It was recently made known that Pope Francis’s September 5, 2016, letter praising the Guidelines for the Application of Chapter VIII of Amoris laetitia—issued by the Argentine bishops of the Buenos Aires Region—has now been published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acta or AAS for short), the “Acts of the Apostolic See.” Since 1909 the Acta have served as the official instrument for the publication of documents and decisions of the Holy Father and the Roman Curia. In addition to Francis’s letter, the AAS include the actual Guidelines of the Argentine bishops along with a rescript by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, stating that the Supreme Pontiff decrees both his letter and the Guidelines as “authentic magisterium.” With [DG1] this decree, Francis is effectively saying that he considers this local episcopal interpretation of chapter eight of Amoris laetitia to be a worthy example to the global Church.
The reaction of Catholics to this news should be a desire to read Pope Francis’s letter and the Guidelines of the Argentine bishops with greater seriousness and attention to discern better how the Holy Father wishes chapter eight of his exhortation to be understood. Unfortunately, such a reaction was missing among the papal critics. The headline on LifeSiteNews was “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers.” Most Rev. René Henry Gracida, the retired bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas, wrote on his blogsite: “Francis’ heterodoxy is now official.” Even more extreme was Deacon Nick Donnelly’s statement on his Twitter account: “Has Francis deposed himself as the successor of St. Peter by attempting to make the heretical interpretation of AL Authentic Magisterium?”
In contrast to the papal critics is the view of Cardinal Gerhard Müller who, in his October 9, 2017, National Catholic Register interview with Edward Pentin, said that “if you look at what the Argentine bishops wrote in their directive, you can interpret this in an orthodox way.” Cardinal Müller is absolutely correct. There is nothing in the Guidelines of the Argentine bishops that violates Catholic faith and morals.
Before examining the aspects of the Argentine Guidelines that Pope Francis finds praiseworthy, it’s important to take note of several important qualifications. First, the papal praise for the Argentine bishops’ Guidelines does not mean that other guidelines offered by individual bishops or groups of bishops are superseded or nullified. In fact, the Buenos Aires bishops specifically state that they are offering their Guidelines “without prejudice to the authority that each Bishop in his own Diocese has to specify, complete, or establish them.” Here they are talking about the bishops in their pastoral region, but what they say extends to what Vatican II teaches about the rightful authority of all diocesan bishops over their own dioceses: “Individual bishops who have been entrusted with the care of a particular church—under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff—feed their sheep in the name of the Lord as their own, ordinary, and immediate pastors, performing for them the office of teaching, sanctifying, and governing” (Christus Dominus, 11). Bishops, of course, must teach in harmony with the Holy Father, but in doing so “they are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth” (Vatican II, Lumen gentium, 25).
Second, both the papal letter and the Guidelines themselves embody a magisterium that is primarily pastoral in nature. As with Amoris laetitia itself, there are no new teachings on Catholic faith and morals that are not in harmony with prior Catholic doctrine. In his National Catholic Register interview with Edward Pentin, Cardinal Müller correctly notes that Amoris laetitia “is in the line of holy Scripture, apostolic Tradition and the definite decisions of the papal and episcopal magisterium, which is continuous up to now. Nowhere in Amoris laetitia is it demanded by the faithful to believe anything that is against the dogma because the indissolubility of marriage is very clear.” It is also important to recognize that neither Amoris laetitia nor the Buenos Aires Guidelines authorize any changes to Catholic canon law as the canonist Dr. Edward N. Peters has made clear. Therefore, the canonical rules for the worthy reception of Holy Communion articulated in canons 915 and 916 of the 1983 Code remain fully in force.
Third, Pope Francis’s endorsement of the Buenos Aires bishops’ Guidelines is not without historical precedent. After Vatican I, Blessed Pius IX wrote to the bishops of Germany praising them for offering a correct interpretation of the “true sense of the definitions of the Vatican Council that have been distorted by a widely distributed and deceptive circular letter” (Denz.-H, 3117).
Popes, of course, can intervene to correct statements of bishops or groups of bishops that are not in harmony with magisterial teaching. Because of the dignity of the episcopal office, however, most popes are reluctant to intervene publicly unless absolutely necessary.
Fourth, it’s significant that, whereas Pope Francis has chosen to endorse and include the Buenos Aires bishops’ Guidelines in the AAS, he has not chosen to do so with other bishops’ instructions concerning Amoris laetitia. This shows that he favors these Guidelines over the more permissive ones offered by the bishops of Malta and Germany.
Critics of Pope Francis claim that a letter reportedly sent by Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri expressing the Holy Father’s gratitude for the Maltese bishops’ Guidelines is a sign of papal endorsement. The Maltese Guidelines, however, were not chosen by Pope Francis for inclusion in the AAS. Neither does the fact that they were published in L’Osservatore Romano necessarily mean that the Holy Father approves of every aspect of them. Pope Francis, for example, made it clear in a 2016 address that he does not support women preaching at Mass. In spite of this, the Osservatore Romano subsequently ran a number of essays supporting this practice. The key point, though, is that the Buenos Aires Guidelines, which Pope Francis has endorsed, are much more in line with traditional Catholic teaching than the Guidelines of the Maltese bishops. In fact, it is possible to see the Holy Father’s endorsement of Argentine Guidelines as an indirect rebuke of the application of Amoris laetitia taken by the bishops of Malta.
Having made these four qualifications, we need to consider the particular aspect of the Buenos Aires Guidelines that the Holy Father singles out for praise. First, it’s important to note that in his letter addressed to Monsignor Sergio Alfredo Fenoy, the delegate of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region, Pope Francis says nothing about the reception of Holy Communion by the divorced and remarried. Papal critics who claim this is his true intention have nothing but their own prejudices as evidence. Instead we find in the Holy Father’s letter an emphasis on the need for bishops to stay close to their priests and impress upon them the need for pastoral charity when going out to encounter those who have strayed. Pope Francis likewise notes that pastoral charity must also inform the path that the Church offers to these lost sheep: a path of welcome, accompaniment, discernment, and integration into the ecclesial community. Pope Francis writes that he understands that such a path can be difficult or tiresome, and he knows it cannot be achieved simply by programmatic, organizational, or legal interventions—even though these are important.
Of the four pastoral practices that culminate with integration, the Holy Father states that the least cultivated is discernment. He believes, therefore, it is urgent that formation in discernment, personal and communal, be included in seminaries and priestly communities. To that end, Francis reminds his brother bishops that Amoris laetitia was “the fruit and work of the whole Church by means of the two Synods and the Pope.” He therefore recommends “a complete catechesis of the exhortation, which will certainly provide assistance for the growth, consolidation, and holiness of the family.”
It’s very clear that Pope Francis wishes his letter to be an expression of his authentic magisterium because it underscores the need for pastoral charity and the hard work of welcome, accompaniment, discernment, and integration on the part of priests reaching out to those who have strayed. He wants to make sure that these points have magisterial authority.
The Guidelines of the Argentine bishops embody many of these pastoral qualities that Pope Francis wishes to emphasize. With regard to those who have divorced and remarried, the bishops are clear that they do not intend to provide permission for access to the sacraments but a process of discernment undertaken by the pastor. This process must involve the proclamation of the kerygma in order to stimulate or renew a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. It must embody the way of charity as well as the ways of mercy and integration expressed in Amoris laetitia, nos. 296 and 300. This path does not necessarily end with sacramental reception; it could lead to other ways of being integrated into the life of the Church. In cases in which the divorced and remarried couple is Christian and both partners are on a path of faith, the pastor is able to propose the obligation (empeño) of living in continence. Amoris laetitia does not ignore the difficulties of living according to this obligation (cf. footnote 329). Nevertheless the way is open to the possibility of access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation even when the remarried man or woman fails at times to live up to this obligation (cf. footnote 364 in Amoris laetitia, which cites the letter of John Paul II to Cardinal William W. Baum of March 22, 1996).
The papal critics no doubt will focus on no. 6 of the Argentine bishops’ Guidelines, which deals with more complex cases when a declaration of nullity has not been able to be obtained. In such cases the above-mentioned option of proposing the obligation of continence might not be feasible. The Guidelines don’t go into detail as to what cases may fall into this category, but it might apply when one of the partners is not practicing the faith or on a path of faith. Such a situation might make the obligation of continence very difficult to realize. Moreover, Cardinal Müller has noted that “individual Christians can find themselves without their own fault in the harsh crisis of being abandoned and of not being able to find any other way out than entrusting themselves to a person of good heart, and the result is a marriage-like relationship. A special spiritual discernment of the confessor’s internal forum is needed to find a path of conversion and reorientation towards Christ that is right for the person, going beyond an easy adaptation to the relativistic spirit of time or a cold application of dogmatic precepts and canonical dispositions, in the light of the truth of the Gospel and with the help of the previous grace”
What are pastors to do when faced with such complex cases? The Argentine bishops note that “a path of discernment is possible,” one which takes into account the limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability. This is so especially when the person discerns that he or she would fall into another fault by harming the children of the new union. The bishops then simply mention that Amoris laetitia “opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist” (cf. footnotes 336 and 351). With respect to this possible “access to the Sacraments,” the Buenos Aires Guidelines do not go beyond anything that is not already found in Amoris laetitia. The same papal critics who believe Pope Francis is secretly giving permission for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion in Amoris laetitia without observing continence will, therefore, make the same claim with respect to the Argentine Guidelines. There is, however, no such permission given because access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist could reasonably be understood as going to Confession first before being allowed to receive Holy Communion. Moreover, traditional Catholic moral and sacramental theology would need to apply to those who go to Confession in such cases.
Even with respect to canon 915, there would need to be evidence that the person is “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” before being denied access to Holy Communion (emphasis added). As Cardinal Müller points out, “It is possible that the tension that occurs here between the public-objective status of the ‘second’ marriage and subjective guilt can open, under the conditions described, the way to the sacrament of penance and Holy Communion, passing through a pastoral discernment in the internal forum.” In cases in which the nullity of the prior bond is impossible to prove, Müller notes that “If the second bond were valid before God, the marriage relationships of the two partners would not constitute a serious sin but rather a transgression against ecclesiastical public order for having irresponsibly violated the canonical rules and therefore a minor sin.”
Here we need to distinguish between the objective order (the status of the bond before God) and the epistemic order or the order of knowledge (whether the invalidity of the prior bond can be publicly established). There is, of course, a certain risk in allowing possible access to the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist in these difficult and complex cases. As Cardinal Ratzinger has written: “Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions.”
As can be seen, both Müller and Ratzinger have offered observations that address the complex cases noted by the Argentine bishops. The process of discernment of priests dealing with these complex cases should be understood in the light of these observations. Priests must be well trained in discernment in order to know when to deny absolution to those who manifest no signs of amendment. Priests must also realize that they are answerable before God for any judgment they make with regard to a penitent’s worthiness to receive Holy Communion. Cardinal Vallini emphasizes this point in his September 19, 2016, instruction on Amoris laetitia for the Archdiocese of Rome. The stakes are very high indeed “for whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer to the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27).
It should further be noted that the Guidelines of the Argentine bishops warn about “unrestricted access to the sacraments as if it is justified in every situation.” They are aware that access to the sacraments in some cases would be “particularly scandalous.” What they propose, with the Holy Father’s encouragement, is a process of discernment on a case-by-case basis that sometimes involves denying access to the sacraments and sometimes involves possible access. If access to the sacraments is given to those who are divorced and remarried, it must always take place in a private or reserved manner in order to avoid scandal. What can never be lacking in this process of discernment is pastoral charity. This charity, however, must never involve creating confusions “about the teaching of the Church on indissoluble marriage.” This indicates that any possible access to the sacraments for the divorced and civilly remarried must be in accord the moral and sacramental teachings of the Church. This would be the “orthodox way” of understanding the Guidelines indicated by Cardinal Müller.
Understood in this orthodox way, the Guidelines of the Argentine bishops and Amoris laetitia fully conform to the teachings of St. John Paul II (Familiaris consortio, 84), Benedict XVI (Sacramentum caritatis, 29), and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1650. These documents, however, assume that the civilly remarried Catholics are aware they are committing adultery and are culpable for their violation of marital indissolubility. They do not deal with the complex and exceptional cases in which—as Cardinal Müller has noted—there may be a tension between the public status of the second bond and the objective status of the bond before God.
This situation is analogous to the articulation of the principle “outside the Church there is no salvation” at the Council of Florence (Denz.-H, 1351), which did not take into account those who are outside of the Church through no fault of their own. Hence, it was necessary for Holy Mother Church to clarify in Lumen gentium, no. 16, that it is possible for non-Christians in a state of inculpable ignorance to be saved. The discernment of the exceptional cases of a second bond—as Cardinal Ratzinger has observed— must resist “subjective decisions” and “safeguard the public character of marriage.” This is why the Argentine Guidelines recognize the need to avoid any type of public scandal that would undermine the Church’s witness to the indissolubility of marriage.
By way of conclusion, we should reaffirm the points in the Argentine Guidelines that Pope Francis wishes to emphasize: the closeness of bishops to their priests; the need for priests to commit themselves to the difficult work of reaching out to those who have strayed with a pastoral approach of welcome, accompaniment, discernment, and integration into the ecclesial community. The Holy Father also wishes to see better formation in pastoral discernment. This would be especially necessary for helping those in complex and difficult situations in which access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist may or may not be possible. It is good that Pope Francis’s letter to the Argentine bishops and their Guidelines are now in the AAS and recognized as “authentic magisterium.” We must remember that among the theological virtues the greatest of all is charity (1 Cor 13:13). Pastoral charity is a necessary expression of the “Gospel of Mercy” that Pope Francis has made the distinctive sign of his pontificate. There is no better magisterium than the magisterium of charity.
*Phd
I commenti dei lettori