+
JMJ
I've done my best to reformat the text ... but there may still be some spots I missed.
P^3
PS. While I'm 'retired' from Blogging and it is Lent, I felt that this needed to be published.
Lifesite News: Links to article pdfs
[To Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Dean of the College of Cardinals]
29th June, 2016
Your Eminence,
As Catholic theologians and philosophers, church historians and pastors of souls, we are writing to you in your capacity as Dean of the College of Cardinals to request that the College of Cardinals and the Patriarchs of the Catholic Church take collective action to respond to the dangers to Catholic faith and morals posed by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia issued by Pope Francis on March 19th 2016. This apostolic exhortation contains a number of statements that can be understood in a sense that is contrary to Catholic faith and morals. We have specified the nature and degree of the errors that could be attributed to Amoris laetitia in the accompanying document.
We request that the Cardinals and Patriarchs petition the Holy Father to condemn the errors listed in the document in a definitive and final manner, and to authoritatively state that Amoris laetitia does not require any of them to be believed or considered as possibly true. For the convenience of the Patriarchs and members of the College of Cardinals, we shall send each of them a copy of this letter and its accompanying document.
Requesting your blessing, we are
Yours faithfully,
The
Apostolic Exhortation Amoris
laetitia:
a theological
critique
The
apostolic exhortation Amoris
laetitia,
issued by Pope Francis on March 19th
2016
and addressed to bishops, priests, deacons, consecrated persons,
Christian married couples, and all the lay faithful, has caused grief
and confusion to many Catholics on account of its apparent
disagreement with a number of teachings of the Catholic Church on
faith and morals. This situation poses a grave danger to souls.
Since, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, inferiors are bound to correct
their superiors publicly when there is an imminent danger to the
faith (Summa
Theologiae, IIa
IIae q. 33 a. 4 ad 2; a. 7 co.), and the Catholic faithful have the
right and at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge,
competence, and position, to make known their views on matters which
concern the good of the Church (Latin Code of Canon Law, Can.
212, §3), Catholic
theologians have a strict duty to speak out against the apparent
errors in the document. This statement on Amoris
laetitia is
intended to fulfil that duty, and to assist the hierarchy of the
Church in addressing this situation.
The
authority of Amoris
laetitia
The
official character of Amoris
laetitia enables
it to pose a grave danger to the faith and morals of Catholics.
Although an apostolic exhortation pertains normally or principally to
the purely pastoral governing power, nevertheless, on account of the
inter-connection of the powers of teaching and of government, it also
pertains indirectly to the magisterial power. It can also contain
directly magisterial passages, which are then clearly indicated as
being such. This was the case for previous apostolic exhortations
such as Evangelii
nuntiandi,
Familiaris
consortio, and
Reconciliatio
et paenitentia.
There
is no obstacle as such to the Pope’s using an apostolic exhortation
to teach infallibly on
faith
and morals, but no infallible teaching is contained in Amoris
laetitia,
since none of its
statements
satisfy the strict requirements for an infallible definition. It is
thus a non-infallible
exercise
of the papal magisterium.
Some
commentators have asserted that the document does not contain
magisterial teaching as such, but only the personal reflections of
the Pope on the subjects it addresses. This assertion if true would
not remove the danger to faith and morals posed by the document. If
the Supreme Pontiff expresses a personal opinion in a magisterial
document, this expression of opinion implicitly presents the opinion
in question as one that it is legitimate for Catholics to hold. As a
result, many Catholics will come to believe that the opinion is
indeed compatible with Catholic faith and morals. Some Catholics out
of respect for a judgment expressed by the Supreme Pontiff will come
to believe that the opinion is not only permissible but true. If the
opinion in question is not in fact compatible with Catholic faith or
morals, these Catholics will thus reject the faith and moral teaching
of the Catholic Church as it applies to this opinion. If the opinion
relates to questions of morals, the practical result for the actions
of Catholics will be the same whether they come to hold that the
opinion is legitimate or actually true. An opinion on moral questions
that is in truth legitimate for the Supreme Pontiff to hold is one
that it is legitimate for Catholics to follow. Belief in the
legitimacy of a moral position will thus lead Catholics to believe
that it is legitimate to act as if it is true. If there is a strong
motivation to act in this way, as there is with the questions being
addressed here for the faithful to whose situations these questions
are pertinent, most Catholics will act accordingly. This is an
important factor in an evaluation of Amoris
laetitia, because that document addresses concrete moral
questions.
It
is however not the case that Amoris
laetitia is
intended to do no more than express the personal views of the Pope.
The document contains statements about the personal positions of the
current Holy Father, but such statements are not incompatible with
these positions being presented as teachings of the Church by the
document. Much of the document consists of straightforward assertoric
and imperative statements that make no reference to the personal
views of the Holy Father, and that thus have the form of magisterial
teachings. This form will cause Catholics to believe that these
statements are not simply permissible, but are teachings of the
authentic magisterium which call for religious submission of mind and
will; teachings to which they must yield not a respectful silence
accompanied by inner disagreement, but actual inner assent.1
The
dangers of Amoris
laetitia
The
following analysis does not deny or question the personal faith of
Pope Francis. It is not justifiable or legitimate to deny the faith
of any author on the basis of a single text, and this is especially
true in the case of the Supreme Pontiff. There are further reasons
why the text of Amoris
laetitia cannot be used as a sufficient reason for holding
that the Pope has fallen into heresy. The document is extremely long,
and it is probable that much of its original text was produced by an
author or authors who are not Pope Francis, as is normal with papal
documents. Those statements in it that on the face of them contradict
the faith could be due to simple error on
Pope Francis’s part, rather than to a voluntary rejection of the
faith. When it comes to the document itself, however, there is
no doubt that it constitutes a grave danger to Catholic faith and
morals. It contains many statements whose vagueness or ambiguity
permit interpretations that are contrary to faith or morals, or that
suggest a claim that is contrary to faith and morals without actually
stating it. It also contains statements whose natural meaning would
seem to be contrary to faith or morals.
The
statements made by Amoris
laetitia are
not expressed with scientific accuracy. This can be advantageous for
the very small proportion of Catholics who have a scientific training
in theology, because such Catholics will be able to discern that the
assertions of Amoris
laetitia do
not demand their religious submission of mind and will, or even a
respectful silence in regard to them. Accurate formulation and proper
legal form are needed in order to make a magisterial utterance
binding in this fashion, and these are for the most part lacking in
the document. It is however harmful for the vast majority of
Catholics who do not have a theological training and are not well
informed about Catholic teachings on the topics that the apostolic
exhortation discusses. The lack of precision in the document’s
statements makes it easier
to interpret them as contradicting the real teachings of the Catholic
Church and of divine revelation, and as justifying or requiring the
abandonment of these teachings by Catholics in theory and in
practice. Some cardinals, bishops, and priests, betraying their duty
to Jesus Christ and to the care of souls, are already offering
interpretations of this sort.
The
problem with Amoris
laetitia is
not that it has imposed legally binding rules that are intrinsically
unjust or authoritatively taught binding teachings that are false.
The document does not have the authority to promulgate unjust laws or
to require assent to false teachings, because the Pope does not have
the power to do these things. The problem with the document is that
it can mislead Catholics into believing what is false and doing what
is forbidden by divine law. The document is formulated in terms that
are not legally or theologically exact, but this does not matter for
the evaluation of its contents, because the most precise formulation
cannot give legal and doctrinal status to decrees that are contrary
to divine law and divine revelation. What is important about the
document is the damaging effect it can have on the belief and moral
life of Catholics. The character of this effect will be determined by
the meaning that most Catholics will take it to have, not by its
meaning when evaluated by precise theological criteria, and it is
this meaning that will be addressed here. The propositions of Amoris
laetitia that
require censure must thus be condemned in the sense that the average
reader is liable to attribute to their words. The average reader here
is understood to be one who is not trying to twist the words of the
document in any direction, but who will take the natural or the
immediate impression of the meaning of the words to be correct. It is
acknowledged that some of the censured propositions are contradicted
elsewhere in the document, and that Amoris
laetitia contains
many valuable teachings. Some of the passages of Amoris
laetitia make
an important contribution to the defence and preaching of the faith.
The criticism of Amoris
laetitia offered
here permits these valuable elements to have their true effect, by
distinguishing them from the problematic elements in the document and
neutralising the threat to the faith posed by them.
For
the sake of theological clarity and justice, this criticism of the
harmful parts of Amoris
laetitia will
take the form of a theological censure of the individual passages
that are deficient. These censures are to be understood in the sense
traditionally held by the Church,2
and
are applied to the passages prout
iacent,
as they lie. The propositions censured are so damaging that a
complete listing of the censures that apply to them is not attempted.
Most if not all of them fall under the censures of aequivoca,
ambigua, obscura, praesumptuosa, anxia, dubia, captiosa, male sonans,
piarum aurium offensiva,
as well as the ones listed. The censures list i) the censures that
bear upon the content of the statements censured, and ii) those that
bear upon the damaging effects of the statements. The censures are
not intended to be an exhaustive list of the errors that Amoris
laetitia on
a plausible reading contains; they seek to identify the worst threats
to Catholic faith and morals in the document. The propositions
censured are divided into those that are heretical and those that
fall under a lesser censure. Heretical
propositions, censured as ‘haeretica’, are ones that contradict
propositions that are contained
in divine revelation and are defined with a solemn judgment as
divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks
'ex cathedra,' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or
infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal
Magisterium.
The
propositions that fall under a lesser censure than heresy are
included as posing an especially grave danger to faith and morals.
The censures of these propositions are not censures of
administrative, legislative or doctrinal acts of the Supreme Pontiff,
since the propositions censured do not and cannot constitute such
acts. The censures are the subject of a filial request to the Supreme
Pontiff, which asks him to make a definitive and final juridical and
doctrinal act condemning the propositions censured. Finally, some of
the theologians who are signatories to this letter reserve the right
to make minor adjustments to some of the censures attached to some of
the propositions: their signatures should be taken as indicating
their belief that all the propositions should be censured, and a
general agreement with the censures here proposed.
Theological
censures of propositions drawn from the Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris
laetitia
A).
Heretical propositions.
1).AL
83; ‘The Church … firmly rejects the death penalty’.
If
understood as meaning that the death penalty is always and everywhere
unjustin itself and therefore cannot ever be rightly inflicted by the
state:
i).
Haeretica,
sacrae Scripturae contraria.
ii).
Perniciosa.
Gen.
9:63:
“Whoever sheds
the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God mademan
in his own image.”
See
also: Lev. 20-1; Deut. 13, 21-22; Matt. 15:4; Mk. 7:10; Jn. 19:11;
Rom. 13:4; Heb. 10:28;Innocent I, Letter to Exsuperius, PL 120:
499A-B; Innocent III, Profession of Faith prescribed for the
Waldensians, DH 7954; Pius V, Catechism of the
Council of Trent, commentary on the 5th commandment;
Pope Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of
Histopathology of the Nervous System, AAS 44 (1952): 787; John Paul
II, Catechism of the
Catholic Church, 2267.
2). AL
156; 'Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected.’
If
understood not simply as denying that a wife owes servile obedience
to her husband or that the husband has authority over his wife that
is the same as parental authority, but as also denying that the
husband has any form of authority over his wife, or as denying that
the wife has any duty to obey the legitimate commands of her husband
in virtue of his authority as husband:
i).
Haeretica,
sacrae Scripturae contraria.
ii).
Prava,
perniciosa.
Eph.
5:24: “As the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to
their husbands in allthings.”
See
also: 1
Cor. 11:3; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:3-5; 1 Pet. 3:1-5; Pius V, Catechism of
the Council of Trent, commentary on the sacrament of matrimony; Leo
XIII, Arcanum,
ASS 12 (1879): 389; Pius XI, Casti
connubii,
AAS 22 (1930): 549 (DH 3708-09); John XXIII, Ad
Petri cathedram,
AAS 51 (1959): 509-10.
3). AL
159; 'Saint Paul recommended virginity because he expected Jesus’
imminent return and he wanted
everyone to concentrate only on
spreading the Gospel: “the appointed time has grown very short”
(1 Cor 7:29). . . . Rather than speak
absolutely of the superiority of virginity, it should be enough to
point out that the different states of life complement one another,
and consequently that some can be more perfect in one way and others
in another.'
Understood
as denying that a virginal state of life consecrated to Christ is
superior considered in itself to the state of Christian marriage:
i).
Haeretica,
sacrae Scripturae contraria.
ii).
Perniciosa,
suspensiva gravis resolutionis.
Council
of Trent, Session 24, canon 10: “If anyone
says that the married state surpasses thatof virginity or celibacy,
and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity
orcelibacy
than to be united in matrimony, let him be anathema” (DH 1810).See
also: Mt. 19: 12, 21; 1 Cor. 7:7-8, 38; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; Apoc. 14:4;
Council of Florence, Decreefor
the Jacobites,
DH 1353; Pius X, Response of the Biblical Commission, DH 3629; Pius
XIISacra
virginitas, AAS
46 (1954): 174; 2nd
Vatican
Council, Decree Optatam
totius,
10.
4).AL
295: ‘Saint John
Paul II proposed the so-called
“law of gradualness” in the knowledge thatthe human being “knows,
loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”.This
is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the
prudential exercise of
freeacts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to
understand, appreciate, or fully carryout
the objective demands of the law.’AL
301: ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in
any “irregular” situation areliving
in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More
is involved here thanmere
ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet
have great difficulty inunderstanding
“its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does
not allow him orher
to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.’
Understood
as meaning that a justified person has not the strength with
God’sgrace
to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any
of thecommandments
of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that
God’sgrace,
when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably
and ofits
nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient
forconversion
from all serious sin:i).
Haeretica,
sacrae Scripturae contraria.
ii).
Impia,
blasphema.
Council
of Trent, session 6, canon 18: “If anyone says that the
commandments of God are impossible
to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace,
let him be
anathema”
(DH 1568).
See
also: Gen. 4:7; Deut. 30:11-19; Ecclesiasticus 15: 11-22; Mk. 8:38;
Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17; Zosimus, 15th (or
16th) Synod of Carthage, canon 3 on grace, DH
225; Felix III, 2nd Synod of Orange, DH 397;
Council of Trent, Session 5, canon 5; Session 6, canons 18-20, 22, 27
and 29; Pius V, Bull Ex
omnibus afflictionibus, On the errors of Michael du Bay,
54, (DH 1954); Innocent X, Constitution Cum
occasione, On the errors of Cornelius Jansen, 1 (DH 2001);
Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus,
On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); John Paul II,
Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio
et paenitentia 17: AAS 77 (1985): 222; Veritatis
splendor 65-70: AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).
5). AL
297; ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the
logic of the Gospel!’
If
understood as meaning that no human being can or will be condemned to
eternal punishment in hell:
6
i).
Haeretica,
sacrae Scripturae contraria.
ii).
Scandalosa,
perniciosa.
Matt.
25: 46: “These
shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life
everlasting”
See
also: Mt. 7:22-23; Lk. 16: 26; Jn. 17:12; Apoc. 20:10; 16th
Synod
of Toledo (DH 574); 4th
Lateran
Council, DH 801; Benedict XII, Constitution Benedictus
Deus, DH
1002; Council of Florence, decree Laetentur
caeli, DH
1306; John Paul II, Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, Recentiores
episcoporum,
AAS 71 (1979): 941; Catechism
of the Catholic Church,
1033-37.
6). AL
299: ‘I am in agreement with the many Synod Fathers who observed
that “the baptized who are
divorced and civilly remarried need to be more fully integrated into
Christian communities in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding
any occasion of scandal. The logic of integration is the key to their
pastoral care, a care which would allow them not only to realize that
they belong to the Church as the body of Christ, but also to know
that they can have a joyful and fruitful experience in it. They are
baptized; they are brothers and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into
their hearts gifts and talents for the good of all. … Such persons
need to feel not as excommunicated
members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live
and grow in the Church and experience her as a mother who welcomes
them always, who takes care of them with affection and
encourages them along the path of life and the Gospel”.’
If
understood as meaning that the divorced and civilly remarried who
choose their situation with full knowledge and full consent of the
will are not in a state of serious sin, and that they can receive
sanctifying grace and grow in charity:
i).
Haeretica,
sacrae Scripturae contraria.
ii).
Scandalosa,
prava, perversa.
Mk.
10:11-12:
“Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth
adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and
be married to another, she committeth
adultery”. See
also: Ex. 20:14; Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Lk. 16:18; 1 Cor. 7: 10-11; Heb.
10:26-29; Council of Trent, Session 6, canons 19-21, 27 (DH 1569-71,
1577); Session 24, canons 5 and 7 (DH 1805, 1807); Innocent
XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 62-63
(DH 2162-63); Alexander VIII, Decree
of the Holy Office on ‘Philosophical Sin’, DH 2291; John Paul II,
Veritatis
splendor, 65-70:
AAS 85 (1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).
7). AL
301: ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in
any “irregular” situation are living
in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More
is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know
full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding
“its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does
not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without
further sin.’
Understood
as meaning that a Catholic believer can have full knowledge of a
divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter,
but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action:
i).
Haeretica,
sacrae Scripturae contraria.
ii).
Prava,
perversa.
Council
of Trent, session 6, canon 20: “If anyone says that a justified
man, however perfect he 7
may be, is not bound
to observe the commandments of God and of the Church but is bound
only to believe, as if the Gospel were merely an absolute promise of
eternal life without the condition that the commandments be
observed, let him be anathema” (DH 1570). See
also: Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Heb. 10:26-29; 1 Jn. 5:17; Council of
Trent, session 6, canons 19 and 27; Clement XI, Constitution
Unigenitus,
On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); John Paul II,
Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio
et paenitentia 17: AAS 77
(1985): 222; Veritatis
splendor, 65-70: AAS 85
(1993): 1185-89 (DH 4964-67).
8). AL
301: ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply be said that all those in
any “irregular” situation are living
in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More
is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know
full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding its
inherent values, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow
him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without
further sin.’
Understood
as saying that a person with full knowledge of a divine law can sin
by choosing to obey that law:
i).
Haeretica,
sacrae Scripturae contraria.
ii).
Prava,
perversa.
Ps.
18:8: “The law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls.”
See
also: Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Council of Trent, session 6, canon 20;
Clement XI, Constitution Unigenitus, On the errors of Pasquier
Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); Leo XIII, Libertas
praestantissimum, ASS 20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); John
Paul II, Veritatis
splendor, 40: AAS 85 (1993): 1165 (DH 4953).
9). AL
303: ‘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.’
Understood
as meaning that conscience can truly judge that actions condemned by
the Gospel, and in particular, sexual acts between Catholics who have
civilly remarried following divorce, can sometimes be morally right
or requested or commanded by God:
i).
Haeretica,
sacrae Scripturae contraria.
ii).
Scandalosa,
prava, perversa, perniciosa, impia, blasphema.
Council
of Trent, session 6, canon 21: “If anyone says that
Jesus Christ was given by God to men as a redeemer in whom they are
to trust but not also as a lawgiver whom they are bound to
obey, let him be anathema” (DH 1571).
Council
of Trent, session 24, canon 2: “If anyone says that it is lawful
for Christians
to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not
forbidden by any divine law, let him be anathema”
(DH 1802).
Council
of Trent, session 24, canon 5: “If anyone says that the marriage
bond can be dissolved because of
heresy or difficulties in cohabitation or because of the wilful
absence of one of the spouses, let him be anathema” (DH
1805)
8
Council
of Trent, session 24, canon 7: “If anyone says that the Church is
in error for havingtaught and for
still teaching that in accordance with the evangelical and apostolic
doctrine, themarriage bond cannot be dissolved because of adultery on
the part of one of the spouses andthat neither of the two, not even
the innocent one who has given no cause for infidelity, cancontract
another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that the
husband whodismisses an adulterous wife and marries again and the
wife who dismisses and adulteroushusband and married again are
both guilty of adultery, let him be anathema” (DH 1807).See
also: Ps. 5:5; Ps. 18:8-9; Ecclesiasticus 15:21; Heb. 10:26-29; Jas.
1:13; 1 Jn. 3:7; InnocentXI, Condemned propositions of the
‘Laxists’, 62-63 (DH 2162-63);
Clement XI, ConstitutionUnigenitus,
On the errors of Pasquier Quesnel, 71 (DH 2471); Leo XIII, encyclical
letterLibertas
praestantissimum, ASS 20
(1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); Pius XII, Decree of the HolyOffice on
situation ethics, DH 3918; 2nd
Vatican Council,
Pastoral Constitution Gaudium
etspes, 16; John Paul II,
Veritatis splendor,
54: AAS 85 (1993): 1177; Catechism of the CatholicChurch,
1786-87.
10).AL 304: ‘I earnestly ask that we always recall a
teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn toincorporate it in our
pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the
generalprinciples, the more we
descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we
encounterdefects… In matters of action, truth or practical
rectitude is not the same for all, as to mattersof
detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the
same rectitude in mattersof detail, it is not equally known to
all… The principle will be found to fail, according as wedescend
further into detail”. It is true that general rules set forth a
good which can never bedisregarded
or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely
for allparticular situations.’
Understood
as meaning that moral principles and moral truths contained indivine
revelation and in the natural law do not include negative
prohibitions thatabsolutely forbid particular kinds of action under
any and all circumstances:i).
Haeretica,
sacrae Scripturae contraria.
ii).
Scandalosa,
prava, perversa.
John
Paul II, Veritatis
splendor 115:
“Each of us knows how important is the teaching whichrepresents
the central theme of this Encyclical and which is today being
restated with theauthority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can
see the seriousness of what is involved, notonly for individuals but
also for the whole of society, with the reaffirmation of the
universalityand immutability of the moral commandments, particularly
those which prohibit always andwithout exception intrinsically
evil acts” (DH 4971).See
also: Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 6: 9-10; Gal. 5: 19-21; Apoc. 22:15; 4th
Lateran
Council, chapter 22
(DH
815); Council of Constance, Bull Inter
cunctas,
14 (DH 1254); Paul VI, Humanae
vitae,
14: AAS 60 (1968) 490-91.
John
Paul II, Veritatis
splendor,
83: AAS 85 (1993): 1199 (DH 4970).
11). AL
308: ‘I
understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which
leaves no roomfor confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants
a Church attentive to the goodnesswhich the Holy Spirit sows in the
midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearlyexpressing
her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in
the process,
hershoes
get soiled by the mud of the street”.’9
If
understood as meaning that Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the
Churchabandon her perennial discipline of refusing the
Eucharist to the divorced andremarried and of refusing absolution to
the divorced and remarried who do notexpress contrition for their
state of life and a firm purpose of amendment withregard to it:i).
Haeretica,
sacrae Scripturae contraria.
ii).
Scandalosa,
prava, perversa, impia, blasphema.
1
Cor. 11:27: “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.”
Familiaris
consortio,
84: “Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open
theway
to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of
having broken the sign ofthe Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are
sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is nolonger 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 cannotsatisfy
the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to
live in completecontinence, that is, by abstinence from the acts
proper to married couples’.”2nd
Lateran
Council, canon 20: “Because there is one thing that conspicuously
causes greatdisturbance
to holy Church, namely false penance, we warn our brothers in the
episcopate,and priests, not to allow the souls of the laity to be
deceived or dragged off to hell by falsepenances. It is certain that
a penance is false when many sins are disregarded and a penanceis
performed for one only, or when it is done for one sin in such a way
that the penitent doesnot
renounce another” (DH 717).See
also: Mt. 7:6; Mt. 22: 11-13; 1 Cor. 11:28-30; Heb. 13:8; Council of
Trent, session 14, Decree on Penance, cap. 4; Council of Trent,
session 13, Decree on the most holy Eucharist (DH 1646-47));
Innocent XI, Condemned propositions of the ‘Laxists’, 60-63
(DH 2160-63); John Paul II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1385,
1451, 1490
B.
Propositions falling under lesser censures
12). AL
295: ‘Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called
“law of gradualness” in the knowledge that
the
human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different
stages of growth”.
This
is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the
prudential exercise of free
acts
on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand,
appreciate, or fully carry
out
the objective demands
of the law.’
If
understood as meaning that free acts that do not fully carry out the
objective
demands
of divine law can be morally good:
i).
Erronea
in fide.
ii).
Scandalosa,
prava.
1
Jn. 3: 4: “Whosoever committeth sin, committeth also iniquity; and
sin is iniquity.”
See
also: Leo XIII, Libertas
praestantissimum, ASS
20 (1887-88): 598 (DH 3248); John Paul
II,
Veritatis
splendor,
40: AAS 85 (1993): 1165 (DH 4953).
10
13). AL
296; “There
are two ways of thinking which recur throughout the Church’s
history:
castingoff
and reinstating. The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of
Jerusalem, has alwaysbeen
the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement. The way of the
Church is not tocondemn
anyone for ever.”AL
297; ‘No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the
logic of the Gospel!’
Understood
as meaning that in
circumstances where an offender does not ceaseto commit an offence
the
Church does not have the power or the right to inflictpunishments or
condemnations without
later remitting them or lifting them,
orthat the Church does not have the power or the right to condemn
andanathematise individuals after their death:
i).
Erronea
in fide.
ii).
Scandalosa,
perniciosa, derogans praxi sive usui et disciplinae Ecclesiae.
1983
Code of Canon Law, can. 1358: “The remission of a censure cannot be
granted except toan offender whose contempt has been purged”.3rd
Council of Constantinople, Condemnation of the
Monothelites and of Pope Honorius I: “Asto
these self-same men whose impious teachings we have rejected, we have
also judged itnecessary to banish their names from the holy Church of
God, that is, the name of Sergius,who began to write about this
impious doctrine, of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, of Pauland of
Peter and of those who have presided on the throne of this
God-protected city, and thesame for those who have been like-minded.
Then also (the name) of Theodore who was bishopof Pharan. All these
aforenamed persons were mentioned by Agatho, the most holy and
thriceblessedpope of elder Rome, in his letter to the . . . emperor,
and rejected by him as havingthought in a way contrary to our
orthodox faith; and we determine that they are also subjectto
anathema. Along with these we have seen fit to banish from the holy
Church of God and toanathematize also Honorius, the former
pope of the elder Rome” (DH 550).See
also: 2nd
Council of
Constantinople, canons 11-12; Lateran Synod, canon 18 (DH 518-20);Leo
II, letter Regi
regum, DH 563; 4th
Council of
Constantinople, canon 11; Council ofFlorence, Decree for the
Jacobites DH 1339-1346; Benedict XV, 1917 Code of Canon Law,canons
855, 2214, 2241:1 and 2257; John Paul II, 1983 Code of Canon Law,
canons 915 and1311; Code of Canon Law for Eastern Churches, canon
1424:1.
14). AL
298: ‘The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can
find themselves in avariety of
situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid
classificationsleaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral
discernment. One thing is a second unionconsolidated over time, with
new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving,
Christiancommitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the
great difficulty of going backwithout feeling in conscience that one
would fall into new sins.’
If
understood as meaning that persons who are civilly married to someone
otherthan their true spouse can show Christian virtue by being
sexually faithful totheir civil partner:
i).
Erronea
in fide.
ii).
Scandalosa.
1
Cor. 7:10-11:
“To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the
wife departnot
from her husband; and if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be
reconciled to herhusband.
And let not the husband put away his wife.”
11
See
also: Gen. 2: 21; Mal. 2:15-16; Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk.
16:18; Heb. 13:4; Letter
Quam
laudabiliter of
Leo I, DH 283; Letter Regressus
ad nos of
Leo I, DH 311-14; Letter
Gaudemus
in Domino of
Innocent III, DH 777-79; 2nd
Council
of Lyons, Profession
of Faith of
Emperor
Michael Palaeologus (DH
860); Council of Trent, Session 24 canons 5, 7; Pius Vl,
Rescript.
ad Episc. Agriens., 11th
July
1789; Arcanum,
ASS 12 (1879-80): 388-94; Pius XI, Casti
connubii,
AAS 22 (1930): 546-50 (cf. Dz 3706-10); John Paul II, Apostolic
Exhortation
Familiaris
consortio,
19, 80-81, 84: AAS 74 (1982) 92-149; Catechism of the Catholic
Church,
1643-49.
15). AL
298: ‘The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious
reasons, such as thechildren’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot
satisfy the obligation to separate”. [footnote329] In such
situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of
living “asbrothers and sisters”
which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions
ofintimacy are lacking, “it often
happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of thechildren
suffers”.’ {N.B.
The last clause in double quotation marks misleadingly applies
todivorced and civilly married couples a statement of Vatican Council
II, Gaudium
et Spes,
51,that refers only to validly married couples.}
Understood
as endorsing claims that divorced and civilly remarried couples have
an
obligation of sexual faithfulness to each other rather than to their
true
spouses,
or that their living 'as brother and sister' could be either a
culpable
occasion
of sin against that supposed obligation, or a culpable cause of harm
to
their
children:
i)
Erronea
in fide.
ii)
Scandalosa,
prava, perversa.
Ecclesiasticus
15:21: “He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, and he hath given
no man
licence
to sin.”
See
also: Rom. 3:8, 8: 28; 1 Thess. 4:7; Jas. 1:13-14; John
Paul II, Veritatis
splendor,
79-83:
AAS
85 (1993): 1197-99 (cf. DH 4969-70).
16). AL
300: ‘Since
“the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases”, the
consequences
oreffects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.
[footnote 336] This is also the casewith regard to sacramental
discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a
particularsituation
no grave fault exists.’AL
305: ‘Because of forms
of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective
situation of sin –
which
may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such –
a
person can
be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of
grace and charity, while receiving
the Church’s help to this end. [footnote 351] In certain cases,
this can include the help
of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the
confessional must not be a torture
chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy”.
I would also point out that the
Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine
and nourishment for the weak”’.’
Understood
as saying that absence of grave fault due to diminished
responsibilitycan permit admission to the Eucharist in the cases of
divorced and civillyremarried persons who do not separate, nor
undertake to live in perfectcontinence, but remain in
an objective state of adultery and bigamy:12
i).
Erronea
in fide, falsa.
ii).
Scandalosa.
John
Paul II, Familiaris
consortio 84:
“The
Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture,
of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who
haveremarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact
that their state and conditionof life objectively contradict that
union of love between Christ and the Church which issignified 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 andconfusion regarding the Church's
teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.Reconciliation
in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the
Eucharist, canonly
be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and offidelity
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’.”
1
Jn. 2:20: “You have the unction from the Holy One, and know all
things”.See also Ez. 3:17; Mt.
28:20; 1 Cor. 11:27-29; Eph. 5:30-32; 2nd
Lateran Council, DH
717; PaulV, Rituale
Romanum, 49; Benedict
XIV, Confirmation of the Synod of the Maronites;Encyclical letter Ex
omnibus; Benedict XV,
1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 855; John Paul II,1983 Code of Canon
Law, canon 915; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter
tobishops of the Catholic Church concerning the reception of
Eucharistic communion by thosefaithful who after a divorce have
entered a new marriage, AAS 86 (1994): 974-79; Code ofCanon Law for
Eastern Churches, canon 712; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1650,
2390;Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Concerning
Some Objections to the Church’sTeaching
on the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members
of theFaithful,
in “Documenti e Studi”, On
the Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried,Vatican
City 1998, pp. 20-29; Pontifical Council for
Legislative Texts (PCLT), “DeclarationConcerning
the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful who are Divorced and
Remarried”,on-line
athttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html;
Benedict XVI, Apostolic ExhortationSacramentum
caritatis 29: AAS 99
(2007), 128-29.
17).AL
298: ‘The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can
find themselves in a
variety
of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly
rigid classifications
leaving
no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing
is a second union
consolidated
over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving,
Christian
commitment,
a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of
going back
without
feeling in conscience
that one would fall into new sins.’
If
understood as meaning that the divorced and remarried can either sin
or
culpably
expose themselves to the occasion of sin by abstaining from sexual
relations
in accordance with the perennial teaching and discipline of the
Church:
i).
Temeraria,
falsa.
ii).
Scandalosa,
prava, derogans praxi et disciplinae Ecclesiae.
Ecclesiasticus
15:16: “If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable
fidelity for
ever,
they shall preserve thee.”
13
See
also: 1 Cor. 7:11, 10:13; John Paul II, Veritatis
splendor,
102-03: AAS 85 (1993): 1213-14;Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris
consortio,
84, AAS 74 (1982) 92-149; Catechism of theCatholic Church, 1650;
Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum
caritatis 99(2007),
128-29.
18).AL
298: ‘There
are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first
marriageand
were unjustly abandoned, or of “those who have entered into a
second union for the sakeof
the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively
certain in conscience that theirprevious
and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid”.’
If
understood as meaning that subjective certainty in conscience about
theinvalidity of a previous marriage is sufficient on its own to
excuse from guilt orlegal penalty those who contract a new marriage
when their previous marriageis recognised as valid by the Church:i).
Temeraria, falsa.
ii).
Scandalosa.
Council
of Trent, Session 24, canon 12: “If anyone says that matrimonial
cases do not belong
to
ecclesiastical judges, let him be anathema” (DH 1812).
See
also: Leo XIII, Arcanum,
ASS
12 (1879), 393; John Paul II, 1983 Code of Canon Law,
canons
1059-60, 1085.
19). AL
311: ‘The teaching of moral theology should not fail to incorporate
these considerations.’
Understood
as meaning that the teaching of moral theology in the CatholicChurch
should present as probable or true any of the propositions
censuredabove:i). Falsa.
ii).
Scandalosa,
prava, perversa, perniciosa.
Matt.
5:19: “He therefore
that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach
men,
shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.”
See
also: Is. 5:20; Mt. 28:20; 1 Tim. 6:20; Jas. 3:1; Pius IX, Bull
Ineffabilis
Deus,
DH 2802; 1stVatican
Council, Constitution Dei
Filius,
cap. 4 (DH 3020); Pius X, Motu Proprio Sacrorumantistitum,
DH 3541; 1st
Vatican
Council, Constitution Dei
Filius,
cap. 4 (DH 3020);Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Iusiurandum
fidelitatis in suscipiendo officionomine ecclesiae exercendo, AAS
81 (1989): 106; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Donum
veritatis,
On the ecclesial vocation of the theologian, AAS 82 (1990): 1559;
John PaulII, Veritatis
splendor,
115-16: AAS 85 (1993): 1223-24; Benedict XVI, Congregation for
theDoctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Works of Father Jon
Sobrino SJ, 2 (DH 5107).The propositions censured above have been
condemned in many previous magisterialdocuments. It is urgently
necessary that their condemnation be repeated by the SupremePontiff
in a definitive and final manner and that it be authoritatively
stated that Amoris
laetitiadoes
not require any of them to be believed or considered as possibly
true.
Notes
1
Cf.
Lucien Choupin, Valeur
des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège,
2nd ed.
(Paris: Beauchesne, 1913), pp. 52-55; and A.-M. Aubry, Obéir ou
assentir ? De la « soumission religieuse » au magistère simplement
authentique, Paris, DDB, collection « Sed Contra », 2015. .
2
See
H. Quilliet, ‘Censures doctrinales’, DTC II, 2101-2113, and the
Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine
of the Faith, ‘Doctrinal commentary on the concluding formula of
the Professio
fidei’,
June
29th,
1998.
3
Scriptural references are taken from the Vulgate or from the
neo-Vulgate.
4
All
references to Denzinger are taken from the 43rd
edition.
Comments
Post a Comment