On Discernment

In all the talk around the more revolutionary interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, the word discernment comes up.

It came up yesterday in a twitter conversation I was having on the topic with @thirstygargoyle - he had responded to my previous post about Jurisprudence and Imprudence by tweeting: It's important to note, I think, that Amoris deals with how to pick up pieces afterwards, and proposes an *augmented* internal forum. By which I mean, it proposes that discernment is guided by a priest, and is not a purely solitary exercise.

I asked: What is the discernment aimed at discerning? That is what nobody has (yet) explained to me... That the previous marriage was null?

To which he replied: It will vary from case to case. There'll be a huge range of variants.

We chatted on for quite a while, but really got no further in terms of what is being discerned.

And that worries me.

For I think that some interpreters of AL may help people to 'discern' that their previous marriage was in fact null, so they are free to treat their new union as a real marriage. Others may help people to discern that in their particular situation, it would be impossible to separate, so they too could treat their new union as a real marriage. And so on.

@thirstygargoyle makes the point that Familiaris Consortio suggests that 'the situations of individuals who had remarried after divorces were different and needed to be treated differently.' But nowhere does Familiaris Consortio or any other teaching document of the Church suggest that 'differently' might mean acknowledging a second union as legitimate when a first valid marriage endures. Yet that seems the direction of travel of many interpreters of AL.

For what it's worth, my view is that discernment should be a process that leads the individual to realise the incompatibility of living with a second partner as a spouse with the life of grace; and therefore implies a penitential path which is aimed to a resolution of the irregularity: that is to say, a cessation of the adultery. For such is the path of mercy. And whilst someone is determined to persist in adultery, such a determination de facto means they are not in a position to receive Holy Communion. That is not necessarily a judgement that they are in mortal sin; but if they are not, then they are in a state of ignorance with regard to the teaching of the Church that is also incompatible with full (and therefore eucharistic) communion.

I think the underlying problem with some interpreters of AL is that they do not really think any harm is being done by those in second unions. If the first marriage is truly over (say the other spouse has abandoned the one in discernment irrevocably), then what's the problem?

The first problem is precisely there: the first marriage is not truly over, even if the other spouse has abandoned the one in discernment irrevocably. In such a case the marriage still endures, and that means that the second party is not free to enter a new union (that's rather what we mean when we promise 'for better of for worse, till death do us part.')

The second problem is that sin harms us and others. Any sin. Every time. Even when culpability is reduced, sin is still evil, and still harmful. The abortionist who truly and sincerely believes he is helping a distressed pregnant woman is still doing something evil, even though his culpability may be minimal or non-existent. The adulterer is no different.

So any process of discernment that is not aimed at ending the adultery is the opposite of mercy. And any sexual intimacy in a second union , where the first is valid and endures, is adultery, as Our Lord clearly taught.

Jurisprudence and imprudence

In our legal system, we have a doctrine of the presumption of innocence. 

The reasons for this are fairly clear: a society in which people can be judged guilty without a proper process is clearly problematic.

The presumption of innocence, of course, may lead to injustices:  an individual may know very well that someone is guilty of an offence against him, and yet be unable to prove it to the standards required in law: the truly guilty party escapes the consequences of his actions, and the victim is denied justice.

But so it must be: for the alternative is so much worse: if the police, or the State (either of which means, effectively, those with power) can decide who is guilty without due process, it is worse for all of us. And inevitably the highest price will be paid by those with least power.

A second principle is that nobody is the judge in his own case. Again, the reasons are fairly clear: the temptation to bias (whether conscious or unconscious) is so strong that we cannot fairly submit somebody to such temptation and rely on him to give a just verdict. Rather, we seek means to ensure that judgement is made by people without a vested interest in the outcome. These are fairly universal principles in any civilised society, for reasons which are obvious.

I reflect on these, because some people do not seem to see the massive imprudence of some apparently merciful approaches to the problem of divorce and 'remarriage.'

The presumption in favour of the bond - that is the presumption that a marriage is valid until proved null - serves a similar function with regard to marriage as the presumption of innocence does to criminal justice. It is true that, just as with the presumption of innocence, the presumption in favour of the bond may lead to individual cases of injustice; but the principle stands, because the alternative is so much worse and more damaging for everyone. And as ever, those most damaged will be those who have least power.

Likewise, any attempt to change the annulment process so that one of the parties to a marriage becomes the judge in his own case is clearly an affront both to the principles of justice and to the institution of marriage. It may appear merciful, but (inter alia) places a terrible burden of responsibility on the individual, in an area where we already know that human judgement is, let us say, unreliable.

Someone very close to me has recently abandoned his wife and taken up with another woman. He has managed to persuade himself that his marriage was a sham. I have no doubt that such a psychological event has taken place in his mind: he genuinely believes it. I have no doubt that he is wrong... We humans are remarkably good at doing that: interpreting reality to justify our behaviour and our desires.

And of course the injustice is done to his wife and children; and harm done to himself (he is really bent out of shape...) and to the institution of Marriage. So whilst one could not, and should not, pronounce on his individual culpability, one can see that an 'internal forum' solution is profoundly problematic.

These are some of the reasons why some of the approaches being promoted in the wake of Amoris Laetitia are so troubling to so many thoughtful Catholics.

Of course, by drawing attention to these issues in this way, I lay myself open to the charge of being legalistic. But I would draw a distinction between legalism and clear thinking about the law. Our Lord condemned a certain type of legalism; but also declared for the Law. Catholic tradition has long recognised the importance of Canon Law - and not least with regard to protecting Holy Matrimony. 

The law - civil or canon -  may be an imperfect instrument; but those who do away with it in the hope of advancing justice, peace and happiness soon find that it doesn't work out so well: the revolution always ends up consuming its own children - and particularly the powerless.

But in that case...

On the face of it, the best defence for the Holy Father's apparent desire to admit the divorced and 'remarried' to Holy Communion, is his view that many (or even most) marriages are in fact null, as the couple do not fully understand and believe in what they are undertaking.  If that is the case, if the first marriage was never in fact a marriage, then a second union may be entered into, and there is no question of adultery and thus no breaking of Our Lord's teaching.

But let's follow that train of thought a bit further. If we allow the hypothesis (and in fact, for many reasons, I do not) that most marriages are null, due to ignorance, lack of proper intent and so forth, then we should also address the fact that most people receiving Holy Communion do so in a similar state: they are equally poorly formed, and therefore quite probably not discerning the Body of the Lord - and we know what St Paul has to say about that. Further, do we conclude that most baptisms are probably invalid too, for similar reasons? In which case, people should certainly not be presenting for Holy Communion: I don't think even Kasper is advocating Communion for the unbaptised (or at least, not yet...)

But I think the problem lies in setting the bar of understanding too high. Just as a child can understand enough worthily to receive Holy Communion, without a full sacramental theology; so a couple - any couple who are capable of such understanding - can understand what the marriage vows mean.

The Church's immemorial practice, for reasons that are clearly wise, prudent and just, has always been to assert the validity of the marriage bond, unless there is clear and substantial reason in a specific case to prove that it was not valid. If the Holy Father intends to reverse that, we really are in trouble.

Still confused

I know I'm a simple sort of chap, but I am still confused. Despite all those who say that the four cardinal's request for clarification is a tactic of dissent, and that there is nothing to be confused about, I remain puzzled.

What precisely is it that people (and here I mean those advocates of mercy who believe that the divorced and civilly 're-married' should be admitted to communion without change to their behaviour) think that Amoris Laetitia is teaching?

It seems to me that it must be one of two things. On the one hand, it might be that there should be a new process for declaring a marriage null, when there are practical reasons why the current process will not work. That seems to be implied, for example, here: 'Let us suppose she cannot, for technical reasons, obtain an annulment (these are rare cases), and the first husband has long since remarried.' (I don't want to keep picking on Austen Ivereigh, but he is the one who keeps writing about it...)

On the other hand, it might be that there are situations in which the circumstances are so difficult that the only reasonable (or merciful) thing for the Church to do is to recognise a second union as being good (or at least, not adulterous). That seems to be implied here: a woman abandoned by her abusive husband who remarries to provide for her children might be in the same legal category as the philandering playboy who ditches his wife for a younger model, but no one could claim that both are in the same moral category.  But oddly, that is the same example.

Nowhere does Ivereigh, nor anyone else I have so far read, say precisely which is intended. And that is problematic, for a number of reasons. 

The former suggestion is, I suppose, possible to consider: if a marriage really were a sham from the start, and for complex reasons, that is hard to prove via the normal process, it might be worth looking closely at the case. However, for clear and obvious reasons, the Church has always assumed in favour of the bond, with the onus of proof being on the one who claimed it never existed. So any change here would need to be very carefully thought through and clearly articulated, to avoid grave miscarriages of justice, scandal, and so on.

But an awful lot of the language of the liberal interpreters of AL (and indeed the Holy Father's own reported response to the questions from South America, and his reluctance to answer the Cardinals' dubia) all suggest that the second line of thought is the one that is to be followed: 'many such cases require an individual discernment because they cannot simply be lumped together as ‘adultery.’' What does this mean? Ivereigh makes a distinction between the legal and the moral categories of different people. What he does not address is their married status. If they are validly married, and are engaging in sexual relations with someone other than their spouse (no matter how evil, duplicitous, philandering, etc he or she may be), they are committing adultery. No amount of discernment will alter that fact.   

The Church's role, then, is certainly to extend them mercy: the mercy that consists of engaging with them in love, to lead them to the truth, resulting in the change of their behaviour to conform it to God's plan. The sacraments are there to support them in this journey of transformation: sacramental confession including a firm purpose of amendment, and holy communion as the supreme gift of grace to strengthen and nourish them.

Otherwise, the path of discernment becomes a way to help people stay locked in the grip of sin. We are not the best judges in our own case - particularly if we have been through the trauma of a relationship falling apart; and to be asked to evaluate whether God is really asking us to leave our new, comfortable, loving relationship is a tough ask...  Not least because, as has often been observed before, God gives us the grace we need when we need it - not before. So it may seem an impossible demand that we should remove ourself and our children from the protection of a new partner - and as it seems impossible, we conclude it cannot be what God really wants. But actually, if we start from the other end, knowing that it is what God wants, mysteriously, as we start to follow his will, we gain the very grace we need to make it possible.

That seems to me the real failing of all those promoting what I might call cheap - or even counterfeit - mercy: that they underestimate the transformative power of God's love and grace when people really do submit themselves to the Divine Will, rather than justify themselves in the status quo...

But as I noted earlier, nowhere do the pro-readmittance interpreters of AL make clear precisely what they think the document teaches; which of these options - or is it both?

Further, the Holy Father's refusal to answer the dubia, and the increasing amount of noise without light from the commentators, suggest that clarity is the one thing that they want to avoid. Rather let everything be done privately and discretely. After all, what business is this of mine? Or yours?

Well, as the Cardinals have made clear in their dubia, confusion about Amoris Laetitia risks leading souls into mortal error: we should all be concerned about that. Moreover, the interpretation of some of the bishops in Germany and the Americas, for example, is effectively introducing Church-sanctioned divorce, which is a grave moral evil and will have devastating consequences (as widespread divorce already does throughout western civilisation). And the whole project, as conceived by some of them, is in fact an assault on Catholic truth and Catholic unity. Of course it is our business!

Married to the Cross

At the heart of the controversy over Amoris Laetitia, I think, are unclear and probably conflicting understandings of Christian marriage.

So much of the discussion that I have read is about healing the hurt: as though the most important thing that Catholicism has to offer is emotional happiness in this life.

What is not being discussed is the idea of marriage as a vocation. Yet that is surely what it is, in Catholic understanding. It is a call from Our Lord about how we are to spend our lives, and how we are to respond to His grace to seek our own and others' salvation. And as a call from Our Lord, part of that message is: Take up your Cross, and follow me.

For we live in a vale of tears, and our true happiness is not to be found in this world (though we are, nonetheless, to be joyful, but that is something else...). But the modern mind thinks, post-Enlightenment, that the pursuit of happiness is the purpose of life. That of course paves the way for the Deceiver to promise us happiness by way of the flesh or the world.

But the Christian vocation to marriage is a call to suffering; to suffering in union with the Crucified. At the very least, we will suffer because we are uniting ourself, sinful as we are, to another person who is also a sinner; both of us subject to concupiscence, at the very least. We have to mortify our selfishness, and also to regulate our passions, in the service of the vocation we have ben called to follow. We may have to suffer when we see our spouse suffer, when we see our children suffer, when we have to sacrifice careers or advancement in the interests of our family, when we are truly open to life, even though that be at great personal cost, and so on and so on.  We may even be called to suffer when the person whom we love abuses or abandons us.

That is the way of the Cross. But because the Church has failed to teach such hard truths for so long, we have lost our way - we have lost the Way.

And so the requirement that we honour our marriage vows even when that involves suffering is seen as unjust, unmerciful, unthinkable... when in fact, it is precisely where our salvation, and quite possibly that of others, is to be found.

--

The same principles apply, of course, to the celibate vocation; the priestly and religious vocations, and so on. I am making no special claim for marriage here; in fact I think that marriage has unique joys that are a great blessing and mercy, which others more holy than I are able willingly to sacrifice: celibacy is the higher calling. But in all cases, to be a Christian is to follow Christ, and if He leads us to the Cross, it is not in our interests to turn away - and it is a false mercy for others to support us in doing so.

Adultery is not a victimless sin...

In a lot of the discussion about admitting the soi-disant 're-married' (as opposed to people who are truly re-married, after the death of a previous spouse) to Holy Communion, one gets the impression that those keen on 'mercy' see the adultery of the new relationship as some kind of technical problem; something only those who are pedantic and legalistic would worry about.

But that is not the case. The problem the Holy Father, Kasper and the rest face is that Our Lord makes it quite clear, both in the Gospel and in the continuous teaching of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, that adultery is a serious sin; and also that serious sins have serious consequences.

That is quite apart from the culpability of the sinner; even a sin where the subjective culpability is minimal causes harm and is evil.  And adultery is by no means a victimless sin. 

The immediate victims, of course, are the spouses and also any children involved. And I do not just mean the moral danger to which the children are exposed. Academic research shows that 'exposure to step-parenting is the strongest known predictor of child abuse, and exposure to divorce has measurable detrimental effects on children's outcomes.'

But the damage is not limited to those immediately affected. We know both from theory (open systems theory) and from experience (see, for example, the very limited societal approvals given first to contraception and then abortion) that any small relaxation in the moral censure for evil actions in the realm of human sexuality inevitably leads to widespread abuse and an attitudinal shift.

So even a perceived softening of the Church's teaching against divorce will, quite inexorably, contribute further to the already catastrophic rates of divorce and separation we now witness, with all the tragic consequences, both for individuals and for civic society, which that entails.

And then, there is the further harm that is done, by making it ever harder for young people to contract valid marriages; if the last bastion of truth undermines that truth, how are they to believe what it is required that they believe?

These are precisely why the ancient maxim that hard cases make bad law is so important. Of course, there are some people who are in terribly distressing situations, possibly with little subjective fault of their own. But an attempt to be 'merciful' to them, by pretending that adultery is OK in their specific situation, is profoundly misguided - and further imperils their souls too, if they no longer feel the need to address their situation through repentance and amendment.

Finally, there cannot be an irreconcilable conflict between truth and mercy; if we seek to offer mercy at the cost of truth taught us by Christ Himself, we have abandoned both truth and mercy.

The Great Divorce

I have blogged many times about the issue of divorce and remarriage: ranging from the guest post by my brothers Welcoming Cardinal Kasper's Pastoral Solicitude, to the post in which I suggest that ++Kasper et al are Underestimating the Love and Compassion of God. 

Yet here I go again: for I think there is still more to be said, even at the risk of being called of all sorts of names by the Holy Father. 

The Church is bound to preach the Gospel of Christ, as received from Him and handed down by Apostolic Tradition and Teaching, both in the Gospel and through the inspired work of the Magisterium.

The Church is also bound to manifest Christ's love, mercy and forgiveness. But that cannot be set in opposition to preaching the Gospel and calling sinners to repent: for that is what Christ did, and that is the mission He entrusted to the Church.

The Church is not, however, bound to make people happy or feel good: indeed the Gospel warns us that we must take up our Cross, if we are to follow Christ.

Many people seem to think it unmerciful of the Church 'not to forgive divorce and remarriage.' This post is my further musing about the profound misunderstandings inherent in that point of view.

However, I have yet to hear anyone who espouses that view claim that the Church should offer absolution and unconditional forgiveness to, say, a paedophile priest who is clear that he has no intention of changing his predatory behaviour.

So I presume that they do not see divorce, or remarriage, as harmful in the same way. Yet they are.

Divorce (if more than a merely prudential measure necessary to protect oneself or one's children) is a sin against faith, hope, and charity. It is a sin against Faith, since Christ has taught that marriage cannot be ended in this way. To believe in divorce is to disbelieve in Christ's teaching and the Church's.

It is a sin against hope, since it despairs of God being able to bring good out of one's fidelity to the Sacrament of Matrimony, despite all the trials along the way.

It is a sin against charity, since the fundamental promise we make is to love our spouse until death us do part.

One cannot sin against faith, hope and charity without harming oneself and others. So in order to repent of divorce, and 'sin no more' (a Gospel requirement) we must stop believing in divorce. If divorced, we must recognise that reality: that we are still married to our spouse, with all the obligations that entails. We must seek hope, trusting in God's infinite love and mercy to bring good out of our suffering. We must seek to love our spouse, even if necessarily separated, even if they have entered a new relationship, even if they are abusive. We may have to love him or her from a distance, and that love may have to be manifested principally through prayer and fidelity to our marriage vows, but our duty to love him or her is undiminished.

Divorce is also a sin against the Sacrament of Marriage: not just that particular marriage. It manifests a disbelief in marriage itself, for the nature of marriage is lifelong. That is one of the reasons it makes a 'second' marriage impossible. If one disbelieves in marriage, one cannot contract a valid marriage. That, of course, is a secondary reason; the principal reason a second marriage is impossible is that one remains married to one's first spouse, despite any divorce proceedings.

So is divorce an unforgivable sin? Or a worse sin than any other? By no means. But, like any other sin, it does harm; and therefore the Church, in dispensing Christ's mercy, must ensure that the penitent is not left self-harming. That is why repentance and amendment are an important part of the process; and that is why a 'second marriage' must also be the subject of repentance and amendment. To suggest anything else is to deny the Gospel, and to deny the true mercy of Christ. And that would be a terrible divorce indeed!

Further Reflections: This Cruel Mercy

It is still too soon for any definitive comment on the recent Synod: I have yet to read the final text; and even that is relatively trivial until we see what the Holy Father says and does.

However, I have been thinking a lot, as I am sure many readers have, about the noises emerging, and I find that there are are various troublesome questions arising.

My first and in some ways greatest concern does concern the text, and that is the selective quotation from Familiaris Consortio which many have already commented on. I am worried about the apparent dishonesty of this, and about setting a precedent for the selective reading of, and thus practical reinterpretation of, previous teaching documents.

I also have many questions about the much-vaunted but ill-defined Pathway. The first is: is this pathway open to paedophile priests? Are they to be journeyed with, so that they can discern for themselves whether they can resume their priestly ministry? I suspect not. And if not, why not? Could it be because the Bishops really do believe that what they have done is sinful? Come to that, do all our bishops still believe in mortal sin? That is, sin so fundamental that it fractures our relationship with  the Blessed Trinity, so that, as the Church, led by St Paul, teaches us: it is perilous to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion until that damage is mended by God's grace in sacramental confession. Or is it the fear of scandal alone that makes the paedophile the modern untouchable, the leper of our days? For if the mercy of the Synod does not reach these despised men, what kind of mercy is it? And if the mercy is to take another form in their case (as I would suggest it should) why is that form not also suitable for other public sinners who are not able to amend their life?

And this discerning pathway: what is it trying to help people to discern? For most of us, damaged as we are by sin - Original and Actual - the tendency will be to excuse ourselves. Others, of course, are more temperamentally inclined to take too much guilt upon themselves. How is walking alongside people preferable to teaching them the Truth? For it is the Truth that will set them free. And Truth Himself entrusted that mission to the Church.

And then there were the very odd comments from our own ++Nichols, who reveals he has already been down this Pathway, and some have decided for themselves that they should not receive. That is troubling for many reasons. One is that it implies that some have decided for themselves that they may receive. Even if one were to cede that the Synod allows that (which I do not, as it happens)  ++Nichols was clearly jumping the gun and breaking with the law, tradition and discipline of the Church if he was allowing that practice.

But also consider what a cruel mercy that is. Imagine the effects on those few wise ones who pursue that path and conclude they should not receive whilst in an objectively irregular situation,  and who then see others blithely reaching a more 'merciful' conclusion about their own (quite possibly worse) case. 

That approach seems to me most Un-Christ-like. Nowhere do we see Him throwing people on their own resources: indeed the hallmark of His teaching is that He taught with authority,  unlike the legalistic Scribes of His day, who could find all sorts of excuses to bend the law to suit the outcome they wanted.  No, this is a modern liberal paradigm: that we are all fully functioning adults now. This has more to do with Jung and Carl Rogers than Christ and St Paul. I do not discern the wisdom and authority of Christ and His Church in such an approach. It seems, above all, to ignore the fact of Original Sin, which means (inter alia) that we are really not the best judges in our own case.

The other problem is the age-old one that hard cases make bad law. Because the real cruelty in endorsing adultery, or even seeming to do so, is the impact on the abandoned spouses, on the damaged children, and on all those who marry in the future, whose prospects of a stable marriage are thereby damaged.

Because we know that marriage, and indeed chastity in any vocation, is difficult. Separation and divorce should be unthinkable. A society that normalises them, increases them dramatically - at huge human (and societal) cost. The Church used not be such a society, but is rapidly becoming one, and these proposals accelerate that. The integrity of marriage needs all the cultural/structural support we can offer it: why did the Synod not focus on that?

These bishops think they can teach the Church about Mercy? A cruel mercy indeed!

Irregular Situations

Fr Hugh OSB commented on a previous post of mine about those in irregular situations.  He wrote: But if we are being boldly honest, we have to admit that "irregular" equals "objectively sinful", and they need to repent. The good thing is that by attending Mass yet not receiving Communion (which would be poison to their souls if in mortal sin) they open themselves to hear the Word of God and its encouragement to repent.

He is of course quite correct. However, 'objectively sinful' does not necessarily mean 'in a state of mortal sin.'

So if one is divorced and 'remarried', and having marital relations in the new relationship, one is certainly in a situation that is objectively sinful. However, if one is subject to duress, for example (and that might be the duress of a partner threatening to abandon oneself and one's children - or even to harm them) then one might well not be in a state of mortal sin, for which free consent is a condition.

In which case, the damage to one's soul is less; and perseverance in attending Mass (and humility and obedience in not presenting for Holy Communion) are surely likely to be of significant spiritual benefit.

It also means, of course, that we should not assume that because someone is in an irregular situation, he or she is in a state of mortal sin. Indeed, we are expressly forbidden from making such a judgement.

Nonetheless, the Church is correct in her requirement that those living in such an irregular state of life do not present for Holy Communion, not least because of the risk of grave scandal (and there are other reasons, too, such as the problems of being judge in one's own case...)

But as I have blogged before, we should not underestimate the love and compassion of God.

Cardinal Kasper pontificates

OK, let's look at this...

Christopher Lamb of The Tablet has written the following, which I thought worthy of comment (my comments interpolated in red).

The Catholic Church has behaved like Pontius Pilate with regards to Catholics who are divorced and remarried, a prominent cardinal has said.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, who has called for remarried divorcees to be admitted to Communion, told the French daily Le Figaro that the Church has sought to “wash its hands of a difficult problem”.

Strangely, the Church has not sought to 'wash its hands' of this problem. That would imply a refusal to offer clear judgement, and passing the decision on to others. The Church, in fact, has clearly and consistently taught on this issue, cf (for example) Familiaris Consortio.

In an interview that was published on the same day as the Vatican released the working document for October’s Synod on the Family, the cardinal said: “if God is merciful, then the Church must be.”

Indeed: and the Church must be merciful in the same way that God is merciful. The Church follows Christ: naming sin for what it is, loving sinners, and calling them to repentance.

Cardinal Kasper explained that a lot of bishops who don’t make “much noise” have told him they are in favour of a shift in church teaching regarding the treatment of civilly remarried Catholics.

'A shift in teaching regarding the treatment of...' Weasel words. Why doesn't he say what really means, which is a shift in teaching regarding the indissolubility of marriage? 

He said the key question for the remarried divorcees receiving Communion was whether there was “grave sin”, and to clarify this, a dialogue with the individual was needed, he said.

He is correct in the first proposition: that is the key question; and the answer is yes. He is incorrect in the second proposition: no amount of dialogue can convert sin into not-sin. He is failing to distinguish between the objective and the subjective.

The cardinal added that the Church had been given the power by Christ to decide whether this was the case.

He is correct again: the Church has been given that power and has decided, in line with Christ's clear teaching. What the Church cannot do is reverse such a decision.

This has echoes with an interview the Archbishop of Accra, Charles Palmer-Buckle, gave earlier this year where he reflected on Matthew 16:19, in which Jesus says to Peter: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven,” and pronounces: “Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

“The Church can therefore loose or bind because this lawful power has been given it by Christ,” Kasper said.

And the Church has exercised that power. What Kasper and his followers want is in fact to reverse what the Church, using that power, has already decided and taught for centuries, based on the clear teachings of Christ and St Paul.

Archbishop Palmer-Buckle cited a Protestant friend who interpreted this passage to show that Christ gave them the power to unbind people in some marriages.

When they seek Protestant interpretations of the Bible to inform Catholic teaching in ways contrary to Catholic Tradition, we know they are scraping the barrel.

“I think we are going to look at what ‘the power of the keys’ could mean in this context,” the Ghanaian prelate told the Aletelia news website.

Good luck with that...

Ahead of last year’s synod Cardinal Kasper put forward proposals for admitting the divorced and remarried to Communion, and Pope Francis has praised a book the cardinal has written on mercy.

But reports of the Holy Father's support for Cardinal Kasper's proposals appear to have been greatly exaggerated. I have a feeling that ++Kasper, his fellow travellers and the Tablet will all be disappointed by the outcomes of the Synod.

--

But don't rely on that; remember SPES: Supplication and Penance for the Episcopal Synod.

Preferential Option for the Family

Bishop Schneider, who preached at the Pentecost Mass on the way to Chartres (and whose ring I was privileged to kiss at the edge of a French field) has just released a book, co-authored with two other bishops. It is called Preferential Option for the Family — 100 Questions and Answers Relating to the Synod and the other co-authors are Bishop Robert Vasa of Santa Rosa,  and Archbishop Aldo de Cillo Pagotto of Paraiba, Brazil.

It is, by all accounts, clear, lucid and Catholic. LifeSite News carries various extracts, including: 

“If the faithful no longer understand a moral doctrine, the blame does not fall on the doctrine but above all on those who should teach it in a clear and convincing way.” 

 “The historical transformation of society is a result of cultural and moral errors. The Church should not adapt to these errors or their consequences but rather identify, denounce and remedy them. Therein lies a real ‘update’ of her ministry.”

 “Adultery is objectively a grave sin and as such can be forgiven if the sinner has manifested not only a sincere repentance but also a purpose of amendment, that is, of ending the adulterous behaviour.” 

The book is arranged in one hundred questions and answers. designed to restate the timeless teachings of the Church in a clear way. As Bishop Vasa says: 'There is nothing new or revolutionary in this book. We just simply felt that, in light of the upcoming synod on the family, it was time to reiterate those things the Church has clearly and consistently taught.' 

This is very welcome as we approach the Synod.   Talking of which, don't forget SPES: Supplication and Penance for the Episcopal Synod (with thanks to Bookclubber for the E).

Not 'because religion'

I directed someone on Twitter who was asking why I was opposed to Same Sex Marriage, to my blog, as I did not want to simplify the argument to 140 characters. 

He or she responded 'Had a quick peek. The general argument is "because religion". Not the most satisfactory argument.' The joys of Twitter...

In fairness I hadn't pointed to a particular post, and the most recent post on the blog at the time was either the one about the Chartres Pilgrimage, or the one about the Ascension, so that may have been the reason for that response. I should have pointed to (and eventually did point to) my posts In Praise of Equal Marriage and The Destruction of Marriage.

Because actually, 'because religion' is only a small part of the argument.

One could as well say 'because educated.' For if we look at this matter through the eyes of any reasonable education, it leads to the same conclusion. I will use the three faculties of a typical university as a structure for this part of the discussion: Science, Medicine and the Humanities.

Let us start with Science: biology is the most relevant one here, and if one considers sex from a biological point of view, it is clear that its purpose is procreation, its modus operandi is one male and one female; pleasure is associated with it in order to promote procreation, and to form pair bonds in order to provide the best environment for the protection and raising of the children.

If we move on to Medicine, we can quickly discern that there are healthy and unhealthy sexual behaviours. Healthy sexual behaviour is adult, heterosexual and monogamous, and avoids incest. All other variants include varying degrees of risk to health.

And that brings us to the humanities... History is an interesting place to start. What we find is both that homosexuality as a state of being is a new invention, and also that wherever sexual licence takes over a civilisation, that civilisation collapses shortly thereafter.

But actually, where I really want to go is Philosophy. Because if you want to reduce my intellectual stance to 'because...' one true answer would be 'because philosophy.'

That is true, of course, of either side of the debate. The pro-SSM stance is based on philosophical assumptions, whether the proponents are aware of that fact or not. Any appeal to evidence is based on a philosophy; for it is a philosophy that dictates that such evidence is the way to inform decisions, and it is also a philosophy that determines how evidence is interpreted. It is also a philosophical issue to determine how we decide what is good (or fair, or just, or whatever other evaluative criterion one chooses to use...)

In my case, the philosophy is a classical Christian understanding of man's purpose, happiness and so forth. So 'because religion' if you like - but recognise that the opposing argument is equally 'because philosophy,' or, if you prefer, either 'because religion' or 'because irreligion.'

But why not...?

The question that arises from my last post, is But why not continue to teach the indissolubility of marriage, whilst operating a merciful pastoral practice when people fail to live up to that ideal?

In the first place, the question as posed risks misleading people. Chastity is not an ideal, in the sense of some unattainable aspiration. By the grace of God, it is a real possibility, and its attainment is a proper goal of Christian living.

But leaving that aside, there are more important issues at stake.

One is the integrity of the Church. Were she to proclaim one thing formally, but endorse its contradiction in practice, that integrity would be compromised: and we do not have the right to compromise Christ's mystical body.

A second, and related, issue is the corruption of the Church's mission. The Apostles were sent out by Christ to teach all things He had taught, and baptise all peoples, to incorporate them into Him.

But it is a self-evident truth that teaching is about more than proclaiming doctrine. What we do often teaches more clearly and convincingly than what we say: hence the well-known dictum often attributed to our Holy Father's namesake, St Francis of Assisi. Preach the Gospel at all times; use words when necessary.

The result of the Church adopting a pastoral strategy in contradiction with her doctrine would be initially confusion, and eventually a widespread belief that the Church doesn't really mean it, with regard to the doctrine.

One only has to reflect on the lack of teaching on Humanae Vitae, in particular the lack of a call to repentance and confession of those who breach its teachings, and the resultant conviction of much of the world, and indeed many Catholics, that it is an optional teaching.

Likewise, one can see how changes in devotional practice, combined with a lack of proper catechesis, have affected belief about something as central as the Real Presence.

Indeed, it seems likely to me that some of those promoting ++Kasper's 'pastoral solution' are hoping for precisely that outcome: that the Church's teaching will be silenced, and eventually treated as optional, and beyond that as outdated. And that risk is real. For while the Church, formally, is indefectible, there is no guarantee that the majority of the bishops, or the majority of the Faithful, will not fall into error - witness the Arian crisis.

So it is a matter of great importance that the integrity of the Church's teaching, which she has Christ's mandate to proclaim to all nations for all ages, is maintained both in her formal teaching and in her pastoral practice. 

Underestimating the love and compassion of God

I had to write yesterday's post in a hurry, and there are more things I wished to say.

Let us consider a hard case: a man whose wife abandoned him for another man, and who has reason to believe that the marriage was never valid, but who cannot prove that through the annulment process. Further, he is morally certain that there is no possibility of restoring his original, true marriage to its rightful state, or of his wife having anything further to do with him.

He has re-married and is raising a family with a new woman.

Let us further suppose that he is striving to grow in holiness, and recognises the objective truth - and therefore the necessity - of the Church's teaching and practice. We can then consider various possibilities.

Perhaps he agrees with his new woman that they cannot separate, for the sake of their children, but should live as brother and sister as the Church requires. Can anyone doubt that God will not shower such self-sacrificial love with grace and blessings? He is not to be outdone in generosity.  This could well be the path to sanctity for both of them, and a school of true love and holiness for their children.

Or we could imagine that he sets off on that path, but they find it too hard, and relapse back into living as man and wife. But he goes to confession, renews his resolution, and starts again. In such a case, too, it is impossible to imagine God failing to reward such perseverance with countless graces and blessings. Our Lord repeatedly preached on such issues, for there is more joy in Heaven over one repentant sinner...

Or we could imagine that he raises the topic with his new woman, but she, not being a Catholic, simply doesn't get it, and will not agree. She presents him with an ultimatum: to live as man and wife or to separate. For the sake of his children, and for love of her, he will not separate. So he goes to Mass regularly, but in a spirit of humility and obedience, and to avoid giving scandal, he refrains from receiving Holy Communion. Do we think Our Lord will refuse him grace for that? And if his first marriage really were null, and his second thereby valid, can we doubt that Our Lord, through His infinite mercy and compassion, will give him as much, or even more, grace as he would have received as a communicant?

I think that is perhaps the worst error of all, underpinning the soi-disant reformers' case: that they underestimate the love and compassion of God, and believe that they have to make up the deficit.

And while we debate this, in the approach to the Synod, let us never forget to pray for all those in irregular situations,  for all those who disagree with us, and for the success of the Synod and the good of the Church.

The Mythology of Re-Marriage

In the run-up to part two of the Synod, I fear that I am going to have to return to this theme more than once.

So perhaps I should start this post (which is a follow-up, as promised, to this one) by stating my credentials. I am no moral theologian, or scholar of religion. However, when it comes to this topic, I do have some life experience to bring to bear. I am a sinner from early childhood, so understand something of the dynamics of sin and self-deception; and I have been married for more than thirty years, for better and for worse, and know a little about that.

But much more importantly, I have been raised in the Faith of the Church, and simply seek to pass on what I have received.

It seems to me that the movement in favour of telling divorced and re-married people that they may receive Holy Communion must rest on one or more of the following errors.

• A false understanding of mercy and compassion
• Confusion about the reality of sin
• A lack of belief in the teaching authority of the Church
• A desire to change the Church's teaching
• A belief in the necessity of erotic love

So let us address them in turn.

A false understanding of mercy and compassion. The argument is often couched in terms of mercy or compassion. That may be the underlying intention indicated by this: I see no reason why one cannot believe in the indissolubility of marriage in a doctrinal sense, but still think that it is right in practice to make allowances and bend rules for people whose lives go wrong. In fact I think this is far more Christlike than treating them as uniquely sinful.

The general drift is that we mustn't be too hard on people, because that is not kind; and we all make mistakes (or even, in more reactionary circles, 'we all fall into sin'). Therefore, we should overlook the fact that someone is divorced and remarried, in the name of mercy or compassion.

However, that is not the approach taken by Christ, who surely is our model, nor the approach taken by the Church, His Mystical Body, animated by the Holy Spirit. Rather, Christ's approach, and the Church's approach following His example and inspiration, is to call sin by its name, and to call sinners - that is all of us - to repentance.

Of course, Christ is compassionate; of course, the Church is; of course we must be. We must reach out in love to everyone.  But it is a false compassion to teach people that sin is good, and needs no repentance.

Moreover, the kindness advocated by those calling for change is very unkind, and indeed unjust, to others; not least abandoned spouses and children. It also creates a moral climate in which more people are likely to suffer abandonment in the future. It strikes me as the kind of compassion that buys the drunk another drink at the bar, rather than the tough love that would insist on walking him home...

Underlying that error is another, I think, that is at the root of the problem for many people: 

Confusion about the reality of sin. The problem here is that many of us know people who have been divorced and re-married. We know that they are not evil people. We know they are often devoted to their new families. So surely their new relationship cannot be harmful. Even if, technically, it is not legitimate, if it is based on love, and their conscience is clear, what can be wrong with that?

This view confuses two things: the subjective and the objective. About the subjective, we are forbidden from judging: indeed how can we possibly know the state of someone else's conscience? We may, charitably, assume that they are acting according to their best lights, and therefore recognise that the guilt associated with their illicit relationship may be negligible (if, for example, they truly believe that their first marriage was invalid). We are certainly forbidden from reaching a negative judgement about another's conscience.

However, the subjective does not over-ride the objective. A (hypothetical) abortionist who sincerely believes that his vocation is to help women in difficulty, and is therefore subjectively innocent, nonetheless kills an unborn child every time he performs an abortion. Further, he does himself genuine harm each time: he gives Satan a further foothold in his soul (and the macabre case of Kermit Gosnell, for example, demonstrates the cumulative impact of that, as does the willingness of other abortionists to perform the visibly evil partial-birth abortions).  The point is that sin is bad for us (and others), even if we do not fully understand that it is sin, or fully consent to it. There is an objective reality at work here.

It is distressing when even Cardinals of the Church seem to forget this truth, and say that the old language – of mortal sin, for example – was a misguided attempt to motivate the faithful (see here).

In the case of the divorced and re-married, there are several things going on at this level. One is the continuing breach of the solemn promises made at the first marriage. A second is the objective act of adultery committed each time the new union is consummated. A third is disobedience to the teaching and authority of the Church. Even where subjective guilt is minimal, these objective facts will cause harm to the person committing the sin. That is why it is a false mercy to pretend to the person that it is all right to continue to do so: in doing so, we are colluding with the individual doing great harm to himself or herself, and inevitably to others, too (for such is the nature of sin); not to mention offending God. For, and this is the really tricky bit, the teaching about re-marriage being adultery, and adultery being sinful comes straight from Christ Himself.

There is one other aspect to this. Many pastors seem to think that the issue should be left to the conscience of the individual. That is to overlook another reality: Original Sin. Part of the damage we suffer (known as concupiscence) is that we are not the best judges in our own cases: the merest self-reflection reveals how quick we are to make excuses for our own sins. It is a false compassion to allow people to delude themselves on so vital an issue.

As mentioned, persistence in believing that, though divorced and remarried, one should be free to receive Holy Communion, also demonstrates a lack of belief in the teaching authority of the Church. The Church has clearly and consistently taught that those in a state of mortal sin thereby exclude themselves from communion, until they have confessed their sin, with a firm purpose of amendment. That teaching, of course, follows logically from what has been stated above, that sin is bad for the sinner, and from St Paul's admonition. Therefore, the Church, in her maternal love, calls the sinner to repentance, just as Her Lord did. One of the reasons for the current confusion, I think, is that the Church has not been sufficiently clear about this in recent decades. For everything I argue here also applies to anyone in a habitual state of sin which he or she is not repenting of and striving to amend - such as the Catholic couple who use artificial contraception, or the priest who entertains impure thoughts or uses pornography, and so on. 

The leads us to the next error I identified: A desire to change the Church's teaching.

My instinct is that the corruption of the faithful, and possibly the clergy, at this level underpins this call for 'compassion.' It is much more comfortable to call for the 'rules' to be changed than to confront the need to submit to the change that Christ demands - and will accomplish, if we allow Him to.

However, the Church can no more change the moral law than she can change the nature of the Trinity. She can only pass on the truth entrusted to her - or fail to do so. And in the case of so many of our pastors, it is the latter we find. They fail to teach the truth, and in failing to do so, end up losing their grip on it themselves. 

And in large part, I think that is due to them succumbing to a particularly peculiar error: 

a belief in the necessity of erotic love.  This seems to underlie comments such as the suggestion that repentance followed by living “ as brother and sister” as laid down in Familiaris Consortio is ludicrous and cruel.' (here, 4th letter). We know that the deepest and truest love need not be expressed through sexual intimacy: again we have the example of Christ to follow here, as well as His Blessed Mother, countless saints through the ages, and many celibate priests, religious and lay people in our own time. But in a post-Freudian, post-sexual-revolution world, many of our bishops and priests seem to think that such a truth is unteachable. Which is an error that is visibly causing immense harm to the Church and many, many families.

--

As I mentioned at the start, I am no moral theologian, and am always open to correction if I have misunderstood or misrepresented anyone or anything in this blog, just let me know. But my fear is that my analysis is correct, and that the battle at the Synod will be damaging.

Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix.
Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris,
sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper,
Virgo gloriosa et benedicta.

--

Update:

See here for my additional thoughts on hard cases, and the love and compassion of God.