, when their [non-Catholic] pastors are not available and [also] taking into account the criteria of the ecclesial community to which they belong.”
This undermines the sacramental order of the Catholic Church. It would undercut the perceived and actual necessity of membership in the Catholic Church in order to be able to receive Holy Communion; it would undermine the duty to go to the Sacrament of Confession in order to be free and to try to stay free from mortal sin for the reception of Holy Communion; it would confuse the children’s understanding of what the Catholic faith distinctively is, and more.
It is to be hoped that theologians at the upcoming synod will address and refute this proposal.
Do Not Be Complacent
It is therefore worthwhile to quote some of McCusker’s own concluding comments at the end of his well-reasoned and well-researched analysis. He says: “The Instrumentum Laboris, in common with the relatio post disceptationem and relatio synodi of the Extraordinary Synod [of 2014], threatens the entire structure of Catholic teaching on marriage, the family, and human sexuality.” McCusker rightly stresses the danger for “the greatest victims,” “those who are the most vulnerable, especially children, born and unborn.”
And he repeats a call for a firm resistance to these disorders and for a persevering loyalty to the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Such a twofold effort is what the coalition Voice of the Family (to which both Human Life International and LifeSiteNews belong) has repeatedly called for — and implemented in action.
And we are also grateful that Matthew McCusker concludes by quoting Voice of the Family’s trenchant words: “We urge Catholics not to be complacent or give in to a false sense of obedience, in the face of attacks on the fundamental principles of the natural law. Catholics are morally obliged to oppose the course being taken with the synod.”
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress