Pope Francis has instigated a crisis of authority in the Roman Catholic church. I'm guessing that from his vantage-point, he's attempting to do what Vatican II attempted to do. In this case, bring the Roman church into the 21C. He may feel that some venerable positions are unsustainable. They alienate too many people. For the Roman church to survive or thrive, it must adapt to modern challenges. It's losing too many members. Just look at how it's been decimated in the west.
The specific issues may be obscure to outsiders (e.g. evangelicals) because they hinges on assumptions that evangelicals don't generally share. Most evangelicals think there are two explicit grounds for divorce in the NT: infidelity and desertion.
Some evangelicals also contend that NT teaching on divorce is occasional. Not meant to cover every conceivable situation. So there may be additional legitimate grounds.
Moreover, most evangelicals believe that divorce and remarriage dissolve the previous marriage. Even if the new marriage was originally sinful, it's not continuously sinful.
Finally, most evangelicals believe that even if the new marriage was originally sinful, that's forgivable–like other sins. If, say, the couple were unbelievers at the time, but become believers, their sin is forgiven. What's past is past. Like having a child out of wedlock. That's sinful, but not continuously sinful.
My immediate point is not to defend evangelical positions, but to compare and contrast them to the traditional Catholic position. That has a different framework. As I understand it, this is why the new policy of Pope Francis is so controversial:
i) According to "irreformable" principles (Catholic dogma), marriage is indissoluble.
ii) To be divorced and remarried means living in mortal sin.
iii) 1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.
iv) Hence, to intentionally open communion to recipients in a state of mortal sin facilitates evil.
So the controversy is generated by a clash between two "irreformable" principles: (i) the indissolubility of marriage and (ii) reception of communion in a state of grace.
This is a bomb inside the church of Rome. Unless defused, it will blow the church to smithereens.
The intentions of Francis are clear, but his words are unclear. His words are unclear because he wants to change "irreformable" principles, but he can't come out and say that directly without dynamiting the authority of the Magisterium. The best he can do is to send signals. That's his dilemma. That's why he refuses to clarify his remarks.
I'd add that this is not the only potential flashpoint. Francis also wants to liberalize church policy on homosexuals. He tipped his hand at the original synod. However, that's less rancorous at present because he communicated his intentions through intermediaries. He himself has yet to make that official policy.
At the moment he has his hands full with the current crisis. But if he prevails, he might revisit the issue of homosexuality in the church.
Francis has certain advantages. As pope, he holds most of the high cards. In addition, many professing Catholics are sympathetic to his initiatives. They consider that an overdue improvement. They don't care whether it contradics "irreformable" principles.
"Hence, to intentionally open communion to recipients in a state of mortal sin facilitates evil."
ReplyDeleteRight. But since being in a state of mortal sin includes subjective factors (knowledge, consent, will) as well as objective ones (the gravity of the sin itself), there is no conflict between the 2 irreformable principles. Application of principles is distinct from the principles themselves. RCism never said those in mortal sin never take communion unworthily, or that priests can never fail in their discernment or will never make errors in giving the sacraments. The practice of annullments does not contradict RCism's teaching that marriage is indissoluble. RCism has not done an about-face and said divorce, co-habitation, ss partnerships, etc. are now virtuous; it is reflecting on how best to pastor those in such situations in today's climate.
"Francis also wants to liberalize church policy on homosexuals. He tipped his hand at the original synod."
Here's what Francis said in AL:
“In discussing the dignity and mission of the family, the Synod Fathers observed that, ‘as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family’. It is unacceptable ‘that local Churches should be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies should make financial aid to poor countries dependent on the introduction of laws to establish “marriage” between persons of the same sex’.”
since being in a state of mortal sin includes subjective factors (knowledge, consent, will) as well as objective ones (the gravity of the sin itself), there is no conflict between the 2 irreformable principles.
DeleteThis is the very thing in question: how can these "subjective" factors over-ride the fact that objectively, a continuous and continuing state of adultery is put into place. But people don't accidentally get divorced, and they don't accidentally get married. Which is really what you are saying.
The conservatives absolutely refuse to let these "subjective" factors even be put into a place to overshadow the "objective" situation. In this document, "Pope Francis" is really trying to get the nose of the camel inside the tent, and this is the very thing that the conservatives are objecting to.
Interesting that you are among those who believes that "Pope Francis" now supercedes "John Paul the Great".
"how can these "subjective" factors over-ride the fact that objectively, a continuous and continuing state of adultery is put into place."
DeleteThey don't override it. A person who commits a grave sin still committed a grave sin, but they still might not be in a state of mortal sin due to various factors that can mitigate their personal culpability (ignorance, duress, deception, psychology, etc). AL is not a document saying "you're okay, i'm okay, we're all okay".
The reason for the continuing controversy is summed up by Douthat's op-ed:
"In his new letter on marriage and the family, the pope does not endorse a formal path to communion for the divorced and remarried, which his allies pushed against conservative opposition at two consecutive synods in Rome, and which would have thrown Catholic doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage (and sexual ethics writ large) into flagrant self-contradiction… There is still a formal teaching that remarriage without an annulment is adultery, that adultery is a mortal sin, that people who persist in mortal sins should not receive communion. And there is no structure or system in church life that contradicts any of this. This much conservatives still have, and it’s enough to stave off a sense of immediate theological crisis... Again, this is not the clear change of doctrine, the proof of concept for other changes, that many liberal bishops and cardinals sought. But it is an encouragement for innovation on the ground, for the de facto changes that more sophisticated liberal Catholics believe will eventually render certain uncomfortable doctrines as dead letters without the need for a formal repudiation from the top.”
"Encouragement for liberals" is not a contradiction of RC dogma. Liberalism has had to be battled within RCism for over a century with both stronger and weaker popes and bishops; that's not new or surprising.
You can't minimize this. You are a nobody with a private opinion. This dispute is far more than "encouragement for liberals". This is a door wide open for pope, cardinals, bishops, whole countries. And further, it is a blueprint for such "encouragement" on different topics in the future.
DeleteCletus Van Damme
Delete"RCism never said those in mortal sin never take communion unworthily, or that priests can never fail in their discernment or will never make errors in giving the sacraments."
You're playing bait-n-switch. I'm not talking about priests who unwittingly administer communion to people in a state of mortal sin. Rather, I'm discussing an official policy of administering communion to people in a state of mortal sin. At least, presumptively in a state of mortal sin.
And that's not just my personal opinion, as an outside observer. Rather, that's why the Roman church is on the brink of civil war. Bishops and cardinals are taking sides on this issue. They understand the stakes.
Regarding Francis on homosexuality, he plays a two-step. He hides behind point men like Cardinal Kasper. Let's them send up the trial balloons. Let's them take the flack. But they wouldn't be his point men in the first place without the tacit approval of Francis.