This article from Vatican Insider is a well constructed argument in defense of Amoris Laetitia.  If its presuppositions are true, the conclusions are compelling. The problem is that the presuppositions are a grave error that lead to serious corruptions of the faith and morals.  Now that we have arrived at the end of the argument it is easy to see there is a serious problem with the assumptions. Those who have defended Dogma as Dogma in the spirit of Fr. Leonard Feeney over at least the last 15 years have been warning Traditional Catholics about these presuppositions and their necessary consequences.  They will appreciate this clear exposition of the enemy’s position.  The article was written because more and more Conservative Catholics are re-examining their fundamental beliefs that the pope is the rule of faith.  What will follow from this development is becoming clear.
 
Drew  
Original Article



Amoris Laetitia: The Questions That Really Need Answers
It would appear that despite the support offered to Pope Francis by the Council of Nine Cardinals, allied to positive interventions of other Cardinals, Bishops and theologians, the vociferous opposition to Amoris Laetitia continues to grow unabated.

VATICAN INSIDER | stephen walford | May 3, 2017
It would appear that despite the support offered to Pope Francis by the Council of Nine Cardinals, allied to positive interventions of other Cardinals, Bishops and theologians, the vociferous opposition to Amoris Laetitia continues to grow unabated. It seems to me that two problems are presented with this hostile attitude: first, an erroneous understanding of Tradition, and second, a defiant attitude towards the Magisterium that in previous times was almost always the property of liberals clambering for changes in doctrine. Not so today. We are presented now with the disconcerting truth that those who oppose the Magisterium are the very ones who have always decried the actions of others in their disobedience to papal authority. The stench of hypocrisy is in the air and we know what the Lord thought of that.

Tradition and St Vincent of Lerins  

In terms of Tradition, there is a fatal flaw in the argument of those who oppose Pope Francis’ decision to alter the sacramental discipline for certain Catholics in irregular marital situations. For them, Tradition seems to be complete. In this particular aspect it stopped in 1981 with St John Paul’s Familiaris Consortio. The authentic teaching on Tradition, however, is that it grows and matures over time with the sure guidance of the Holy Spirit. As the centuries pass by, the Church is faced with ever new complexities which serve to enhance its own understanding of its doctrines, and through the charisms of the Pope, Bishops and all the faithful it navigates its way towards this end. It seems safe to say that until the Lord returns, the Holy Spirit will have something to teach the Church in its doctrinal mission to present the most perfect way of living the Gospel.

In order to understand this reality more, we can turn to St Vincent of Lerins, the great fifth century theologian (1). In his Commonitorium, he discusses at length the issue of doctrinal development: “The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning… For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties (2).”  

So what is St Vincent getting at here? Isn’t it a contradiction to claim that one may not change doctrine but somehow also see it develop? The answer lies in the maturation akin to a person’s growth. Let us use a pianist for an example. A young virtuoso may have the technique to play a great work note perfect, and yet may not have the necessary revelation of the composer’s intention to interpret it in a way that perhaps another, more mature pianist could. In this case everything on the page is adhered to (as in the truth of a particular doctrine), but there is more refinement to come.

If we actually look for a specific doctrine in which St Vincent’s teaching can be applied, then St Cyprien’s axiom “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (Outside the Church there is no salvation) is a very good example. Until recent times, the statement had an overriding negative connotation, in that it was understood (at least for many) that only official members of the Catholic Church could be saved, plus a few exceptions. In more recent times however, the Holy Spirit has led the Church to reveal the axiom from another angle: That it is only through the Church that one can be saved and this applies to non-Catholics as well; thus salvation is open to all genuinely seeking God, but that if and when it happens, it occurs through the Church. So we see here how Tradition is alive; it kept this teaching fully intact, but a more mature understanding grew through the passage of time. Other instances of authentic doctrinal development would be that of papal infallibility (Vatican I), the baptismal participation of the laity in the priesthood of Christ (Vatican II), and the recognition of the workings of grace in those outside the Catholic Church (Vatican II).  

What interests us here is how we can apply the development of doctrine to the issues surrounding Amoris Laetitia (3). Strange as it may seem, it does not really apply so much to the issue of allowing Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried in certain cases because that is purely a matter of sacramental discipline, of which the Holy Father has absolute authority to change. Rather, it concerns moral theology and the reasons why the people Pope Francis speaks of are not to be considered as being in a state of mortal sin.  

With the Vatican II docuмent, Gaudium et Spes, the Church sought to reinvigorate moral theology in order to confront the issues facing modern man. Until then, guidance was given from what was essentially a manual of prohibitions: “yes you can” or “no you can’t.” The problem was it didn’t delve into the spiritual relationship of the penitent and Christ. In fact, it was totally detached from a scriptural and Christological approach. Basically it was legalistic; it didn’t take into account mitigating factors of guilt, psychological problems or intentions. Objective grave matter was the overriding issue and thus many felt it was very easy to be in a state of mortal sin. In recent decades however, the magisterium has shed much needed light on the aspect of subjective guilt when sins are committed. In 1975, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s docuмent Persona Humana stated: “It is true that in sins of the sɛҳuąƖ order, in view of their kind and their causes, it more easily happens that free consent is not fully given; this is a fact which calls for caution in all judgment as to the subject’s responsibility (4).”  

During the pontificate of St John Paul II we discover the same teaching in several very important instances: In Veritatis Splendor he states: “Clearly, situations can occur which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint, and which influence the sinner’s subjective imputability (5)”, while the Catechism is also firm that gravely sinful acts can be lessened in severity due to a variety of circuмstances. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also weighed in on several occasions in order to ensure the entire truth of objective grave matter and subjective guilt was understood. In its 1986 docuмent on the pastoral care of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ persons, it stated that guilt could be even removed completely in certain cases (6). Perhaps the most enlightening docuмent however, is one from February 1989 entitled “The Moral Norm of Humanae Vitae and Pastoral Duty.” It is striking in its similarity to the moral theology present in Ch. 8 of Amoris Laetitia, and although the docuмent is primarily concerned with the sin of contraception, its teaching applies equally to the sin of adultery:

“The same Christian moral tradition just referred to, has also always maintained the distinction – not the separation and still less an opposition – between objective disorder and subjective guilt. Accordingly, when it is a matter of judging subjective moral behaviour without ever setting aside the norm which prohibits the intrinsic disorder of contraception, it is entirely licit to take into due consideration the various factors and aspects of the person’s concrete action, not only the person’s intentions and motivations, but also the diverse circuмstances of life, in the first place all those causes which may affect the person’s knowledge and free will. This subjective situation, while it can never change into something ordered that which is intrinsically disordered, may to a greater or lesser extent modify the responsibility of the person who is acting. As is well known, this is a general principle, applicable to every moral disorder, even if intrinsic, it is accordingly applicable also to contraception. In this line, the concept of the “law of gradualness” has been rightly developed [St Vincent of Lerins again], not only in moral and pastoral theology, but also on the level of pronouncements of the Magisterium itself (7).”

What is significant, is that we are told the general principle is applicable to every moral disorder thus for those who say adultery is always mortal sin are not in line with Christian moral tradition. This one single fact lies at the heart of the controversy and needs to be addressed especially by those priests and bishops who are only seeing black and white. As Cardinal Ratzinger once said “As judge, Christ is not a cold legalist” and again “The identity of the Church has clear distinguishing marks, so that it is not rigid (9).” So we see clearly that Pope Francis’ criticism of legalism and rigidity is nothing new.

It seems to me that we must try and understand “truth” in these matters in its entirety; that is, not only the truth of the sinfulness of every moral disorder, but the truth concerning the state of an individual soul in those moments. Only then can we really speak about the truth and judgment of a situation as Jesus would see it.  

It is noticeable in the dialogue with the Samaritan Woman at the well (Jn. 4:5-42), that the woman in a state of adultery displays signs of grace at work: “give me some of that water, so that I may never get thirsty.” She also acknowledges that the fifth man in her life is not her husband, and further, she exhibits evangelical zeal with her witness among her own people. Jesus does not condemn, but opens her heart by instigating a dialogue. There is no legalism present in the Lord’s words and actions, just as there isn’t in the passage concerning the woman caught in the act of adultery. In fact, if we compare the two episodes, we notice the scriptural reality that Pope Francis has based his new approach on. In terms of the person in the irregular situation, he foresees someone who knows their situation is sinful and for various legitimate reasons cannot change at least for now, but who desires with all their heart what the Samaritan woman wanted; and from the perspective of the Saviour, a God who doesn’t condemn but who invites the sinner to begin a path of ascent, even if it is gradual and fragile.  

At this point, therefore it is right to address the points of contention among Pope Francis’ critics. They say simply one must abstain from sɛҳuąƖ relations no matter what the circuмstance of the family; there is no concern for how this added tension will possibly affect the children, or the peace within the home. This is frankly naïve. Ask couples who practise natural family planning-especially those with irregular cycles - and you will discover many suffer stress because of friction that can exist from time to time. In a perfect world of course, the couple in an irregular union would completely abstain, but in a perfect world we would all be giving up our possessions and living the life of St Francis of Assisi. We need a dose of Christian realism; one that Jesus displayed in the Gospels. Don’t condemn but gently lead, recognizing that if the good intention is there to begin with, then the Lord can get to work.

So what about the question of absolution for those intent on continuing sɛҳuąƖ relations? Sorrow for sin must be present and a firm purpose of amendment; that is not in dispute, and the fact a penitent is presenting themselves in confession would suggest they desire forgiveness and to change their ways. The single point though we must focus on is “intention”. Does Jesus forgive the person who says “Lord I don’t like this situation, I wish it were not as it is, and my heart desires purity, and yet if I refrain it will likely cause a spiral of more evil engulfing the children, and destroying love and peace in the process (10)”?  

We should remind ourselves that in chapter 7 of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, he seems to live a similar spiritual conflict: “for though the will to do what is good is in me, the power to do it is not” (Rom 7:1) and again: “So I find this rule: that for me, where I want to do nothing but good, evil is close at my side. In my inmost self I dearly love God’s law, but I see that acting on my body there is a different law which battles against the law in my mind. So I am brought to be a prisoner of that law of sin which lives inside my body.” (Rom 7:21-23). It is clear from St Paul that the “intention” of his soul is to embrace the perfect Christian ideal and yet sin, the flesh, interferes. He himself says he is a “prisoner.” As the spirit is more important than the flesh (cf John 6:63), it would seem that Jesus will forgive the “prisoner” – that person who finds themselves constrained by circuмstances - because he sees the spiritual intention is of greater importance than the sin itself. For clarities sake however, we must maintain that this is still an intrinsically evil act - that does not change - but St John Paul in Veritatis Splendor says: “If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circuмstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it”(no 81), thus we see again mortal sin is not the question for these people. We should also stress that in this scenario, a “creative” interpretation of conscience is also absent because the desire is to adhere to the moral law; there is no rebellion only weakness, and a near impossible situation where only more evil will likely result.  

If we now acknowledge - as we must - that not all adulterers are in a continuous state of mortal sin, the natural question arises as to why the critics of the Pope are so adamant that no exceptions should be made to the previous rule of John Paul II (even though in the 1970’s the internal forum was allowed for these cases). Yes, there is the theological reason that the second union contradicts the spousal relationship between Christ and his Church, but the problem is in this day and age, who in the pews appreciates that concept, and is that the only betrayal towards Jesus? What is needed is education aimed in two areas: 1) a proper exposition to all young people especially, on the true meaning of marriage with all its implications, and 2) where necessary, an education for those parish communities where a couple after very careful discernment have returned to receiving Holy Communion. It is my view, as a Catholic layman that there is a great deal of Christian realism among the faithful. They know the troubles and trials of life that leave a mess behind, and sadly many will have relatives that fall in this category. This is where life has changed drastically since 1981. The danger of scandal is not what it was, and if a catechesis on moral theology is able to explain why a couple have been admitted to the sacraments then that should be enough. In this way, it would also highlight the difference between a couple seeking the right path, and a couple in obstinate sin without a care in the world.

We should also ask ourselves, if we persist in this attitude of rigidity, what message is that sending to the children of these couples? Do we expect them to understand why their parents are denied? Do we risk alienating them and possibly turning their hearts away from the Gospel of salvation? This might seem a great noble fight for truth, but in reality it is not concerned with truth at all because if it did, the traditional Christian moral theology on culpability would be central. Instead, that essential element of truth is conveniently ignored. We may rightly ask: where is the virtue in upholding the doctrine of Christian marriage if you are happy to ignore the doctrine on mortal and venial sin? Why are we so keen to stop honest venial sinners from receiving the sacraments of salvation? Do we consider them less deserving than ourselves?  

Obedience to the Magisterium  

The second element we need to consider - the continual criticism of the Pope from priests and certain Catholic commentators - is one that is most disconcerting and displays an arrogance and lack of humility that really is sad to see. The crux of this problem is a mystifying attitude where some are either claiming Amoris Laetitia is not a magisterial docuмent – as in the case of Cardinal Burke- or others like the American Priest blogger Fr John Zuhlsdorf who continues to refer to Amoris defenders as “Kasperites”, even though we all know Pope Francis is the instigator of the change. Some bishops are even pretending nothing has changed at all.  

The one point that links these three variations is that all try to avoid the question of a pope erring in faith and morals, because in their view Tradition has or would be tampered with, thus a solution must be found which would not contradict continuous teaching on papal authority. As I showed in a previous essay, popes are always free from error in these areas: “St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour… his gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors (11).” Pope Leo XIII reiterated this teaching from the First Vatican Council in the Encyclical Inscrutabili Dei Consilio: “Pope Pius IX (1846-7) proclaimed the Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and of the infallibility of the Popes in all matters related to faith and morals.”

There can be no question that the Pope has approved new possibilities for some divorced and remarried. Even if we were to somehow claim that the original text is ambiguous (12), the Pope has twice confirmed his intention since then: once, in the press conference on the return from Lesvos where he said “I could say yes [there has been a change] and leave it at that”, (but then advised a reading of Cardinal Schonborn’s presentation), and second, in the Letter to the Bishops of Argentina in which he wrote: “there are no other interpretations.” Now the question is: are these two interventions magisterial? I would say yes, because he speaks as Pope, not as a private theologian, and St John Paul II taught that the Magisterium is also exercised through “oral and written interventions” and specifically when they derive from an “explicit or implicit intention to make pronouncements on faith and morals (13).” On both these occasions the Pope was directly affirming the correct assumption that Holy Communion was now possible in certain cases-affecting both faith and morals.

This then leads us to the only possible conclusion: that Pope Francis has utilised his ordinary magisterium in order to bring about this pastoral change of discipline. And consequently the critics must accept that this is a legitimate act of papal authority that takes its place within Tradition (as something alive and dynamic) and which doesn’t affect the truth about papal infallibility in faith and morals. To claim there is no dissent but acceptable criticism is disingenuous.  

So what does the Church expect in terms of obedience towards the magisterium? Canon 752 states that “religious submission of the intellect and will must be given” when the Pope teaches in his authentic magisterium a doctrine concerning faith and morals - even if they don’t intend to proclaim it in a definitive way. This essentially means that is it not just a matter of exterior discipline, but obedience to the faith: we believe interiorly with the faith of the Church. The question is why is this necessary? Because we are taught that divine assistance is always given when the Pope exercises his ordinary magisterium regardless of whether a doctrine is definitively proclaimed or not (cf. Donum Veritatis 17). Furthermore, we read: “It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful” (cf Donum Veritatis 17) (14). It is also noteworthy, in the light of the four Cardinals’ dubia, that Donum Veritatis does not approve of the way this has been made public: “In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the “mass media”, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth” (no 30).

So what we are reading here is a docuмent of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clearly teaching that Amoris Laetitia, and its disciplinary alterations for some divorced and remarried derives from Christ himself. Pope Francis had divine assistance in formulating and presenting the docuмent to the Church. There is no way around this fact.  

A second important docuмent from the CDF, The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church is also extremely relevant to this discussion. In the text we are told that the Pope has the authority among others to: “establish pastoral structures to serve various particular Churches.” This is more or less what he has done in Amoris Laetitia no 300 in allowing the guidelines of the individual bishops to prevail. Furthermore we read: “Since the power of the primacy is supreme, there is no other authority to which the Roman Pontiff must juridically answer for his exercise of the gift he has received: “prima sedes a nemine iudicatur (15).” The docuмent also stresses how the popes are guided to exercise their ministry in differing ways depending on the circuмstances of each era: “The Holy Spirit helps the Church to recognize this necessity, and the Roman Pontiff, by listening to the Spirit’s voice in the Churches, looks for the answer and offers it when and how he considers it appropriate.” The Pope did this with the two synods by discerning what the Spirit was saying to the Churches and by what the Spirit was saying to him through that special charism of assistance.

In conclusion, it is apparent that for too long now the magisterium of Pope Francis has had to be defended with arguments rebuffed and questions answered. I believe it is time for a reversal of this situation. There are issues concerning the nature of Tradition, moral theology and obedience towards the Pope, and thus Christ, which need to be answered by those who seem to think they are more in touch with the Holy Spirit than the one to whom Jesus promised his unique assistance.

FOOTNOTES

1- Blessed John Henry Newman was a great advocate of St Vincent, and could be seen as the modern equivalent in his teaching on doctrinal development.
2- St Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, ch.23.  
3- It should be noted that St John Pau II referred to St Vincent of Lerins’ theology of development in Veritatis Splendor (no 53): “This truth of the moral law — like that of the “deposit of faith” — unfolds down the centuries: the norms expressing that truth remain valid in their substance, but must be specified and determined “eodem sensu eademque sententia” in the light of historical circuмstances by the Church’s Magisterium, whose decision is preceded and accompanied by the work of interpretation and formulation characteristic of the reason of individual believers and of theological reflection.
4
 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html  
5
 http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html  
6  
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-persons_en.html  
7  
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19890216_norma-morale_en.html  
8- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, p.186
9- Ibid, p. 208
10-This problem is not to be confused with the teaching of the Council of Trent that the Lord always gives enough grace to keep the commandments. This is solely concerned with the effect on others.
11- 1st Vatican Council Docuмent: On the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Pope, 18 July, 1870
12 - In reality it is not. At no 305, Pope Francis carefully explains that those not in mortal sin can be living in God’s grace while receiving the Church’s help. At this point we are given footnote 351 which states this “can include the help of the Sacraments.” Now the only possible sacraments this can refer to in the circuмstances described in the proper text are confession and Holy Communion. None of the other sacraments apply as an aid to spiritual growth (if we presume an adult has already been confirmed) in the context of someone in an irregular situation. Francis also immediately after refers to these two sacraments specifically. This explains why it is disingenuous to claim the text is ambiguous.  
13
http://totus2us.com/vocation/jpii-catechesis-on-the-church/the-roman-pontiff-is-the-supreme-teacher/  
14
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html  

15
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html  

"In more recent times however, the Holy Spirit has led the Church to reveal the axiom from another angle: That it is only through the Church that one can be saved and this applies to non-Catholics as well; thus salvation is open to all genuinely seeking God, but that if and when it happens, it occurs through the Church. So we see here how Tradition is alive; it kept this teaching fully intact, but a more mature understanding grew through the passage of time."

"And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven".

Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006

From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:


Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”

__________________________________________

I didn't find his arguments very good here: https://www.lastampa.it/2017/06/27/vaticaninsider/eng/docuмents/open-letter-to-the-four-dubia-cardinals-nIsyPMFIjp2M5wjLZ1CHJO/pagina.html