Before Amoris Laetitia: The Sources of the Controversy 081323400X, 9780813234007

Table of contents :
Epigraph
Contents
Preface
Abbreviations
Chronology of Events
Introduction
1. Cardinal Walter Kasper’s Gospel of the Family
2. The Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops
3. A New “Theology” of Marriage?
4. The Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops
5. Awaiting the Postsynodal Exhortation
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

 

Before Amoris Laetitia

Jarosław Kupczak, OP

Before Amoris Laetitia T he Sou rc e s of t he C on t rov e rsy

Tra n s lated by Gr zegor z I g n atik

The Catholic University of America Press Washington, D.C.



Text copyright © 2018 by Jarosław Kupczak. Published by arrangement with Wydawnictwo Polskiej Prowincji Dominikanów W drodze. sp. z o.o.

English translation copyright © 2021 The Catholic University of America Press All rights reserved The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standards for Information Science— Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.­48-1984. ∞

Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from the Library of Congress ­ ISBN 978-0-8132-3400-7

 new element in today’s pastoral activity is a sensitivity to A the positive aspects of civilly celebrated marriages and, with obvious differences, cohabitation.                Relatio synodi, 41

Contents

C on t e n ts

Preface ix Abbreviations xv Chronology of Events  xvii

Introduction 1 Chapter 1. Cardinal Walter Kasper’s Gospel of the Family 9 The Invalidity of a Contracted Marriage  17 Offering Communion to Divorced Persons Who Live in Second Unions  24 Conclusion 46

Chapter 2. The Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops 50 Presynodal Consultations  51 The Debate on Cardinal Kasper’s Presentation  57

Instrumentum laboris 65 The Synodal Debate  69

Relatio synodi 83 The First Reactions: “The die is cast”  89

Chapter 3. A New “Theology” of Marriage? 102  he Words of Jesus concerning Marriage and Divorce: T Reflections on the Catholic Hermeneutics of the Bible  104 Sexuality as an Expression of Love: Reflections on a Theology of Love  115 The Gift of Life: Reflections on Narrative Theology  123 Conclusion 142

vii

C on t en t s Chapter 4. The Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops 145 Instrumentum laboris 161 The Synodal Debate  174

Relatio finalis 193 First Responses and Assessments  202

Chapter 5. Awaiting the Postsynodal Exhortation 212 Bibliography 223 Index 229

v i i i 

Preface

Pr efac e

The publication of Pope Francis’s postsynodal apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia on April 8, 2016, undoubtedly marks one of the most important moments of the recent history of the Catholic Church. This papal document was the fruit of two sessions of the Synod of Bishops: the extraordinary in October 2014 and the ordinary that took place a year later.1 From the time of the October 2013 announcement of the papal decision to convoke two synods devoted to the family, almost half a year after the beginning of Francis’s pontificate, this topic of the family—thanks to extensive presynodal consultations—was at the heart of debates inside and outside the Church. Many people expressed hope that the Catholic Church was finally going to change her positions—controversial for many— concerning sexual ethics, bioethics, procreation, and her approach to divorced persons and persons with ­same-sex attraction. From the perspective of the Synod of Bishops, the number of possible topics and problems connected to marriage and the family, which, after all, concerns the Catholic Church throughout the whole world, is difficult to comprehend. Let us consider, for example, the practice of polygamy in certain African societies, the restrictive birth control in totalitarian countries, the problems 1. The meaning of these distinctions is explained at the beginning of the second chapter.

ix

P reface presented by mixed marriages, or the impossibility of confessing Christian faith in Muslim nations. Three practical problems became the main topics of discussion and the axle of the fundamental controversy during the first synod on the family: the possibility of admitting divorced persons who live in second unions to the Eucharistic Communion; the relation of the Church to irregular marital situations; and the relation of the Church to homosexual unions. These three inflammatory issues, important above all to the Church in Western countries, dominated the discussions before, between, and during both synods. The Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in October 2015 concluded with the publication of its final document, the Relatio finalis. In contradistinction to some radical statements in earlier documents that were criticized by synod fathers, this document proposed compromise but also included ambivalent formulations concerning the aforementioned three issues. These theses, therefore, were often interpreted by synod fathers and commentators in contradictory ways. For this reason, during the sessions of the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, many synod fathers expressed the desire that this document would be treated only as an advisory dossier for the Holy Father, gathering the fruit of reflections of two synods to help the pope formulate his position on the issues discussed by the synod. The publication of the synodal exhortation was awaited both in the Church and in many circles outside the Church with great tension and hope. Pope Francis’s postsynodal exhortation, Amoris laetitia, contained many uplifting, important, and inspiring passages. At the same time, however, the exhortation did not provide a clear answer to some momentous questions that remained open after the conclusion of the 2015 Synod of Bishops. These questions pertain

x 

Preface  above all to the “new pastoral sensitivity” discussed at both synods, a sensitivity that would consist of, among other things, admitting divorced persons who live in second unions to the Eucharistic Communion. Like the final document of the Synod of Bishops in 2015, the exhortation Amoris laetitia does not speak expressis verbis of such a possibility. Both in Relatio finalis and Amoris laetitia, we find only an analysis of the act that diminishes the subjective responsibility of the persons who objectively remain in the state of grave sin. It is not surprising that the publication of Amoris laetitia enkindled anew the debate concerning inflammatory issues discussed during both synods on the family. The participants in this debate included writers, theologians, bishops, cardinals, and even entire episcopates, who, depending on their geographical location, interpreted the papal exhortation in precisely opposite ways. The idea of writing this book arose from the desire to find my bearings in this at times very chaotic and multifaceted debate, to analyze the arguments and themes from various fields of theology presented in Amoris laetitia, and to take a position with respect to them. Thus, this book was born from the desire to understand. At the same time, after starting my research, I realized very quickly that the proper interpretation of Amoris laetitia requires seeing it in the context of the whole synodal process, as it was the fruit of this process. That process began on October 8, 2013, when the press office of the Holy See announced the intention of the pope to convoke two Synods of Bishops on the family. The key element in that planning process was the papal consistory in February 2014, at which Cardinal Walter Kasper’s programmatic address, given at the invitation of the Holy Father, presented the three main themes for the synod to consider. Those themes were: first, the problem of the validity

xi

P reface of the sacrament of matrimony contracted by s­ o-called “baptized pagans”; second, the postulate of simplifying the canonical process in declarations of the nullity of marriage; and third, the possibility of admitting divorced persons who live in second unions to Holy Communion. The address of the German cardinal sparked a heated synodal debate, the fruit of which was Amoris laetitia two and a half years later, after which the debate became even more tempestuous. While endeavoring to write this book about Amoris laetitia in the context of the whole synodal process, I concluded that this extensive project must be divided into two parts. Hence, this book addresses only the theological history of the two synods on the family. There is much to consider here without rushing to analyze the final text of the postsynodal apostolic exhortation. This book consists of four chapters that mark the four chronological stages of the synodal process in 2014 and 2015, and the conclusion. The first chapter concerns the papal consistory, which was held in the Vatican on February 20 and 21, 2014. The task of this closed meeting of cardinals was to prepare the two subsequent assemblies of the Synod of Bishops. The key element of the consistory was the address of Cardinal Walter Kasper. Despite the fact that it was thoroughly criticized by the majority of the listeners, it determined the main themes of the synodal discussions. In the first chapter, I present the main theses presented by the German cardinal and conduct an introductory critical analysis. The second chapter concerns the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, which took place in the Vatican in October 2014 and which defined the main theological themes around which the debate in the Church was to revolve during the next several years. The subject matter of the third chapter may surprise the reader, as it analyzes the lectures presented during a closed scholarly con-

xi i 

Preface  ference organized in Rome in May 2015, between the two synods, by the German, French, and Swiss Episcopates. During this conference, a certain “new theology” of marriage and the family was presented that the majority of the bishops from these three countries promoted during the synodal sessions. To understand better what was at stake in the synodal debates, it is worth taking a closer look at the merits and shortcomings of this “new theology” created to oppose the achievements of John Paul II. The fourth chapter is devoted to analyzing the sessions of the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in October 2015. And the fifth chapter is a brief summary of the theological issues at stake during and after the two synods, setting the stage for postsynodal exhortation by Pope Francis, Amoris laetitia. This book is a study of the intersection of Church history, the history of theology, and systematic theology, namely, dogmatic and moral theology. I am interested in the chronology of the events connected to the two synods on the family, above all in the context of the broad range of theological problems discussed therein, including: the theological significance of contemporary cultural changes; the relationship of the Church to the world; the understanding of the indissolubility of the sacramental marriage and the Eucharist; the method of ethically assessing human acts, particularly the concept of ­so-called intrinsically evil (intrinsece malum) acts; and the relationship of conscience to general moral norms. A competent reflection on each of these topics would require a separate monograph or even a series of publications. Therefore, this book aims to serve rather as a “road map,” a way to help the reader navigate through the problems concerning the family that were addressed by the two synods. As an author, I am certainly not (and do not want to be) an indifferent and uncommitted observer. Quite the contrary, the events

xiii

P reface and controversies described in this book are of great importance for the Church and the world. Therefore, the theological arguments presented in this book required an introductory assessment.2 One can only hope that my own views did not negatively influence the objectivity of this description and analysis. This book would not have seen the light of day were it not for the collaboration of many persons. First, I want to thank my colleagues from the Pontifical University of John Paul II in Kraków. Between 2016 and 2018, at the initiative of Rev. Bogusław Mielec, a group of theology professors from the university met regularly to discuss problems linked to the interpretation of Amoris laetitia. I am grateful to Rev. Tomasz Grabowski, OP, director of the Dominican Publishing House W drodze, for his decision to publish the original Polish version of the book, as well as to Ewa Kubiak and Agnieszka Czapczyk for their work on the book. The English translation of the text would not have been possible without the generous grant from an anonymous donor. Knowing that this gift came from his love for God and the Church, I also know also that it will be repaid by the Risen Lord beyond any expectation. John Martino, from the Catholic University of America Press, has been most helpful in the whole process of submitting and preparing the manuscript for publication. I would like to thank the English translator of the book, Grzegorz Ignatik, PhD, at the Pontifical College Josephinum in Columbus, Ohio. His input in preparing this translation is much more significant than the word “translator” conveys. I am also very grateful to Rebecca Divine and David Lampo for their help in copyediting the text.                        K r aków, May 1 5, 2 0 2 0 2. The books and articles listed in the footnotes may be helpful to the reader in further studies.

xi v 

Abbreviations

A bb r eviations

AAS

Acta Apostolicae Sedis

AL

Amoris laetitia (apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis)

BSS

Bollettino Sala Stampa della Santa Sede

CCC

Catechism of the Catholic Church

CCL

Code of Canon Law

CAN

Catholic News Agency

DCE

Deus caritas est (encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI)

DM

Dives in misericordia (encyclical of Pope John Paul II)

DS  Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum DV

Dei verbum (document of the Second Vatican Council)

EG

Evangelii gaudium (apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis)

FC  Familiaris consortio (apostolic exhortation of Pope John Paul II) GS

Gaudium et spes (document of the Second Vatican Council)

HV

Humanae vitae (encyclical of Pope Paul VI)

IL 2014 Instrumentum laboris of the 2014 Synod of Bishops IL 2015 Instrumentum laboris of the 2015 Synod of Bishops L 2014 Lineamenta, the preparatory document for the 2014 synod L 2015 Lineamenta, the preparatory document for the 2015 synod LG

Lumen gentium (document of the Second Vatican Council)

xv

A b brev i atio n s MV  Misericordiae vultus (a bull issued by Pope Francis for the Jubilee of Mercy) PG

Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca, ed. Migne

PL

Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina, ed. Migne

RAD  Relatio ante disceptationem (the introductory report launching the 2014 Synod of Bishops) RF  Relatio finalis (the final document of the 2015 Synod of Bishops) RPD  Relatio post disceptationem (the ­in-session report summarizing the discussion of the first week of the 2014 Synod of Bishops) RS  Relatio synodi (the final document of the 2014 Synod of Bishops) SC  Sacramentum caritatis (apostolic exhortation of Pope Benedict XVI) Sth

Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas

VS

Veritatis splendor (encyclical of Pope John Paul II)

xv i 

Chronology of Events

C h ronolo gy of Even ts

March 13, 2013

The archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Maria Bergoglio, is elected pope. The 266th bishop of Rome chooses the name Francis.

October 8, 2013

The press office of the Holy See announces the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, to be held on October 5–19, 2014, on the subject of “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization,” as a preparation for the Fourteenth Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in 2015.

October 18, 2013 Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, the general secretary of the Synod of Bishops, distributes to all the world’s bishops the preparatory document for the extraordinary session of the synod called the Lineamenta. The process of presynodal consultations begins. November 24, 2013

The first postsynodal exhortation of Pope Francis, Evangelii gaudium, is published.

February 20–21, 2014

The papal consistory assembles to prepare for the two upcoming synods on the family and is addressed by Cardinal Walter Kasper.

April 27, 2014

John XXIII and John Paul II are canonized in St. Peter’s Square.

June 26, 2014

The Instrumentum laboris of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, a document developed from the content of presynodal questionnaires, is presented in the press center of the Holy See.

xvii

C hro n o lo gy of Ev e nts October 5–19, 2014

The Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops meets.

December 9, 2014

The press office of the Holy See announces that the preparatory document, Lineamenta, for the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops will consist of the final document of the recently concluded synod (Relatio synodi), supplemented by questions to help the faithful in familiarizing themselves with the text.

March 13, 2015

The second anniversary of Pope Francis’s pontificate. In a homily given during the penitential service in St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican, the pope announces the extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy.

April 11, 2015

The bull Misericordiae vultus, which declares the extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, is published.

June 23, 2015

The Instrumentum laboris of the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (entitled “The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the Church and the Contemporary World”) is presented.

October 4–25, 2015

The Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops meets and the final document of the synod, Relatio finalis, is published.

October 17, 2015

The commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the institution of the Synod of Bishops is celebrated at the morning general congregation.

December 8, 2015

The fiftieth anniversary of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council. The Year of Mercy begins.

April 8, 2016

Pope Francis’ postsynodal exhortation, Amoris laetitia, is published.

xv i i i 

Before Amoris Laetitia

Introduction

In t roduction

When Rev. Francis George, OMI, became the archbishop of Chicago in 1997, a journalist asked him whether he would continue in the style of the previous metropolitan of the Windy City, Joseph Bernardin. George responded with a smile, “The Vatican isn’t into cloning yet.” The same can be said about the archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who was elected the successor of St. Peter on March 13, 2013, about his relation to preceding popes. From the beginning, the unconventional style of Pope Francis indicated that this pontificate would not be one of simple continuity. The agenda of Francis’s pontificate was presented in the first synodal exhortation, Evangelii gaudium, eight months after his election. This exhortation was the fruit of the Thir­­teenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the topic of the new evangelization, which took place in Rome October 7–28, 2012, under the previous pope, Benedict XVI. In this document, we find the key to understanding the pontificate of the pope from Argentina. Francis sees the Church as “going forth” in a “permanent state of mission” to proclaim the Gospel to all with new sensibility and zeal.1 This Church that “goes forth” to “the fringes of humanity” is 1. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii gaudium (November 24, 2013), 20, 25 (hereafter EG   ), http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/­papa -francesco_ ­esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html.

1

I n t roducti o n to be “a Church whose doors are open.”2 The pope directs to all a very emotional call: “Let us go forth, then, let us go forth to offer everyone the life of Jesus Christ.”3 What the Church has to offer to the world is, above all, God’s mercy: the Church “has an endless desire to show mercy, the fruit of its own experience of the power of the Father’s infinite mercy.”4 Therefore, the distinctive feature of the missionary Church is sensitivity to the human suffering, to “the cry of the poor”: “Each individual Christian and every community is called to be an instrument of God for the liberation and promotion of the poor, and for enabling them to be fully a part of society.”5 In the pope’s view, the “permanent state of mission” of the Church should transform the Church from within—it should accomplish in her a “missionary conversion.”6 The first area where such a transformation is necessary is the Church’s relation to the doctrine of faith. In this context, the pope recalls the traditional teaching of the Church on the hierarchy of the truths of faith.7 In proclaiming the Gospel, one ought to ensure that the less significant dogmatic and ethical truths are not excessively emphasized or portrayed as the most important for Christians: “Before all else, the Gospel invites us to respond to the God of love who saves us, to see God in others and to go forth from ourselves to seek the good of others.”8 At the same time, the pope stresses in his typical style 2. EG, 46. 3. EG, 49. 4. EG, 24. 5. EG, 187. 6. EG, 25. The pope does not consider the call to conversion as the main content of the mission of evangelizing because this would entail speaking of human sin. The pope’s tone is different: evangelization is above all speaking and witnessing about God’s love. Paradoxically, in this context, the “missionary conversion” pertains above all to the evangelizers and not to those to whom the mission of evangelizing is directed. 7. Here, the text of the exhortation refers to the decree of Vatican II on ecumenism, Unitatis redintegratio (November 21, 1964), 11. 8. EG, 39.

2 

I n t roducti on  that “pastoral ministry in a missionary style is not obsessed with the disjointed transmission of a multitude of doctrines to be insistently imposed.”9 The second area where missionary conversion should transform the teaching and practice of the Church is her relation to the sacraments. “A Church whose doors are open” cares for welcoming all people into the community, including the community of the sacramental life. The pope emphasizes that “the doors of the sacraments should not be closed for simply any reason.”10 This openness pertains in particular to baptism, reconciliation, and the Eucharist, and it is meant to influence our very understanding of these sacraments. The confessional, then, is to be a place of accompanying people who often take only small steps due to limitations and difficulties of various kinds. In this context, the author of Evangelii gaudium quotes a fragment of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is frequently mentioned in various documents of the two recent synods on the family and which ultimately takes a very prominent place in the argumentation of the eighth chapter of the 2016 exhortation Amoris laetitia: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.”11 The confessional in which the 9. EG, 35. This surprising expression, “obsession with the disjointed transmission of a multitude of doctrines to be insistently imposed,” so characteristic of Francis’s style, indicates the problem noted by many commentators of the pope’s thought, namely, the introduction of a strange division between doctrine and practice of the Church. See José Granados, Eucaristia e divorzio: cambia la dottrina? Saggio sulla fecondità dell’insegnamento cristiano (Siena: Catagalli, 2015), and Nicholas Healy, “The Spirit of Christian Doctrine,” Anthropotes 31, vol. 2 (2015): 379–95. 10. EG, 47. 11. EG, 44; see also Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992): 1735 (hereafter CCC  ); and Francis, Encyclical Letter, Amoris laetitia (March 19, 2016), 300 (hereafter AL), https://w2 .vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/­papa-francesco_ esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-Laetitia_en.pdf.

3

I n t roducti o n confessor is aware of human weakness is not “a torture chamber but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy which spurs us on to do our best.”12 The pastoral conversion also influences the understanding of the Eucharist, which “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”13 Pope Francis does not explain in his exhortation what this means in practice—that is, in what way this new understanding might change the practice of allowing persons to receive the Eucharist. The exhortation only indicates the need for such reflection: “These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness.”14 From the beginning of Pope Francis’s pontificate, mercy has been a main theme. The culmination of the papal proclamation of mercy was the Jubilee of Mercy, which was announced in his homily during the penitential service in St. Peter’s Basilica on March 13, 2015, the second anniversary of Francis’s pontificate. The pope declared that the extraordinary Jubilee dedicated to mercy would start on the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception on December 8, 2015, also the fiftieth anniversary of the conclusion of Vatican II, and would end on November 20, 2016, the solemnity of Christ the King.15 The official and solemn announcement of the Jubilee took place later during the Sunday of Divine Mercy; standing before the Holy Doors of the Vatican Basilica, Francis promulgated the Bull of Indiction of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, Misericordiae vultus. 12. EG, 44. 13. EG, 47. 14. EG, 47. 15. “Celebrazione della Penitenza presieduta dal Santo Padre Francesco,” Bollettino Sala Stampa della Santa Sede (March 13, 2015; hereafter BSS  ). All issues of the daily bulletin of the press of the Holy See are available on the official Vatican website www.vatican.va. In the book, we refer to them together with the publication date of the bulletin.

4 

I n t roducti on  Francis’s bull about mercy continued many themes introduced in the exhortation Evangelii gaudium.16 The main symbol of the Jubilee of Mercy would be the open doors in churches. On the first day of the Jubilee of Mercy, the pope would open the Holy Door in the Vatican Basilica, and on the following Sunday, doors would be opened in the remaining papal basilicas in Rome. The pope instructed that on that day, the Gates of Mercy were also to be opened in every Catholic cathedral and in other important places of worship in the world. Passing through a Gate of Mercy during the Jubilee of Mercy would enable every Catholic to receive prescribed indulgences and would serve as an invitation to experience the reality of mercy and of the opened door in one’s own life and the life of the entire Church: In this Holy Year, we look forward to the experience of opening our hearts to those living on the outermost fringes of society: fringes which modern society itself creates. How many uncertain and painful situations there are in the world today! How many are the wounds borne by the flesh of those who have no voice because their cry is muffled and drowned out by the indifference of the rich! During this Jubilee, the Church will be called even more to heal these wounds, to assuage them with the oil of consolation, to bind them with mercy and cure them with solidarity and vigilant care.17

In this context, it is worth noting a certain choice of the language of evangelization that was made by Pope Francis and justified in the bull declaring the Jubilee of Mercy. As we mentioned, the Jubilee of Mercy started on December 8, 2015, fifty years after the conclusion of Vatican II. The pope justifies this as follows:

16. Francis, Bull of Indiction of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, Misericordiae vultus (April 11, 2015; hereafter MV  ), http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/pl/apost_letters/ documents/­papa-francesco_bolla_20150411_misericordiae-vultus.html. 17. MV,15.

5

I n t roducti o n The Church feels a great need to keep this event alive. With the Council, the Church entered a new phase of her history. The Council Fathers strongly perceived, as a true breath of the Holy Spirit, a need to talk about God to men and women of their time in a more accessible way. The walls which for too long had made the Church a kind of fortress were torn down and the time had come to proclaim the Gospel in a new way. It was a new phase of the same evangelization that had existed from the beginning.18

The pope illustrates this new proclamation of the Gospel with the help of quotations from two speeches, one by John XXIII at the commencement of the Council and one by Paul VI at the end of the Council. In the famous speech Gaudet mater ecclesia, “the good pope John” said: “Now the Bride of Christ wishes to use the medicine of mercy rather than taking up arms of severity. . . . The Catholic Church, as she holds high the torch of Catholic truth at this Ecumenical Council, wants to show herself a loving mother to all; patient, kind, moved by compassion and goodness toward her separated children.”19 Paul VI expressed himself in a very similar way on the day before the conclusion of the Council, during its last public session: We prefer to point out how charity has been the principal religious feature of this Council . . . the old story of the Good Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the Council . . . a wave of affection and admiration flowed from the Council over the modern world of humanity. Errors were condemned, indeed, because charity demanded this no less than did truth, but for individuals themselves there was only admonition, respect and love. Instead of depressing diagnoses, encouraging remedies; instead of direful predictions, messages of trust issued from the Council to the ­present-day world. The modern world’s values were not only respected but honored, its efforts approved, its aspirations pu18. MV, 4. 19. John XXIII, “Second Vatican Council Opening Address Gaudet Mater Ecclesia” (October 11, 1962), 2–3; quoted in MV, 4.

6 

I n t roducti on  rified and blessed. . . . Another point we must stress is this: all this rich teaching is channeled in one direction, the service of mankind, of every condition, in every weakness and need.20

The legacy of Vatican II is still the object of countless analyses and controversies, which we do not wish to investigate here, though undoubtedly it made its mark on the debates of the two synods on the family; we shall consider this later on. Here, it is worth stressing the significance of Pope Francis’s choice in Misericordiae vultus of a positive language, full of affirmation and esteem for the other, a language that contains “encouraging remedies” “instead of depressing diagnoses.”21 The choice of this language is of particular significance for the understanding of mercy, especially the connection of mercy with justice, which is the weakest theological theme of this bull. The bull uses the word “mercy” interchangeably with the word “love,” though the difference between these two terms is unclear. In his encyclical on mercy, Dives in misericordia, John Paul II writes that mercy is God’s love that turns toward human suffering and sin; in the context of this classical understanding of mercy, Thomas Aquinas emphasizes that the cause of mercy is always a lack.22 Therefore, the Persons of the Holy Trinity do not love one another with merciful love, but they turn such merciful love toward creation, especially in the context of human sin, suffering, fault, and 20. Paul VI, “Address at the Final Public Session of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council” (December 7, 1965); quoted in MV, 4. 21. See MV, 4. During the 2014 and 2015 synods on the family, a controversial postulate recurred to avoid language that referred to human sin, transgression of the commandments, and infidelity toward God. Instead, the synodal documents contained calls to perceive positive values in realities such as cohabitation before marriage, civil unions, or homosexual unions. We shall return to this subject matter later. 22. See John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Dives in misericordia (November 30, 1980), 5, 7, 13 (hereafter DM), http://w2.vatican.va/content/­john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/­hf_jpii_enc_30111980_dives-in-misericordia.html. See also Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae ­II-II, q. 30, a. 1 (hereafter Sth).

7

I n t roducti o n punishment. To us, Jesus reveals the face of the merciful Father, and the Holy Spirit is a Consoler. Therefore, in speaking of mercy, we also speak of the human need for mercy, the need that results from sin as the violation of divine law and the principles of justice, thereby situating the sinner in the perspective of just punishment. As we noted above, Misericordiae vultus avoids the language of “depressing diagnoses” or pointing out to man’s sinfulness, but the consequence of this is a failure to address these fundamental questions: how to proclaim mercy in times and countries where many people do not seek God’s mercy at all, but instead gladly receive some form of charitable, financial, or legal help from ecclesial institutions? How to encourage confession when people do not have the sense of sin, pastors avoid speaking of sin, and moral theologians teach that such reality as grave (mortal) sin simply does not occur in the lives of most people? Who in this case needs mercy? Do we not perhaps confuse mercy with humanitarian values such as goodness and benevolence? The institution of the Jubilee of Mercy by Pope Francis is significant for the reflections undertaken in this book for two reasons. First, the vision of the Church as a space for experiencing God’s mercy, so often discussed in Evangelii gaudium, was also an important presupposition underlying both synods on the family in 2014 and 2015. In principle, these synods were to be the “synods of mercy,” a fact to which Cardinal Walter Kasper referred in his programmatic speech. Second, the postsynodal exhortation Amoris laetitia was issued in the very middle of the Jubilee of Mercy on March 19, 2016, and the theme of mercy is repeatedly mentioned in it as well, especially in the controversial eighth chapter, which speaks of admitting to the sacramental life of the Church, the site of mercy, all who live in irregular marital and familial situations. Mercy becomes the main theological argument on behalf of such practices.

8 

Cardinal Kasper’s Gospel of the Family Cha pt e r 1

Ca r di na l Walter K asp er’s G osp el of t h e Fami ly

Approximately half a year after the start of his pontificate, Pope Francis convoked his first Synod of Bishops.1 On October 8, 2013, the press office of the Holy See announced that an extraordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops entitled “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization” would be held in the Vatican from October 5 to October 19, 2014,2 in preparation for the next ordinary session of the Synod of Bishops in October 2015. On October 18, 2013, Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri sent to the chairmen of all the conferences of bishops in the world a short synodal preparatory document, Lineamenta that included a questionnaire consisting of nine main questions and some supplementary questions.3 In the letter that accompanied the questionnaire, Archbishop Baldisseri explained to the bishops that the pope in1. This chapter is an expanded version of my article, “Walter Kasper i Joseph Ratzinger o komunii dla osób rozwiedzionych i w powtórnych związkach,” Teologia i moralność 23, no. 1 (2018): 39–61. 2. “Comunicato della Sala Stampa della Santa Sede: III Assemblea Generale Straordinaria del Sinodo dei Vescovi (5–19 ottobre 2014),” Bollettino Sala Stampa della Stanta Sede, October 8, 2013. 3. We shall take a closer look at these questions in the second chapter of this book. Lineamenta is available at https://pl.scribd.com/document/180575701/­Vatican-questionnairefor-the-synod-on-the-family.

9

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily tended the questionnaire to help them prepare for the synod and attract the greatest possible number of the faithful to address controversial topics such as contraception, abortion, the lack of acceptance of Church teachings, and ­same-sex unions. Responses could be sent to the Vatican until the end of January 2014; the secretariat of the synod would then analyze the responses from around the world and write a proper preparatory document for the synod, Instrumentum laboris. On February 20–21, 2014, a papal consistory took place in Rome, the main task of which was an introductory discussion on the two synods on the family. The pope asked Cardinal Walter Kasper to deliver a lecture to serve as the reference point for discussion among the cardinals. Originally, the speech of the German cardinal was not to be published, but it evoked such a heated discussion and protest among many participants of the consistory that the leaking of this text to the press was only a matter of time. On March 1, 2014, the entire speech of Cardinal Kasper appeared in the Milanese newspaper Il Foglio.4 Soon afterward—first in German, then Italian and English—Cardinal Kasper’s book, The Gospel of the Family, was published. It contained his speech alongside supplementary annexes and bibliographical information concerning the cited sources, especially those from the Church Fathers.5 From the viewpoint of later synodal controversies and discussions about Amoris laetitia, the most essential part of Cardinal Kasper’s presentation is its fifth part, entitled “Concerning the 4. Walter Kasper, “Bibbia, eros e famiglia,” Il Foglio Quotidiano, March 1, 2014, http:// www.intams.org/website/intams/assets/files/bestanden_PDF/kasper.pdf. 5. First, the German edition of this book appeared: Evangelium der Familie (Freiburg im Breisgau: Verlag Herder GmbH, 2014), which contains the original text of the cardinal’s speech. Before its publication, however, this text was presented in Italian by the cardinal at the papal consistory; hence, we treat the Italian edition, Il Vangelo della famiglia (Brescia: Queriniana, 2014), as the primary source of the original speech. The English edition is The Gospel of the Family (New York/Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 2014).

1 0 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  Problem of the Divorced and Remarried” (“Il problema dei divorziati risposati”). Before we move to treat more extensively this part of Kasper’s book, however, it is fitting to briefly present the earlier parts of his presentation, in which we find a concise and very elegant, though necessarily brief, exposition of the Catholic teaching on marriage and the family. The first part of the presentation was entitled “The Family in the Order of Creation” (“La famiglia nell’ordine del creato”), and in it, the author stresses that the Christian gospel of the family is rooted in the perennial conviction, present in various cultures, that we ought to understand “laws concerning family order as matters of divine ordinance.”6 This universal respect for marriage and the family found its expression in the fourth commandment of the Decalogue, which—as well as the remaining commandments—expresses God’s law inscribed in man’s very nature. The key to understanding the Old Testament theology of marriage and the family is present in the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, from which Kasper draws three fundamental theses. First, man and woman— equal in dignity but different—are the image and likeness of God (see Gn 1:27). A particular dimension of God’s image is how the love between man and woman reflects the nature of God, who is love (see 1 Jn 4:8). Second, a particular sign of the blessing of creation is man’s fertility: “The love between man and woman and the passing on of life belong together.”7 Through the fact of responsible parenthood—here Kasper refers to Pope Saint Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae vitae—God committed the future of humanity into the hands of man and woman. Third, in both accounts of creation from the first two chapters of Genesis, we find a call to “subdue the earth,” which we should understand in a broad sense as an indica6. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 5. 7. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 9.

11

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily tion of man’s cultural mission, through which man and woman, equally, make the earth an environment suitable for dwelling. In this sense, marriage and the family are not private institutions; the recognition of their social character is fundamentally important for creating the “civilization of love.” The second part of Cardinal Kasper’s presentation, entitled “Structures of Sin in the Life of the Family” (“Le strutture del peccato nella vita della famiglia”), is devoted to a reflection on the third chapter of Genesis, which describes the entrance of sin and evil into the history of Adam and Eve. Kasper describes the consequences of the first sin by employing the category of alienation and distinguishing several stages of this phenomenon.8 The first alienation pertains to the relation with God, which then leads to the alienation in interhuman relations: between man and woman; between the mother and her children, who will be delivered in pain (Gn 3:16); between working men and nature, which henceforth will be hostile to man (Gn 3:19); and among family members, whose relations are often marked by violence and hostility. The ultimate alienation, which is a consequence of the first sin, is death. In the context of his reflection on the consequences of sin in relation to the situation of the family, Cardinal Kasper emphasizes—referring to the ­­well-known metaphor of Pope Francis—that not only the Church but also the family is “a field hospital,” where reconciliation between people and the healing of wounds take place.9 The third part of Cardinal Kasper’s presentation is called “The Family in the Christian Order of Salvation” (“La famiglia nell’ordine christiano della redenzione”). He begins with an exegesis of 8. In Kasper’s presentation, one does not find any definition of this concept: therefore, in this book it is understood in the most general way as an estrangement, a life outside God’s original plan and intention, which were inscribed in the nature of man and the created world. 9. See Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 14.

1 2 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  Jesus’s words rejecting a husband’s prerogative to dismiss his wife (see Mt 19:3–9). Because this prerogative, permitted by the Mosaic law, had its source in the Israelites’ “hardness of heart” (Mt 19:8), Christ, who offers a new heart to the faithful (see Ezek 36:26ff), can make new demands. The teaching contained in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians is key for developing the theology of marriage. There, “the covenant of man and woman now becomes a real symbol (simbolo concreto) of God’s covenant with human persons, which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.”10 By relying on both biblical wisdom and wisdom from the tradition of theology (with a particular consideration of St. Augustine’s thought), the Church, especially at the Council of Trent, emphasized the sacramentality of marriage, which is “a means of sanctifying grace” (strumento della grazia santificante).11 When speaking of the pastoral context of the sacramentology of marriage, Cardinal Kasper notes the significance of the “law of gradualness” (la legge della gradualita), which “does not mean gradualness of the law, but gradualness, that is, growth in understanding and in realizing the law of the gospel, which is a law of liberty, today so difficult for many faithful.”12 The fourth part of Cardinal Kasper’s presentation concerns “The Family as Domestic Church” (“La famiglia come Chiesa domestica”). First, the cardinal focuses on the biblical sources of this phrase—especially in Pauline epistles—and on the return of this concept in Lumen gentium, the Constitution of Vatican II (see LG 11), after which he links the phrase to ­so-called basic or small Christian communities, which in some particular churches, espe10. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 18. 11. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 18. 12. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 19. The dispute about the proper understanding of the law of gradualness will be one of the most inflammatory points during the entire synodal debate. See Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris consortio, November 22, 1981, 34 (hereafter FC  ).

13

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily cially in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, play an important role in supporting faith and evangelization. In the Western countries, Kasper stresses, domestic churches can be the answer to the crisis of the contemporary nuclear family, which proceeds from the fact that today’s living conditions are “inimical to families.”13 In such basic communities, according to Kasper, the features of the whole Church are realized, namely, the Church’s subjectivity and her sense of faith, which are created and directed by the Holy Spirit: “Through the Holy Spirit, the sensus fidei, the sense of faith, is intrinsic in them—an intuitive sense for the faith and for a praxis of life that conforms to the gospel. Domestic communities are not only the object, but also the subject of family pastoral care.”14 The domestic church is understood by the cardinal as a faithful family community, which opens itself to other families and also to all other people, especially the needy and poor, thereby creating an environment where the shared and celebrated faith spreads, radiates, and bears fruit. The reader may not be fully satisfied with Kasper’s reflection on the domestic church, partly because of the necessary brevity of his statements but perhaps also because of an improper distribution of theological emphasis. Above all, it seems ­ill-considered to ascribe the sense of faith (sensus fidei) to particular domestic churches without defining the place of domestic churches within the total structure of the People of God, especially their relation to the bishop, the celebrated Eucharist, and the parish.15 As previously mentioned, the first part of Kasper’s presentation, entitled “Concerning the Problem of the Divorced and Remarried” 13. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 22. 14. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 23. 15. Critical assessments of Kasper’s presentation note his imprecise usage of the concept of sensus fidei. See Robert Dodaro, OSA, “The Argument in Brief,” in Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church, ed. R. Dodaro (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014), 11–35, and Stephan Kampowski, “Is There a Saving Judgment?” Anthropotes 30, no. 2 (2014): 600–608.

1 4 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  (“Il problema dei divorziati risposati”), played the most important role in inspiring the synodal discussion on the topic of the family. In its author’s opinion, “the rapidly increasing number of broken families is all the more a tragedy,” which requires from the Church “a paradigm change.”16 This paradigm change requires a rethinking of the entire pastoral approach of the Church toward marriage and the family in all its stages. Thus, the point here is neither the specific problem of admitting divorced persons to Communion, a problem separated from the whole, nor considering “the problem only from the point of view and from the perspective of the Church as a sacramental institution (instituzione sacramentale).”17 Kasper stresses that in searching for a new pastoral and doctrinal paradigm, the Church “cannot propose a solution apart from or contrary to Jesus’ words. The indissolubility of a sacramental marriage and the impossibility of contracting a second sacramental marriage during the lifetime of the other partner is a binding part of the Church’s faith tradition, which one cannot repeal or water down by appealing to a superficially understood and cheapened sense of mercy.”18 As an example and inspiration for a solution, the German cardinal refers to the experience of Vatican II, when it seemed to many Council Fathers that new proposals concerning ecumenism and religious freedom were contrary to the previous teaching of the Church. Despite these apprehensions, the Council was able to elaborate a theological synthesis concerning questionable areas that satisfied the majority and correctly interpreted the tradition of faith in the new times. Moving on to more particular solutions and theological proposals, Cardinal Kasper remarks that, in light of Pope Saint John 16. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 25. 17. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 25. 18. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 26. In his book, the author consistently uses the word “partner,” denoting a spouse.

15

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily Paul II’s exhortation, Familiaris consortio, any answer sought by the Church should consider the plurality of pastoral situations and should be adapted to these various situations in which marriages find themselves.19 Due to the importance of Kasper’s theses, we shall consider each of them separately. As mentioned earlier, Cardinal Kasper’s speech very quickly became the object of a heated debate. Among various critical voices toward Kasper, we would like to note in particular three publications due to their importance. Several months after the papal consistory, a group of Dominican theologians from the American Province of St. Joseph, working in the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., published “Recent Proposals for the Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried: A Theological Assessment.”20 This text was delivered to Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., who in turn sent it out to all Catholic bishops in the United States. Soon thereafter, a collective work appeared in Italy entitled Permanere nella verità di Cristo. Matrimonio e comunione nella Chiesa cattolica (Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church), in which five cardinals, one archbishop, and three theologians set forth a decisive critique of the theses espoused in Cardinal Kasper’s speech.21 19. See FC, 81. 20. Nova et vetera 12, no. 3 (2014): 601–30. The authors are Dominican friars teaching at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C.: John Corbett, Andrew Hoffer, Paul J. Keller, Dominic Langevin, Dominic Legge, and Thomas Joseph White, as well as Kurt Martens, a lay professor of law from the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. 21. Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church, ed. R. Dodaro (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014). The original Italian text, Permanere nella verità di Cristo. Matrimonio e comunione nella Chiesa cattolica, a cura di R. Dodaro (Siena: Cantagalli, 2014), appeared prior to the third extraordinary session of the Synod of Bishops. The English translation was published during the synod. Edward Pentin speaks of strange events connected with the attempt to provide the synodal fathers with copies of this book. See Edward Pentin, The Rigging of a Vatican Synod: An Investigation into Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2015), 23–25.

1 6 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  The most competent and profound theological critique of Cardinal Kasper’s speech, however, can be found in the book entitled The Gospel of the Family: Going beyond Cardinal Kasper’s Proposal in the Debate on Marriage, Civil R ­ e-Marriage and Communion in the Church, written by Juan José ­Pérez-Soba and Stephan Kampowski, two professors from the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for the Studies on Marriage and the Family in Rome.22 In the introduction to this book, we find a revealing statement by Cardinal George Pell, a former metropolitan of Sydney and former prefect of the Holy See’s Secretariat for the Economy—a statement that would play an important role during both synods on the family in 2014 and 2015: “This book is important for many reasons. A courteous, informed, and rigorous discussion, indeed debate, is needed especially for the coming months to defend the Christian and Catholic tradition of monogamous, indissoluble marriage.”23 To each of these three publications, we shall return in the course of the subsequent analyses.24

The Invalidity of a Contracted Marriage The first situation considered by Cardinal Kasper is when “the divorced and remarried are subjectively convinced in conscience that their irreparably broken, previous marriage was never valid.”25 Kasper notes that this invalidity of marriages results from the fact that they were not contracted in a proper way (non sono contratti in maniera valida), after which he continues, 22. Juan José P ­ érez-Soba and Stephan Kampowski, The Gospel of the Family: Going beyond Cardinal Kasper’s Proposal in the Debate on Marriage, Civil ­Re-Marriage and Communion in the Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014). Italian edition: Il Vangelo della famiglia nel dibattito sinodale oltre la proposta del cardinal Kasper (Siena: Cantagalli, 2014). 23. George Pell, Foreword, in ­Pérez-Soba and Kampowski, The Gospel of the Family, 7. 24. With respect to other publications pertaining to Cardinal Kasper’s presentation, it is worth noting the issue of Communio 41 (Summer 2014), fully devoted to that topic. 25. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 28.

17

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily For as a sacrament of faith, marriage presupposes faith and consent to the essential characteristics of marriage—unity and indissolubility. But can we, in the present situation, presuppose without further ado that the engaged couple shares the belief in the mystery that is signified by the sacrament and that they really understand and affirm the canonical conditions for the validity of their marriage? Is not the praesumptio iuris [presumption of validity], from which canon law proceeds, often a fictio iuris [legal fiction]?26

Kasper suggests that the canonical process of declaring marriages invalid should acquire a more pastoral and not merely legal character. Referring to the institution of ecclesial tribunals, which deal with declaring marriages invalid, he writes, “However, one can ask whether the juridical path, which is in fact not iure divino [by divine law], but has developed in the course of history, can be the only path to the resolution of the problem, or whether other, more pastoral and spiritual procedures are conceivable.”27 In Kasper’s opinion, we need “a hermeneutic that is juridical and pastoral (ermeneutica guridica e pastorale) and that applies a general law with prudence and wisdom, according to justice and fairness (più che giusto), to a concrete, often complex situation.”28 In this first situation analyzed by Kasper, we ought to distinguish two problems that demand a separate treatment: the problem of the validity of the sacrament of marriage received by baptized yet nonbelieving spouses, and the question of the possibility of simplifying the canonical procedure of declaring marriages invalid. Because this second question was addressed in a practical and authoritative way by Pope Francis, who in his 2015 bull, Mitis iudex Dominus Iesus, simplified and reformed the sections of the Code of Canon Law pertaining to the declaration of the nullity of marriage, 26. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 28. 27. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 28. 28. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 29.

1 8 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  we will leave this issue aside.29 We will concern ourselves only with the first topic, namely, the validity of the sacrament of marriage received by baptized yet nonbelieving spouses. When speaking of the invalidity of marriages as a result of their not being contracted in a proper way (non sono contratti in maniera valida), Cardinal Kasper lists “faith and consent to the essential characteristics of marriage—unity and indissolubility” as the fundamental requirements for the validity of the sacrament. We should agree with Kasper when he suggests that not infrequently in pastoral situations, a deep and serious faith on the part of the newlyweds goes hand in hand with a clear realization of what marriage is about and with serious consideration of the undertaken obligations, whereas a careless attitude toward faith goes hand in hand with a careless attitude toward marriage and its obligations. Nonetheless, because a lack of faith or an unserious attitude toward faith does not influence the validity of the contracted marriage in the same way as does the acceptance of its basic or natural features, we must consider them first separately before we attempt a more synthetic reflection. In reference to the question of the validity of the sacrament of marriage between baptized but nonbelieving newlyweds, the Dominican theologians in the aforementioned text remind us that authentic faith is not a necessary condition for the validity of marriage. They give three arguments in support of their thesis. First, the Church teaches that sacramental and indissoluble marriage can be contracted between Catholics and baptized n ­ on-Catholics who do not profess the Catholic faith in its fullness.30 Similarly, “when a Protestant couple becomes Catholic, the Church regards their 29. See Andrea D’Auria, “Mitis Judex Dominus Jesus: Sfide pastorali peri il dritto. Alcune considerazioni all’ art. 14 delle regole procedurali,” Anthropotes 31, no. 2 (2015): 525–73. 30. See Code of Canon Law, c. 1055 §1 and c. 1059 (hereafter CCL).

19

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily marriage as sacramental and indissoluble, even if, at the time of their wedding, they did not believe marriage to be a sacrament and intended only the natural ends of marriage.”31 Second, the pillar of the objectivity of the entire sacramental order of the Church is the presupposition that the validity of any sacrament does not depend on whether the minister is in the state of grace (which one can never ascertain) or whether he possesses a deep enough faith, but only on whether he uses the proper form and matter and has the intention of doing what the Church does. Because spouses are the ministers of the sacrament of marriage, the validity of this sacrament does not depend on the faith of spouses but on whether they preserve the proper intention, form, and matter during the performance of the sacrament. Third, the teaching of the Church holds that the validity of the sacrament of marriage is conditioned only by the fact that the persons receiving the sacrament desire the natural ends of marriage. The Dominican document refers to the speech of John Paul II to the Roman Rota on January 30, 2003: “the Church does not refuse to celebrate a marriage for the person who is well disposed, even if he is imperfectly prepared from the supernatural point of view, provided the person has the right intention to marry according to the natural reality of marriage. In fact, alongside natural marriage, one cannot describe another model of Christian marriage with specific supernatural requisites.”32 The value of the text by the American Dominicans is its concise and synthetic character, which always presupposes a necessity to 31. Corbett et al., “Recent Proposals for the Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried,” 623. 32. John Paul II, “Address to the Roman Rota” (January 30, 2003), 8, available at https://w2.vatican.va/content/­john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2003/january/documents/­hf_jpii_spe_20030130_roman-rota.html.

2 0 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  leave some themes unaddressed. Nonetheless, in his speech quoted above, John Paul II very seriously asks about the possibility of the influence of the newlyweds’ weak faith or lack of faith on the invalidity of their marriage. The sacramentological reflection of the Polish pope resides at the intersection of theology and anthropology, the knowledge of God and the knowledge of man, and concerns the conviction that only the revelation of God in Christ, who is faithful and bestows his love, ultimately substantiates and enables the indissolubility of marriage and the faithfulness of spouses in the daily realities of human life. Outside Christ and the transcendent horizon of religion, it is difficult for spouses to find the answer to the question, “Why must one be faithful to one’s spouse?” Ultimately, John Paul II’s reflections direct the reader toward the problems of the effectiveness and fruitfulness of the sacrament, though the posited question, “Are faithfulness and the indissolubility of marriage possible for today’s man, living in a ­post-Christian culture?” remains open. This question about the validity of marriage between baptized yet nonbelieving persons, which John Paul II briefly touched on, returned ten years later in Benedict XVI’s speech to the Roman Rota. The pope notes the common core of two Latin words: fides (faith) and foedus (covenant); theology after Vatican II uses the latter to speak of the marital union.33 Benedict XVI recalls the classic teaching of the Church on marriage, though at the same time he posits an important distinction: “The indissoluble covenant between man and woman does not require the personal faith of the newlyweds for marriage to be sacramental; what is required, as a necessary minimum condition, is the intention to do what the Church does. However, although it is important not to confuse the problem of 33. See CCL, c. 1055§1.

21

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily intention with that of the personal faith of the person contracting the union, it is not possible to separate them completely.”34 As a point of reference in undertaking this important question, the pope quotes in his speech a document of the International Theological Commission from 1977 entitled “Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage.”35 This document observes that it is not completely possible to separate the intention of the persons contracting the sacrament of marriage from their faith because “the real intention is born from and feeds on living faith.” Thus, “where there is no trace of faith (in the sense of ‘belief’—being disposed to believe), and no desire for grace or salvation is found, then a real doubt arises as to whether there is the ­above-mentioned general and truly sacramental intention and whether the contracted marriage is validly contracted or not. As was noted, the personal faith of the contracting parties does not constitute the sacramentality of matrimony, but the absence of personal faith compromises the validity of the sacrament.”36 To the topic of faith, which is the condition of the proper intention of the contracting parties, Benedict XVI adds a few important reflections. First, if the validity of the sacrament of marriage requires both the man’s and woman’s conviction that they are bound 34. Benedict XVI, “Address to the Roman Rota” (January 26, 2013), 1, available at http://w2.vatican.va/content/­benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/january/documents/­hf_benxvi_spe_20130126_rota-romana.html. 35. Joseph Ratzinger was then already a member of the International Theological Commission, though he did not belong to the group that directly worked on the first version of the document. Headed by Philippe Delhay, this group included Barnabas Ahern, Carlo Caffarra, Wilhelm Ernst, Otto Semmelroth, Edouard Hamel, John Mahoney, and Jorge ­Medina-Estevez. The document is available on the official site of the Holy See, http://www .vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/­rc_cti_1977_sacramentomatrimonio_en.html. 36. International Theological Commission, “Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage,” 2.3, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/­ rc_cti_1977_sacramento-matrimonio_en.html.

2 2 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  to each other for their entire lives, then it is difficult not to observe that such a conviction—quite anticultural in today’s world in which individual freedom and independence are paramount—can to a great extent be influenced by a religious conviction about the existence of God and the faithfulness of God with respect to man. As the pope emphasizes: this is not to say that faithfulness, like other properties, is not possible in natural marriage, contracted between n ­ on-baptized persons. . . . Certainly, however, the closing of oneself to God or the rejection of the sacred dimension of the marital union and its value in the order of grace makes the concrete realization of the highest model of marriage conceived by the Church according to God’s plan difficult, and can lead to undermining the validity of the covenant if, as the consolidated jurisprudence of this Tribunal assumes, it results in a refusal of the principle of the conjugal obligation of faithfulness or of other essential elements or properties of marriage.37

This second remark of Benedict XVI pertains to the concept of bonum coniugum (the good of spouses).38 Among the causes of incapacity to contract marriage, the Code of the Canon Law also lists “a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted” as well as the lack of the ability “to assume the essential obligations of marriage.”39 The pope notes that sometimes precisely the lack of faith causes this inability for conjugal love, which constitutes the community of life (consortium vitae): there may be cases in which, precisely because of the absence of faith, the good of the spouses is compromised, thus excluded from the consent itself; for example, in the supposition of a subversion by one of them, 37. Benedict XVI, “Address to the Roman Rota,” 2. 38. See Cormac Burke, “The Bonum Coniugum and the Bonum Prolis; Ends or Properties of Marriage?” The Jurist 49 (1989): 704–13. 39. CCL, c. 1095 §§2 and 3.

23

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily due to an erroneous conception of the marriage bond, of the principle of parity, or in the supposition of rejection of the dual union, which characterizes the marriage bond, in connection with the possible coexisting exclusion of faithfulness and the use of the conjugal act fulfilled humano modo.40

Considering that throughout the last few decades we have experienced an evolution of the understanding of marriage, which in turn has influenced the understanding of the causes for the invalidity of marriage and the impediments for contracting marriage, the link between these topics and the lack of faith in newlyweds should be the object of intensive deliberation among theologians, lawyers, canonists, philosophers of law, and pastors, which both John Paul II and Benedict XVI encouraged in the previously quoted speeches.41

Offering Communion to Divorced Persons Who Live in Second Unions Cardinal Kasper thinks that the current practice of the Church, in which divorced persons who entered second unions are encouraged to cultivate spiritual communion with Christ while being prevented from receiving sacramental Communion, is insufficient.42 40. Benedict XVI, “Address to the Roman Rota,” 4. 41. The bibliography on that topic continues to grow. See, for example, Fides–foedus, La fede e il sacramento del matrimonio, a cura di Alexandra Diriart e Stefano Salucci (Siena: Cantagalli, 2014); José Granados, “The Sacramental Character of Faith: Consequences for the Question of the Relation between Faith and Marriage,” Communio 41 (2014): 245–69; “Faith and the Sacrament of Marriage. A Response to the Proposal of a New ‘Minimum Fidei’ Requirement,” Communio 42 (2015): 309–30; and Nicola Reali, “Il sacramento del matrimonio e la fede dei nubendi,” in La sfide della famiglia oggi. Atti del convegno. Academia Alfonsiana, Roma, 18–19 marzo 2015, 101–13 (Roma: Aditiones Academiae Alfonsianae, 2015). 42. See FC, 84; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1650; Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful”; the letter can be found

2 4 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  What arguments speak for the change of this practice? The first one pertains to the very end of the sacramental order, which is spiritual help for the faithful, particularly for those who need it the most: “If we exclude divorced and remarried Christians, who are properly disposed, from the sacraments and refer them to the ­extra-sacramental way of salvation, do we not then place the fundamental sacramental structure of the Church in question? Wherefore then the Church?”43 In this context, Kasper accuses this practice of instrumentalizing the Church’s members: “Does that not exploit a human being, if we make him or her into a sign for others, when he or she cries for help? Are we going to let him or her starve sacramentally so that others may live?”44 In Kasper’s accusation of an unmerciful understanding of the Church’s sacraments, we hear an echo of Pope Francis’ words from his exhortation Evangelii gaudium. Speaking of “a Church whose doors are open,” the pope also called “to open the doors of the sacraments” and noted that, in a Church that is “a field hospital,” the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”45 Cardinal Kasper finds a confirmation of his postulate to distribute Communion to divorced persons who entered second unions in the practice of the ancient Church. During a doctrinal dispute concerning “the lapsed” (lapsi), that is, the Christians who during persecution denied the faith, the Church developed the practice of canonical penance as a second baptism, though “not by means of water, but by means of the tears of repentance.” As the cardinal writes, referring to the texts of the Council of Trent on on the official site of the Holy See, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ documents/­rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html. 43. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 30. 44. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 30. 45. EG, 46–47.

25

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily penance, “after the shipwreck of sin, not a second ship, but a lifesaving plank should be made available to the drowning person.”46 Thus, in ancient times in some churches, a customary law existed by which the Christians who entered second unions, even though the other spouse was still alive, were admitted to Communion after a period of penance—they received not “a second ship” but access to “a lifesaving plank.” As Kasper notes, Origen called this practice not unreasonable (non irragionevole), while Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus also referred to it. Even Augustine “appears, at least in one passage, not to have excluded every pastoral solution.”47 At the heart of such approaches by the Church Fathers was a desire “to prevent something worse” (evitare di peggio) and, therefore, they “were willing to tolerate something that, in itself, is unacceptable.”48 Here, we encounter “a pastoral practice of tolerance, clemency, and forbearance,” which was confirmed at the Council of Nicea against the rigorism of the Novatianists. This practice of the ancient Church, Kasper continues, indicates for us today a via media between laxity and rigorism. On the one hand, we recall that “the mercy of God, thus understood, is no cheap grace (una grazia a buon mercato), which dispenses with conversion.”49 On the other hand, Kasper refers to Evangelii gaudium, saying that “the sacraments are not a reward for good conduct or for elite, who exclude those who are most in need of them (EG 47). Mercy corresponds to the fidelity of God in his love for sinners, whom we all are, and which we all need.”50 After presenting the doctrinal and pastoral background of his 46. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 31. 47. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 31. The references to the patristic texts will be provided later during the discussion on Joseph Ratzinger’s article. 48. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 31. 49. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 32. 50. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 32.

2 6 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  position, Cardinal Kasper moves on to clearly describe five conditions that, if met, could result in admitting divorced persons who live in second unions to Communion. The first condition is to have sorrow about the b ­ reak-up of the first marriage. The second condition is to clarify all commitments from the first marriage, which means that the given person will not go back (è definitivamente escluso che torni indietro). The third condition specifies that one may not leave his or her spouse of the second civil marriage without incurring new guilt; this situation would exist if the spouses in the second union were obliged to care together for the children born in this union. The fourth condition concerns the effort to the best of one’s ability (al meglio delle sue possibilità) to live by faith in the second marriage and educate one’s children in faith. The fifth condition requires the person’s desire for the sacraments as a source of strength in the new situation. In Kasper’s opinion, once these conditions are met, and after a certain period of time, such persons should receive absolution and sacramental Communion. Cardinal Kasper cautions that the solution suggested above will never be “a general solution” (una soluzione generale), “a broad path for the great masses, but a narrow path for the indeed smaller segment of divorced and remarried individuals who are honestly interested in the sacraments.”51 This solution will help avoid another negative scenario that can afflict one generation after another, namely, “when children in the families of the divorced and remarried never see their parents go to the sacraments, then they too normally will not find their way to confession and communion.”52 To open such a path to reconciliation for divorced persons who live in second unions requires two things on the part of the Church. First, we should distinguish civil marriage from other forms of ir51. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 32–33. 52. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 33.

27

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily regular life together such as “secret marriages, extramarital unions (le coppie di fatto), and above all adultery and ways of living more uxorio (concubinate, wilde Ehe).” As Cardinal Kasper notes, “life is not just white or black; in fact, there are many nuances.” Secondly, the suggested solution requires from the Church “the ability of judging” (discretio) and—the cardinal uses here another key phrase from the theology of Pope Francis—“spiritual discernment” (discernimento spirituale). Interestingly, in the argumentation presented above in favor of admitting divorced persons who live in second unions to Communion, Cardinal Kasper refers in a footnote to Joseph Ratzinger’s article from 1972 entitled “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe: Bemerkungen zum dogmengeschichtlichen Befund und zu seiner gegenwärtigen Bedeutung.”53 Because this text by Ratzinger, then a professor of theology at the university in the Bavarian city of Regensburg, is perhaps the most clear and convincing presentation of arguments for the solution suggested by Kasper (with a particular consideration of the witness of Church Fathers), it is worth discussing in more detail. The evolution of Ratzinger’s views, which we will describe later, is also an important argument in our debate.54 In the beginning of his article, Joseph Ratzinger stresses that 53. Joseph Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe. Bemerkungen zum dogmengeschichtlichen Befund und zu seiner gegenwärtigen Bedeutung,” in Ehe und Ehescheidung. Diskussion unter Christen, ed. F. Henrich and V. Eid (München: Münchener ­Akademie-Schriften, 1972), 35–26. 54. When this text of Ratzinger was cited by Cardinal Kasper at the papal consistory in February 2014, the fourth volume of Ratzinger’s Gesammelte Schriften (in German) was being prepared for publication, in which all his texts concerning marriage were to be found, including “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe,” Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, Einführung in das Christentum, ed. G. Müller, 600–621 (Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 2014). By the time the fourth volume appeared in Fall 2014, the pope emeritus Benedict XVI had changed the concluding remarks of his article, thereby reflecting the change of his views with respect to this issue. We will compare both conclusions, namely, the original of 1972 and the new one of 2014, later in this volume.

2 8 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  every attempt at a dogmatic statement on the indissolubility of marriage can only be made “considering the entirety of the Church’s tradition: striving to recognize its most important factors, to explain its tensions, and thereby to arrive at a distinction between primary and secondary tradition, which can also provide criteria for further development in this area.”55 Therefore, the structure of Ratzinger’s article has a chronological character: he first presents the opinions of Church Fathers on that topic, then analyzes the Medieval development of theology in this area, and finally reflects on the contemporary problems and questions. From the many themes of this article, we will discuss only the one that found its faithful reflection in Cardinal Kasper’s 2014 speech. Ratzinger formulates the first basic summary of his analyses pertaining to the patristic witness (one that coincides with Kasper’s position from The Gospel of the Family) as follows: “The Fathers in East and West are from the very beginning in agreement as to the complete impossibility of separating the Christian marriage that could lead to contracting a second marital union during the life of the spouse; we can find no signs for a contrary view in both halves of the Church. The testimony is clear.”56 Ratzinger’s second thesis complements what was just said: “In the sphere unconnected with the classic teaching, residing, so to speak, below or within the highest determined model of the Church, a more flexible practice undoubtedly existed in pastoral ministry, a practice that indeed was seen as not fully in conformity with the actual faith of the Church, though one that was not absolutely excluded.”57 55. Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe,” 35 (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, 600). 56. Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe,” 39–40 (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, 604). 57. Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe,” 40 (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, 604).

29

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily The first testimony in support of Ratzinger’s second thesis can be found in Origen’s commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew: “But now contrary to what was written, some even of the rulers of the Church have permitted a woman to marry, even when her husband was living, doing contrary to what was written . . . [here, 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:3 are quoted] not indeed altogether without reason. For it is probable this concession was permitted to avoid worse things, contrary to what was from the beginning ordained by law and written.”58 Origen formulates a certain pastoral principle: the conduct of the rulers of the Church may have been contrary to what we read in Sacred Scripture, but it was “not altogether without reason” because it “was permitted to avoid worse things.” Ratzinger notes that two authors from the fourth century propose a concrete form of “avoiding worse things.” In the West, Ambrosiaster proposes a specific interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:11: a wife should not leave her husband, but if her husband’s unchastity should incline her to do so (Ambrosiaster refers here to the clause of unchastity from Matthew 5:32), she should reconcile with her husband or remain unmarried. Similarly, a husband should not leave his wife, but if he is inclined to do so due to his wife’s unchastity, he can remarry, because Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:11 does not treat man and woman equally.59 Despite a modest and unconvincing argumentation, this text of Ambriosiaster enjoyed great respect in Middle Ages because it was ascribed to St. Ambrose. The ­well-known fragment of St. Basil’s letter, to which Kas­per also refers in his speech, addresses the theme of “avoiding worse things” in a different manner.60 From the Christians living in sec58. Origen, In Matt 14, 23 (Patrologia Graeca, 13, 1245; hereafter PG). 59. Ambrosiaster, Commentaria in Epist. ad Corinth. Primam 133 (Patrologia Latina, 17, 218 B). 60. Ep. 217, 77 (PG, 32, 804ff).

3 0 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  ond unions, Basil expects seven years of ecclesial penance—one year of weeping, two years of listening, three years of kneeling, and one year of participating in Mass without receiving Communion.61 Only after this time of strict penance could Christians living in second unions be admitted to Holy Communion. Ratzinger points out that, just like Origen, Basil was aware that this practice is contrary to Sacred Scripture, but he did not want to relinquish it for the sake of the good of the faithful. The above remarks show that the subsequent Medieval attempt at the unification and systematic exposition of theology in the area of marriage was a serious challenge. In the twelfth century, Gratian, the founder of the study of canon law, possessed the unambiguous teaching and authority of St. Augustine’s defense of the indissolubility of marriage on the one hand, but on the other hand, there was the above quoted testimony of the fathers, the practice of some provincial synods, and inscriptions in penitential books. Ratzinger refers to two such pieces of evidence of a more tolerant ecclesial practice in relation to the Christians living in second unions. The first is a letter from Pope Gregory II to St. Boniface in 726 in which the pope teaches that whenever a woman for objective reasons, for instance, an illness, is not able to fulfill conjugal duties, her husband should live in chastity. Nonetheless, the pope teaches that “since this is practicable only in the case of men of high ideals, the best course if he is unable to be continent would be for him to marry again.”62 A second example is the inscription of Concilium Triburiense, a synod of German bishops from 895. In the records of this synod, Gratian quotes in his Decretum a deci61. Even without explaining particulars of these penitential practices, we can understand how demanding they were. 62. Gratian, Decretum, Pars II, C. 32, q. 7, cap. 18, Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. 1 (Leipzig: A. E. Friedberg, 1879), col. 1144–45; see Regesta, 2174.

31

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily sion that if someone had intercourse with his m ­ other-in-law, both parties must not marry again, “but her husband can, if he wants to, take another woman, if he cannot remain continent.”63 Gratian’s interpretation of these testimonies, since he wishes to remain faithful to the teaching of St. Augustine on the indissolubility of marriage, is very distinctive. As for the letter of Gregory II, the canonist from Bologna says with puzzling severity that the pope’s words “are contrary to holy canons and the evangelical and apostolic teaching.”64 As for Ambrosiaster’s text ascribed to St. Ambrose, Gratian demonstrates incredible intuition; he wants to weaken its significance by stating that perhaps the text is falsified and its interpretation therefore not certain. Ratzinger observes that Gratian offers the most interesting remarks on Concilium Triburiense. Gratian presents the inscription of the synod as a “concession” (pro tempore permissum), which is a missionary temporary rule, permitted for a time “in a situation of a gradual transition from paganism to Christianity.”65 Summarizing his reflections on the Medieval interpretation of the topic that interests us here, Ratzinger states that the teaching and practice of the Church went in two directions. On the one hand, the goal was to be faithful to the uncompromising teaching of St. Augustine on the indissolubility of marriage; on the other hand, a pastoral compromise was attempted. In this light, Ratzinger sees a deep unity between the churches of East and West, because the first marriage in the East is also considered a sacramental marriage, and each subsequent one is merely tolerated on account 63. The same principle is applied in the case of intercourse with other members of the family, for example, a stepdaughter or ­daughter-in-law. 64. Gratian, D ad c 18: “Illud Gregorii sacris canonibus, immo evangelicae et apostolicae doctrinae penitus invenitur adversum.” 65. Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe,” 44 (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, 608).

3 2 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  of mercy toward sinners (oikonomia). We can ask, as Ratzinger did, “how it is that in the West the practice of the tolerating permission disappeared at once beneath the full form of the dogmatic statement, whereas in the East it grew so greatly that it almost obscured the full form.” According to Ratzinger, the key difference consisted in the fact that in the East, where the Roman Empire continued, “the Christian state create[d] a Christian law,” which had to be written in a properly flexible form in order to be accepted by the state authority. In the West, however, where in the early Middle Ages the imperial authority was absent, its power was assumed by the pope, and the development of law followed “within the ecclesial tradition with its much stricter obligations.” As Ratzinger concludes, “in the one case, the imperial and, in the other case, the papal law decisively determined the path of development.”66 The third part of Ratzinger’s article is devoted to the Council of Trent, in which the Church responded to the challenge of the Reformation. As we know, Martin Luther interpreted the words of the Lord about the immorality of dismissing the wife, “except on the ground of unchastity” (Mt 5:32), as a concession for divorce and second marriage.67 In addition, marriage was for him “a worldly thing” (weltlich Ding) that should be subject not to the ecclesial (papal) but rather to secular (state) authority. In response to Luther’s theses, the Council of Trent created seven canons concerning the theology of marriage in which it defended the teaching on the sacramentality and indissolubility of marriage. However, Ratzinger notes a certain “pastoral inconsistency” of the Church in the epoch of the Council of Trent. At the time, in the Venetian colonies of the Mediterranean Sea, there existed a 66. Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe,” 45–47 (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, 609–610). 67. An additional argument for the Father of the Reformation was St. Paul’s statement that “it is better to marry than to be on fire” (1 Cor 7:9).

33

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily peculiar form of ecclesial union with the Orthodox Church, which recognized papal authority but preserved all Orthodox traditions, including the practice of divorce. Referring to Piet Fransen, a Jesuit historian, Ratzinger states that this difference in practice and doctrine was viewed then only as a difference of “rite,” which had a place in the one Church.68 Even in rejecting Luther’s theses, the Council of Trent did not condemn this Orthodox practice of divorce for the sake of the unity of the Church, which requires—and Ratzinger appeals here to St. Augustine’s formula used in the fight for unity in the African Church torn apart by donatism—tolerare pro pace.69 What remains to be discussed are the final conclusions in Ratzinger’s article, or, rather, two versions of his conclusion. As mentioned earlier, when Cardinal Kasper referred to Ratzinger’s article in his speech at the papal consistory in February 2014, ­thenretired Pope Benedict XVI was preparing the fourth volume of his Gesammelte Schriften for publication in German, which included the article at hand. When it was published in the fall of that year, however, it turned out that the 1972 article had a different ending. This change is not accidental; rather, it seems to reflect a change in Ratzinger’s views. We will therefore first discuss the most important theses of the original text and then the revised ending in the context of the evolution of Ratzinger’s views.70 In the 1972 version, after completing his historical remarks, 68. See Piet Fransen, “Ehescheidung bei Ehebruch Die theologischen und geschichtlichen Hintergründe der ersten Stellungnahme zum 7. Kanon in der 24. Sitzung des Trienter Konzils,” Scholastik 29 (1954) 4: 537–60. 69. See Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe” (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, 614). 70. Both versions of the conclusion can be found in Herder Korrespondenz 68, no. 12 (2014): 609–12, and online at https://www.­ herder-korrespondenz.de/heftarchiv/­ 68jahrgang-2014/­heft-122014/­die-beiden-textversionen-von-joseph-ratzinger-benedikt-xvizur-frage-nach-der-unaufloeslichkeit-der-ehe. Therefore, we cite the conclusion to the 1972 text; the references to the other parts of the text as well as to the conclusion of the 2014 text pertain here to the Gesammelte Schriften edition.

3 4 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  Ratzinger moves on to concrete pastoral suggestions that are remarkably similar to those presented by Cardinal Kasper at the papal consistory in February 2014. The basis of the pastoral practice of the Church must be the consciousness that the demands of the Gospel are proclaimed in the world where the reality of the “hardened heart” exists. Therefore, when such a need arises (in klaren Notsituationen), the Church can permit limited exceptions (begrenzte Ausnahmen) to avoid worse things (Ratzinger uses here Origen’s phrase). The fundamental criterion and boundary of applying this exception, that is, acting “against that which is written” (gegen das, was geschrieben steht), is that such action does not question the fundamental form itself (die Grundform) by which the Church lives. As Ratzinger noted, this exception remains a temporary solution in missionary areas or in situations where the unity of the Church is endangered. Next, Ratzinger proposes a concrete application of this exception to the situation of the Church in 1970s: “Where the first marriage broke up a long time ago and in a way that is irreparable for both sides; where, conversely, the second marriage afterward has proved itself to be a moral reality (eine sittliche Realität) for a long time, and has been filled with the spirit of faith, especially in the education of children (so that the destruction of this second marriage would destroy a moral greatness and cause moral harm), those living in such a second marriage should be granted in a ­non-juridical way (auf einem außergerichtlichen Weg) the permission to receive Communion on the basis of the testimony of the pastor and members of the community.”71 According to Ratzinger, two reasons exist for accepting such a practice in the Church. First, we ought to remember that in every 71. Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe,” 54.

35

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily process of declaring the nullity of marriage, there exist a certain room for discretion (ein Ermessensspielraum) as well as the inequality of opportunity that comes from the various levels of education or wealth of the persons involved. Therefore, one should not assume that “justice is always fulfilled.” Because one must limit oneself to legal facts in the judicial process, many matters may fail to be considered, or formal criteria (for example, errors concerning the form) can be unjustly decisive. Second, admitting one who lives in a second union to Communion when the above conditions are met corresponds to the kind of understanding (die Nachsicht) of which Basil spoke in the texts quoted above. Ratzinger very firmly emphasizes that such a practice by the Church can in no way mean a change to the Church’s doctrine concerning the indissolubility of marriage. Rather, he argues, we ought to understand it in the sense that “the Eucharistic Communion of the Church should encompass those who recognize this doctrine and this ­life-principle, but are in an emergency of a special kind (eine Notsituation besonderer Art), in which they especially need full communion with the Body of the Lord.”72 ­Forty-two years later, as Pope Benedict XVI, he wrote a new version of this article’s conclusion. It is worth noting several important events that transpired in this period. First, the International Theological Commission, of which Joseph Ratzinger was a member from the moment of its establishment in 1969, issued the aforementioned document, “Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage,” in 1977. We have mentioned this text thus far in the context of the relationship between the faith of the newlyweds and the validity of the contracted sacrament; the theologians of this Commission, Ratzinger among them, also speak in the text 72. Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe,” 56.

3 6 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  of the possibility of admitting divorced persons who live in second unions to Communion. With respect to the indissolubility of marriage, the document makes a very interesting observation about the development of the Church’s teaching in this area. With respect to the teachings of the Council of Trent, the Commission’s document confirms Ratzinger’s thesis about the compromising position of the Council: The Council of Trent declared that the Church has not erred when it has taught and teaches, in accordance with the doctrine of the Gospel and the apostles, that the marriage bond cannot be broken through adultery (cf. DS 1807). Nevertheless, because of historical doubts (opinions of Ambrosiaster, Catharinus, and Cajetan) and for some m ­ ore-or-less ecumenical reasons, the Council limited itself to pronouncing an anathema against those who deny the Church’s authority on this issue. It cannot be said, then, that the Council had the intention of solemnly defining marriage’s indissolubility as a truth of faith.73

At the same time, however, the Commission refers to the 1930 encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Casti connubii, in which we find—in the commentary on the declarations of the Council of Trent—a considerably more decisive statement on the indissolubility of marriage: “If therefore the Church has not erred and does not err in teaching this, and consequently it is certain that the bond of marriage cannot be loosed even on account of the sin of adultery, it is evident that all the other weaker excuses that can be, and are usually brought forward, are of no value whatsoever.”74 It is in the fifth section of the document, in the context of the problem of the indissolubility of marriage, that the Commission takes up the topic of “The Divorced Who Have Remarried.” The Commission’s teaching on this issue are very clear, re73. “Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage,” 4.2. 74. Pius XI, Encyclical Letter, Casti connubii (December 31, 1930), 89.

37

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily flecting both the words of Christ (Mk 10:6ff) and the teaching of St. Paul that “new unions following divorce under civil law cannot be considered regular or legitimate” and, relatedly, that “the incompatibility of the state of remarried divorced persons with the precept and mystery of the Paschal love of the Lord makes it impossible for these people to receive, in the Eucharist, the sign of unity with Christ. Access to Eucharistic Communion can only be had through penitence, which implies detestation of the sin committed and the firm purpose of not sinning again (cf. DS 1676).”75 The objective state of divorced persons who entered new unions renders them incapable of receiving the sign of union with Christ, which is Eucharistic Communion—unless they turn away from sin. Together with its document “Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage,” the International Theological Commission voted to endorse a text by Gustave Martelet, SJ, entitled “Christological Theses on the Sacrament of Marriage.” In thesis 12, entitled “Divorce and the Eucharist,” we read: Without refusing to examine the attenuating circumstances and even sometimes the quality of a second civil marriage after divorce, the approach of the divorced and remarried to the Eucharist is plainly incompatible with the mystery of which the Church is the servant and witness. In receiving the divorced and remarried to the Eucharist, the Church would let such parties believe that they can, on the level of signs, communicate with him whose conjugal mystery they disavow on the level of reality. To do so would be, moreover, on the part of the Church to declare herself in accord with the baptized at the moment when they enter or remain in a clearly objective contradiction with the life, the thought, and the being itself of the Lord as Spouse of the Church. If the Church could give the sacrament of unity to those who have broken with her on an essential point of the mystery of Christ, she would no longer be the sign of the witness of Christ but rather a countersign and a counterwitness.76 75. “Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage,” 5.1 and 5.3. 76. “Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage,” thesis 12.

3 8 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  We should note an essential difference in the understanding of Eucharistic Communion that exists between Walter Kasper’s and Gustave Martelet’s texts. Kasper speaks of Communion—as does Pope Francis—as a help and medicine for the weak; he uses the metaphor of the Church as “a field hospital.” In the vein of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Martelet draws attention to the theological and objective significance of receiving the Eucharist; the reception of Communion is a sign that the life of the Christian communicant is in fundamental conformity with the teaching of the Church. This premise of Martelet will be repeated in subsequent pronouncements of the Church in which she refuses Eucharistic Communion to divorced persons who live in second unions. As stated earlier, this document dates from 1977, when Ratzinger was named the archbishop of Munich by Paul VI. In November 1981, the ­then-cardinal from Munich was nominated by John Paul II to the post of the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, thereby becoming the chairman of the International Theological Commission. In 1981, in the fourth year of his pontificate, John Paul II also published Familiaris consortio, which is the fruit of his reflections after the synod of bishops “On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World,” held in the fall of 1980. In this exhortation, John Paul II very unambiguously states: However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified 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 and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be grant-

39

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily ed to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity 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.77

Thirteen years after Familiaris consortio was issued, another event unfolded in the historical drama that we have been tracing. Walter Kasper, then the bishop of Stuttgart, together with Karl Lehmann of Mainz and Oskar Saier of Freiburg, two other bishops of the Church Province of Upper Rhine (Oberrheinische Kirchenprovinz), wrote a pastoral letter in which they suggested admitting divorced persons who live in new unions to Holy Communion.78 In their letter, we find the thesis that the teaching of Familiaris consortio is merely “a general norm that, while true, cannot regulate all of the very complex individual cases.”79 It is worth noting that this argument appeared again in Cardinal Kasper’s speech at the papal consistory; indeed, it returned many times in the debates and documents of the two Synods of Bishops on the family in 2014 and 2015. The response to this 1993 letter, “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful,” was published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation. 77. FC, 84. 78. “Die Bischöfe der Oberrheinischen Kirchenprovinz, Zur seelsorglichen Begleitung von Menschen aus zerbrochenen Ehen, Geschiedenen und Wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen. Gemeinsames Hirtenschreiben der Bischöfe der Oberrheinischen Kirchenprovinz zur Pastoral mit Geschiedenen und Wiederverheirateten Geschiedenen,” http://www. weinzweb.de/TexteHJ/OberrhBischWdvgeschiedeneHirtenwort.pdf. 79. Carl Bunderson, “Scholars: No, Benedict XVI Doesn’t Support Kasper in Synod Debates,” Catholic News Agency, November 25, 2014.

4 0 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  The Congregation’s letter begins by presenting what it considers erroneous propositions concerning the reception of Holy Communion by the faithful who are divorced and live in new unions. In fact, in its description of rejected opinions, we can recognize citations very similar to those in Ratzinger’s 1972 article: In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorized according to a judgement of conscience to do so. This would be the case, for example, when they had been abandoned completely unjustly, although they sincerely tried to save the previous marriage, or when they are convinced of the nullity of their previous marriage, although unable to demonstrate it in the external forum or when they have gone through a long period of reflection and penance, or also when for morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate. In some places, it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorization.80

Regarding Ratzinger’s article from 1972, discussed earlier, we can safely say that in this 1994 letter, the prefect of the Congregation criticizes his own views laid out ­twenty-two years earlier Interestingly, the Congregation’s response also refers to the testimony of Church Fathers, who seemed to approve the practice under discussion: “Even if analogous pastoral solutions have been proposed by a few Fathers of the Church and in some measure were practiced, nevertheless these never attained the consensus of the 80. Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the Reception of Holy Communion,” 3.

41

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily fathers and in no way came to constitute the common doctrine of the Church nor to determine her discipline. It falls to the universal Magisterium, in fidelity to Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to teach and to interpret authentically the depositum fidei.”81 Taking into consideration a certain absolutization of patristic data by today’s theologians at the expense of the further development of theology and subsequent magisterial teachings of the Church, the statement of the Congregation that individual testimonies of the fathers “never attained the consensus of the Fathers and in no way came to constitute the common doctrine of the Church” seems to be a significant hermeneutical indicator when studying the authentic teaching of the Church. After these introductory remarks, we arrive at the main thesis of the letter: “Members of the faithful who live together as husband and wife (more uxorio) with persons other than their legitimate spouses may not receive Holy Communion. Should they judge it possible to do so, pastors and confessors, given the gravity of the matter and the spiritual good of these persons as well as the common good of the Church, have the serious duty to admonish them that such a judgment of conscience openly contradicts the Church’s teaching.”82 The Congregation also reminds us that due to the objective character of marriage, the decision regarding whether the previous marriage was valid may not be left up to a subjective judgment (conscience) of man or woman but rather ought to be entrusted to the objective judgment of the Church.83 The aforementioned statements of the Church, which appeared 81. Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the Reception of Holy Communion,” 4. 82. Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the Reception of Holy Communion,” 6. 83. Benedict XVI confirmed this teaching in his postsynodal exhortation Sacramentum caritatis (February 22, 2007), 29.

4 2 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  from 1977 to 2007 and which were created at least in collaboration with Ratzinger, provide an important foundation for understanding the new conclusion to his original 1972 article, one that he wrote in 2014 as pope emeritus. He begins with a reflection on the indissolubility of marriage, which he approaches from both theological (“The ‘yes’ of marriage belongs in the Church to the definitiveness that became visible in God’s definitive decision with respect to man”) and anthropological perspectives (“Marriage is one of the fundamental decisions of human existence that can be made only either completely or not at all, precisely because in it man as a whole, as himself, participates down to the depth where he is touched by Christ”). At the same time, the radicalness of marriage thus understood is questioned in contemporary culture, in which, on the one hand, the reduction of man to ­lived-experience and consciousness results in the notion that if affection between spouses fades away, the bond (nexus) likewise ceases, while on the other hand, “the selling of man to the ‘Chronos,’ to the changing idols of the given moment and the momentariness,” means that man does not want to make decisions that reach far in the future.84 In this postmodernity that is often hostile to faith, the Church must remain faithful to Christ’s words about the indissolubility of marriage, but she also “must explore the limits and breadth of Christ’s words” for the sake of pastoral care. Benedict XVI notes that in the history of theology of marriage, one can find two precedents of such theological and pastoral “exploration.” The first is in the words of St. Paul from 1 Corinthians 7:12–16, in which the Apostle says that marriage between the believer and nonbeliever can be dissolved if the nonbeliever prevents the Christian party from living by faith. Based on St. Paul’s words, the tradition of the 84. Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe” (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, 615–16).

43

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily Church “has revealed that only the marriage between two baptized persons is a real sacrament and therefore absolutely indissoluble. Marriages between a n ­ on-Christian and a Christian are indeed marriages according to the order of creation and thus in themselves definitive. But they can be divorced in favor of the faith and a sacramental marriage.”85 In addition to the Pauline privilege, the tradition of the Church introduced the idea of the Petrine privilege, according to which only the pope can dissolve a marriage in which at least one party is baptized and the marriage was not consummated (non consumatum). The second historical precedent of exploring “the limits and breadth of Christ’s words” pertaining to the indissolubility of marriage is the teaching of the Church on the impediments to marriage and the invalidity of a contracted marriage. As the Church declares, marriage is constituted through a mutual consent of the will of man and woman, which must be expressed publicly in the singular form defined by canon law.86 As Benedict XVI observes, “Church law presupposes that adults know by their own nature what marriage is and thus know about its definitiveness; the opposite must be explicitly proved.”87 In the pope emeritus’s opinion, this presupposition of the ecclesial law opens a path to numerous questions and doubts: “Can one still presuppose today that people ‘by nature’ know about the definitiveness and indissolubility of marriage and agree with it in their ‘yes’? Or has there not been a change of consciousness in contemporary society, at least in Western countries, which tends to suggest the opposite? Can one presuppose the will to definitiveness as a matter of fact, or is it not rather the opposite 85. Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe” (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, 617). 86. See CCL, c. 1057 §1. 87. Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe” (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, 618). Also see CCL, c. 1096 §§1 and 2.

4 4 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  to be expected—that one is prepared in advance for failure? Wherever the definitiveness was deliberately excluded, would a marriage in the sense of the Creator’s will and its interpretation by Christ be really contracted?”88 This lack of obviousness of the newlyweds’ conviction about the indissolubility of marriage evokes new questions above all in the context of declaring the nullity of marriage. A broader context of this problem is provided by canon 1095.3, where one reads that those are incapable of contracting marriage “who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.” Undoubtedly, today’s culture quite often causes in young people various forms of such immaturity. The most radical way of posing the question about the validity of marriage is the situation of “baptized pagans” who contract marriage. In his 2014 text, Benedict XVI does not offer ­ready-made answers, but rather asks questions and encourages further reflection: “Canon 1055§2 says that ‘a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.’ But what if an unbelieving baptized person does not know the sacrament at all? He may have the will for indissolubility, but he does not see the novelty of the Christian faith. The drama of this situation becomes especially visible when pagan baptized persons convert to faith and start a whole new life.”89 Benedict XVI concludes his text with three practical suggestions. First, there should be a greater commitment of divorced persons who live in new unions to the life of the Church. The pope emeritus suggests that “they should be given the opportunity to become active in church committees and to accept the task of god88. Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe” (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, 618). 89. Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe” (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, 620).

45

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily parents, which is not yet provided for by law.”90 Second, we should critically review the practice in which the majority or entirety of the community present at the Eucharist receives Communion, a situation that makes the impossibility of receiving Communion by divorced persons who live in new unions especially “hurtful” for such persons. The author suggests that St. Paul’s warning, “A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor 11:28–29), should be taken more seriously. The decision not to receive Communion at times would be a form of solidarity with divorced persons who live in new unions, who should not receive Communion. The third practical proposal of Benedict XVI concerns the introduction of a custom in which the persons who cannot receive Communion approach the altar together with those who will receive Communion, in order to receive a blessing from the priest.

Conclusion The discussion of Cardinal Walter Kasper’s speech at the papal consistory in February 2014 led into a comparison of two theologies: that of Walter Kasper and that of Joseph Ratzinger. This comparison provokes a number of final reflections. The first pertains to the change in Ratzinger’s views over time, a change no doubt linked to the change in Ratzinger’s position: the 1972 article was written by a professor of theology at the university in Regensburg, whereas the later texts were signed by the archbishop of Munich, then by the cardinal and prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, and finally by the successor of St. Peter. Thus, for some com90. Ratzinger, “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe” (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, 621).

4 6 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  mentators, the change in Ratzinger’s theological views should be seen as a relinquishment of personal theological inquiries in order to proclaim ex officio the traditional teaching of the Church. Undoubtedly, the role of an academic theologian differs from that of a bishop or a pope. At the same time, however, it is worth remembering that pastoral care for the Church does not oppose properly understood independence of thought. Quite the contrary; love for the Church and pastoral responsibility for the community of the faithful are always a sign of true and great theology in the tradition of the Church. Therefore, the change in Ratzinger’s views should be seen as an expression of the maturing of his vision concerning the issues at hand and not as opportunism or a relinquishment of independence of thought. The opposite opinion is injurious to Joseph Ratzinger, who, after all, has been called the Panzerkardinal even by his critics because of his courage and intransigence in proclaiming the truth. The second concluding reflection pertains to the fact that Cardinal Kasper was perfectly aware of the evolution of Ratzinger’s views. Thus, it is interesting that in his text he refers to Ratzinger’s earlier statement and in no way engages with the later, serious statements by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, the International Theological Commission, and above all by two popes that comprise the most recent Magisterium of the Church. Cardinal Kasper’s lack of engagement with his critics is a recurring charge against him. As we mentioned, one of the most serious critical voices about Kasper’s 2014 speech was the book entitled Remaining in the Truth of Christ, edited by Robert Dodaro, the former rector of the Roman Patristic Institute Augustianum. One of the most interesting texts in this collection was written by the patrologist John Rist, who criticizes the arguments pertaining to the practices of the ancient

47

C a rd in al K as p e r’s Gos p e l of the Fa mily Church that were employed by Cardinal Kasper. It is impossible here to present the argumentation of this prominent expert on antiquity in detail, so let us quote only his final conclusions: Although among ancient Christians second marriages during the lifetime of a spouse were normally forbidden and those who were engaged in them were denied Communion, there were a very small but noticeable number of exceptions to the rule that, however, were almost invariably condemned. Although we do not know and can only speculate about the reasons for these exceptions, we can certainly be clear that they are exceptions and must be treated as such, because Christians in antiquity viewed any more “merciful” treatment of the divorced and remarried as directly opposed to the instructions of Christ himself. That being the case, whatever the merits or demerits of changes in current practice in the Roman Catholic Church, it is clear that such changes cannot be supported by significant evidence from the world of the first five centuries of Christianity. If we ask how it can be the case that there are those who appeal to the ancient evidence as part of an argument in favor of change, we can only conclude that they (or the sources on which they rely) are guilty of an unfortunate practice all too common elsewhere in academia; the evidence in favor of one view is overwhelmingly superior, but there are a very few cases—and perhaps even these largely of uncertain determination—that point to the contrary conclusion. It is then claimed that the evidence, if not in favor of change, at least leaves the solution open. Such a procedure can only be condemned as methodologically flawed.91

Apart from substantive errors in Cardinal Kasper’s argumentation, it is worth noting once more the key element in the most recent teaching of the Magisterium of the Church concerning the nonadmittance of divorced persons who live in second unions to Holy Communion. This key argument does not pertain to whether they are or are not subjectively in the state of sanctifying grace— 91. John Rist, “Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church: Some Historical and Cultural Reflections,” in Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church, ed. R. Dodaro (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014), 92.

4 8 

Ca rd ina l K a s p e r’s Gos p el of t h e Fam i ly  ultimately only God knows that. Rather, the ­above-cited documents of the Magisterium consider the theological and objective significance of receiving the Eucharist by the faithful; the reception of Communion is a sign that the life of the Christian communicant is in fundamental conformity with the teaching of the Church. This argument is repeated in subsequent pronouncements of the Church refusing the Eucharistic Communion to divorced persons who entered second unions.

49

Third Extraordinary General Assembly C ha pt e r 2

T h e T h i r d E xtraordinary Gener al Assembly of th e Synod of B is hops

On October 8, 2013, the press office of the Holy See announced the convocation of an extraordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops. The announcement came barely one week after the pope met with the K8 advisory group of cardinals about reforming the institution of the synod and transforming it into a permanent advisory body, and just one day after Pope Francis visited the governing council of the synod, which was in session in Rome, and led its discussion.1 Pope Paul VI established the institution of the Synod of Bishops shortly before the conclusion of Vatican II, when on September 15, 1965, he promulgated the Apostolic letter motu proprio Apostolica sollicitudo.2 In accord with Paul VI’s intention, the Synod of Bishops is not a legislative organ but rather has an advisory character; its goal is to assist the pope in reflecting on problems concerning the whole Church. The 1983 Code of Canon Law describes the Synod of 1. “Pope Francis Calls Extraordinary Synod for Only Third Time in Modern Church History,” Catholic Herald, October 8, 2013, http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/10/ 08/­pope-francis-calls-extraordinary-synod-for-october-2014. 2. Two conciliar documents promulgated a few weeks after Apostolica sollicitudo also speak of the Synod of Bishops: Vatican II, The Decree concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church, Christus dominus (October 28, 1965), art. 5, and Vatican II, The Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church, Ad gentes (December 7, 1965), art. 29a.

5 0 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  Bishops as follows: “Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops.”3 The code lists three tasks of the synod: first, “to foster closer unity between the Roman Pontiff and bishops”; second, “to assist the Roman Pontiff with their counsel in the preservation and growth of faith and morals and in the observance and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline”; and third, “to consider questions pertaining to the activity of the Church in the world.”4 Following Paul VI’s intention, the sessions of the Synod of Bishops can be either general (ordinary or extraordinary) or special. The general ordinary sessions, which meet every three to four years, consider matters pertaining to the whole Church, whereas the general extraordinary sessions are convoked when urgent matters that require speedy solutions need to be discussed. Special sessions consider matters that directly pertain to a particular region or regions in the world. The distinct nature a session influences the character of the invited participants. Obviously, most participants attend general ordinary sessions when proportional representation of various regions of the world is expected. In the remaining two kinds of sessions, however, the choice of participants depends on the character of the problem to be discussed.5

Presynodal Consultations Before discussing the debates of the extraordinary session of the Synod of Bishops in October 2014, it is worth pointing out 3. CCL, c. 334. 4. CCL, c. 342. 5. The most important documents and legal regulations concerning the Synod of Bishops are available online at the official site of the Holy See, http://www.vatican.va/news_ services/press/documentazione/documents/sinodo/­sinodo_documentazione-generale_ en.html.

51

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly several important events that preceded it. At the meeting of the governing council of the synod in Rome in October 2013, its members prepared the Lineamenta, that is, a preparatory document for the synod that—in a way similar to previous sessions—was designed to facilitate presynodal consultations. In accord with the work scheduled for the synod presented in Paul VI’s motu proprio, the purpose of the Lineamenta, which was distributed to bishops and various Catholic institutions all over the world, was to start the discussion on the topics chosen by the synod. The results of this discussion were sent to the Vatican and used to create another document, Instrumentum laboris, which became the basis for discussion during the synod. On October 18, 2013, ten days after the Vatican announcement convoking the synod, the new general secretary of the Synod of Bishops, Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, sent the Lineamenta to the presidents of all conferences of bishops in the world accompanied by a letter.6 This short document consisted of three parts. In the first, “Synod: Family and Evangelization,” the authors emphasize in three brief paragraphs how much the cultural changes of today’s “global village” affected the problems with which marriages and families struggle, such as the growing practice of cohabitation that often does not lead to marriage, radical feminism hostile to the Church, surrogate motherhood, and homosexual unions. Therefore, the Church should convene cum et sub Petro in order to consider what the response of the Church should be to such problems and the questions that arise from them. This was the goal of the two upcoming Synods of Bishops: the extraordinary session in 2014, the purpose of which was “to define the status quaestionis and to collect 6. Lineamenta (hereafter L) can be found on the official site of the Holy See: http://www .vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/­rc_synod_doc_20131105_iii-assemblea-sinodo -vescovi_it.html. The letter of Archbishop Baldisseri is available at: https://pl.scribd.com/ document/180575701/­Vatican-questionnaire-for-the-synod-on-the-family.

5 2 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  the bishops’ experiences and proposals in proclaiming and living the Gospel of the Family in a credible manner,” and the ordinary session in 2015, the purpose of which was to formulate practical guidelines in the pastoral care for marriage and the family.7 The second part of the preparatory document, entitled “The Church and the Gospel on the Family,” reminds us—also in a very brief form—of the most important truths on marriage and the family present in Sacred Scripture and the tradition of the Church, with particular attention to the documents that were issued after Vatican II. In the third part of the Lineamenta, one finds a questionnaire consisting of nine main questions, each of them subdivided into several more detailed questions. The questions asked, among other things: to what extent Catholics know, understand, and accept the teaching of the Church concerning the discussed areas; whether the idea of natural law in the teaching on marriage is well understood; how to care for the faith of children in irregular unions; how to understand the situation of persons in homosexual unions; and whether the teaching of Paul VI’s Humanae vitae is properly taught and accepted by spouses. In the letter that accompanied the questionnaire, Archbishop Baldisseri explained to the bishops that, according to the pope’s intentions, their consultations should encompass the greatest possible number of the faithful and not avoid controversial topics such as contraception, abortion, the lack of acceptance of the teaching of the Church, and s­ame-sex unions. The prepared answers were to be sent to Vatican by the end of January 2014 so that the secretariat of the synod could in February 2014 analyze the answers gathered from the whole world and on that basis write a proper preparatory document for the synod, Instrumentum laboris. The request of the synod’s general secretary was met with differ7. L 2014, 1.

53

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly ent responses in different parts of the world. The Catholic Church in Great Britain can serve as a model of a constructive treatment of the request for presynodal consultations. The questionnaires were sent to every parish, and the website for the conference of bishops of England and Wales posted addresses for every diocese to which completed questionnaires could be sent. Each of the dioceses performed an introductory processing of responses, which was also performed on the national level. In general, the content of the questionnaires was anonymous and reserved for the Holy See; the official communique concluding the consultative process provided only the most general statistical data, namely, the number of responses, the age of the respondents, their civil status, and their employment.8 The Conference of the German Episcopate approached the questionnaires somewhat differently. After processing the responses, a ­twenty-page document was crafted, which on February 3, 2014, was sent to the Vatican and published in several languages on the Conference’s website.9 It is worth pausing a moment on the content of this official report, because it sheds much light on later controversies concerning the progress of the synod and the form of the documents created by it. We can say that, given the history of the Church, it once again seemed that not the Nile, the Ganges, the Amazon, the Danube, or the Vistula, but “the Rhine flows into the Tiber.”10 8. See Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, “Information about the ­ re-Synod Consultation Process,” http://www.catholicfamily.org.uk/news/­information-about P -the-pre-synod-consultation-process. 9. See Deutsche Bischofskonferenz, “Die pastoralen Herausforderungen der Familie im Kontext der Evangelisierung Zusammenfassung der Antworten aus den deutschen (Erz-) Diözesen auf die Fragen im Vorbereitungsdokument für die III. Außerordentliche Vollversammlung der Bischofssynode 2014,” https://www.dbk.de/presse/aktuelles/meldung/?tx_ news_pi1[news]=2420. 10. Ralph Wiltgen’s book The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II (New York: Hawthorne Books, 1967) tells the story of the disproportionate role of French and German theologians in shaping the theology of Vatican II, and their use in this process of methods that are not necessarily worthy of praise.

5 4 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  The document, undersigned by Fr. Hans Langendörfer, SJ, the secretary of the German Conference of Bishops, was prepared on the basis of the replies received from tw ­ enty-seven dioceses and approximately twenty Catholic institutions and associations.11 In response to the first question about common knowledge of the Catholic teaching on marriage and the family, the document is very skeptical: The statements of the Church on ­pre-marital intercourse, homosexuality, the divorced and remarried, and birth control are practically never accepted or for the most part explicitly rejected. The image of the Catholic family seems too idealistic and irrelevant. In particular, the Church’s requirements concerning sexual morality and family planning, which only allow natural regulation of conceptions, are only relevant to very few couples. Since celibacy is also seen by many as an expression of the Church’s critical attitude toward sexuality, this complicates a positive transmission of the Church’s teaching on marriage and family.12

The words “idealistic” and “irrelevant,” applied to the teaching of the Church, appear in this document many times. At the same time, one gets the impression that this document overstates the commitment of the Catholic Church in Germany to proclaim “the Gospel of the family.” For example, it does not mention that there are not many parishes where one can learn about natural family 11. It is worth comparing this document from the German bishops to the document created online by German theologians from the Association of German Moral Theologians and the Conference of G ­ erman-speaking Pastoral Theologians. This document was created between November 23 and December 9, 2013. Ultimately, ten moral theologians and seven pastoral theologians signed the document. The English version of this document, “Responses of 17 Professors of Moral Theology and Pastoral Theology,” is available in the article by Joshua McElwee, “German Theologians Critique Church Teachings, Propose New Sexual Understanding,” National Catholic Reporter, January 14, 2014, https://www.ncronline.org/ blogs/­ncr-today/­german-theologians-critique-church-teachings-propose-new-sexualunderstanding. The reader should note a considerable similarity between these two documents. 12. “Die pastoralen Herausforderungen,” I b.

55

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly planning, or that there are few theological centers where the teaching of Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae vitae, is treated seriously. Here, German theologians are closer to the truth than the German bishops, for to the question, “How widespread is the Church’s teaching in pastoral programs at the national, diocesan and parish levels?” the former answer: “There are no pastoral programs in this regard, only individual measures and offers. Family catechesis in the context of the catechesis of the sacraments is concerned with different issues; marriage preparation classes are not sufficiently developed.”13 The next pages of the report of the German Episcopate draw a rather bleak picture of the Catholic family in Germany. As one of the journalists who summarized the results of the German survey said, “it now turned out that the majority of the faithful in Germany rejects the principles of Catholic sexual ethics and that the Church’s teaching is not translated into their daily life.”14 This journalist concludes that German Catholics expect the Church to change her teaching concerning three points, namely, to allow the use of contraception, to accept homosexual unions, though without equating them with heterosexual marriage, and to admit divorced persons who entered second unions to the sacraments, especially to the Eucharist. The publication of the results of the questionnaire generated a heated discussion in the Catholic Church in Germany for eight months before the start of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, leading to high expectations and demand for the upcoming synod to undertake these pressing problems.

13. “Responses of 17 Professors,” 1 c. Emphasis added. 14. Małgorzata Matzke, “Ankieta papieża Franciszka. Ostra krytyka katolickiej etyki seksualnej,” Deutsche Welle, February 4, 2014, http://www.dw.com/pl/­ankieta-papie%C5% B ­ Ca-franciszka-ostra-krytyka-katolickiej-etyki-seksualnej/­a-17408281.

5 6 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly 

The Debate on Cardinal Kasper’s Presentation By the end of February 2014, the temperature of the presynodal debate had increased, because of Cardinal Walter Kasper’s presentation at the papal consistory. Because the discussion on Kasper’s speech was foundational for the approaching synod, it is important to point out its specific elements. One of the first places where Cardinal Kasper’s speech appeared in full was the Milanese periodical Il Foglio, which appended to the text of the speech a commentary by Roberto de Mattei, a Roman historian. De Mattei decisively criticized all the main theses of the German cardinal (some of his critical remarks were presented in the previous chapter), paying particular attention to the beginning of his speech. In his introduction, Kasper writes that “a wide gap has developed between the church’s teaching concerning marriage and the family and the lived convictions of many Christians.”15 De Mattei rightly asks, “Why does a gap exist between the doctrine of the Church and the philosophy of life in contemporary Christians? What is the nature and what are the causes of the dissolution of the family?”16 The Italian historian draws attention to the fact that nowhere in his speech does Kasper say that the dissolution of the family is also a result of a systematic attack on the traditional family by aggressive secularism. Only by becoming aware of the aims of those who demand a redefinition of marriage and the family one can find the proper tactic to defend and proclaim the Gospel in this area. It is difficult not to agree with De Mattei’s statement. What comes to mind especially at this moment is one of the best statements of John Paul II on the family, namely, his Letter to Families 15. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 2. 16. Roberto de Mattei, “Cio che Dio ha unito,” Il Foglio, March 1, 2014, https://www .corrispondenzaromana.it/­cio-che-dio-ha-unito.

57

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly published in 1994 to celebrate the Year of the Family. The papal letter contains a penetrating analysis of the errors of today’s culture that are responsible for the dissolution of interhuman bonds, in particular, familial bonds. Only a properly made diagnosis allows us to cure the sick; otherwise, one can inflict more harm on the one who suffers. On March 7, 2015, Il Foglio published an article bearing the emphatic title “Contro Kasper” by Juan José ­Pérez-Soba, a professor of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family in Rome.17 The Spanish theologian draws attention to an important thesis present in Cardinal Kasper’s 2012 book on mercy: “A further grave misunderstanding of mercy occurs if, in the name of mercy, we think that we may ignore God’s commandment of justice. . . . One cannot advise or provide assistance for an abor­ érez-Soba concludes from tion out of a phony sense of mercy.”18 P this statement by Kasper that “unjust mercy is not true mercy. One cannot strike at human dignity in the name of mercy. Consequently, to talk about mercy with respect to marriage, it is very important to understand exactly what reality born of human dignity this institution contains. If it turns out that we attack this reality, this would not be true mercy.”19 According to the Spanish theologian, it is crucial for understanding the reality of Christian marriage to see in sacramental marriage the reality of the marriage bond, the existence of which is the basis for the indissolubility of marriage. This is how Vatican II speaks of the marriage bond (vinculum): “For the good of the spouses and their ­off-springs as well as of society, the existence of 17. Juan José P ­ érez-Soba, “Contro Kasper,” Il Foglio, March 7, 2014, http://www.ilfoglio .it/articoli/2014/03/07/news/­contro-kasper-50825. 18. Walter Kasper, Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life, trans. William Madges (New York: Paulist Press, 2013), 147. 19. ­Pérez-Soba, “Contro Kasper.”

5 8 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  the sacred bond (vinculum sacrum) no longer depends on human decisions alone”;20 hence, marriage is indissoluble.21 ­Pérez-Soba comments on this conciliar statement as follows: “In other words, when we speak of justice in relation to the sacramental relation between man and woman, we necessarily reference the inviolable dignity of this ‘sacred bond’. . . . Without taking this into account, any possible merciful attitude would evidently be contrary to justice.” ­Pérez-Soba notes that when the exhortation Familiaris consortio of John Paul II takes up the topic of divorced persons who entered second unions, it stresses the necessity to defend the sacramental bond of marriage.22 This teaching creates the center of argumentation for the Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith from 1994, discussed in the previous chapter. ­Pérez-Soba criticizes Kasper’s speech for speaking of the sacramental bond of marriage only in a negative way: “To many nowadays that teaching is scarcely intelligible. One ought not understand this teaching as a kind of metaphysical hypostasis beside or over the personal love of the spouses.”23 Undoubtedly, the sacramental bond of marriage and its permanent value is something difficult to understand, but, similarly, it is difficult for the Christians of today to understand that the character of baptism remains in the baptized person even when he abandons faith. This permanent baptismal character, just like the sacramental bond of marriage, is the sign of God’s unwavering faithfulness because “if we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself” (2 Tm 2:13). 20. See Vatican II, Gaudiam et spes, The Pastoral Constitution on the Church (December 7, 1965) (hereafter GS), 48. 21. GS, 50. 22. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris consortio (November 22, 1981), 83–84. 23. Kasper, The Gospel of the Family, 16.

59

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly Thus, being faithful to the marriage bond concerns justice in marriage; through this faithfulness, God bestows mercy on spouses. At the same time, P ­ érez-Soba “dots the i” by saying that “it is understood that maintaining a new union in contrast to the ‘sacred bond’ of marriage, for a Christian who wants to live out his faith, is an act of grave injustice against the divine bond that remains.”24 This is what Benedict XVI wrote in his encyclical Deus caritas est about the indissolubility of marriage: “Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God’s way of loving becomes the measure of human love.”25 On March 11, 2014, Il Foglio published an article by Stanisław Grygiel, a professor emeritus of the Roman John Paul II Institute, entitled “The Church that practices sociology.”26 This author, a former doctoral student of Karol Wojtyła and a ­long-term collaborator with John Paul II, writes about a certain “uselessness” of synodal questionnaires. The Biblical background for Grygiel’s reflections is Christ’s conversation with his disciples (Mt 16:13–20), which begins with a “questionnaire” inquiry: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” After hearing a “sociological” survey of public opinion, the Teacher asks another question and receives the proper answer. To the question “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replies in the name of the apostles, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Grygiel writes, “The mystery of salvation is not a sociologically calculated reality. I ask myself: will this happen at the synod? Will it happen that the sociologically perceived pasto24. ­Pérez-Soba, “Contro Kasper.” 25. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter, Deus caritas est (December 25, 2005), 11 (hereafter DCE  ). 26. Stanisław Grygiel, “La chiesa que fa sociologia,” Il Foglio, March 11, 2014, http:// www.ilfoglio.it/articoli/2014/03/11/news/­la-chiesa-che-fa-sociologia-50772.

6 0 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  ral problems (the first question) will affect the answer to the second question, so as to render both useless for the modern world? Questions about marriage and family should be understood from the second: ‘Who do you say that I am?’ The word about marriage and the family must be the Word of the Father and not a result of statistics.”27 Grygiel thinks that a certain absolutization of a perspective from below, a sociological perspective, was present in Cardinal Kasper’s speech: “As a simple believer, I hoped to be introduced by the cardinal into the contemplation of the beauty of the truth about marriage and the family. Instead, his report drew the cardinals’ attention to the problems connected with the first question, the ­sociological-pastoral question, which can have serious consequences for the work of the synod, if pastoral difficulties obscure our vision of the ‘gift of God’. . . . A danger exists that ­sociological-pastoral problems may prevail over the contemplation of the sacramental presence of Christ in marriage.”28 Grygiel warns that the Church cannot adapt herself to the style of the contemporary world because that would doom her to lose the contest of attractiveness: “The Church would commit a fundamental sin if she allowed herself to dwell on the first question and attempted to make up the Son of the living God in a postmodern fashion, so that people choose him as a beauty pageant contestant is chosen. The 27. Grygiel, “La chiesa que fa sociologia.” 28. Grygiel, “La chiesa que fa sociologia.” In his text, Grygiel does not refer to John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio, but it is worth pointing out the proximity of these two authors’ argumentation. One reads in the papal exhortation: “The ‘supernatural sense of faith’ however does not consist solely or necessarily in the consensus of the faithful. Following Christ, the Church seeks the truth, which is not always the same as the majority opinion. She listens to conscience and not to power, and in this way she defends the poor and the downtrodden. The Church values sociological and statistical research, when it proves helpful in understanding the historical context in which pastoral action has to be developed and when it leads to a better understanding of the truth. Such research alone, however, is not to be considered in itself an expression of the sense of faith” (FC, 5).

61

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly Church that is born and is present in marriage and the family must be ‘a sign of contradiction’ and a scandal for the world until the end of the world. The world will always vote against the Church.”29 Four days after Stanisław Grygiel’s text appeared, Il Foglio published an interview with the archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, entitled “From Bologna with love: stop.”30 Caffarra emphasized that John Paul II’s 1980 exhortation Familiaris consortio, which was a fruit of the previous Synod of Bishops on the family, had not lost its relevance. Its fundamental value consists in the fact that, in transmitting the truth of marriage and the family, it avoids a casuistic perspective, in which we must choose between the person and the norm or seek a way to release the subject from observing the general norm so as to stand on the side of human freedom and dignity. Caffarra notes that when the Pharisees ask Christ about the possibility of divorce, he does not present legal reasoning but rather presents the truth about marriage that is inscribed in the nature of man and woman from the moment of creation: “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female?” (Mt 19:4). The cardinal writes, “When I speak of the truth of marriage, I do not mean some sort of normative ideal. I mean, rather, the truth that God in his creative act has inscribed upon the person of every man and woman.”31 In his statement, Caffarra directly responds to Cardinal Kasper’s suggestion of admitting divorced persons who entered second unions to Communion, deeming this suggestion to undermine the truth about the indissolubility of marriage:

29. Grygiel, “La chiesa que fa sociologia.” 30. Carlo Caffarra, “Da Bologna con amore: fermatevi,” Il Foglio, March 15, 2014, http://www.ilfoglio.it/articoli/2014/03/15/news/­da-bologna-con-amore-fermatevi-50859. 31. Caffarra, “Da Bologna con amore.”

6 2 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  Those who make these suggestions have not, at least up until now, answered one simple question: what happens to the first valid and consummated marriage? If the Church admits them to the Eucharist, she must render a judgment on the legitimacy of the second marriage. It’s logical. But, as I said, what about the first marriage? The second marriage, if we can call it that, cannot be a true second marriage because bigamy is against the teaching of Christ. So the first marriage, is it dissolved? But all the popes have always taught that the Pope has no authority over this. The Pope does not have the power to dissolve a valid and consummated marriage. The proposed solution seems to imply that although the first marriage continues, the Church can somehow legitimate a second relationship. But in doing this, this proposal demolishes the foundations of the Church’s teaching on sexuality. At this point we have to ask: why, then, can we not approve of unmarried couples living together? Or why not homosexual unions?32

In June 2014, a short but important book was published—an interview with Cardinal Gerhard Müller, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, entitled La speranza della famiglia (The Hope of the Family), which tackles the problems considered by Cardinal Kasper in The Gospel of the Family. Regarding the proposal of admitting to Communion divorced persons who entered second unions, Cardinal Müller recalled the clear teaching of the Church on that matter, after which he stated that: In this regard, the Church cannot allow divorce in the case of a sacramental marriage that has been contracted and consummated (rato e consumato). This is the dogma of the Church. I insist: the absolute indissolubility of a valid marriage is no mere doctrine (una mere dottrina); rather, it is a divine dogma defined by the Church (un dogma divino e definito dalla Chiesa). In the case of a de facto ­break-up of a valid marriage, another civil ‘marriage’ is not permissible. Otherwise, we would be facing a contradiction, because if the earlier union, the ‘first’ marriage, or, more 32. Caffarra, “Da Bologna con amore.”

63

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly precisely, the marriage, really is a marriage, the other later union is not a “marriage.”33

Certainly, not every writer who issued public statements before the start of the October synod was a critic of Kasper’s proposals. On September 1, 2014, Bishop Johan Bonny, the ordinary of Anvers in Belgium and member of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, published a text in which he discusses a number of important matters such as collegiality in the Church, the authority of conscience, natural law, irregular unions, and the need for changes in Catholic ethics.34 According to Bonny, when Pope Paul VI wrote on the immorality of contraception in Humanae vitae in 1968, he betrayed the collegiality of the Church because the decisions described in the encyclical moved against the will of his advisors and the expectations of the faithful. Consequently, Bonny writes, many Episcopates of the Western world, including that of Belgium, rightly distanced themselves from the teaching of Humanae vitae. Similarly, he claims that one should critically assess the teaching of John Paul II on this topic. Faced with profound changes in contemporary culture, the Church should perform a revision of her position concerning sexual ethics, contraception, premarital sex, divorce, and homosexual unions. Cardinal Godfried Danneels, the retired metropolitan of Brussels, expressed a very similar position several times. His interview for the newspaper De Tijd in May 2013 received wide notoriety. In this interview, he said that enabling homosexual persons to contract civil unions is a step in the right direction, given that we 33. Gerhard Müller, The Hope of the Family, ed. Carlos Granados, trans. Michael J. Miller (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014), 44–45. 34. The entire text is available in French: Johan Bonny, Synode sur la famille: attentes d’un évêque diocésain, https://www.­la-croix.com/­Urbi-et-Orbi/Archives/­Documentationcatholique-n-2517-C/­Synode-sur-la-famille-attentes-d-un-eveque-diocesain-2014–09–09– 1203496?xtor.

6 4 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  shall not call it marriage.35 Catholics should not oppose this law, according to Danneels; instead, embracing it would be a “development in the Church’s thought.” As we see, the atmosphere before the start of the synod became more and more tense, and the main issue was not merely communion for divorced persons who live in second unions. Fr Robert Skrzypczak was quite right when, writing about the debate before the start of the synod, he used the phrase “ecclesial schism.”36

Instrumentum laboris On June 26, 2014, the Instrumentum laboris of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, created on the basis of the processed presynodal consultations, was presented in the press center of the Holy See. This presentation was made by the persons most involved in the preparations for the Synod of Bishops on the family, who would also play the main role during the synod itself: Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri; Cardinal Péter Erdő the Archbishop of Esztergom and Budapest; Cardinal André ­VingtTrois from Paris; Archbishop Bruno Forte from Chieti and Vasto; and two lay academic professors, Francesco Miano and Pia De Simone.37 Instrumentum laboris is divided into three main parts, with particular chapters corresponding to the content of the nine questions

35. Hilary White, “Gay ‘Marriage’ a ‘Positive Development’: Retired Belgian Cardinal Danneels,” LifeSiteNews.com, June 5, 2013, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/­gaymarriage-a-positive-development-retired-belgian-cardinal-danneels. 36. Robert Skrzypczak, “Magisterium po obniżonej cenie? Teologiczne obawy na marginesie synodu poświęconego rodzinie,” Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne 28, no. 3 (2015): 74. 37. See “Conferenza Stampa di presentazione dell’Instrumentum laboris della III Assemblea Generale Straordinaria del Sinodo dei Vescovi,” Bollettino Sala Stampa della Santa Sede, June 26, 2014.

65

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly posited in the presynodal questionnaire.38 The first part of the document concerns the Gospel of the Family; its four chapters undertake topics pertaining to the theology of marriage and the family as well as the familiarity with this knowledge among the faithful. The second part, which consists of three chapters, concerns contemporary challenges, questions, and problems in the pastoral ministry of families, and the third part, consisting of two chapters, concerns openness to life and the responsibility of parents in the process of educating children. In general, we ought to state that the Instrumentum presents well the whole spectrum of various positions and questions pertaining to these problems, particularly if we consider that both synods on the family were meant to pertain to the entire world. Hence, in the second chapter, which is devoted to the task of disseminating the knowledge about the teaching of the Church in the area of marriage and the family among the lay faithful, we find a complaint about the clergy who are ­ill-prepared to undertake these tasks, which results in their silence or indifference with respect to the moral teaching of the Church. The document speaks with esteem about the international network of the John Paul II Institutes for the Studies on Marriage and the Family, which is of great significance since important voices, including critical ones, would proceed from this environment during the synod. At the same time, we find in the same chapter a remark that “a vast majority of responses highlight the growing conflict between the values on marriage and the family as proposed by the Church and the globally diversified social and cultural situations.”39 38. See Le sfide pastorali sulla famiglia nel contesto dell’evangelizzazione. Instrumentum Laboris, Città del Vaticano 2014, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/­ rc_synod_doc_20140626_instrumentum-laboris-familia_en.html. 39. Synod of Bishops, Instrumentum laboris (June 26, 2014), 15 (hereafter IL 2014 ).

6 6 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  We should also assess positively the remaining parts of the document; we perceive in them an attempt at a balanced presentation of various positions and respect for the teaching of the Church. When reading the chapter about pastoral challenges with regards to the family (articles 61–79), we can perhaps sense that the document places too much emphasis on the sociological description of various cultural factors that influence the behavior of Christians and simply speaks too little of human sin and fallenness, which must be indicated so that Christians can be called to conversion. However, given the character of the document—as an introduction to synodal discussion—this descriptive rather than analytical style is justified. Similarly, in the passage devoted to homosexual unions, we find a very ambivalent statement: the text says twice that Christians are to have “a respectful, ­non-judgmental attitude” (un atteggiamento rispettoso e non giudicante) toward people who live in such unions.40 An ecclesial document should use a more precise vocabulary and not borrow from colloquial phrases weighed down with errors of contemporary culture like “­non-judgmental attitude,” which today simply means subjectivism and ethical relativism, that is, a conviction that we do not possess any adequate and objective criteria that can serve to assess the conduct of other people. At the same time, however, in the same fragment, we read that “every bishops’ conference voiced opposition to ‘redefining’ marriage between a man and a woman through the introduction of legislation permitting a union between two people of the same sex.”41 The subsequent paragraphs, which in very decisive words indicate the danger of gender ideology, attest to the critical realism of this text. In the third part of Instrumentum laboris, devoted to the topic of 40. IL 2014, 113.115. 41. IL 2014, 113.

67

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly openness to life and the responsibility of parents in the process of the education of children, it is worth noting a fragment pertaining to Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae vitae. This document states that this encyclical “had a prophetic character in reiterating the unbreakable link between conjugal love and the transmission of life.”42 At the same time, the Instrumentum contains important remarks on the fact that the teaching of Paul VI’s encyclical is not well known among Catholics—its knowledge is limited to persons engaged in various Catholic associations and parish groups. The synodal document stresses that the natural methods of family planning are not merely a technique but a style of life—it is precisely this style that distinguishes the ethically good natural methods from ethically evil contraception: “Natural methods for fertility regulation are not natural ‘techniques’ applied to solve a problem. Instead, they show a respect for ‘human ecology’ and the dignity of the sexual relationship between husband and wife. They are part of a vision of conjugal life which is open to life.”43 One of the reasons for the contemporary failure of the Church to transmit the teaching of Humanae vitae (wherever this is attempted) is “a basic difference in anthropology” between the Christian vision of man and the anthropology that is inscribed in postmodern culture.44 Therefore, particularly “in areas strongly influenced by secularization, couples generally do not consider the use of contraceptive methods to be a sin.”45

42. IL 2014, 122. 43. IL 2014, 124. 44. IL 2014, 126. 45. IL 2014, 129.

6 8 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly 

The Synodal Debate At the ceremony inaugurating the synod that began on October 14, 2014, 191 synodal fathers gathered: 162 ex officio, three ex electione (selected representatives of religious communities), and tw ­ enty-six ex nominatione pontificia, including ­ forty-two from Africa, ­thirty-eight from the Americas, tw ­ enty-nine from Asia, ­seventy-eight from Europe, and four from Oceania. The ex officio synod fathers were 114 presidents of the conferences of bishops, thirteen bishops representing the Catholic Eastern Churches sui iuris, ­twenty-five presidents of Vatican dicasteries, and the persons who took part in the preparations for the synod. In addition to the 191 synod fathers, sixteen experts, ­thirty-eight observers (including several married couples), and eight delegates from other Christian Churches were invited to participate in the Synod.46 The sessions began with three important speeches. Cardinal Baldisseri, the General Secretary of the synod, spoke first, recalling the most important facts concerning the preparations for the current synod and its place in the totality of the synodal process.47 Then Pope Francis spoke and, after greeting the participants and thanking all who prepared the synod, defined the conditions of the fruitfulness of deliberations: One general and basic condition is this: speaking honestly. Let no one say: ‘I cannot say this, they will think this or this of me.’ . . . It is necessary to say with parrhesia all that one feels. After the last Consistory (February 2014), in which the family was discussed, a Cardinal wrote to me, saying: what a shame that several Cardinals did not have the courage to say certain things out of respect for the Pope, perhaps believing that the 46. See “Briefing sulla III Assemblea Generale Straordinaria del Sinodo dei Vescovi (5–19 ottobre 2014),” BSS, October 3, 2014. 47. See “Synod14–1a Congregazione generale: Relazione del Segretario generale, Card. Lorenzo Baldisseri,” BSS, October 6, 2014.

69

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly Pope might think something else. This is not good, this is not synodality, because it is necessary to say all that, in the Lord, one feels the need to say: without polite deference, without hesitation. And, at the same time, one must listen with humility and welcome, with an open heart, what your brothers say. Synodality is exercised with these two approaches.48

The third speech that morning was by Cardinal Péter Erdő, the Relator General of the Synod, who read the ­so-called Relatio ante disceptationem, that is, the report before discussion.49 The speech of the Hungarian cardinal, which was to serve as an introduction to the discussion in the synod hall, was generally a recalling of the main theses of Instrumentum laboris, discussed earlier. Early on, the Relator General recalled the main purpose of the Third Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, which was to prepare for the sessions of the Ordinary Synod of Bishops, planned for the fall of the following year. Speaking about the method of work for the synod, Erdő stressed that: in the present culture, where we are inclined to forget essential truths and the wider picture and are tempted to get lost in details, it is particularly useful for the bishops of the local communities to be offered clear guidelines to help those living in difficult situations. Indeed, it is unrealistic to expect that by themselves they will find the right solutions in conformity with the truth of the Gospel and nearness to individuals in particular situations. In this regard, episcopal collegiality, which has a privileged expression in the synod, is called to lend this character to its proposals, blending a respect for and promotion of the specific experi48. “Synod14–1a Congregazione generale: Parole del Santo Padre Francesco ai Padri sinodali,” BSS, October 6, 2014. The English version of the pope’s speech is available at http:// w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/october/documents/­papa-francesco_ 20141006_padri-sinodali.html. By parrhesia, we mean an honest, open, and free statement (from Greek, παρρησία [παν = all + ρησις / ρημα = speaking or speech], parrhesia means literally “to say everything”). 49. See “Synod14–1a Congregazione generale: “Relatio ante disceptationem” del Relatore generale, Card. Péter Erdő,” BSS, October 6, 2014. An English translation is available at https://zenit.org/articles/­synod14-full-text-of-cardinal-erdo-s-report-prior-to-discussion.

70 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  ences of the individual episcopal conferences in a search for shared pastoral guidelines. This must also apply at the level of the local churches, avoiding the improvisations of a “­do-it-yourself ministry” which ends in making the acceptance of the Gospel of the Family more difficult.50

After the presentation of Relatio ante disceptationem, a disceptatio, that is, a debate of the members of the synod, took place in the hall of Paul VI concerning Instrumentum laboris. For the sake of ordering this debate, which was to last the entire week of the synod, certain decisions were made concerning the rules of speaking.51 First, the text to be discussed was divided into fragments so that the Instrumentum could be discussed in its entirety during one week of discussion; any participant could sign up to speak on a particular article of the text. Second, to enable everyone to participate in the debate, a decision was made that speeches could last no more than four minutes. Third, each of the speakers had to present to the Secretary of the Synod a written version of his presentation beforehand; of course, this text could be (and usually was) significantly longer than the delivered speech. Fourth, it was decided—in contradistinction to previous synods—that the identities of the speakers in the synod hall would not be revealed during evening press conferences: only summaries of the synodal debate would be presented, without giving the names of their respective authors. This anonymity was to ensure the honesty and openness of the debate, which was also requested by Pope Francis in his address opening the synod. Soon after the discussions started, criticism arose concerning these procedural novelties, on the part of both the observers and members of the synod. This criticism increased, as some partici50. Relatio ante disceptationem, 1b. 51. Edward Pentin, The Rigging of a Vatican Synod: An Investigation into Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2015), 2–4.

71

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly pants claimed the rules did not have much to do with the implicit democratic fairness of synodality, and it reached its climax at the beginning of the second week of debate, when the members of the synod started to speak openly about attempts to micromanage or even manipulate the synod. What in the first week was only an impression and a suspicion difficult to prove became in the second week a conviction of many of the synod fathers. Nonetheless, after concluding the second day of the debate, one of the journalists described the atmosphere at the synod as follows: Another questionable element of the assembly has been that only a lengthy, general summary of each congregation is being distributed. The synod secretariat, unlike past ones, is neither disclosing extensive summaries of most individual interventions, nor revealing who is giving them. This is in order to free up discussion; it’s also due to the relative brevity of this synod and its “extraordinary” nature. But the downside is that the limited information leads to more generalizations than norma and offers few clues as to whether one or more participants might be sharing any particular opinion. More seriously, it makes disclosure of the synod’s discussions susceptible to the whims of the reporting press secretaries and the Vatican press office. There’s no knowing what is being filtered out, nor what is being given undue attention. . . . The issue of language is a case in point: synod participants heard today of a wish to tone down the use of terms such as “living in sin,” “contraceptive mentality” and “intrinsically disordered.” The suggestion appeared to have been warmly received.52 52. Edward Pentin, “Questionable Aspects of the Synod on the Family,” National Catholic Register, October 7, 2014, http://www.ncregister.com/blog/­edward-pentin/­questionableaspects-of-the-synod-on-the-family. Archbishop Kondrusiewicz, the metropolitan of Minsk and Mahilyow, similarly expressed the opinion of many bishops when he spoke of the anonymity of the synod fathers’ statements on the last day of the synod: “During this synod, its secretariat made new decisions, which were not favorably received by the bishops. Above all, their speeches were not published. We were told that, thanks to that, synod fathers could feel more at ease and their statements would be more spontaneous. This could seem logical, but in this way the people did not learn about the opinion of their bishops. After a week, the text of Relatio post disceptationem was publicly published, one that was meant to

7 2 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  Nonetheless, despite these critical observations, we ought to say that generally the atmosphere of the first week of the debate was very good, according to the majority of participants. The course of the next eight general congregations, or sessions, which began on the first day of the synod and ended on Thursday, October 10, was very similar.53 The morning congregation always began at 9 a.m. with a common recitation of the liturgy of the hours, during which one of the synod fathers gave a homily lasting several minutes. After the prayer, the leader of the assembly, one of the ­president-delegates of the synod, briefly recalled the main theses of the fragment of Instrumentum laboris that was to be discussed during each given congregation, and this was followed by a brief testimony from a lay person, most often from one of the married couples present at the synod. After that, the previously scheduled synod fathers spoke. The afternoon congregation in these days looked the same, with the exception that it began at 4:30 p.m. with an introduction of the p ­ resident-delegate of the synod, followed by a free discussion of the persons present in the synod hall during the last hour of the congregation, that is, between 6 and 7 p.m.54 On summarize the first phase of work. It then turned out that the majority of bishops did not identify themselves with the statements that this text contained.” See “Kościół nie poddał się duchowi świata. Włodzimierz Rędzioch rozmawia z abp. Tadeuszem Kondrusiewiczem,” Niedziela, November 9, 2014, available at http://www.niedziela.pl/artykul/12089/­Abp-TadeuszKondrusiewicz-o-Synodzie. 53. Cardinal Baldisseri presented the schedule for the synod’s work at the press conference in Vatican on October 3, 2014. It can be found in BSS, October 3, 2014. 54. A competent summary of the discussions in the general congregations of the synod during the first week of the assembly is impossible. The homilies and presented testimonies concerned a variety of topics: from poverty, war, and the persecution of Christians to the problem of the relation between the laity and clerics, morality, contraception, and the education of children with homosexual tendencies in Christian families. We can only presume that this great variety of topics also characterized the speeches of synod fathers, for one can only access general and vague summaries of them prepared by the press office of the synod. The texts of the homilies, introductions, testimonies, and summaries are available in BSS, October 6–10, 2014.

73

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly Friday, October 10, the ninth general congregation in the morning was devoted to hearing the voices of fifteen lay observers of the synod. During the afternoon congregation, which concluded the first week of the synod, the participants heard seven speeches from the delegates of other Christian churches. Unfortunately, the texts of these Friday speeches were not published except for a vague and general summary prepared by the press office of the Synod of Bishops.55 The second week of the assembly started on the morning of October 13 with Cardinal Erdő’s presentation of the report from the first week of the discussion, Relatio post disceptationem.56 This document consists of three parts, which—as we read in its introduction—correspond to three activities of the synod: “listening,” in which the situation of the family today is examined; “looking,” in which our gaze is fixed on Christ while asking him questions about what he has to tell families today; and “discussion,” in which we discern in the light of Christ “the ways in which the Church and society can renew their commitment to the family.”57 In the first part of the Relatio, which is barely seven articles, with each article being several sentences long, the authors attempt to present a panorama of the contemporary family. When reading these brief statements, we almost feel the effort and frustration of the authors, who faced the difficult task of providing a concise and adequate description of the situation of the family in the world. 55. See BSS, October 10, 2014. Due to the critique of this excessive secrecy and anonymity of synodal debates, the following year, during the sessions of the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the family, open access was provided to the texts of the speeches of the observers and delegates from other churches. 56. See “Synod14–11a Congregazione generale: ‘Relatio post disceptationem’ del Relatore generale, Card. Péter Erdő,” BSS, October 13, 2014. An unofficial English translation is available at https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/­relatio-post-disceptationem-2014synod-bishops-family. 57. Relatio post disceptationem, 4 (hereafter RPD ).

74 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  The second part of the Relatio, “The gaze upon Christ,” clearly shows the main intent of its authors—though not necessarily the intent of the synod fathers. More than half of the second part of the document is devoted to “the discernment of values present in wounded families and in irregular situations” (articles 17–23). One gets the impression that the text “out of obligation” and cursorily mentions the indissolubility of marriage in order to passionately occupy itself with irregular situations: “the Church turns respectfully to those who participate in her life in an incomplete and imperfect way, appreciating the positive values they contain rather than their limitations and shortcomings.”58 The Relatio uses two theological arguments when speaking about irregular unions. The first is the law of gradualness. In the history of salvation, God gradually, through the Old Covenant, prepared the coming of his Son; today’s pastors also should be aware that Christians need time to live up to the demands of the Gospel in their lives of faith. The second argument, which aims at a theological substantiation of respect for persons in irregular situations, is taken from Lumen gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Vatican II. When the conciliar text speaks of the spheres of belonging to the Church (communio Ecclesiae), it states that “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.”59 The authors of the Relatio link these words to the theology of Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyon, who spoke of the “seeds of the word” preparing the coming of Christ in pagan culture.60 The second part of the Relatio made clear to the audience in the synod hall that re58. RPD, 20. 59. Vatican II, Lumen gentium, Dogmatic Constitution, November 21, 1963, 8 (hereafter LG  ). 60. On the application of the principle of gradualness and the theology of the “seed of the word” to the situation of irregular unions, see Stephan Kampowski, Famiglie diverse: espressioni imperfette dello stesso ideale? (Siena: Cantagalli, 2015), 61–105.

75

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly gardless of what they may have thought, the main topics of the synod’s discussion were to be the themes proposed by Walter Kasper. This significance of the second part of Relatio post disceptationem was fully confirmed by the third part of the document, which primarily discussed the relationship of the Church to irregular unions. This part of the Relatio also contained the passages that later elicited the most critical remarks from synod participants. It is true that the text of the Relatio did not unambiguously declare itself in favor of offering Communion to divorced persons who live in second unions. At the same time, however, there is no doubt that such a solution is suggested by the authors through their choice of vocabulary and the tone of the text. Moreover, its statement on that topic provoked serious theological reservations because it seems to diverge from the constant teaching of the Church: “the situation of the divorced who have remarried demands a careful discernment (discernimento) and an accompaniment full of respect (un accompagnamento carico di rispetto), avoiding any language or behavior that might make them feel discriminated against.”61 This formulation provokes a number of questions: Is the word “irregular,” used in reference to the divorced persons who live in second unions, not a clear example of such discrimination, since it defines their situation in opposition to “regular situations?” What is the meaning of “feeling discriminated against”62 in comparison to objective situations of discrimination? Should the marital union that arose from the ­break-up of two other marriages not experience a certain discrimination, that is, be distinguished from an indissoluble marriage since the document itself speaks of a certain way of penance that should accompany situations of this kind? Does this avoidance of discrimination even allow us to speak of the sin of 61. RPD, 46. 62. Emphasis added.

76 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  betrayal and to call for conversion? Many fragments of Relatio post disceptationem provoke such doubts, criticisms, and questions. Another point that caused a wave of critical remarks can be found in articles 50 and 51 of the Relatio. In Italian, this fragment bore the title “The Reception of Homosexual Persons” (“Accogliere le persone omosessuali”), but in the official English translation, the translators decided to use a more emotional phrase: “Welcoming homosexual persons.” Article 50 calls for welcoming homosexual persons in the Church because they have “gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community,” after which it asks: “Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?” A dangerous ambivalence of this formulation is obvious if we consider the previous statements of the Church concerning homosexual persons, which unite the absolute mandate of respect for every man with the statement that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”63 The presentation of Relatio post disceptationem created the first serious crisis in the synod. In the discussion that directly followed this presentation, a great many synod fathers noted that the document did not faithfully represent the atmosphere of the assembly or the content of the majority of presentations. Cardinal George Pell, then prefect of the Vatican Secretariat for the Economy and member of the Council of Cardinals, said a few days later in an interview for Catholic News Service that this document was “tendentious, skewed; it didn’t represent accurately the feelings of the synod fathers. In the immediate reaction to it, when there was an hour, an ­hour-and-a-half of discussion, t­ hree-quarters of those who spoke had some problems with the document. . . . A major absence was a treatment of the church tradition,” including teaching on the 63. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357.

77

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly family by Pope Paul VI, St. John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI. “One father said to me about the earlier document that he would not want his young adult children to read it because they would be confused.”64 On October 17, in another interview for Catholic News Service, Cardinal Raymond Burke expressed a similar criticism: “the Relatio is a gravely flawed document and does not express adequately the teaching and discipline of the Church and, in some aspects, propagates doctrinal error and a false pastoral approach.”65 Synod fathers noted a serious error in the procedures of the synod, which was that after the presentation of Relatio post disceptationem in the synod hall, it was distributed to the press, which created a false picture of synodal sessions and false views of synod fathers themselves to the media.66 During the press conference a day after the publication of Relatio post disceptationem, Cardinal Napier from South Africa told reporters: “Just like you, I was surprised that it was published. . . . You people got the document before we got it, so we couldn’t have possibly agreed on it.” As Edward Pentin wrote in his correspondence from Rome, the African cardinal in his statement to the reporters “lamented the ‘media exaggerations’ (they portrayed the Church as making a ‘stunning’ and ‘revolutionary’ step towards homosexuals), saying that once such media per64. Francis X. Rocca, “Cardinal Pell: Synod Says No to ‘Secular Agenda,’” Catholic News Service, October 16, 2014, http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2014/­ cardinal-pell-synod-says-no-to-secular-agenda.cfm. 65. Carl E. Olson, “Cardinal Burke to CWR: Confirms Rransfer, Praises Pushback, Addresses Controversy over Remarks by Cardinal Kasper,” Catholic World Report, October 18, 2014,  http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/10/18/­cardinal-burke-to-cwr-confirmstransfer-praises-pushback-addresses-controversy-over-remarks-by-cardinal-kasper. 66. This criticism of the synod’s work returned during the later discussion in language groups. See “Synod14–12a Congregazione generale: Sintesi non ufficiale (16 ottobre, mattina),” BSS, October 16, 2014. It is interesting that in his lecture delivered in the Roman Academy Alfonsiana four months after the conclusion of the synod, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri did not mention any problem linked to the text of Relatio post disceptationem and completely passed over in silence the strong criticism of this text. See Lorenzo Baldisseri, “Una lettura del Sinodo della famiglia,” Studia Moralia Supplemento 1 (2015): 17–20.

78 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  ceptions are ‘out there’ in the public, ‘there’s no way of retrieving them.’”67 This evil misrepresentation, which we’ve seen in the past, created two synods in 2014: the media synod and the real synod. Cardinal Erdő defended the document, although he admitted that it could be improved. He noted the fact that sixteen people who worked on the Relatio had to synthetize the statements of thirty to forty bishops on each of the discussed topics, and the entire document had to be ready in ­forty-eight hours. The Hungarian cardinal anticipated that the final document of the synod, Relatio finalis, would explain the totality of the discussion at the synod in a balanced and clear way,68 and he expressed a hope that the discussion in small language groups, which was the next stage of the work of the synod, would help explain doubts and clarify the position of the synod concerning these issues. This controversy had its comic moments as well. During the evening press conference, for example, a question was asked about the reasons for including the text on homosexual persons in Relatio post disceptationem since this topic was not addressed during the previous week’s discussions: the uncomfortable Cardinal Erdő turned toward Archbishop Forte and said, “He who wrote the text must know what it is talking about.”69 67. Edward Pentin, “Evidence Emerges of an Engineered Synod,” National Catholic Register, October 15, 2014, http://www.ncregister.com/blog/­edward-pentin/­evidence-emergesof-an-engineered-synod. This is what Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki, the president of the Episcopate of Poland, said after the publication of Relatio post disceptationem: “The most controversial was the very publication of the document by the media. The journalists who support change in the mores seized on this document—which was a working document still subject to discussion—and presented it as a new and revolutionary position of the Vatican concerning the divorced and homosexuals. An almost historic change in the teaching of the Church was proclaimed. . . . They highlighted selected texts excessively expressing some opinions and trivializing other, opposing voices.” See “Nie ma co udawać, że nie ma różnicy zdań. Z abp. Stanisławem Gądeckim, przewodniczącym Episkopatu Polski rozmawia Piotr Semka,” Do Rzeczy 45 (2014): 37. 68. Nicole Winfield, “Vatican Mystery: Where Did ‘Welcoming Gays’ Language Come From?” Crux, October 16, 2014, https://cruxnow.com/church/2014/10/16/­vatican-mysterywhere-did-welcoming-gays-language-come-from. 69. Cited in Pentin, The Rigging of a Vatican Synod, 4. As Federico Lombardi, the director

79

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly That same afternoon, the participants of the synod were able to sign up for one of the ten language groups (circoli minores). In this way, three Italian-, three French-, and two ­Spanish-speaking groups were created, which through the next three days were to discuss Relatio post disceptationem in order to transform this document into the final document of the Synod of Bishops, Relatio synodi. Each language group was to prepare a written summary of the most essential points of their conversation. All participants of the synod met again at the twelfth general congregation in the morning of Thursday, October 16, to hear the reports from the various language groups. To the synod participants’ surprise, Cardinal Baldisseri, the secretary of the synod, announced that—contrary to the practice of previous synods—the summaries of the group discussions would not be made public; the press would receive only one summary prepared by the secretariat of the synod. This decision of the Italian cardinal caused an immediate critical reaction among those present in the hall, and many synod fathers requested to speak in order to express their opposition to this decision. The speakers included both conservative cardinals (Pell and Napier) and those considered more liberal (Nichols and Marx). Faced with this spontaneous reaction, Cardinal Baldisseri suggested a vote on the decision to publish the summaries, or not. The vote did not take place, however; Pope Francis, who listened to the heated debate, made the decision to publish the summaries.70 The summaries from the language groups reveal deep criticism of Relatio post disceptationem. The postulate to increase the presof the Holy See press office, said during a press conference, of the approximately 265 speeches delivered during the first week of the assembly, he remembers only one that concerned homosexual persons (Winfield, “Vatican Mystery”). 70. All reports are available on the official site of the Holy See press office, “Synod14–12ª Congregazione generale: Relazioni dei Circoli minori,” BSS, October 16, 2014.

8 0 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  ence of the traditional teaching of the Church in the synodal document appears in the majority of reports, particularly regarding the ­ panish-speaking second and third parts of the Relatio. The first S group proposed that the second part of Relatio synodi bear the title “The Proclamation of the Gospel of the Family,” and we find similar formulations in the summary of the sessions of the second ­Spanish-speaking group: “Relatio post disceptationem did not sufficiently emphasize the positive message of the Gospel of the family.”71 The pastoral focus on the shadows and crises of today’s families caused insufficient attention to “the families that live Christian marriage with integrity and fidelity.”72 The first ­French-speaking group suggested that a new version of the second part of the Relatio be written that would be more Christo- and ­ecclesio-centric. In the context of placing greater emphasis on the traditional teaching of the Church, synod fathers advocated greater focus on the teaching of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Paul VI’s prophetic encyclical Humanae vitae. In the summaries of the debates that took place in the language groups, we also find more concrete postulates concerning particular points and theses of Relatio post disceptationem. In particular, the concept of gradualness evoked serious critical remarks, especially about the theological meaning of this concept. The first and the third ­Italian-speaking groups noted, for example, that the meaning of the concept of gradualness in the text of the Relatio cannot be substantiated by appealing to the theology of the “circles of belonging” to the Church, present in the conciliar Constitution, Lumen gentium 8; they also observed that the use of this concept in Relatio post disceptationem does not correspond to its meaning in John Paul II’s 71. “Circulus Hibericus B.” 72. “Circulus Gallicus A.”

81

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly exhortation Familiaris consortio.73 The second group of critical remarks pertained to the danger of its erroneous understanding by the readers. The second F ­ rench-speaking group noted that this concept might be wrongly understood as “an a priori legitimization of irregular, that is, sinful, situations even if we recognize a posteriori that many of these situations can be a path or a step toward a better situation.”74 Summaries from the first ­Italian-speaking group expressed a belief that “this expression carries a danger of suggesting that difficulties in conjugal life lead to a diminishment of the full meaning of marital vocation.”75 With respect to the issue of admitting divorced persons who live in second unions to sacramental Communion, the statement of the first ­French-speaking group seems representative of the majority of summaries: “It is important not to change the teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage and the ­non-admittance of the divorced persons who live in second unions to the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist, but to apply the constant teaching of the Church to various painful situations of our time with a renewed look of compassion and mercy.”76 The suggestion to admit divorced persons who live in second unions to the sacrament of the Eucharist was supported by only three of the ten language groups, all with split votes. The statements of Relatio post disceptationem on homosexual persons also provoked many critical remarks. The common position of synod fathers, reconstructed from a careful reading of the summaries, can be presented in three theses. First, “the only model of the family that corresponds to the teaching of the Church is one 73. “Circulus Itallicus A.” 74. “Circulus Gallicus B.” 75. “Circulus Itallicus A.” 76. “Circulus Gallicus A.”

8 2 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  based on the marriage between man and woman.”77 Second, “to pastorally accompany a person does not mean to validate a particular form of sexuality or lifestyle.”78 Third, as the participants of the second ­French-speaking group passionately wrote, “we denounce all attempts of certain international organizations to impose on poor countries by means of financial pressure the legislation enacting ­so-called homosexual ‘marriage.’”79

Relatio synodi After the presentation of the summaries from the language groups, the most important task fell to the synod’s secretariat, who had to take into account the synod fathers’ remarks and transform Relatio post disceptationem into the final document of the synod. The secretariat had less than ­forty-eight hours to accomplish this; ultimately, the vote of synod fathers on Relatio synodi was set to take place during the last working session on Saturday, October 18, in the morning. This final document of the Third Extraordinary Synod of Bishops retained the structure of Relatio post disceptationem, its division into three parts, and the titles of particular parts.80 The introduction to Relatio synodi is fundamentally a repetition of the introduction to Relatio post disceptationem, though it adds an important sentence in which the participants of the Synod stated they “felt a duty to give thanks to the Lord for the generosity and faithfulness of so many Christian families in responding to their vocation and mission, which they fulfill with joy and faith, even 77. “Circulus Itallicus C.” 78. “Circulus Gallicus A.” 79. “Circulus Gallicus B.” 80. See “Synod14–“Relatio Synodi” della III Assemblea generale straordinaria del Sinodo dei Vescovi: “Le sfide pastorali sulla famiglia nel contesto dell’evangelizzazione (5–19 ottobre 2014),” BSS, October 18, 2014.

83

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly when living as a family requires facing obstacles, misunderstandings and suffering.”81 During the final vote, four articles of the introduction were accepted by synod fathers almost unanimously.82 The first part of Relatio synodi, “Listening: the context and challenges of the family,” also fundamentally reflects the structure and content of the first part of Relatio post disceptationem with its three chapters, “The ­Socio-Cultural Context,” “The Importance of Affectivity in Life,” and “Pastoral Challenges.” Among other essential additions to the final document, we find an important emphasis that “the crisis of faith, witnessed among a great many Catholics . . . oftentimes underlies the crisis in marriage and the family.”83 This essential addition, suggested by the first ­Spanish-speaking group, significantly modifies the sociological character of the analysis that could be construed as suggesting that the contemporary crisis of marriage and the family is fully caused by external factors of a historical and cultural nature on which the faithful have no influence.84 As in the case of the introduction, a notable majority of those who voted accepted the presented text, though the most non placet votes, 8 and 8, respectively, pertained to two articles of the chapter concerning the significance of emotional life in the life of contemporary man. The second part of Relatio synodi retained the title “Looking at Christ: The Gospel of the Family” as well as the basic structure of Relatio post disceptationem, though the text was supplemented and modified in an essential way. Responding to the postulates of synod 81. Relatio synodi, 1 (hereafter RS  ). This addition was suggested by the first S ­ panishspeaking group. See “Circulus Hibericus A.” 82. The results of the vote on the next four articles were as follows: 175–1, 179–0, 178–1, and 180–2, where the first number denotes those who accepted the text (placet) and the second number those who voted against the text (non placet). 83. RS, 5. 84. See “Circulus Hibericus A.”

8 4 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  participants, a new chapter appeared in the second part, entitled “The Family in the Church’s Documents.” This chapter contains quite laconic references to the most important contemporary documents of the Church on the theology of marriage and the family: the Constitution Gaudium et spes of Vatican II, the encyclical Humanae vitae of Paul VI, the exhortation Familiaris consortio of John Paul II, the encyclicals Deus caritas est and Caritas in veritate of Benedict XVI, and the encyclical Lumen fidei of Pope Francis. Importantly, the concept of the gradualness of divine action in the history of salvation, which was also criticized by synod participants, disappeared from the second part of Relatio synodi; the linking of the historical understanding of this concept with the understanding applied by John Paul II in his exhortation Familiaris consortio had seemed particularly theologically doubtful. Instead of the concept of gradualness, the concept of divine pedagogy was substituted; thus, the first chapter is entitled “Looking at Jesus and the Divine Pedagogy in the History of Salvation” instead of “The Gaze on Jesus and Gradualness in the History of Salvation.” In response to the criticism that Relatio post disceptationem devotes more attention to families in crisis than those that realize their Christian vocation on the path of holiness, the chapter “The Discernment of Values Present in Wounded Families and Irregular Situations” was replaced in the second part of Relatio synodi by the chapter “Indissolubility of Matrimony and the Joy of Sharing Life Together.” During the final vote on the second part of Relatio synodi, all of the articles reached the required ­two-thirds majority of the placet votes, though we must note that the greatest number of votes thus far not accepting the text, 39 and 34 votes, respectively, pertained to articles 25 and 27, which speak rather imprecisely of the relation of the Church to nonsacramental unions of various kinds. The third and last part of Relatio synodi, entitled “Confronting

85

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly the Situation: Pastoral Perspectives,” basically reflects the structure of the third part of Relatio post disceptationem. The changes that appeared in the titles of its chapters, however, are essential to note. The fourth chapter is now entitled “Pastoral Care for Couples Civilly Married or Living Together” instead of “Positive Aspects of Civil Unions and Cohabitation,” whereas the sixth chapter bears the title “Pastoral Attention towards Persons with Homosexual Tendencies” instead of “Welcoming Homosexual Persons.” The first three chapters of the third part, namely, “Proclaiming the Gospel of the Family Today in Various Contexts,” “Guiding Engaged Couples in Their Preparation for Marriage,” and “Accompanying Married Couples in the Initial Years of Marriage” basically reflect the content of Relatio post disceptationem. During the vote, these chapters were accepted by a large majority of synod fathers. The fourth chapter, noted above, encountered a much more critical response: its three articles were accepted, but with the non placet votes reaching 54, 37, and 14, respectively. It is worth pointing out that the earlier, controversial formulation from Relatio post disceptationem that “A new sensitivity in today’s pastoral ministry consists in grasping the positive reality of civil weddings and, having pointed out our differences, of cohabitation” disappeared in Relatio synodi.85 The synod fathers noted that such a formulation might be interpreted by readers as the synod’s acceptance of such situations. In the new formulation, the three articles of the fourth chapter also point to various irregular situations in the unions between man and woman, but always from the viewpoint of proclaiming the Gospel of the Family to them and of leading them to the life of a sacramental union wherever possible. The fifth chapter of Relatio synodi, entitled “Caring for Wounded Families (Separated, Divorced and Not Remarried, Divorced 85. RPD, 36.

8 6 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  and Remarried, ­Single-Parent Families),” contained two out of the three articles that failed to receive the necessary tw ­ o-thirds majority during the final vote. The first of these, article 52, pertained to Cardinal Kasper’s proposal to admit divorced persons who live in second unions to the Eucharistic Communion: The synod father also considered the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. Various synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present discipline, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church as well as her teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage. Others proposed a more individualized approach, permitting access in certain situations and with certain ­well-defined conditions, primarily in irreversible situations and those involving moral obligations towards children who would have to endure unjust suffering. Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop. The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances.86

To some readers, it may seem that this article offers a theological compromise since it speaks of two possible positions with respect to the problem discussed: giving the divorced and remarried access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. The length and detail of the argumentation for each position shows clearly, however, where the interests of the authors lay. In the final vote, this article received the most negative votes in the entire Relatio synodi: ­74 non placet and 104 placet. The second article that received almost the same number of negative votes, and which also did not acquire the required ­twothirds majority, began by saying that “some synod fathers maintained that divorced and remarried persons or those living together 86. RS, 52.

87

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly can have fruitful recourse to a spiritual communion. Others raised the question as to why, then, they cannot have access to sacramental Communion.”87 Indeed, it is difficult not to consider the combining of these totally diverse situations—those of persons living together and those living in “irreversible situations”—into one article as a blunder and theological incompetence. The large number of votes accepting this text (112, with s­ ixty-four non placet) cannot be explained except by the fatigue of synod participants and their desire for a prompt end to the deliberations. The third article of Relatio synodi that did not receive the required majority of votes was located in the sixth chapter, entitled “Pastoral Attention towards Persons with Homosexual Tendencies.” In the context of stating that some families include persons with homosexual tendencies, the document quotes a fragment of a 2003 text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith entitled “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”: “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.” Nonetheless, as Relatio synodi stresses, homosexual persons should be treated with respect and sensitivity and all “unjust discrimination” should be avoided. In the final vote, this article— which, after all, did not contain any controversial content—surprisingly received 118 positive and 62 negative votes. Undoubtedly, this result shows that one cannot always interpret the final division between the votes placet and non placet as reflecting the division between liberals and conservatives. Both sides were probably displeased with the wording of this article and therefore voted against it. Such a conclusion can be drawn from the statements of Cardi87. RS, 53.

8 8 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  nal Nichols, the primate of England and Wales, who in an interview for BBC Radio expressed his discontent with the wording of the discussed article: “I didn’t think it went far enough, there were three key words as far as I was concerned . . . ‘respect,’ ‘welcome’ and ‘value.’ I was looking for those words and they weren’t there and so I didn’t think that was a good paragraph.”88 At the same time, Nichols expressed gratitude toward a pope who, as he saw it, had “torn up the rule book.” It seems that Nichols sincerely believed that Francis wanted the synod to continue the discussion on this topic in order to go beyond the previous teaching of the Church. This “tearing up of the rule book” manifested itself in a practical way. Pope Francis decided that the published Relatio synodi would contain the totality of the text that synod fathers voted on, including the three articles that did not receive the required ­two-thirds of votes.89 It is difficult not to interpret this gesture as anything other than the pope’s acceptance of the content of the three articles that were not approved by the synod (though they received a simple majority of the votes).

The First Reactions: “The die is cast” The vote on Relatio synodi marked the conclusion of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops; after two weeks of exhausting work, the synod participants could return home. Of course, many were dissatisfied with the doctrinal 88. Cited in John Bingham, Andrea Vogt, “Vatican Call for Church to Welcome Gay People Did Not Go ‘Far Enough’—Cardinal Vincent Nichols,” The Telegraph, October 19, 2014, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/­the-pope/11172521/­Vatican-call-for-Church-towelcome-gay-people-did-not-go-far-enough-Cardinal-Vincent-Nichols.html. 89. Lawyers note that in this way article 26.1 of Ordo Synodi Episcoporum was violated: “this serious violation of procedure causes doubts as to the integrity of the synodal procedure,” Piotr Kroczek, Józef Krzywda, Andrzej Sosnowski, Droga do Amoris laetitia (Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UPJPII, 2017), 20.

89

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly and pastoral compromises reflected in the final document of the synod. Synod participants left Rome with the conviction that they had participated in the first phase of the debate, the culmination of which would take place in the following year, during the Fourteenth Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. Some left deeply concerned and surprised that only ten years after the death of John Paul II, “the pope of the family,” there was so much talk suggesting the irrelevance of his teaching and a need for radical changes. Others, who expected from the Synod greater progress toward modifying the teaching of the Church in the rapidly changing world, left with a frustrating feeling of stopping midstride. Both positions very quickly found their expression in press interviews, popular and academic articles, conferences, and books. The entire year separating both synods became an unusually active time of intellectual exchange of statements, opinions, and at times heated polemics. We are able to present only a few voices from this multilingual global debate that lasted many months. In his article “An Extraordinary Synod, Indeed,” George Weigel indicated several reasons why the 2014 Synod of Bishops can be called extraordinary, apart from its formal name. One of the reasons was the extraordinary interest that the mass media took in the synod. Unfortunately, this interest often did not proceed from the desire to honestly report what happened in the synod but rather because “the mass media misperception that The Great Moment of the L ­ ong-Awaited Catholic ­Cave-In was at hand: the moment when the Catholic Church, the last major institutional ­hold-out against the triumph of the sexual revolution, would finally admit the error of its ways and join the rush into the promised land of sexual liberation.”90 Therefore, the media not only frequently reported on the 90. George Weigel, “An Extraordinary Synod, Indeed,” First Things, October 22, 14, https://www.firstthings.com/­web-exclusives/2014/10/­an-extraordinary-synod-indeed.

9 0 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  proceedings of the synod: it also attempted to confer on the synod an interpretation contrary to what was really happening in Rome, and even tried to alter its course. The second reason for the extraordinary nature of the 2014 synod was, in Weigel’s view, the fact that the representatives of the European Churches that remain in deep crisis “demonstrated the extraordinary s­elf-confidence” and felt comfortable “giving pastoral advice” to the Churches that are thriving and manifest great evangelical and pastoral dynamism, for example, the Churches in Africa. As Weigel notes referring to the experience of American Catholicism, “too many bishops and theologians (and ­bishop-theologians) still have not grasped the Iron Law of Christianity in Modernity: Christian communities that maintain a firm grasp on their doctrinal and moral boundaries can flourish amidst the cultural acids of modernity; Christian communities whose doctrinal and moral boundaries become porous (and then invisible) wither and die.”91 At the same time, however, in Weigel’s view, it is fitting to approach the at times fierce disputes that occurred during the synod with a certain distance and historical consciousness. The disputes that have already occurred in the history of the Church, including the conflict between the Apostles Peter and Paul concerning the Christian meaning of Jewish circumcision, the dispute between Bishop Cyprian of Carthage and Pope Stephan, or the disputes between the orthodox bishops and Arians in the fourth and fifth centuries, demonstrate that this at time heated debate in the ­divine-human institution that is the Church is the only way of arriving at objective truth. 91. Emphasis in the original. Weigel published a more developed form of his article “An Extraordinary Synod, Indeed,” in another article, entitled “Between Two Synods,” published in First Things in January 2015, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/01/­ between-two-synods.

91

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly In addition to popular and journalistic summaries of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, after a while more integral and i­n-depth commentaries on what took place in Rome began to appear. One of the first was the analysis of the final document of the synod prepared by Matthew McCusker, who works for the Catholic international organization “Voice of the Family.”92 McCusker’s analysis is all the more important for us because it was extensively cited in various later debates on the synod. One of the most interesting fragments of Matthew McCusker’s analysis concerns contraception. The author rightly observes that “one of the most ‘profound changes’ witnessed in the twentieth century was the adoption, by a majority of people in the western world, of the use of contraception.”93 McCusker is also right when he speaks of the cultural link between contraception and abortion; the spreading of contraception advances the notion that the conception of a child is a problem that ought to be resolved by more and more effective contraceptive means. Unfortunately, the most effective means that prevents a child being born is abortion; thus, no wonder that “the organizations and movements advocating birth control became the leading advocates of abortion.”94 92. Matthew McCusker, “An Analysis of the Final Report of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family October 2014,” Voice of the Family, December 19, 2014, http://voiceofthefamily .com/­anlysis-of-the-final-report-of-the-extraordinary-synod-on-the-family. 93. McCusker, “An Analysis of the Final Report of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family October 2014,” 14–15. 94. McCusker, “An Analysis of the Final Report of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family October 2014,” 15. With respect to the link between contraception and abortion, it is worth to return to the preparatory document of the German Episcopate for the 2014 synod (it was briefly analyzed at the beginning of this chapter). Both in the d ­ ocument-summary of the questionnaires and in the document written by German theologians, one finds the thesis that the great majority of German Catholics accept the use of contraception but do not accept the practice of abortion. This thesis seems to suggest the soundness of such moral judgment because of its clear lack of acceptance for abortion. In light of McCusker’s analysis concerning the link between contraception and abortion, however, one should question this line of reasoning.

9 2 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  In this context, McCusker draws attention to the ambivalence of the formulation in Relatio synodi concerning contraception: “We should return to the message of the encyclical Humanae vitae of Blessed Pope Paul VI, which highlights the need to respect the dignity of the person in morally assessing methods in regulating births.”95 The reader who is unfamiliar with the arguments used in the discussion on Humanae vitae will not perceive in this formulation anything disturbing. McCusker rightly stresses, however, that in fact, Relatio synodi repeats here the old argument of the opponents of Humanae vitae who always emphasized the primacy of the individual conscience of spouses in using methods of regulating conceptions. This primacy of individual conscience meant in practice an application of utilitarian or proportionalistic understanding in which the use of contraception is justified by the greater good that proceeds from it (spouses develop an intimate bond by sexual intercourse when they do not want to have more children) or by the evil that can be avoided (the tensions in marriage that are caused by sexual abstinence).96 95. RS, 58. 96. This argument, which effectively undermines the teaching of the encyclical Humanae vitae, returned with all its might during the conference organized by the German, French, and Swiss Episcopates in May 2015 as a preparation for the Synod of Bishops. This conference will be treated at length in the following chapter. One can also find a similar and concealed attempt to question the moral norm in the name of the dignity of an individual conscience in Cardinal Kasper’s radio statement in October 2014: “[Paul VI] was concerned to remain in the truth and not give up something, but I think it’s also a question of the interpretation of this encyclical Humanae vitae because he was the first pope who spoke in ‘personalistic’ terminology about marriage—it was new! So in the light of this general approach we have to interpret what he said about contraception and so on, and I think what he said is true, but it’s not a casuistic we can deduce from it [sic], it’s an ideal and we have to tell people, but then we have also to respect the conscience of the couples” (Kasper, cited in McCusker, “An Analysis of the Final Report of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family October 2014,” 15). This attempt to undermine the teaching of the encyclical Humanae vitae by means of emphasizing the primacy of individual conscience, which in particular situations excuses spouses from general moral norms, returned during the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, and it will be discussed in chapter 4 of this work.

93

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly An immensely interesting part of McCusker’s analysis is his pointing out the themes that, given the nature of the synodal document, should be included in Relatio synodi but were absent from it. The first such theme is abortion, which in various forms affects a great many people living today. McCusker rightly notes that Relatio synodi uses a disturbing euphemism when it states that it is “a mentality against having children promoted by the world politics of reproductive health” which is responsible for the population decline.97 The author is right when he writes: “Here cardinals and bishops adopt the euphemism of the ­pro-abortion lobby and do nothing to explain what ‘reproductive health’ really involves, namely the killing of unborn children or the prevention of their conception.”98 One should note that the understandable desire of its authors for the Relatio synodi to have a positive character and to be an expression of the “extended hand” of the Church to all those who live in difficult, irregular situations led to very ambivalent and vague effects. In our concluding remarks on the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, one more document should be noted. In June 2015, an unusual book was published, Christ’s New Homeland—Africa, in which eleven cardinals, archbishops, and bishops from the African countries of Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Guinea, Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, and Ivory Coast presented their reflections on the recently concluded synod and the upcoming Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly.99 The book begins with two texts that refer to the Relatio synodi from 2014. In the first, Cardinal Robert Sarah, the prefect of the 97. RS, 10. 98. McCusker, “An Analysis of the Final Report of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family October 2014,” 17. 99. Christ’s New Homeland—Africa: Contribution to the Synod on the Family by African Pastors, trans. M. J. Miller (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2015).

9 4 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  Vatican Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, starts by noting the unacceptable and erroneous statements of the Relatio. Sarah, the cardinal from Guinea, points out article 27 as an “unacceptable and scandalous” text, which can be understood as an acceptance of cohabitation seen as an introductory stage toward sacramental marriage. In addition to its very unclear and imprecise language, Cardinal Sarah indicates the theological shallowness of Relatio synodi; the document suggests that the Church must choose between legalistic rigorism and relativistic mercy. The theological shallowness is linked with the puzzling fact that Relatio synodi disregards the solid theology of John Paul II: It is astonishing, therefore, that instead of a more ­in-depth study and an organized, systematic diffusion of this great pastoral effort deployed by John Paul II, some speak as though nothing had been done to be close to families, and they narrow the perspective to an opposition between those who are allegedly fixated on legalism and those who invoke the Divine Mercy. The reader is likewise surprised by the total silence in the Lineamenta [whose main part was the text of Relatio synodi; see Chapter 4] about the Theology of the Body, which develops the authentic theology of marriage and family. Instead, there is a ­single-minded focus on a theology of love with no connection to the mystery of the nuptial fulfillment that God instituted by creating man in his likeness, by creating them male and female (cf. Gn 1:27).100

In Sarah’s view, the main problem of Relatio synodi is the failure to indicate the crisis of faith in the Western world as the main source of problems concerning marriage and the family. These ambiguities in the document are a manifestation of an extensive crisis in Western, and particularly European, Christianity:

100. Robert Sarah, “What Sort of Pastoral Mercy in Response to the New Challenges to the Family? A Reading of the Lineamenta,” in Christ’s New Homeland, 23.

95

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly In fact, one guesses that the Relatio synodi is actually the reflection of a malaise of the Church in the West—a Church stifled by a secularized, godless society—but also because of her particular history, in which she feels as though imprisoned in a pastoral approach that seems to offer more rules than values (RS, 33). The Western Church therefore feels the need to change this perspective, the need for a pastoral approach that pays more attention to the weak and wounded members, to the school of the Good Shepherd. But is it not strange, sad, and even dangerous to pit divine laws and canonical norms in this way against values, when these norms are the synthetic, comprehensive expression of doctrine in the service of life—precisely what we call pastoral ministry?101

When with admiration we read these clear words of the Cardinal from Guinea, we recall what Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York said about the speeches of the bishops from Africa during the Third Extraordinary Synod of Bishops: “when [they] speak, though, you can see Irenaeus, you can hear Polycarp, you can hear Ignatius of Antioch.”102 Nonetheless, in addition to his courage, clarity, and parrhesia, which Pope Francis requested in the beginning of the synod, it is worth noting the depth of Cardinal Sarah’s analysis. He observes in a penetrating way that the significance that is currently ascribed to the theology of divine mercy not infrequently follows from the fact that this theology is developed by theologians who have a distorted, legalistic vision of divine and ecclesial law. In this perspective, law is turned against man, especially the weak and wounded man, whereas the task of mercy is to deliver man from the moral norm, a deliverance most often performed in the name of the autonomy of the individual conscience. The African cardinal points out the wrongness of such a dichotomy and the dangers that proceed from adopting such a perspective. 101. Sarah, “What Sort of Pastoral Mercy,” 23. 102. “Cardinal Dolan on Countercultural Bishops,” Catholic News Service, October 14, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlCVrC2C16Y.

9 6 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  If the Church is interested in the “peripheries,” as Relatio synodi repeats after the exhortation Evangelii gaudium of Pope Francis, we should note—Sarah stresses—two categories of people who expect mercy from the Church. The first category of people are the faithful Catholics, who in their societies today are not infrequently in the minority: they are experiencing silent but oppressive and relentless discrimination: everything is against them, the prevailing values, media and cultural pressure, financial constraints, legislation, and so on. And the Church herself, through documents like the Lineamenta, seems to be pushing them toward the exit. Have we not reached here the real “periphery” of our postmodern global village? We will hope that the next synod will not chase from the “Cave of Bethlehem” (the Church) the little Christian family that has found no room in the inns of the “City of King David” (our globalized world).103

There is another category of people who, in particular, expect divine mercy from the Church: “These are the victims of the postmodern system who do not admit defeat. They do not feel at home in this godless world. They bear within them nostalgia for the warmth of the ‘Christian home,’ but they do not feel they have the strength to return to that radically evangelical way of life.”104 More precisely, these people must not be deceived by Christians with superficial mercy, which does not call sin by its name and does not beseech deliverance from it: “But these brothers and sisters who have truly been wounded by life are not fooled by it. They thirst for the truth about their life, not for pity or mollifying talk. . . . But how can the Church take up a pastoral approach of mercy toward them? By not bandaging with sacramental Communion a wound that has not been treated by the sacrament of reconciliation duly received.”105 103. Sarah, “What Sort of Pastoral Mercy,” 26. 104. Sarah, “What Sort of Pastoral Mercy,” 26. 105. Sarah, “What Sort of Pastoral Mercy,” 27.

97

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly It is worth listening for a moment to a longer quotation from the analyzed text in order to hear “the voice of Irenaeus” in the context of summarizing the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops and preparing for the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly—moreover, in the context of today’s battle for the authentic Christianity: Nova Patria Christi, Africa, Paul VI said; Africa is Christ’s new homeland. This statement may remind us of the episode of the flight of the Holy Family into Egypt, when King Herod was seeking to have the Infant Jesus killed. Today, when there are so many Herods, even within the Catholic Church, who relentlessly pursue the family to destroy it, how could the Church in Africa, which has started to build herself up as ‘God’s Family’, feel that she is unconcerned? She is more aware than ever of her mission to give refuge to the family and to protect it by committing herself resolutely to accepting fully God’s plan for marriage and the family as Christ revealed it to us and as the Church has always taught us. At a time when the Holy Innocents continue to be massacred, she wishes to promote the teaching given by Pope Blessed Paul VI in Humanae vitae and updated by Pope Saint John Paul II in Evangelium vitae.106

It is difficult not to read with emotion this moving profession of faith, which contains no trace of coquetry or ecclesial politics. Instead, we find in these words the authenticity that proceeds from the experience of a Church that is poor, simple, and seasoned by suffering, a Church that speaks with courage to the powerful, educated, and wealthy (de facto, to those from whom she receives financial support): When Pope Benedict XVI said that Africa is a continent of hope, and even the “spiritual lung of humanity,” he was in fact pointing out to the Church in Africa her vocation and mission for these difficult times, in which no one dares any more to speak against the dictatorship of rel106. Sarah, “What Sort of Pastoral Mercy,” 31–32.

9 8 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  ativism, against the pressure of public opinion that no longer believes in anything. From the depths of our African savannas and forests, we can speak, speak clearly, speak forcefully. Yet the word we are trying to make heard is not ours but one that comes to us from God. We wish to lend to this word our voices, which are accustomed to crying out in the desert and in the forests. In their wisdom our elders taught us, when we were children, that, in order to avoid meeting wild beasts in the forest, it is necessary to talk loud, it is necessary to sing along the way, for wild animals flee a path that is frequented by human beings. If along the pathways of the Church the voice of Christ’s disciples clearly proclaims the Gospel of the Family, the wild beasts that seek to destroy it will flee, thus preventing families that are already wounded from being finished off by their ferocity. Out of mercy for these families, the Church in Africa simply wishes to lend her voice to the Gospel of the Family. May the Lord give her the breath and the courage to do so!107

This courage, and the parrhesia requested by Francis, are also visible in the second text included in the book by Bishop Barthélemy Adoukonou from Benin, presently the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Culture.108 In Bishop Adoukonou’s view, the methodological weakness of the synodal document consists in the fact that: it utilizes the resources of almost all the human and social sciences to put into context the topic of the family today without bringing to light the most important background, namely, the historical choices that led to this disaster. These choices that have been made, not only at the philosophical level, but also and especially at the spiritual and existential levels, strictly speaking, are summed up in man’s conscious decision to 107. Sarah, “What Sort of Pastoral Mercy,” 33. 108. It is worth remembering the outstanding education of the African bishops cited here and the fact that they know Europe well. Bishop Adoukonou studied sociology in Paris in the 1970s and then finished his studies in Ratisbon, where he received a doctorate. In the 1980s, he received his second doctorate, Lettres et Sciences humaines, at the Parisian Sorbonne. Since December 2009, he has been the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Culture.

99

T h i rd E xt raordi na ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly exclude God from his thinking and from his everyday life. He chose to think about himself and about his relation to the world without God. And so he invented different ­socio-anthropological, cultural, economic, and political paradigms that, becoming global, are gradually leading to the active destruction of the family.109

The bishop from Benin criticizes the attempt to impose this secularized theology on these regions of the world where the Church is still the Church of the first evangelization. There, the sine qua non condition of the effectiveness of evangelization is foremost the living relation to the Trinitarian God. The pressure of the West to impose on the rest of the world a vision of the world without God is an “unacceptable symbolic violence.” This—to use the words of Pope Francis—“ideological ­neo-colonization must not be buried in the document as though it were a minor news item. In reality, what is at stake is the future of t­ hree-quarters of the world’s Catholics, who will find themselves in these areas of first evangelization in the next few decades.”110 Adoukonou emphasizes with force: “We have the obligation to set ourselves apart from that postmodern civilization, not out of fear or by way of withdrawing into our own enclaves, but out of fidelity to our deep Christian and African identity. For the sake of attracting people, we do not want to put ourselves into situations that would compromise our values, under the illusion of being open to the world in that way.”111 He notes that Europe, which has turned away from its Christian roots, became not only a fertile breeding ground for atheism and ­post-modernism but also for radical forms of Islam. Hundreds of young Europeans travel to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries to kill Christians in the 109. Barthélemy Adoukonou, “Start from the Living Faith: An African take on the Instrumentum Laboris,” in Christ’s New Homeland, 37–38. 110. Adoukonou, “Start from the Living Faith,” 38. 111. Adoukonou, “Start from the Living Faith,” 39.

1 0 0 

Th i rd E xt raordi na ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  name of jihad. They do not do this out of hunger or poverty, but because “Western consumerist society no longer offers them any true values. Everything in it is cheap and banal.”112 As in the text by Cardinal Sarah, we hear in Bishop Adoukonou’s statement the pride and dignity of the Church in Africa, one that lovingly admonishes the Churches on other continents that they abandoned their “first love” (Rv 2:4): Conscious more than ever of this interdependence, Africa would like to remind the Church in the West that she could not possibly engage in a hermetically sealed dialogue with the postmodern world, while ridiculing other countries as though they were trapped in various forms of obscurantism that no one understands, without seriously compromising her faith and Christian roots. She could not do so by appealing to God’s mercy, while in fact she would be sacrificing all the other cultures that are still open to God and susceptible to authentic inculturation.113 112. Adoukonou, “Start from the Living Faith,” 39. 113. Adoukonou, “Start from the Living Faith,” 42. In his article entitled “Liberal Racism Bares Its Fangs,” George Weigel points out some examples of unacceptable contempt for the Church in Africa that occurred among the participants of synodal debate. See Weigel, “Liberal Racism Bares Its Fangs,” First Things, December 30, 2015, https://www.first things.com/­web-exclusives/2015/12/­liberal-racism-bares-its-fangs.

101

A New “Theology” of Marriage? C ha pt e r 3

A N ew “Th eology” of M a rr iage ?

On May 26, 2015, one could read the news of an unusual conference that had taken place the previous day in the Jesuit Gregorian University in Rome.1 This conference, entitled “The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the Church and Contemporary World” (“Vocation et mission de la famille en Eglise et dans le monde contemporain”), was organized by the presidents of three European Episcopates: French, German, and Swiss. The sessions were closed, with access granted only to selected guests, among whom were theologians, bishops, and members of synodal and Vatican commissions. The invited journalists were asked not to report in detail the discussions after lectures; instead, they were simply told that the goal was to find a new place in the Church for divorced persons and homosexuals.2 The conference began with a welcoming of the approximately 1. The university allowed its conference space to be used but was not itself directly engaged in the organization of the conference (see Andrea Gagliarducci, “As Synod Council Meets, ‘Shadow’ Council Pushes Acceptance of Gay Unions,” Catholic New Agency, May 26, 2015, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/­bishops-synod-ponders-reform-of-rulesas-secretive-meeting-eyes-reform-of-pastoral-care-35545). 2. Cindy Wooden, “Spokesman Says Bishops’ Gathering Was Not about Changing Doctrine,” Catholic Herald, May 28, 2015, http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/05/28/­ spokesman-says-bishops-gathering-was-not-about-changing-doctrine.

1 0 2 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  fifty participants by Professor Hans Zollner, SJ, the academic vice rector of Gregorian University, and Archbishop Georges Pontier, the president of the Conference of the Episcopate of France.3 The sessions were divided into three thematic parts, in each of which the participants heard two lectures and engaged in a brief discussion afterward. The first part of the conference was devoted to biblical reflections and concerned with what Jesus said about marriage and divorce in the context of contemporary biblical hermeneutics (“Les paroles de Jésus sur le mariage et le divorce. Réflexions au sujet d’une herméneutique catholique de la Bible”). The second part of the conference focused on human sexuality as an expression of love in a theological context (“La sexualité comme expression de l’amour. Réflexions sur une théologie de l’amour”), and the third was devoted to the gift of life in the context of narrative theology (“Le don de la vie qui nous est fait. Réflexions sur une théologie narrative”). The sessions were summarized by Cardinal Reinhard Marx, the president of the Conference of the Episcopate of Germany. This chapter bears the title “A New ‘Theology’ of Marriage?” because the intention of the conference was to push for a new openness on the part of the Church in the area of marriage, sexuality, and the family. This new openness in the biblical lectures denoted an attempt at a new—that is, nontraditional—interpretation of the words of Jesus on marriage and divorce. In the lectures on the meaning of human sexuality, this openness meant exploring new assessments of contraception, homosexual acts, and second 3. The program of the conference and the texts of the delivered lectures are available (in three languages: Italian, German, and French) at the official site of the Conference of the Episcopate of Switzerland: http://www.bischoefe.ch/dokumente/communiques/­ studientag-familie-in-kirche-und-welt. Henceforth, I refer to this text as Journée d’études commune á l’invitation des présidents des Conférences Épiscopales de France, d’Allemagne et de Suisse sur de questions de la pastoral du mariage et de la famille en vue du Synode des évêques.

103

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? unions of divorced persons that are different from the one proposed by recent popes and the documents of the Church. I used the question mark in the title of this chapter to express a doubt regarding whether this attempt was successful; the word “theology” was placed in quotation marks because the fundamental criticism of these new proposals pertains to the fact that they have very little in common with theology in the strict sense of the word.

The Words of Jesus concerning Marriage and Divorce: Reflections on the Catholic Hermeneutics of the Bible In the first part (biblical) of the conference, ­Anne-Marie Pelletier, a French exegete and 2014 winner of the Ratzinger award, and Thomas Söding, a German exegete and a professor at the university in Bochum, spoke. Pelletier’s lecture concerned a passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew, key for my reflections, and was entitled, “Sur la réception de Matthieu 19, 3–12.” She began with several general remarks on the interpretation of a biblical passage from Matthew. When the Pharisees ask Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” they attempt “to test him” (peirazontes auton), that is, to place him before “the false alternative of opposing God and man.”4 This is important because today, we too risk posing the question of marriage in such a dichotomy, with one “logic according to God and another according to man.”5 In her interpretation, Pelletier notes Jesus’ appreciation of women. In Jewish law, only the husband could make decisions about divorce, and adultery was interpreted as a violation of anoth4. ­Anne-Marie Pelletier, “Sur la réception de Matthieu 19, 3–12,” in Journée d’études commune, 6. The texts of the conference are analyzed in the languages in which they were delivered. 5. Pelletier, “Sur la réception de Matthieu 19, 3–12,” 6.

1 0 4 

A Ne w “ Theology ” of M a r r i age?  er man’s property. In Jesus’ words and in his appeal to the mystery of creation: “from the beginning the Creator made them male and female” (Mt 19:4), no trace of any such masculinism can be found. Moreover, in another version of this conversation, which we find in the Gospel of St. Mark, a strong emphasis is placed on the fact that whoever dismisses his wife and marries another, commits adultery against his wife (see Mk 10:11). Another remark of the French theologian pertains to the ­socalled “exception clause” in Christ’s rejection of the possibility of divorce: “Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery” (Mt 19:9, see 5:32). The fact that Jesus makes this exception in the case of unchastity (Gk. porneia) denotes for Pelletier “the beginning of the movement of an interpretation (le mouvement d’une interprétation est amorcé) in the closest proximity to the biblical sources.”6 Another example of a very early extension of the interpretation of Jesus’ words on the impossibility of divorce is the “Pauline privilege” (see 1 Cor 7:15–16). Pelletier stresses that on this topic, “the discipline of the Church was far from being immovable.”7 In Pelletier’s opinion, the main message of Matthew 19 has an eschatological and not a disciplinary or legal character: Jesus identifies himself as the eschatological prophet inaugurating the time of the Kingdom. . . . He proclaims the novelty of the time when, in him, access to the truth of the beginning, which can now fully unfold, is restored. The conjugal bond . . . is therefore closely connected with the vocation received by those who, through baptism, are immersed in the death and resurrection of Christ. This point is crucial. If the requirement is detached from the baptismal gift, the words of Jesus become a rigorism, which risks becoming a trap for couples.8 6. Pelletier, “Sur la réception de Matthieu 19, 3–12,” 7. 7. Pelletier, “Sur la réception de Matthieu 19, 3–12,” 7. 8. Pelletier, “Sur la réception de Matthieu 19, 3–12,” 8.

105

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? Pelletier applies the above interpretation of key biblical texts to the questions found in the second part of her presentation, entitled “To Live the Indissolubility of Marriage in Today’s World.” Above all, she notes that the West found itself in an unprecedented state of secularization that has at its foundation a more fundamental “anthropological shock” (l’ébranlement anthropologique). This situation, which has decisively influenced the understanding of marriage, requires today “a true theological ‘development’ in the Newmanian sense of the term.”9 Pelletier admits that the commitment of faithful spouses to their undertaken obligations, despite their difficulties, and to live daily by “ordinary holiness” (la sainteté ordinaire), not infrequently heroic, has fundamental significance for the life of the Church. At the same time, however, she says the Church should not turn away from spouses whose first marriages—often not due to their own fault—ended, and who live the best they can in second, fruitful unions. To describe their state as “adultery” and “obstinate persistence in sin” is tragic, including for their children, because this most often makes it impossible to transmit the faith to the next generation. What is needed with respect to such persons is evangelical imagination (une imagination évangélique) so that the Church does not turn out to be the servant in the parable who buried the treasure of mercy in the ground out of the fear of losing it.10 Listening to the sense of faith (sensus fidei) of the faithful, the Church should have the courage that she had during the time of St. Cyprian when she decided to reconcile with those who during the persecution rejected their faith (lapsi).11 9. Pelletier, “Sur la réception de Matthieu 19, 3–12,” 9. Pelletier refers here to the concept of the development of doctrine presented by John Henry Newman in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. 10. See Pelletier, “Sur la réception de Matthieu 19,3–12,” 11. 11. See Pelletier, “Sur la réception de Matthieu 19,3–12,” 10–11. Referring in this context

1 0 6 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  Pelletier’s lecture is disappointing. It is difficult to resist the impression that in her exegesis of Mt 19:3–12, Pelletier concentrates on important but secondary issues and avoids the simple and most essential question: did Jesus, against the teaching of the Torah and the expectations of his disciples, call a life with a woman who is not one’s wife adultery? Is it not true that these controversial words of Jesus were treated from the beginning of the Church as ipsissima verba Christi? Pelletier’s attempt to transfer the emphasis from their disciplinary and ethical understanding to an eschatological one does not seem to be the proper solution; is the new life in Christ, understood also in the ethical sense, not an expression of the eschatological expectation? And by treating the “exception clause” as an historical attempt at a certain interpretative change of the meaning of Jesus’ words, the French exegete refuses to admit that never in the main current of the Church’s teaching in the East and the West were these words understood as questioning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage. The theologically “modest” first part of Pelletier’s lecture stands in contrast to its second part. In the first, she states that, in fact, we can say nothing certain about what Jesus wanted to say on this subject. In the second part of the lecture, however, this shyness and modesty disappear. Pelletier knows with certitude what the Church should do concerning divorced persons who live in second unions and argues using very forceful expressions such as the danger of “burying the treasure of mercy.” The slightly confused reader can only express a doubt with respect to this lack of proportion: the French biblical scholar can say nothing certain in her field of expertise, whereas in the field where she is not an expert, she offers to the sense of faith of the faithful (sensus fidelium) and the historical precedent connected to the lapsi, Pelletier repeats the arguments used by Cardinal Walter Kasper in The Gospel of the Family, which was covered in the first chapter in this book.

107

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? declarations with great conviction. A paradox of this kind can only evoke suspicion that such views are ultimately not formed by arguments of a theological nature.12 The German exegete Thomas Söding began his lecture, “The Marriage Bond in God’s Hands: An Exegetical Statement about the Synod on the Family,” by stating that Sacred Scripture does not offer simple and easy answers because it is immersed in human history and entrusted to the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the biblical texts require an ­interpretationhermeneutics that should be not just faithful to the sense intended by the Lord but also be creative. In a particular way, these remarks pertain to the ethical instructions concerning marriage that are present in Sacred Scripture: “In all questions of ethics, the historical reference of biblical texts is essential and precarious. . . . If ethics remains in principle, it eo ipso relies on actualizing concretizations; if it is concrete, it must be identified in its historical contingency and, proceeding from the Gospel itself, be open to answering today’s questions.”13 After making these remarks concerning the methodology of biblical hermeneutics, Söding presented two points regarding Jesus’ teaching on marriage. First, Jesus made a certain relativization of the earthly meaning of marriage in light of the main content of his message, which pertained to the inauguration of the coming of the Kingdom of God. Due to the unprecedented significance of this fulfillment of the eschaton, every earthly value and institution becomes relative. Therefore, Jesus emphasizes that “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it” 12. One can compare Pelletier’s foggy reflections to the competent, Catholic biblical analysis of Jesus’ words on the indissolubility of marriage contained in L. Sánchez Navarro, Cosa ne pensa Gesù dei divorziati risposati? (Siena: Cantagalli, 2015). 13. Thomas Söding, “Ehebund in Gottes Hand. Ein exegetisches Statement zur Familiensynode,” in Journée d’études commune, 71.

1 0 8 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  (Lk 8:21). On the other hand, however, Söding stresses that “there are few fields of ethics that are so clearly measured and so intensively developed in the New Testament as marriage.”14 In the New Testament, monogamy—being confronted both with the possibility of divorce in the Mosaic tradition and with the polygamy of other ancient religions—manifests itself as the proprium of the teaching of Jesus and later becomes the identity marker of early Christianity. Söding emphasizes that: the testimony of the New Testament is decisive and clear. It is essentially connected with the proclamation of Jesus himself. It is deeply rooted in the Book of Genesis and found a strong resonance in the theology of early Christianity. Therefore, everything in the synod on the family must be done so that marriage, far from all idealizations, becomes recognizable as a visible sign of God’s unfailing love for his people, even under the conditions of globalization, pluralization and secularization.15

Undoubtedly, one should be thankful to Söding for his clear statement that the new marital ethics, due to the revolutionary teaching of Jesus, has been understood in the early Church as “identity marker” of Christians. Professor Söding supplied what was lacking in Pelletier’s lecture. At the same time, Söding notes a certain openness (die Offenheit) of the New Testament message concerning marriage. This openness is manifested, first, in the way in which the topic of marriage is addressed by Jesus in the Gospel of St. Mark (Mk 10:2–12) and parallel places. When speaking on marriage, Jesus first refers to the creation story (Gn 1:26 and 2:24), which highlights that marriage is a unity planned by the Creator. From this teaching of the Torah, the Teacher derives the commandment that man should not separate what God joined together and then, in the presence 14. Söding, “Ehebund in Gottes Hand,” 71. 15. Söding, “Ehebund in Gottes Hand,” 73.

109

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? of the disciples, he adds to this the new interpretation of the sixth commandment, in which he defines the dismissal of one’s wife and marrying another as adultery. Söding notes the essential order in Jesus’ reasoning: “the norm comes from the dogma of Scripture, and from both of them comes the law.”16 This distinction allows him to show what is primary and secondary in the teaching of Jesus: “marriage is a covenant established by God, which, as Paul says, serves peace (1 Cor 7:15) . . . and which in law finds not a bondage, but a bond of unity—these are the most essential elements of Jesus’ teaching on marriage. The rest is interpretation.”17 With such a minimalistic view of what Jesus said about marriage, it is no surprise that the German exegete concludes that “doctrine, morality and the law of the Church must be constantly on a reform course as to rediscover under ever changing circumstances what marriage in Jesus’ sense means hic et nunc.”18 A particular space of inquiry is opened by the perspective in which “the growing freedom of shaping one’s life is linked with the theology of marriage and with conjugal morality and is formulated as law.”19 These remarks concerning the “openness” of the New Testament theology of marriage led Söding to the issue of the indissolubility of marriage. In Söding’s opinion, the New Testament, in the form of the Pauline privilege, permits the dissolution of a valid marriage. Hence, a question arises as to why the Pauline privilege 16. “Aus dem Schriftdogma ergibt sich die Norm, aus beidem das Recht” (Söding, “Ehebund in Gottes Hand,” 73). 17. Söding, “Ehebund in Gottes Hand,” 73–74. 18. “Lehre, Moral und Recht der Kirche müssen permanent auf Reformkurs sein, gilt es doch, unter sich wandelnden Umständen je neu entdecken zu lassen, was die Ehe im Sinne Jesu hic et nunc bedeutet” (Söding, “Ehebund in Gottes Hand,” 74). 19. “Die wachsenden Freiräume der Lebensgestaltung neu mit der Ehetheologie wie der Ehemoral zu verbinden und im Recht zu verankern” (Söding, “Ehebund in Gottes Hand,” 74).

1 1 0 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  “only concerns marriages in which spouses belong to different religions? What happens if one of the spouses loses the Catholic faith? . . . A marriage God has created cannot be destroyed by the hardness of human heart. Nonetheless, according to the New Testament, God himself can dissolve a marriage if the bond of believers with him—the bond that originates in Baptism—cannot be saved otherwise.”20 In such situations, the Church must take advantage of her power to dissolve marriage—for the sake of faith. From the “Pauline privilege” (see 1 Cor 7:12–15), Söding draws ­far-reaching postulates, which are rather unclear. In his view, the New Testament data suggest that in the situation of the “Pauline privilege,” God himself “dissolves” a valid marriage when “the bond of believers with him cannot be otherwise saved.”21 The Church today, argues Söding, should take advantage of this power of “dissolving” a valid marriage “for the sake of faith” (um des Glaubens willen). It is worth noting that his formulation—“the bond of believers with him cannot be saved”—is ambiguous. It may mean a situation when one of the spouses prevents or impedes the other’s practicing of the Catholic faith, although given that his audience at the Gregorian University comes from Western Europe, where such a situation practically does not occur, his words suggest that he simply means the b ­ reak-up of the marital bond and covenant. In such a situation, says Söding, the Church should take advantage of the power to dissolve marriage in accord with the teaching of the New Testament. We can only ask Söding how to understand in this context the decisiveness of Jesus’ words, of which he spoke in the first part of his presentation: “Whoever divorces his wife and 20. Söding, “Ehebund in Gottes Hand,” 75. 21. “Kann Gott selbst eine Ehe lösen, wenn der Bund der Gläubigen mit ihm, der in der Taufe geschlossen wurde, partout nicht anders gerettet werden kann” (Söding, “Ehebund in Gottes Hand,” 75).

111

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mk 10:11–12). As we know, after having reflected on the biblical data, the Church formulated the truth about the indissolubility of the sacramental marriage, that is, one that is contracted between baptized persons.22 The words of John Paul II refer to such a marriage: “a ratified and consummated sacramental marriage can never be dissolved, not even by the power of the Roman Pontiff.”23 Söding’s next thesis concerns the understanding of adultery: “Catholic moral teaching—including the Catechism of the Catholic Church—has expansively interpreted the Sixth Commandment in such a way that all sexual intercourse outside a validly closed marriage is considered ‘fornication.’ But this is a rather rigid interpretation. The biblical data are more complex. The Catholic sexual morality has to reconsider this topic.”24 How does Söding argue this? He offers three biblical examples. The first is when Jesus, “who classifies remarriage as adultery, also saved the adulteress from—symbolic—death and did not condemn her, but led her to conversion (Jn 8:1–11).”25 The second is the meeting with the Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob; despite her living in an illegitimate relationship, she is made an evangelizer. The third example, used without any deeper analysis—as is the case with the two previous ones—pertains to the theology of St. Paul, in which sexual ascesis (Sexuelle Askese) is a charism of freedom at the service of the neighbor in the Church (ein Charisma der Freiheit für den Dienst am Nächsten in der Kirche). As Söding writes, “He who 22. See CCC, 1640, and the Code of Canon Law, c. 1141. 23. John Paul II, “Address to the Roman Rota” (January 21, 2000), 6, https://w2.vatican .va/content/­john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2000/­jan-mar/documents/­hf_jp-ii_spe_20000121_ rota-romana.html. 24. Söding, “Ehebund in Gottes Hand,” 75. 25. Söding, “Ehebund in Gottes Hand,” 75.

1 1 2 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  does not have this grace cannot be considered as an obstinate sinner on account of the indissolubility of marriage.”26 Before summarizing Söding’s lecture, one should immediately note that none of these three biblical arguments challenges the thesis that every sexual relation outside marriage should be defined as adultery. In the first situation, when forgiving the adulteress, Jesus says “Go and do not sin again” (Jn 8:11). In the second situation, the biblical passage does not tell us anything about the life of the Samaritan woman with respect to “the one who is not her husband” after her encounter with Jesus; besides, every baptized Christian can and should be an evangelizer regardless of the degree of complexity of his of her life. As to the third biblical reference, Söding’s arguments are likewise unconvincing. It is true that St. Paul speaks of life in chastity as a special gift (Gr. charisma): “each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise ­self-control they should marry” (1 Cor 7:7–9). On the other hand, a moment later, Paul states in a categorical statement: “To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband—and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband—and a husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Cor 7:10–11). In this categorical formulation, “I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord),” he does not speak of chastity as a gift that enables one to remain single; rather, chastity appears as an obligation that follows the ­break-up of marriage, though—as the Apostle to the nations would certainly add—the realization of this obligation is possible only thanks to a special gift of grace, which God never refuses. 26. Söding, “Ehebund in Gottes Hand,” 75.

113

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? It is difficult not to agree with Söding when he says that the biblical texts demand hermeneutics—as was affirmed also by ­Anne-Marie Pelletier. At the same time, it is difficult not to get the impression that the German exegete uses a hermeneutics that, without appropriate clarifications, empties the text of the Gospel of that which is essential—as in Pelletier’s text, Jesus’ words about taking someone else’s wife as an act of adultery disappear. Suddenly after that, the “pastoral” conviction appears that at present, the Church should take advantage of her “power to dissolve marriage.” Söding states that “according to the New Testament, God himself can dissolve a marriage if the bond of believers with him—the bond that originates in Baptism—cannot be saved otherwise.”27 It is difficult not to get the impression that Söding uses biblical data in an unwarranted way to justify his thesis about the possibility of divorce and contracting a second marriage. Summarizing the biblical part of the conference at Gregorian University, one ought to state that both presented lectures leave much to be desired in the realm of cogency of reasoning and the use of a clearly defined biblical hermeneutics. Sadly, the reader gets the impression that both Pelletier and Söding relativize the message of the biblical text to justify some form of acceptance of the practice of divorce in the Church. The reserve and uncertainty of both exegetes in stating what Jesus truly taught about marriage contrasts strangely with their certainty concerning what conclusions should be drawn from the biblical texts for the practice and theology of the Church today. This paradox might lead the reader to suspect that the clear and decisive conclusions and pastoral postulates contained in their presentations has little to do with the message of Sacred Scripture, and that the source of their certainty lies elsewhere. 27. Söding, “Ehebund in Gottes Hand,” 75.

1 1 4 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  The weakness of the biblical part of the conference also indicates a problem in contemporary biblical exegesis, namely, the inability to read the text of Sacred Scripture in the Church. After all, the New Testament’s statements on marriage underwent canonical interpretation in the Church, which—despite historical vicissitudes—was the basis for the solid teaching of the Church on marriage throughout the ages. When reading the statements of Pelletier and Söding, one gets the impression that the teaching of the Church concerning the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, the teaching that has lasted for centuries in the East and the West, was the result of an erroneous understanding of Christ’s words by subsequent generations of Christians. I suppose Christians of the ­twenty-first century should be proud that it is precisely they who received special insight into the meaning of Christ’s words, ones that were hidden to previous generations, and thankful that they will be liberated by contemporary biblical hermeneutics from the erroneous dogmatic and moral overinterpretation spanning several centuries. Nonetheless, a suspicious question arises with respect to this “liberation”: is it not the case, perhaps, that fading European Christianity, in the gesture of capitulating to the contemporary, ­anti-Christian culture, reduces the meaning of the uncomfortable words of Christ, for which many generations of Christians (not only in England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries) gave their lives?

Sexuality as an Expression of Love: Reflections on a Theology of Love In the second part of the conference, the participants listened to two lectures. The first was delivered by Eberhard Schockenhoff, currently at the university in Freiburg im Breisgau and one of the

115

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? most important moral theologians in Germany, and the second was by ­François-Xavier Amherdt, who holds the chair of pastoral theology in the theological department at the university in Swiss Fribourg. Schockenhoff’s lecture, “Sexuality as an Expression of Love: Reflections on a Theology of Love,” consists of two main parts. In the first part, the German moralist presents a phenomenological analysis of love in today’s culture in order to draw conclusions for Catholic ethics. The second part of his lecture addresses more closely the theme reflected in its title: the connection between sexuality and love. Schockenhoff begins by stressing that many young people today are unable to commit to marriage for their whole life. This inability to think about the distant future and to make binding decisions, including “till death do us part,” has its deep roots in today’s cultural transformations, which can be defined as follows: “Our life is marked by an e­ ver-increasing pluralization of life forms, which leads to a fragmentation of individual life courses.”28 In the twentieth century, the average life expectancy rose remarkably, requiring life to be sensibly planned for many years ahead; hence, it is all the more difficult to foresee the influence of one’s decisions on the distant future. Instead of the old clear division of roles in marriage, the family, and work, the labor market today demands mobility and ­risk-taking skills. As Schockenhoff observes, “a characteristic feature of the modern lifeworld is its complexity and confusion.”29 In this depth of cultural transformation in postmodernism, “the indissolubility of marriage seems utopian.”30 Schockenhoff cites the words of Theo, the protagonist of Peter Schneider’s story 28. Eberhard Schockenhoff, “Sexualität als Ausdruck von Liebe. Überlegungen zu einer Theologie der Liebe,” in Journée d’études commune, 78. 29. Schockenhoff, “Sexualität als Ausdruck von Liebe,” 78. 30. Schockenhoff, “Sexualität als Ausdruck von Liebe,” 79.

1 1 6 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  Paarungen, who posits a question that is important for our reflections: “The institutions of love are in open disintegration because their underlying social and cultural constraints disappear. . . . Why not start from the opposite assumption, namely, that infidelity is a rule, that separation is inevitable, and that every love ends? Why do we lament, why are we always disappointed, why do we disagree with the experience that the transience of love is something normal?”31 The moralist from Freiburg proposes that we take seriously the thesis of the protagonist of Schneider’s story that the love between man and woman can really end. Let us take a look at his argumentation: “If two people make an irrevocable decision for a shared life project, in which they bind to each other forever, that does not mean that they can never revise their decision. Every life decision has not only a p ­ re-history, which serves one’s s­elf-examination and the clarification of one’s longings and expectations, but also ap ­ ost-history, on which ultimately depends the success of the decision.”32 This shocking suggestion, one that is merely tossed out into the space of the conferential debate, concludes the first part of Schockenhoff’s lecture. In the rest of his presentation, he did not return to the idea of treating marriage as an obligation that can be undertaken only for a time.33 31. Schockenhoff, “Sexualität als Ausdruck von Liebe,” 79–80. 32. Schockenhoff, “Sexualität als Ausdruck von Liebe,” 80. 33. Schockenhoff returned to this topic in the lecture entitled “Amoris laetitia—Continuation or Discontinuity in the Teaching of the Magisterium of the Church?” which he delivered on June 12, 2017, during the annual conference of the Polish Association of Moral Theologians in Nysa. In his opinion, by defining marriage as “the partnership of life and love” (communitas vitae et amoris) in Gaudium et spes, 48, Vatican II broke with the traditional understanding of the marital bond (vinculum) as a permanent reality that remains even after the separation of spouses. During the discussion that ensued, Schockenhoff explained that in this understanding, the marital indissolubility consists of the fact that each time the attempt of creating a new “partnership of life and love” reoccurs in the life of a concrete man or woman, God grants to such a union anew the promise and gift of indissolubility

117

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? The second part of Schockenhoff’s presentation is an interesting, though not very revelatory, reflection on the connection between man’s sexuality and love. It is not clear in what way this second part of his presentation is linked with the first, especially with the surprising postulate that concludes the first part. He stresses that the indissolubility of marriage is not something that is imposed on spouses from without but rather is a demand that “the spouses place on themselves as they entrust themselves to their love.”34 He continues: “Such a life decision implies the free and definitive ­self-commitment of both partners to the common will to set no limits to the growth of their love.”35 The indissolubility of marriage follows from the fact of mutually entrusting oneself and one’s entire life in marriage to another person. In other forms of socialization (school, work, entertainment, sport), we observe cooperation and coexistence that always has a temporary character and pertains only to some fragments of life. In marriage, on the other hand, we have what Niklas Luhmann, a German sociologist, called “the inclusion of the whole person” (die Inklusion der Vollperson).36 This “inclusion of the whole person” realized in marriage also pertains to sexual relations. Schockenhoff notes the paradox of human sexuality. On the one hand, we see in men and women the sexual need, which resembles other human needs such as the desire while annulling the promise and gift with respect to the previous union. It is difficult to understand these words of the German professor other than a theological break with the traditional teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage. It is worth remembering that Schockenhoff is not the only Catholic theologian who calls for a radical redefinition of the concept of the indissolubility of marriage. See Nicholas J. Healy, “The Merciful Gift of Indissolubility and the Question of Pastoral Care for Civilly Divorced and Remarried Catholics,” Communio (Summer 2014): 308–15. 34. Schockenhoff, “Sexualität als Ausdruck von Liebe,” 81. 35. Schockenhoff, “Sexualität als Ausdruck von Liebe,” 81. 36. Niklas Luhmann, Soziologische Aufklärung, vol. 5, Konstruktivistische Perspektiven (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1990), 199.

1 1 8 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  to eat or to sleep. On the other hand, in contradistinction to other needs, which deal with nonpersonal goods, in sexual relations, man needs something that only another person freely can give him. Thus, it makes a difference “whether I love a sexual partner who is always replaceable by another in this function and thereby becomes an object that I only need as long as I have not found a better one, or whether I love unconditionally another human being in whom and with whom I find the fulfillment of my sexual desire.”37 In the first case, we deal with the question “Do you feel like having sex?”; whereas in the second case, the proper question is, “Do you desire me?” The ecstatic love changes the character of the sexual relation, which becomes the language of communication between two persons who love each other, each of them proceeding outside of oneself (­Außer-Sich-Sein) by uniting with the other (­Beim-Anderen-Sein). The author summarizes his reflections by quoting from the work of Eberhard Jüngel, a Protestant theologian: “There is no possession in love that does not spring from ­self-gift.”38 These reflections on the personalistic character of human sexuality are interesting and inspiring. Nonetheless, the more important question that he posits in his lecture is whether the indissolubility of marriage is still possible in today’s postmodern and ­post-Christian culture of the West. Undoubtedly, Schockenhoff is right when he states that many young men and women do not consider it possible to make an irrevocable decision of this kind. Indeed, while contracting a sacramental marriage, including those that are invalid from the beginning, young people often hide in themselves uncertainty, hesitation, and doubt whether their union can stand the test of time. On the other hand, we still have in every European country young Christians who consciously and with 37. Schockenhoff, “Sexualität als Ausdruck von Liebe,” 83. 38. Schockenhoff, “Sexualität als Ausdruck von Liebe,” 83.

119

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? conviction bind themselves usque ad mortem, thereby constituting a beautiful witness of fruitfulness, indissolubility, love, and faithfulness. We must ask whether the difference between these two groups of young people does not consist in the personal commitment of faith? Is it not the case that indissoluble marriage is unrealistic for the people who treat their faith superficially and who personally do not experience closeness with Jesus Christ and the Church in their life? The failure to consider the role of faith in sacramental marriage and, relatedly, the role of Christian formation in marriage, as well as the influence of these factors on the survival or ­break-up of sacramental marriage, is a great weakness of Schockenhoff’s presentation. This weakness, which, by the way, is common to all other presentations at the conference, makes the theological perspective of faith vanish and the sociological description of today’s culture become normative. The second lecture in the conference’s series on human sexuality was delivered by ­François-Xavier Amherdt, who holds the chair of pastoral theology in the theology department at the university in Swiss Fribourg. It consists of two parts: the first presents his main thesis concerning the Christian understanding of sexuality as an expression of love, whereas the second considers sexual relations outside of marriage. In Amherdt’s opinion, the proper understanding of human sexuality must be rooted in realistic anthropology, which sees human bodiliness as “the totality of being in its external visibility” (totalité de l’être dans sa visibilité extérieure).39 In this sense, human sexuality is above all relational: the gift of the person is expressed in the gift of the body. For man to freely exercise his sexuality, he must be liberated 39. F ­ rançois-Xavier Amherdt, “Sexualité comme expression de l’amour. Réflexions sur une théologie de l’amour,” in Journée d’études commune, 27.

1 20 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  from the “tyranny of pleasure”; this freedom is secured by the gift of chastity, which adds to love the dimension of responsibility for the other.40 In this personalistic understanding of sexuality, time is key; “love waits,” which is particularly essential in today’s culture of consumerism, the essence of which can be expressed as “everything right now” (tout, tout de suite). Love in its sexual dimension carries man toward otherness in a twofold sense. First, every sexual relation engages a “thou”—another person; second, in sexual love, the sexual difference is essential: there exists “a dissymmetry between a sexuality that integrates sexual difference and a sexuality whose eros is towards ­same-sex partners.”41 At the same time, Amherdt emphasizes the principle of not discriminating against homosexual persons in any way, though it is worth pointing out that the very act of paying attention to this dissymmetry, or the normative meaning of sexual difference in sexual relations is interpreted today as a form of discrimination. The marital covenant, understood as a sacrament, also creates space for love to grow because it opens spouses to the gift of fertility. The phrase “genital desire” (le désir génital) is after all derived from the Latin word generare, that is, to give birth. In this context, Amherdt quotes the words of Rashi, a Medieval rabbi: “It is in the child that the two become one flesh.”42 The second part of his presentation considers sexual relations outside the marital covenant. Amherdt proposes to treat such relations—in accord with the phrase of ancient apologists of Christianity—as “the seeds of the Word” (logoi spermatikoi). They should be appreciated in accord with the principle of discernment (discernement) and pastoral accompaniment (pastorale d’accompagnement). 40. Amherdt borrows the phrase “tyranny of pleasure” from the title of ­Jean-Claude Guillebaud’s book La tyrannie du plaisir (Paris: Seuil, 1998). 41. Amherdt, “Sexualité comme expression de l’amour,” 28. 42. Amherdt, “Sexualité comme expression de l’amour,” 29.

12 1

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? Amherdt quotes Philippe Bordeyne, the rector of the Catholic Institute in Paris: “Divine pedagogy does not focus on an ideal, but discerns what is positive in all life, including in those living in ‘different’ (irregular) situations.”43 According to this pastoral approach, we ought to see concubinage as “a trial marriage, a step before marriage, or anticipation of the date of marriage.”44 Not infrequently today, living together means simply what was understood in the past as engagement. Amherdt lists values that one can sometimes find in such irregular situations and which demand appreciation: the body of the partner is not only an object of use; the sexual relationship exists in the context of love and delicacy; the intention of having children in the future; and the desire for permanent union. Values like these don’t make sexual relations devoid of symbolic meaning despite their weakness and temporariness. The appreciation of these values does not mean an acceptance of their present state but rather an appeal: “You are called to an even higher value and a higher existence.”45 It is difficult not to agree with Amherdt that we ought to look positively at the life of every man and see good in every human life. Let us give a few examples. In the lives of Catholics that stopped the real life of faith a long time ago, such a good might be seen in a customary visit to church even if only during Christmas or Easter, or support given to Catholic charitable initiatives. In the life of a financial criminal, such a good could be the fact that, due to pangs of conscience, he always gives a part of the immorally acquired 43. Philippe Bordeyne, as cited in Amherdt, “Sexualité comme expression de l’amour,” 30. Let us recall that such a use of the theology of “the seed of the word” and the postulate to abandon the idealism of the Catholic theology of marriage were the themes that had appeared during the Third Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. 44. Amherdt, “Sexualité comme expression de l’amour,” 30. 45. Amherdt, “Sexualité comme expression de l’amour,” 31.

1 22 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  money to the poor. Such a positive look also pertains to other situations considered during the conference: it is good, for example, that a person with homosexual tendencies who engages in accidental, compulsive sexual acts limits the number of his partners; we should similarly evaluate the decision of a young couple who determined that instead of merely living together they will now create a permanent union, have children, and be a family. At the same time, however, this positive look at the life of every man cannot mean a closing of one’s eyes to the evil and sin that are present there. Of course, Amherdt is right when he stresses the importance of tact, sensitivity, and delicacy in accompanying persons who live in irregular situations. At the same time, however, such accompanying can be fruitful only when, in addition to tact and delicacy, a confessor, priest, or spiritual director is aware of where he wants to lead such persons. Such an awareness of the end is linked with a clear recognition and declaration of what separates the given persons in irregular situations from God, that is, of their sin. Thus, the delicacy and tact in accompanying persons in irregular situations should not go so far as to disregard or relativize the teaching of the Church concerning marriage. We cannot accuse Amherdt’s lecture of that; undoubtedly, however, the understanding of the “pastoral conversion” of the Church as a rejection of the traditional teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage in the name of mercy was very forcefully present during the conference and the entire discussion surrounding the synod.

The Gift of Life: Reflections on Narrative Theology In the third part of the conference, devoted to the topic of the gift of life in the context of narrative theology, the speakers were Alain Thomasset, SJ, a professor at the Centre Sèvres, a Jesuit

12 3

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? faculty of theology in Paris, and the president of l’Association de Théologiens pour l’Etude de la Morale; and E ­ va-Maria Faber, a professor of fundamental and dogmatic theology in Theologische Hochschule, located in Swiss Chur, as well as the rector of that school. With utmost clarity, these two final lectures present arguments for the most important pastoral and doctrinal postulates present at the Roman conference. Therefore, it is worth spending more time discussing and critiquing them. By promoting the theology of narration or biography (these two concepts were used interchangeably during the conference), Thomasset and Faber emphasized the need to always consider the history (biography) of the subject in the ethical assessment of his or her acts. Accordingly, narrative (biographic) theology takes an attentive look at all kinds of subjective and objective conditioning of human beings such as their education, personal history, the role of the subconscious, various social and cultural influences, the evolution of personal convictions, possible limitations on the freedom of decision, and so forth. Thomasset entitled his lecture, “Taking into account the history and biographical developments in moral life and pastoral care of the family.”46 In his introduction, the French Jesuit presented the purpose and content of his speech. The final report of the last Synod of Bishops, Thomasset noted, used the concept of “divine pedagogy” in order “to show how by its grace ‘divine condescension always accompanies the path of humanity’ in gradual revelation (art. 14).”47 The Church, which always follows the example of Jesus, cannot be uninterested in the history of the life of human 46. Alain Thomasset, “La prise en compte de l’histoire et des développements biographiques dans la vie morale et la pastorale de la famille,” in Journée d’études commune, 33–40. 47. Thomasset, “La prise en compte,” 33.

1 24 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  subjects, which is the sine qua non condition of accompanying them on their path of faith. From such a biographic or narrative perspective, which leads to personalistic ethics and proposes the ethics of the subject rather than the ethics of the act, Thomasset attempts to consider one of the most basic problems of fundamental moral theology—the structure of intrinsically evil acts (intrinsece malum, intrinsèquement mauvais)—in order to consider in what way the Church can accompany persons in complicated situations on their path of faith. Thomasset reflects on intrinsically evil acts from two perspectives: subjective and objective. In the first perspective, the key is the discernment of the moral situation (discernement) and the confirmation of the primacy of individual conscience. In the objective perspective, one should consider the historicity of moral norms. Let us begin by presenting the direction of thought of the Jesuit theologian concerning the subjective perspective in evaluating intrinsically evil acts. From the very beginning, Thomasset “shows his cards” by stating that the teaching on intrinsically evil acts is one of the main reasons the Church cannot accompany families in their ­growing-up to faith; as a rule, contraception, extramarital sexual intercourse, and sexual acts of homosexual persons are too quickly assessed as sinful. Instead of the moral assessment of particular acts, he insists, we should rather take into consideration the entirety of the life and biography of human subjects. In this context, Thomasset points to the final report of the last synod, which distinguishes between the objective situation of sin and the circumstances accompanying sin that can diminish the subject’s responsibility for a concrete act.48 As he stresses, John Paul II’s Veritatis splendor also emphasizes that often, the subjective 48. Relatio synodi, 52, which references CCC, 1735.

12 5

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? responsibility for an objectively evil act is diminished or even vanishes completely.49 Thus, “objective disorder does not necessarily lead to subjective guilt. It should be made clear that intention and circumstances can influence the objective qualification of the act and that, on the other hand, they are necessary to determine the moral responsibility of the subject who must decide and act in conscience.”50 Thomasset emphasizes that it is the individual conscience that should have the final word in personal discernment and d ­ ecisionmaking, especially in situations when spouses face the conflict of various obligations in their lives, for example, when openness to new life threatens the equilibrium of conjugal and familial life. The Jesuit theologian recalls here the declarations of nine Episcopates from 1968 (including the French, German, and Swiss), in which the bishops interpreted the teaching of the encyclical Humanae vitae precisely in the context of leaving the decision about responsible parenthood to spouses’ consciences. This principle of the primacy of conscience should be recalled also in all other situations discussed here. Granting the proper role for individual conscience and considering the broader biographical and narrative perspective can protect Catholic ethics from the error of assessing man’s particular isolated acts instead of the human action in the entire history of the subject: “an individual act, isolated from its context and the history of the subject, who may be responsible for it . . . is not yet a human act.”51 In order to see a particular act as human action, we should understand the motivation of the subject and the cir49. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Veritatis splendor (August 6, 1993), 81 (hereafter VS ). 50. Thomasset, “La prise en compte,” 34. 51. Thomasset, “La prise en compte,” 35. Thomasset refers here to Paul Ricoeur’s philosophy of human action. Ricoeur stresses the significance of narration in understanding the human sense of action. See Paul Ricœur, ­Soi-même comme un autre (Paris: Seuil, 1990).

1 26 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  cumstances of the act. Therefore, Thomasset stresses that “moral norms describe acts. Conscience must judge an action. The objective ethical benchmarks given by the Church are but one element (certainly essential but not the only one) of the moral discernment that must take place in conscience.”52 According to Thomasset, the understanding of the subject’s moral action in which conscience is reduced to pure obedience to principles imposed on the individual from without is an unacceptable reduction of Christian ethics to pure moralism and is rightly rejected by the majority of Christians today. Let us now present Thomasset’s objective perspective on the problem of intrinsically evil acts. According to Veritatis splendor, “the morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the ‘object’ rationally chosen by the deliberate will,” the object that is understood as “the proximate end of a deliberate decision.”53 Nonetheless, Thomasset stresses that the nature of the moral act concerns not only that which is done but also includes the intention of the subject and circumstances. In the opinion of the French moralist, such an understanding must in a broader way encompass that which moral action concerns. For example, the conjugal act in which contraception is used is defined as sinful according to the theology of John Paul II, but a broader reflection on this topic can show that it is a good act because it helps to deepen the bond and love between spouses. Should we not, asks Thomasset, take into account the difference between a casual adulterous act and a sexual act in a stable union? According to him, John Paul II’s exhortation Familiaris consortio invites us to such an approach, when in the context of the pastoral attitude toward divorced persons who live in second unions, it stresses the necessity of noticing “diverse 52. Thomasset, “La prise en compte,” 35. 53. VS, 78. See Summa Theologiae, ­I-II, 18, 6 (hereafter Sth).

12 7

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? situations,”54 and when it mentions the law of gradualness (la loi de la gradualité), which is necessary for reintegrating such persons back to the life of the Church.55 John Paul II’s observation inspires the French Jesuit’s further reflections. In the second stage of his reflections on the problem of intrinsically evil acts, Thomasset notes that “moral norms are always to be understood within a historical process that involves the experience of believers.”56 The objectivity of moral truth “is always to be sought in a constant dialogue between the heritage of past experience, the reflection drawn from reason and revelation, and the ­ever-new experience of Christians in a given time and culture. . . . Moral normativity is built in a constant exiting and returning between the search for the universal and the taking into account of diverse particulars.”57 According to Thomasset, the concept of God’s s­ elf-revelation that is present in Vatican II’s Constitution Dei verbum encourages this historical understanding of moral norms.58 This concept of 54. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris consortio (November 22, 1981), 84. 55. FC, 9. This text of Familiaris consortio is part of its first chapter, devoted to the introductory description of “Bright spots and shadows for the family today.” John Paul II stresses that in today’s culture, which not infrequently hinders the realization of family values, “an educational growth process is necessary, in order that individual believers, families and peoples, even civilization itself, by beginning from what they have already received of the mystery of Christ, may patiently be led forward, arriving at a richer understanding and a fuller integration of this mystery in their lives” (FC, 9). Article 84 of the exhortation will be presented in the concluding passages of the fourth chapter of this book. 56. Thomasset, “La prise en compte,” 36. 57. Thomasset, “La prise en compte,” 36. 58. In the conciliar Constitution, one reads: “In His goodness and wisdom God chose to reveal Himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of His will (see Eph 1:9) by which through Christ, the Word made flesh, man might in the Holy Spirit have access to the Father and come to share in the divine nature (see Eph 2:18; 2 Pt 1:4). Through this revelation, therefore, the invisible God (see Col. 1;15; 1 Tm. 1:17) out of the abundance of His love speaks to men as friends (see Ex 33:11; Jn 15:14–15) and lives among them (see Bar 3:38), so that He may invite and take them into fellowship with Himself. This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while

1 28 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  revelation excludes the notion of opposition between the doctrine of the Church and her pastoral activity: “If doctrine is a systematic reflection on the experience of faith lived by the Christians, it cannot fail to take into account the circumstances of this experience and the conditions of the reception of this divine revelation. . . . Divine communication and its reception by the believing subject occur simultaneously.”59 In Thomasset’s view, the historical understanding of moral norms has serious consequences. First, with respect to persons in second unions, one ought to recognize that “in certain cases and because of particular circumstances, the sexual acts of such couples are no longer held to be morally culpable. This would open access to the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist. The appreciation of these circumstances and access to the sacraments should be left to a proper ecclesial authority after a period of penance.”60 Second, with respect to marriages in which spouses use nonabortifacient contraception in sexual acts, such acts do not necessarily entail guilt if spouses remain open to life in the sense of practicing responsible parenthood or if their sexual acts express their ­self-giving and reciprocal love. Third, with respect to homosexual persons who live in faithful and stable unions: The same attenuation of the objective malice of sexual acts could be proposed and the subjective moral responsibility diminished or eliminated. This would be consistent with the statement (and the testimony of many Catholics) that a homosexual relationship lived in stability and faithfulness can be a path to holiness—the holiness to which the Council calls all Christians (Lumen gentium, Chapter 5). In addition, the homosexual the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation” (DV, 2). 59. Thomasset, “La prise en compte,” 36–37. 60. Thomasset, “La prise en compte,” 37.

12 9

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? person cannot be reduced to his sexual orientation or his actions. . . . It is about helping these people live by what is humanly possible on the path of growth towards what is desirable.61

The last part of Thomasset’s presentation is devoted to the topic of the pastoral accompaniment of persons in irregular situations. He stresses that in such situations, the Church should note three truths. First, “remember that the God of Jesus Christ is a God of love who wants not death but life and goodness, who calls everyone to grow on a path of faith and holiness, and who is forgiveness and mercy to those who toil under the weight of demands.”62 Secondly, another point of accompaniment is to enlighten human consciences and indicate both the path of the good life and the possible danger of dehumanizing affective relations. Finally, accompaniment of persons in their discernment leaves the last word to their own conscience. After presenting Thomasset’s main theses, it is necessary to provide some critical remarks. During the pontificate of John Paul II, the question was raised, not infrequently, why the Polish pope wrote and published so much, issuing encyclicals, exhortations, apostolic constitutions, bulls, interviews, books, the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, the new Code of Canon Law, and so forth. Thomasset’s presentation provides the answer to this question. John Paul II had a clear awareness of the errors that appeared in various areas of the Church after Vatican II that were linked with the Council’s improper hermeneutics. The best way to overcome these errors was the frequent magisterial presentation of sound and beautiful theology by various statements of the Magisterium of the Church; now they can provide the important reference point. From this viewpoint, therefore, Thomasset’s lecture can be seen 61. Thomasset, “La prise en compte,” 38. 62. Thomasset, “La prise en compte,” 38.

1 3 0 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  as a summa errorum—a collection of erroneous opinions rejected in recent times by various popes and the Magisterium of the Church. Of course, we are unable to analyze these errors in detail here; we can only point them out and refer the reader to other, more detailed analyses. Thomasset stresses that, in contradistinction to classical moral theology, narrative (biographical) theology proposes to assess not a man’s particular, artificially isolated acts but all his actions in the broader context of his past, present, and future. Let us note three things. First, in Thomasset’s presentation, this assessment of man’s entire action equals an acceptance of the erroneous proportionalistic reasoning, which was rejected explicitly in Veritatis splendor.63 According to this reasoning, the ethical assessment of every human act consists in the subject’s measuring and comparing the good and evil that result from the given action. We are to always choose the action that leads to the maximum amount of good and the minimum of evil. Veritatis splendor rejects proportionalism as an adequate method of moral assessment for two reasons. Primo, certain acts exist that may never be performed even when a great good would result from them, for example, the murder of an innocent man—these are “intrinsically evil” acts. Secundo, the complete assessment and comparison of future good and evil effects of the given act from the perspective of the acting subject are simply not possible. A second critical remark pertains to Thomasset’s thesis that classic moral theology artificially isolated one specific human act (actus humanus) from a man’s entire sum of all action. It is worth noting that also in classic moral theology, despite its metaphysical 63. See VS, 71–83. One can find an excellent critique of proportionalist reasoning in Christopher Kaczor, Proportionalism and the Natural Law Tradition (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010).

13 1

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? language, the entire subject appears in the analysis of the ethical act when the following elements are considered: the intention of the subject (what the subject wants to achieve by means of a given act); the voluntariness of the act (whether an external pressure exists that limits man’s freedom or whether the subject possesses the proper moral knowledge—which in turn poses questions about the past experiences, education, and upbringing of the subject); and circumstances (the full context of the given act). For St. Thomas, it was obvious that it is the person that performs the moral act, hence, for instance, a great role is ascribed to affections in moral life.64 Third, we should note that the possibility of an ethical assessment of a particular act, not only of the entire action, has a fundamental significance for the conscience of every man. It is true that sometimes we posit ethical questions concerning the totality of one’s life, for example, when, after years of parenting, parents consider what errors they made in the upbringing of their children or when a spouse makes an examination of conscience about whether he contributed to the ­break-up of his marriage. Even then, however, the point is not a general sense of guilt for the totality of one’s conduct but rather the recognition of concrete acts that were evil, such as the avoidance of conversation, the failure to spend time together, the act of betrayal, or the inability to forgive mistakes. At the same time, in real human life, we often ask about the moral assessment of concrete acts: should I return to the supermarket since the cashier mistakenly returned too much money, or should I be the first one to extend my hand to the one who offended me? Ethical dilemmas of conscience always occur in the context of the entire life of a concrete person, though they pertain to particular 64. See Sth, ­I-II, 22–30; see also Diana Fritz Cates, Aquinas on the Emotions: A ­ReligiousEthical Inquiry (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009).

1 3 2 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  acts of this person. In the examination of conscience, the general sense of guilt is explained as the responsibility for particular decisions and acts. What Thomasset says about the primacy of human conscience in moral assessment is puzzling. His text is too brief to recreate from it an integral theory of conscience. At the same time, his opposing conscience and moral norms evokes a suspicion that he is an advocate of the concept of s­ o-called creative conscience, which was rejected by the encyclical Veritatis splendor. In this false theory, human conscience, on the practical level, has the power to justify particular actions that are clearly forbidden by general norms.65 As the second and fourth chapters of this book show, this erroneous concept of conscience appeared quite often in discussions during the two synods on the family, as well as in some attempts at discrediting Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae vitae. The last lecture in the conference was delivered by ­Eva-Maria Faber, a professor of fundamental and dogmatic theology in Theologische Hochschule in Swiss Chur. She began by recalling the instruction that St. Ignatius directs to the leaders of Ignatian Spiritual Exercises: “allow the Creator to deal immediately with his creature, and the creature with his Creator and Lord” (no. 15).66 Ignatian spirituality stresses the individual vocation of every man; with respect to marriage, however, ecclesial teaching emphasizes above all the fact that two persons are to lead a life together. We rightly criticize today’s individualism, says Faber, but we should not confuse this erroneous cultural trend with the unique nature of every man’s vocation. Today’s social changes draw our attention to 65. See VS, 54–64. Also see Andrzej Szostek, Normy i wyjątki: filozoficzne aspekty dyskusji wokół norm ogólnie ważnych we współczesnej teologii (Lublin: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski, 1980). 66. E ­ va-Maria Faber, “Das Geschenk des eigenen Lebens. Überlegungen zu einer Theologie der Biographie,” in Journée d’études commune, 98.

13 3

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? the relationship of the institution of marriage and the family to the vocation of particular persons more than to the broader familial community, clan, or society, as was the case in the past. The supposedly positive changes of today’s times found their resonance in the teaching of Vatican II, which redefined marriage as “the intimate partnership of life and love.”67 According to Faber, this redefinition altered the whole theology of marriage by forcing it to abandon the old conception of marriage as a contract. This old legal concept employed the notion of ownership: one spouse has the right to the body of the other spouse (ius in corpus). Unfortunately, in his view, this theological change regarding marriage has not yet been adopted into the Catholic theology. An example of this lack of implementation of Vatican II’s teaching is John Paul II’s exhortation Familiaris consortio, which mandates those living in second unions to practice sexual abstinence in order for them to receive Communion. The Polish pope’s teaching is part of an older, preconciliar theology, for if we look at marriage according to Vatican II as “a partnership of life and love,” the problem of admitting such persons to Communion ceases to exist. For both Schockenhoff and Faber, this alleged break of Vaticanum II with the traditional understanding of marriage carries crucial significance. Faber emphasizes that the biographical perspective helps to adequately address the questions and problems that the postconciliar theology of marriage faces. Three insights are crucial to this endeavor: marriage as a path of growing; the unquestionable dignity of the individual in marriage; and the attention to the history of the growth in the relationship between spouses. Let us briefly describe these three advantages of the biographical perspective, as Faber sees them. The importance of the first element proceeds from the fact that, unlike in the past, we live in a pluralistic world. 67. GS, 48.

1 3 4 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  Therefore, today’s marriage presupposes that “two persons originating from different families, with various biographies in the pluralistic society, with different attitudes toward life, worldviews, and religious questions, enter into a binding partnership.”68 This binding of two personal worlds and two different ways of understanding reality demands a long and difficult process, during which two persons get to know and draw closer to each other. Today’s culture also requires that, more than in the past, we question why so many young people postpone getting married. As Faber notes, “it can be an expression of a person’s loyalty to his partner and the shared history that he has begun to forgo a step into marriage because his partner is not yet ready.”69 A consciousness of how varied the histories of couples maturing toward marital union can be bids us to look at them in conformity with the law of gradualness, of which Familiaris consortio speaks in article 34.70 The biographical perspective also helps in appreciating the dignity of the individual in marriage. The fact that in marriage we deal with “two individual persons with different sensations and ways of experience” entails numerous demands: a respect for the other person and giving him or her time to open fully; a certain autonomy for each person; a readiness to give to each other the space of freedom; and an attention to listen to each other’s history of growing. Faber warns that sometimes persons who begin marital life have a totalitarian and ideal vision of marriage that does not take into account the historicity of the human person and, on the other hand, does not include healthy spirituality.71 As an example of such dan68. Faber, “Das Geschenk des eigenen Lebens,” 101. 69. Faber, “Das Geschenk des eigenen Lebens,” 101. 70. FC, 34. 71. As Faber writes, “symbiotic ideals of marriage often lead to the dissolution of marriage” (Symbiotische Eheideale führen oftmals zum Scheitern von Ehen). See Faber, “Das Geschenk des eigenen Lebens,” 102. It is surprising that she finds the cause of the

13 5

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? gerous concepts, he points to the concept of the gift of self, which can obscure the need to preserve and develop one’s individuality while living with the other.72 The third way in which the biographical perspective helps us properly understand marriage is by paying attention to the history of the growth of the relationship between spouses. Faber notes that “the ecclesiastical language often speaks of marriage as of a given fact and emphasizes the unity already realized in marriage.”73 Instead, the biographical perspective proposes that we pay attention to the constant solicitude for the personal development of spouses and for the improvement of their relationship, the sensitivity to various influences on particular spouses by moments of change in conjugal life (for example, the birth of children, a new job, the death of family members, and so on). Faber notes that the phrase “the indissolubility of marriage” has a negative character because it speaks of something that may not be done, namely, it prohibits to dissolve marriage. Instead of this negative formulation, the biographical perspective suggests a positive formulation, for “it is all about the good of a shared life history, in which people are there for each other, grow old with each other, and also in difficulties they remain faithful to each other.”74 This general reflection on the significance of the biographical theology helps Faber formulate postulates concerning the way in which the Church should speak of marriage. Faber is critical of dissolution of contemporary marriages only in an idealistic vision of marriage and not in the improper understanding of sexuality, marital betrayals, workaholism, the lack of sharing faith together, etc. 72. The accusation that classic theology idealizes marriage often returned in the ­synod-related debates. We can find the key response to this charge in Kampowski, Famiglie diverse and Alexandra Diriart, “Le mariage, un idéal à proposer? Communiquer une parole performative,” Anthropotes 30, no. 2 (2014): 473–91. 73. Faber, “Das Geschenk des eigenen Lebens,” 103. 74. Faber, “Das Geschenk des eigenen Lebens,” 103.

1 3 6 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  the Christological and Trinitarian images used in the traditional theology of marriage, including marriage as an image of Christ’s love for the Church, of the Holy Trinity, or of God’s love for his people. Idealized images of this kind depress people; they make their e­ arthly-historical existence look limited and sinful; they do not reflect “their experience of the difficulties that have to do with the vicissitudes of life, the uncertainty of the future, and their own brokenness.”75 As Faber writes, “general principles that would have no connection to facts from the real world are fruitless.”76 Another theme that Faber undertakes in her presentation is the ­break-up of marriage. As she emphasizes, “the indissolubility of marriage is not its indestructibility.”77 In the past, the indissolubility of marriage was supported by the entire society, the culture of daily life, and economic dependencies. In a certain way, even a faithful but unhappy marriage used to be easier to bear because spouses lived not only ­tête-à-tête but were immersed in a more extensive network of relations within a broader family. In contemporary Western societies, the motives behind ­breakups of marriage, divorces, and separations are undoubtedly diverse, but in general they tend to pertain to the fact that marriage at a certain moment ceases to be a place of ­self-realization. In such situations, one cannot simply demand from spouses an ascetic and heroic ­self-abandonment: “If a partner makes growth in one’s life impossible, this can lead to profound existential conflicts of value.”78 The biographical perspective, in which marriage is created above all by the community of life and love, shows that wherever the community of life and love ceases to exist, the marital bond 75. Faber, “Das Geschenk des eigenen Lebens,” 104. 76. Faber, “Das Geschenk des eigenen Lebens,” 104. 77. Faber, “Das Geschenk des eigenen Lebens,” 105. 78. Faber, “Das Geschenk des eigenen Lebens,” 106.

13 7

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? ceases to exist as well. In such situations, the demand to live in chastity and celibacy for the rest of one’s life is unmerciful and unreasonable. Faber doubts whether general, abstract categories (allgemeine, abstrakte Kategorien) can be used to assess the multitude of situations in which marriages break up; it is rather the case that “the individuality of situations, their peculiarity, and often the tragedy of personal fate is the rule.”79 This kind of approach, postulated by biographical theology, is necessary especially today due to what is happening in the Western societies concerning the understanding of marriage and the family: “Today, the ­non-standard partnerships are not individual cases. They are not exceptions and isolated cases in which individual circumstances require a certain specific approach. Therefore, (1) a mere ‘casuistry of exceptional situations,’ which always seeks solutions to individual situations, is not sufficient, and (2) a practice of recognizing values lived in ­non-standard partnerships must also be developed.”80 In Faber’s opinion, as with the theology of limbo and the fate of children who died without baptism, the Church is ready today to admit that she did not sufficiently appreciate God’s omnipotence and mercy in the older theological theories. The Church should courageously undertake changes in the theology of marriage and the family in order not to repeat similar mistakes. The significance of Faber’s lecture undoubtedly consists in noting how today’s cultural changes influence marriage. She is right when she stresses that the pluralism and uncertainty of postmodern culture hinders people from making the decision to contract an indissoluble marriage and remain in this union usque ad mor79. “Die Individualität der Situationen und die Besonderheit, oft Tragik der je persönlichen Schicksale die Regel ist” (Faber, “Das Geschenk des eigenen Lebens,” 111). 80. Faber, “Das Geschenk des eigenen Lebens,” 111.

1 3 8 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  tem. At the same time, it is surprising that in her description of the cultural differences between two persons who are contracting marriage or who already remain in the marital union, Faber does not notice that the marital unity between Christians rests on their faith, which transcends cultural differences. Does faith have no significance here? Undoubtedly, a missing element in Faber’s presentation is an analysis of how the common growth in faith and serious spiritual formation in the Church would help to build the unity of spouses, and how the lack of these facilitates the b ­ reak-up of marriage. A complete absence of reflection on how marital formation in the Church (or the lack thereof) influences the permanence of marriage is a common feature of all presentations at the Roman conference. We get the impression that all the lecturers agreed to speak of nonevangelized Catholics (in the first chapter of this book, we used in this context Joseph Ratzinger’s phrase “baptized pagans”), who only superficially, “with one foot,” reside in the Church and, therefore, remain completely defenseless with respect to the dangers and temptations of today’s culture. Also, surprisingly, this specific sociological perspective at Gregorian University lacks any consideration of the significance of the new evangelization in building Christian marriages. Is it not true that these theological defects in the reflection on marital morality must by necessity adopt the form of attenuating ethical norms, a certain “flattening” of them? The Christian form of life is difficult if not impossible, especially in today’s world, without grace coming from the Gospel. Any theological reflection on the brokenness of Christian marriages should concern not a change in Christian doctrine but rather analysis of the pastoral failure of the Church in the education, formation, and preparation of young people for the sacrament of marriage. Not one presenter during the conference even mentioned this painful

13 9

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? and serious problem. Do they not see it? It seems that the Swiss, German, and French bishops and theologians should have something to say on that topic. The weakening of the theological dimension of marriage in Faber’s presentation is not accomplished only by omission. Faber postulates expressis verbis to remove from Christian catechesis the biblical images of marriage that have a Christological and Trinitarian character: marriage as the imago Trinitatis and marriage as the image of God’s (Christ’s) love for his people (the Church). It was surprising to read her statement that images of this kind are only general principles that are irrelevant to concrete situations in the lives of particular people. This statement confirms our thesis that Faber—by concentrating on the cultural transformations in the life of today’s marriages—does not at all consider the perspective of faith. This is even stranger given that one of the main themes of the conference is the sacramental order of the Church—the question of the possibility of admitting divorced persons who live in second unions to Communion. All the conference lecturers turned out to be proponents of this change; there was not one reference to the other position and the sound arguments of the recent Magisterium. In several places, in which she shifts from the sphere of cultural analyses to the sphere of theology, Faber makes serious errors in her analysis. In a rather stereotypical way, she holds that the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes radically redefined Christian marriage, speaking of it as “the intimate partnership of life and love.”81 It is true that in the twentieth century, the Church gradually replaced the older, metaphysical language in its theology of marriage with more personalistic language. An important example of this change is Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical Casti connubii, which, on the 81. GS, 48.

1 4 0 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  one hand, repeats the traditional teaching on the three goods of marriage (proles, fides, sacramentum) and, on the other hand, understands these three goods in the context of love, binding spouses together. John Paul II continues this personalistic redefinition of marriage.82 It is true that the contemporary personalistic theology of marriage abandoned old formulations such as “the right to the body” of the other spouse (ius in corpus) and the description of marriage as a contract between spouses. However, Faber is mistaken when she claims that this change of language from metaphysical to personalistic denotes a radical change in the theology of marriage. The old description of marriage as a contract stressed that not every union of man and woman deserves the name of marriage, but only one in which man and woman publicly commit themselves to faithfulness, indissolubility, and openness to offspring. A part of this objective character of marriage as a public institution was “conjugal duty” (ius in corpus), that is, the consciousness of spouses that one of the important things to which they publically commit themselves is reciprocal sexual intimacy.83 Faber’s statement that the marital theology of John Paul II is a prolongation not of the theology of Vaticanum II but of the preconciliar “ius in corpus” theology is absurd on many counts. Unfortunately, despite its falsehood, such a statement could count on a very 82. See my article on John Paul II’s personalistic theology of marriage understood as a continuation of traditional metaphysical Catholic theology, “John Paul II on Marriage. A Theological Breakthrough or a Continuation?” in De revolutionibus orbium populorum Ioannis Pauli II, ed. K. Pilarczyk (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, 2015), 305–27. 83. One of the books that best show the fundamental conformity between the contemporary personalistic theology of marriage and the classic metaphysical theology is Thomas Petri, OP, Aquinas and the Theology of the Body: The Thomistic Foundations of John Paul II’s Anthropology (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2016). Important remarks on this topic can also be found in Michael Waldstein, “John Paul II and St. Thomas on Love and the Trinity,” Anthropotes 18 (2002): 113–38, 269–86, and “The Common Good in St. Thomas and John Paul II,” Nova et Vetera 3 (2005): 569–78.

141

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? positive reception at the Roman conference because it played well to the progressive stereotype of a radical dichotomy between the Second Vatican Council and the teaching of John Paul II.

Conclusion After studying the texts presented at the conference, I wanted to give entitle this chapter “The Scandal in the Gregorianum.” It was the fact that the Jesuit university had no impact on the content of the conference and merely rented the venue to its organizers that persuaded me to change that decision. Nonetheless, the ­one-sided nature of the theology presented at the conference was offensive. The revolutionary changes advocated, such as the abandonment of the concept of the indissolubility of marriage, the restoration of proportionalistic ethics, and the acknowledgment of extramarital and homosexual acts as morally good, appeared without a proper balance of arguments and reasoning. It is difficult to call it “an academic conference” because from the beginning, it had a predetermined agenda, one that advocated a new “theology” of marriage that has a different character and leads to different practical conclusions, than the one proposed by the recent popes and the Magisterium of the Church throughout the last one hundred years (as far back as Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical Casti connubii). The new praxis of the Church, which the lecturers at the conference attempted to theologically justify, concerned not only the proposal to offer Holy Communion to divorced persons who live in second unions but also to redefine the indissolubility of marriage and to provide a new moral assessment of contraception, extramarital acts, and homosexual acts. The conference agenda lacked any pluralistic debate concerning the lecturers’ own presuppositions. The most serious charge against the lectures presented at the Roman conference, however,

1 4 2 

A N e w “ Theolo gy ” of Mar r i ag e?  pertains to their ­quasi-theological character. This charge should be formulated in different ways relative to particular lectures, as we shown in this chapter. The presentations concerning Sacred Scripture lacked a reflection on the integral traditional reading of the analyzed biblical passages in the Church. Thomasset’s lecture left aside the most important elements of the ethical teaching of the Church in the last decades, and Faber’s lecture, rife with stereotypes, simplifications, and theological errors, was, in fact, more sociology than theology. A critical departure from the theology of John Paul II, “the pope of the family,” was a common thread throughout the majority of the lectures. The reader may be shocked, for example, at the categorization of Familiaris consortio as a preconciliar theology. Such an assessment makes sense only when we look at Vatican II—as Faber and Schockenhoff do—as an event that radically breaks with the previous teaching of the Church.84 The theology of marriage and the family created by John Paul II, for all its novelty, does not aim for such a break; negative assessments of its connection with the traditional teaching of the Church can arise only in environments where such false and ideological interpretations of Vatican II are practiced. It is worth noting that during both recent synods on the family, various attempts were made to classify the theology of John Paul II and Benedict XVI as having little in common with the Second Vatican Council. In such an erroneous view, only Pope Francis is seen as continuing the reforms started by Vatican II. Unfortunately, approaches of this kind have more in common with ideology and ecclesial politics than with theology. 84. The key in this discussion is Benedict XVI’s distinction between two hermeneutics of Vaticanum II. See Jaroslaw Kupczak, “Vaticanum Secundum—A Conflict of Interpretation,” in Legado Juan Pablo II El Magno, ed. Gabriel ­Melo-Guevara and Bogdan Piotrowski (Bogota: U. Sergio Arboleda, 2015), 329–42.

143

A N ew “ T h eolo gy ” of Ma rr iage ? As noted earlier, the conference discussed in this chapter was only one of many meetings at which the bishops from many countries of the world prepared for the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in 2015. One may wonder, then, what justifies my decision to devote an entire chapter of this book to this single conference while other meetings of bishops are barely mentioned. Certainly, this decision arose from a conviction that the reader should become familiar with theological theories that bore fruit in various controversial proposals heard during both synods on the family. A careful examination of the conference demonstrates that the matter of offering Holy Communion to divorced persons who live in second unions is only “the tip of the iceberg” in relation to the postulates of those who strive for a radical change of the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. The presentation of these radical postulates at the conference, and even more so at the two synods, was to serve as a “touchstone” meant to test the readiness of Catholics throughout the world for these fundamental changes. As was clearly shown by the speakers at the Gregorian University, these changes concern some key concepts of Catholic doctrine: sacramentality of marriage and cornerstones of Catholic sexual ethics, particularly the assessment of extramarital and homosexual sexual acts.85 These windstorms of history, the gusts of which were felt during both synods on the family and during the Roman conference, seem to portend that nothing will be as it was before. The question remains: are these gusts of the Holy Spirit? 85. Since Vatican II, this “new moral theology” has developed in various lay and ecclesial schools without major obstacles. We can find a good description of these changes in James F. Keenan, A History of Catholic Moral Theology in the Twentieth Century: From Confessing Sins to Liberating Consciences (New York: Continuum, 2010).

1 4 4 

Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly Cha pt e r 4

T h e Fou rt een th Or dinary Gener al Assembly of th e Synod of B is hops

Official preparations for the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, which took place in the Vatican on October 4–25, 2015, began long before that date. On December 9, 2014, the Holy See’s press office posted an announcement online from the secretariat of the Synod of Bishops about the schedule of the synod and stating that the preparatory document for the would consist of the final document of the recently concluded Ordinary Synod, supplemented with a set of questions meant to facilitate the reading and understanding of the document.1 This preparatory document, Lineamenta, would be sent to all the conferences of Episcopates in the world, religious orders, the Eastern Catholic Churches, and Vatican dicasteries. The secretariat of the synod would accept various documents prepared for the synod, especially the responses to the questions posed in Lineamenta, until April 15, 2015, and proceed to develop the first working document of the upcoming synod, Instrumentum laboris, before the beginning of the summer. 1. “Comunicato della Segreteria Generale del Sinodo dei Vescovi: Pubblicazione dei “Lineamenta” della XIV Assemblea Generale Ordinaria (4–25 ottobre 2015),” Bollettino Sala Stampa della Santa Sede, December 9, 2014.

145

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly The ­forty-six questions annexed to the Lineamenta were arranged to refer to three specific parts of the document (we described their content in the last part of the second chapter). As with the topics undertaken in the final document of the 2014 synod, these questions were very diverse; they pertained to various stages of marital life and various aspects of the Church’s pastoral ministry. It is worth noting two things. First, it is evident from the way in which the questions were formulated that their authors intended to pay particular attention to irregular unions and broken marriages. In the questions concerning the third, pastoral part of the document, the authors stressed that the synod intended to accept Pope Francis’ call to the “pastoral conversion” of the Church that is “a field hospital.” In this context, one should discern “the positive and negative elements in the life of persons united in a civil marriage so as to guide and sustain them on a path of growth and conversion towards the Sacrament of Matrimony.”2 The second thing to note is that, while posing their questions, the authors referred to some important documents of the Church in order to show why these and not other questions were chosen. The choice of these Church documents is interesting. Beside the documents from the 2014 synod, the most cited text was Pope Francis’ exhortation Evangelii gaudium (four times); the Constitution Gaudium et spes of Vatican II is cited less frequently (three times); the questions refer once to the Constitution Lumen gentium, once to the encyclical Humanae vitae of Paul VI, and once to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The authors explained their choice of these documents: “In examining Part III of the Relatio synodi, it is 2. “Lineamenta per la XIV Assemblea Generale Ordinaria: La vocazione e la missione della famiglia nella Chiesa e nel mondo contemporaneo (4–25 ottobre 2015),” BSS, December 9, 2014, question 33. An English version of the text is available at http://www. vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/­rc_synod_doc_20141209_lineamenta-xiv-assembly_en.html.

1 4 6 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  important to be guided by the pastoral approach [svolta pastorale] initiated at the Extraordinary Synod which is grounded in Vatican II and the Magisterium of Pope Francis.”3 Thus, in the opinion of the authors of the questionnaire, that is, the members of the secretariat of the synod under the leadership of Cardinal Baldisseri, today’s reference point for the pastoral ministry of marriage and the family is foremost Vatican II, the teaching of which found its expression above all in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et spes, and in the pontificate of Pope Francis. In this context, the omission of references to the works of the two previous popes and especially the omission of the works of John Paul II, “the pope of the family,” is significant. One cannot say whether Pope Francis views his pontificate in this way. Undoubtedly, however, some of his collaborators took advantage of the opportunity to perform a theological “­by-pass” of the past twenty years of Church history: to push into oblivion the achievements of John Paul II and Benedict XVI and to link the “revolutionary” interpretation of the last council—though both John Paul II and Benedict XVI made great effort to show that this interpretation has nothing to do with the true Council—with the current pontificate.4 In spring 2015, responses to the questionnaire began to flow from the whole world into the secretariat of the synod. As in the previous year, various Episcopates approached the task differently; some of them sent their responses directly to Rome, while others made the results of the questionnaire public. Before we present some of these responses, it is worth recalling the nonrepresenta3. “Lineamenta per la XIV Assemblea Generale Ordinaria,” III Parte. 4. In his statement at the symposium organized by the Roman academy Alfonsiana a few months after the end of the 2014 synod, Cardinal Baldisseri stressed that Pope Francis implements the reforms of Vatican II and especially the Constitution Gaudium et spes, though he did not mention any of the postconciliar popes (see Baldisseri, Una lettura del Sinodo della famiglia).

147

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly tive character of this questionnaire, similar to the questionnaire distributed before the previous synod. Participation in the process of consultation was completely voluntary and anonymous, so it is difficult to say who stood behind the responses sent to their bishops. The logistics of preparing and processing the questionnaires did not meet the basic standards of sociological research. Some responses represented large communities, others individual persons or small groups of the faithful. In addition, it is obvious that bishops should consider differently the responses from Catholics who practice their faith and those who associate a visit to church only with a Christmas tree or a wedding. Unfortunately, the distinctions of this kind were not made. In the case of some Episcopates, such as the German Episcopate, various diocesan offices, for example, the Pastoral Council or the Priests Council, also sent their responses. It is difficult to comprehend how the outcome of the processing of this process could be then called the voice of the Church “from below.”5 Due to its significance in the debate discussed in this book, it is undoubtedly worth looking into the results of the German Episcopate’s questionnaire. These results were published on April 16, 2015, on the official website of the Conference of German Bishops.6 The introductory remarks quite rightly notes several problems linked to this stage of the presynodal consultations; we can 5. At this point, it is worth recalling Prof. Stanisław Grygiel’s critical remarks about the danger of absolutizing sociological studies in the Church from the second chapter of this book. See also Piotr Kroczek, “Is Dialog a Useful Tool for the Church Legislator? Deliberations on the ­So-called ‘Pope Francis’ Questionnaire,’” Annuarium Iuris Canonici 1 (2014): 17–31. 6. “Die Berufung und Sendung der Familie in Kirche und Welt von heute. Antwort der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz auf die Fragen im Hinblick auf die Rezeption und Vertiefung der Relatio Synodi im Vorbereitungsdokument für die XIV. Ordentliche Generalversammlung der Bischofssynode 2015,” http://www.dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_down loads/dossiers_2015/­2015-Synode-Lineamenta2015-Antworten-deutsch.pdf.

1 4 8 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  find similar critical remarks in the studies of other Episcopates. First, the questions asked by the secretariat of the synod were quite complicated; a technical and abstract vocabulary was used, often too difficult for the lay faithful.7 Second, the time for consultation was very short, which means that fewer lay persons participated in the process, often providing answers only to a few selected questions. Reading the response by the German Episcopate is depressing. This German study is a proclamation of the pastoral failure of the German Church; it is testimony to the fact that the Gospel has only minimal influence on the life of German Catholics. It seems that when faced with this pastoral failure, the German bishops conclude that in order to survive, the Church must adapt to contemporary culture, which also entails the relinquishment of the clear proclamation of the Gospel of the Family. What remains is only a general call to behave as a Christian, while more precise determinations are always left to the individual conscience of each Catholic. The concern for positive language in the document causes it to contain no call for conversion and no indication of the erroneous attitudes promoted by today’s culture. Rather, the document is a tolerant acceptance of various human choices and attitudes. A close examination of this sad document—here we point to a few typical formulations—is essential because we can infer from “Die Berufung und Sendung der Familie” that the German hierarchy recommends their own pastoral practices regarding marriage and the family to the whole Church and want the Synod to embrace 7. One finds very similar remarks in the study prepared by bishops from Kenya. See Conclusion, “Family and Marriage in Kenya Today: Pastoral Guidelines for a Process of Discussion and Action. Results of the Consultation in Kenya on the 46 Questions in the Lineamenta (guidelines) on The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the Church and Contemporary World,” http://www.kccb.or.ke/home/­news-2/­pastoral-guidelines-for-a-processof-discussion-in-action.

149

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly it. We find such a statement expressed clearly on the first pages of the German document: Contrary to the explicit suggestion and wording at the beginning of the questionnaire, which speak of unfolding the doctrine of marriage and the family starting from the “existential peripheries,” in the Relatio Synodi and in the formulations of the questionnaire there is still too much of an ideal picture of the family, which does not reflect the social realities in Germany. It was complained that the idealization of marriage and the family is not inviting to many people but, on the contrary, contributes to many refusing to enter into a sacramental marriage. Accordingly, many believers want to see clearer steps to overcome the “gap between the reality lived by our families in our communities and associations and the Church doctrine,” as was described in the preparation to the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops (2014). The ­too-inner ecclesial view of the Catholic milieu was criticized in relation to the reality of an increasingly ­multi-religious and m ­ ulti-cultural society, in which the number of people without religious affiliation is increasing. The respondents also criticized the lack of a truly appreciative language for forms of relationships that neither are the ecclesiastical ideals nor are internally oriented to marriage and family.8

This capitulating attitude is present in different parts of the report. The bishops call to proclaim the Gospel of the Family, though in a very peculiar way: “A proclamation of the Gospel of the Family ‘with renewed freshness and enthusiasm’ (Relatio synodi, art. 4) starts with an attentive perception of the people in their individual life situations.”9 Here, the bishops also warn against theological arrogance. To those who might think that the proclamation of the Gospel of the Family starts with enthusiasm and joy at sharing the liberating encounter with Christ with others, they say: “It is also important to look more ­self-critically at one’s own proclamation 8. “Die Berufung und Sendung der Familie,” 2. 9. “Die Berufung und Sendung der Familie,” 4.

1 5 0 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  and pastoral practice in order to free oneself from arrogance in everything and to find a sensitive and humble language that helps people, especially those in difficult situations.”10 This shift from the vertical to the horizontal paradigm in proclaiming the Gospel is all the more striking because the German bishops write this in the passage pertaining to the second part of Relatio synodi, entitled “The Gaze on Christ!” The remaining parts of the document show how the “sensitive and humble language” of proclaiming the Gospel of the Family ought to look. This new language is meant to correct the evangelical call to holiness and perfection (Mt 5:48 and 1 Pet 1:16) because it “disburdens the couples of any exaggerated idea of perfection, both in relation to the relationship and to the partner.”11 This concern for avoiding burdening the faithful with the weight of an ideal results in a scandalous response to the eleventh question, “How do people manifest that the grace of the Sacrament sustains married couples throughout their life together?”: the bishops fail to mention that Christ binds himself to every sacramental marriage with an indissoluble bond. Are we to understand that this omission proceeds from the concern that each partner in a new union may not think that his previous marriage still bears the indissoluble and sacramental promise of the indissoluble faithfulness of Christ? It turns out that the “sensitive and humble language” not only pertains to the form of Church’s evangelizing activity but also requires a change in its content. “Sensitive and humble language” requires one to forget about the traditional theology of the marriage and family, especially those points that challenge the contemporary culture and postmodern sensibility. Numerous euphemisms in the text of the Episcopate of Ger10. “Die Berufung und Sendung der Familie,” 3. 11. “Die Berufung und Sendung der Familie,” 4.

15 1

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly many, such as “pastoral sensitivity,” “closeness to the faithful,” and so on, seem to express the conviction that in order for the Church to be needed by anyone, she must adapt to those to whom she is sent: “An attitude is expected, in particular from those who represent the Church, that clearly places the inviting, attentive aspect of communication with people above the aspect of defining clear demarcations.”12 Undoubtedly, many actions of Jesus, who pointed out the disbelief of his listeners or their sins, would not meet the expectations of the German Episcopate concerning the proper form of pastoral ministry. Approximately one month after the presynodal document of the German Episcopate was published, the Swiss bishops published the results of their own consultations.13 A decisive majority of the questionnaire respondents viewed the final document of the 2014 Extraordinary Synod critically, assessing it as “unrealistic, aggressive, arrogant, and pretentious.”14 In the study of the Swiss Episcopate, we find the postulate to abandon the practice of refusing Communion to divorced persons who live in second unions as well as the call to accept homosexual couples in the Church and a call to approve a liturgical practice of blessing such unions. Without any interpretation or correction by the bishops, the document also states that only a small majority of the responses to the presynodal questionnaire express their authors’ faithfulness to the current teaching of the Church. In one of the most shocking fragments of the document, one reads that the Holy Family ought no longer be 12. “Die Berufung und Sendung der Familie,” 9. 13. See Maike Hickson, “Swiss Bishops Say Catholics Demand Church Change on Homosexuality, Contraception,” Lifesitenews.com, May 22, 2015, https://www.lifesitenews.com/ news/­swiss-bishops-say-catholics-demand-church-change-on-homosexuality-contracep. 14. “Szwajcaria: Niepokojące wyniki ­przed-synodalnej ankiety o rodzinie,” Vatican Radio, July 5, 2015, http://pl.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/05/07/szwajcaria_wyniki_ankiety_/ 1142529.

1 5 2 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  considered the ideal of the family, perhaps only insofar as Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were hindered from living an ordinary family life. The publication of the study of the Swiss bishops was met by many with disgust. One could read in the Vatican Radio communique: “The Italian newspaper Il Timone commented [on] the results of the ­pre-synodal questionnaire, published by the Swiss Episcopate, with the title ‘The Sick Swiss Church Asks the Synod for Permission to Commit Suicide.’”15 It is worth noting again the nonrepresentative character of the Swiss study. Cristina Vonzun, the editor of Giornale del Popolo, a newspaper published in the Italian part of Switzerland, observes that the Swiss study was prepared on the basis of the opinion of approximately six thousand Swiss Catholics who in February and March of 2015 participated in numerous presynodal debates.16 On that basis, 570 reports were created, from which a sociological institute from St. Gallen, das Schweizerische Pastoralsoziologische Institut, known for its liberal views contrary to the teaching of the Church, crafted the final summary. Thus, in preparing this questionnaire, less than one percent of Swiss Catholics participated. It was also noted that a separate study prepared by an organization of approximately sixty thousand orthodox Catholics was treated by the Institute from St. Gallen as one report equivalent to other reports by small groups of the faithful as small as a dozen or so people. Unfortunately, there is not space here to examine in detail the presynodal studies sent to the Vatican from various parts of the world, but they present a fascinating picture of the unity and diversity, splendors and shadows of the Catholic Church in the world at the beginning of the third millennium. For example, in the response prepared by the Church in India, we find an interesting an15. “Szwajcaria: Niepokojące wyniki.” 16. Leone Grotti, “Ma i cattolici svizzeri sono ancora cattolici?,” Tempi.it, May 13, 2015, http://www.tempi.it/­ma-i-cattolici-svizzeri-sono-ancora-cattolici#.WYc5wYVOI2w.

15 3

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly swer to the question about natural marriage, namely, that marriage is “strongly supported by Indian culture and this culture is brought into the church through conversion. There is synergy between Hindu and Christian culture regarding natural marriage and this is seen by attendance in each other’s marriage ceremonies. There are also a few instances of Hindus attending Catholic marriage formation courses.”17 It is worth noting that in this document of the Indian Church—a church of contemporary martyrs, a tiny minority in an o­ ften-hostile environment (Catholics constitute only 1 percent, or 18 million, of the 1.2 billion inhabitants of India)—the “forbidden” word “conversion” appears. It must have surprised the theologians from the secretariat of the synod, who thus far carefully avoided this word in their documents. They must have been all the more surprised that with full simplicity, the Indian Church uses it in reply to the question about the positive values of civil marital unions and about the attitude of the Church toward such unions: “The Community can further support such couples if those involved are properly trained to educate the couples regarding the benefits of the sacrament and the process of regularization. To help those who live in such relationships to the path of conversion . . . the Church can extend its hand with love and care.”18 It is not inconceivable that the simplicity of the response of the Indian Church to the question about Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae vitae also surprised Vatican theologians: “Humanae Vitae is not known by most of the faithful. Many of the faithful use contraceptives mostly because of economic reasons and work situations. Very few steps have been taken to make Blessed Paul VI’s encyclical known. The teachings have shown no visible results so far.”19 17. “India Responds to Family Synod Questionnaire 2015. Executive Summary,” 11, http://www.ccbifamily.com/pdf/finalreport.pdf. 18. “India Responds,” 17. 19. “India Responds,” 20.

1 5 4 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  We would like now to focus on two important documents that were prepared in Poland before the synod. The first was prepared by the Club of Catholic Intelligentsia in Warsaw. Referring to the entire Relatio synodi, the Warsaw Club states that the document “focuses on the family and its problems, whereas it is marriage, and not the family, that is a sacrament, that is, a particular source of grace. The crisis of the family cannot be overcome without overcoming the crisis of marriage as the foundation of the family. . . . We only discover in the Church the uniqueness of this wondrous vocation.”20 The document accurately observes that Relatio synodi lacks “the presentation of a positive, appealing, and attractive vision of marriage (one gets the impression that marital and familial life was seen by the synod as unattainably difficult).” In the context of this excessive negativism, the Polish authors note that John Paul II’s “theology of the body” is absent from Relatio synodi. They make very critical remarks concerning the pastoral practice of the Church (some of them exaggerated), but one should acknowledge that their document does not contain an expectation—which was present in the German study discussed above—that the Church will cease to make demands ad intra and ad extra or that she will adapt herself to the world. Instead, the document speaks of the need for the demands proper to the Gospel to be always formulated in the spirit of respect for every man. On September 21, 2015, the Conference of the Episcopate of Po20. Klub Inteligencji Katolickiej w Warszawie, “Syntetyczne opracowanie odpowiedzi członków KIK na pytania dotyczące przyjęcia Relatio Synodi,” 2, http://doczz.pl/doc/1862670/­ syntetyczne-opracowanie-odpowiedzi-na-pytania-dotyczące. In this document one also finds an important phrase on the access of divorced persons who live in second unions to Communion: “a certain form of approving the second union by the Church is a necessary condition of admitting to the sacrament of the Eucharist” (Klub Inteligencji Katolickiej w Warszawie, “Syntetyczne opracowanie,” 17).

15 5

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly land published “The Statement of Polish Bishops before the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (October 4–25, 2015).”21 At the beginning of this brief but ­well-written document, the Polish bishops recall that “marriage and the family are one of the most precious goods of humanity, which should be surrounded with particular care.”22 As if responding to the charge that the previous synod on the family, above all, occupied itself with irregular unions and treated healthy conjugal life as something beyond the strength of normal people, the bishops thank God for the fact that “in our nation there are many healthy families, which ‘in good and in evil times’ endeavor every day to remain faithful to their vocation.”23 This healthy conjugal life is based on the indissolubility of sacramental marriage; the bishops recall here the traditional teaching of the Church: “in the Catholic Church, there is neither divorce nor processes that lead to divorce.”24 In this context, they address the topic of persons living in nonsacramental unions with sensitivity and delicacy. Such persons should be surrounded by particular pastoral care: “Let us remember that the divorced persons or those who remain in separation are not excluded from the Church but still are her members. They should be assisted so as to preserve faith and the bond with the ecclesial community and to participate in the Sunday Holy Mass and in the life of parish communities.”25 The letter of the Polish bishops also includes important themes that were absent in the documents of the previous synod, such as the proper care for marriages that have difficulties with conceiving a child, care for the poorest families 21. Konferencja Episkopatu Polski, “Stanowisko Biskupów Polskich przed XIV Zwyczajnym Zgromadzeniem Ogólnym Synodu Biskupów (4–25.10.2015 r.),” http://episkopat .pl/­stanowisko-biskupow-polskich-przed-synodem-o-rodzinie. 22. Konferencja Episkopatu Polski, “Stanowisko Biskupów Polskich,” 1. 23. Konferencja Episkopatu Polski, “Stanowisko Biskupów Polskich,” 2. 24. Konferencja Episkopatu Polski, “Stanowisko Biskupów Polskich,” 3. 25. Konferencja Episkopatu Polski, “Stanowisko Biskupów Polskich,” 3.

1 5 6 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  and families with disabled persons, and care for older marriages and lonely persons.26 We should emphasize with esteem that the Polish bishops wrote a beautiful and mature document that with its pastoral realism, seriousness, and precision rises far above the murky and unclear “jargon” present in the documents of the previous synod on the family. As one can see, the period between the Extraordinary and the Ordinary Synods of Bishops was full of heated debates among lay Catholics, bishops, and the past and future participants of the Synod of Bishops. The Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod in the fall of 2014 delineated some possible directions for the Church to follow, and everyone expected that the Ordinary Assembly in the fall of 2015 would choose a particular one. The German bishops left no doubt that for them, the most important thing the synod could do would be to consider offering Communion to divorced persons who live in second unions. Speaking of this hope after the meeting of the German Episcopate, on February 25, 2015, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, the president of the Conference of Bishops, stressed that the Catholic Church in Germany is not “a branch of Rome”; rather, “each conference of bishops is responsible for pastoral care in its cultural context and must preach the Gospel in its own, original way. We cannot wait for a synod to tell us how we have to shape pastoral care for marriage and family here.”27 Leaving no room for doubt, Cardinal Marx suggested that the German bishops would find their own, positive solution pertaining to the issue of offering Communion to divorced persons who live in second unions, regardless of the results of the synod’s fall sessions. 26. See Konferencja Episkopatu Polski, “Stanowisko Biskupów Polskich,” 4–7. 27. Carl Bunderson, “A Crisis in the German Church? Synod Questionnaire would Suggest So,” Catholic News Agency, May 2, 2015, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ news/­a-crisis-in-the-german-church-synod-questionnaire-would-suggest-so-37331.

15 7

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly One did not have to wait long for critical reactions to Cardinal Marx’s words. Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, a former priest of the Padeborn diocese and president of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, published a sharp critique of Marx’s statement in the form of a letter to the editor of Die Tagespost on March 7. Cardinal Cordes criticized the optimism of Cardinal Marx, who portrayed the German Church as a model for other Churches in pastoral ministry: “If he wanted to express that Germany is the model in leading the faithful to giving self to Christ, then I think the bishop is fooled by wishful thinking. The existing German ecclesial apparatus is completely unfit to work against growing secularism.”28 The secularization within the German Church is obvious if we consider statistical data; in Western Germany, only 16 percent of Catholics believe that God is personal: “so there is no reason to pride ourselves on our faith if we stand in comparison to other countries.”29 The cardinal recalled that it was not without a reason that during his pilgrimage to Germany, Benedict XVI firmly called the Church in Germany to become less “worldly.” Cardinal Cordes observed that the decision about offering Communion to the divorced who live in second unions is a very serious one that touches the very center of the sacramental theology of the Church and cannot be left to the decision of particular Episcopates: This matter reaches far beyond regional particularities of a pragmatic nature, of a given mentality and cultural background. This matter is bound to the very center of theology. In this field not even a cardinal can 28. Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, quoted in “German Prelate Breaks Rank with Cardinal Marx, Insists on Fidelity to Rome,” Catholic News Agency, May 24, 2015, https://www. catholicnewsagency.com/news/­german-prelate-breaks-rank-with-cardinal-marx-insistson-fidelity-to-rome-24118. 29. Bunderson lists other disturbing statistics concerning the German Church: less than 50 percent of priests go to confession at least once per year, only 58 percent of priests pray daily, 60 percent of parishioners do not believe in life after death, and 66 percent do not believe in the resurrection of Christ (see Bunderson, “A Crisis in the German church?”).

1 5 8 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  loosen such a complex Gordian knot by a single swordstroke. . . . And while the president repeats that regarding the Magisterium, he wants to “stay within the community of the Church,” he either ignores the limits that this Magisterium gives to pastoral care, or he is carefree in making a statement to make himself sound good.30

Cardinal Cordes sharply summarized Cardinal Marx’s statement: “statements like ‘we are not a branch of Rome’ are more suited ‘to a bar counter.’ . . . The head of the German bishops’ conference certainly has some competence when it comes to publishing a second edition of the hymnal or to changing of the pilgrim route to Altötting.”31 A few weeks after Cardinal Codes’ statements, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, granted an interview to Famille Chretienne, in which he strongly criticized Cardinal Marx’s words by emphasizing above all the limited competence of the Conference of Bishops: It is an absolutely ­anti-Catholic idea that does not respect the Catholicity of the Church. . . . Episcopal conferences have authority on certain matters, but they are not a magisterium beside the Magisterium, without the Pope and without communion with all the bishops. . . . An episcopal conference is not a particular council, much less an ecumenical council. The president of an episcopal conference is nothing more than a technical moderator, and he does not have any particular magisterial authority due to this title. . . . Hearing that an episcopal conference is not a “branch of Rome” gives me the occasion to recall that dioceses are not the branches of the secretariat of a bishops’ conference either, nor of the diocese whose bishop presides over the episcopal conference.32 30. Cardinal Josef Cordes, quoted in “German Prelate Breaks Rank.” 31. Cardinal Josef Cordes, quoted in “German Prelate Breaks Rank.” 32. Cardinal Gerhard Müller, quoted in Carl Bunderson, “Bishops Conferences Are Not the Magisterium: Vatican Doctrine Chief Reminds Cardinal Marx,” Catholic News Agency, October 12, 2015, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/­bishops-conferences-are-notthe-magisterium-vatican-doctrine-chief-reminds-cardinal-marx-70113.

15 9

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly In the previous chapter, we analyzed the presentations at an academic conference in Rome in which the German, Swiss, and French bishops were preparing for the fall Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. Of course, this was not the only meeting of this kind; other episcopates were also very intensively preparing for the October assembly. On May 11–12, the bishops from East and Central Europe met at a closed conference in Bratislava; among others, the presidents of the Conferences of Bishops from Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Croatia, and Lithuania were present. The Communiqué of the conference stressed that the participants spoke of “new views on the family in the postmodern era” that “impose new norms that are not in accordance with the classical view of the family.”33 Two weeks later, from May 28 to May 31, the Conference of the Bishops of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM) and the Council of the European Bishops’ Conferences (CCEE) met in Mumemo, Mozambique. In his presentation in Mumemo, Cardinal Péter Erdő, the president of CCEE, opposed the tendency to make the Church like the world: “We are not called to look at the world simply with our philosophical categories and only on the basis of empirical personal experiences or starting from sociological polls or studies; but we are to be disciples of Christ, and so we must look to Christ, we must listen to His voice through history, through the Sacred Scripture, through the continuous testimony of the community of the Church.”34 This statement was a signal that since the conclusion of the last synod, the views of the Primate of Hungary had undergone a considerable evolution. 33. Maike Hickson, “Key Cardinal at Vatican Synod Takes Strong Stand for Marriage,” LifeSiteNews, July 23, 2015, https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/­key-cardinal-at-vaticansynod-takes-strong-stand-for-marriage. 34. Hickson, “Key cardinal.”

1 6 0 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly 

Instrumentum laboris On June 23, 2015, in the Vatican’s John Paul II Hall, a press conference took place during which the Instrumentum laboris of the fall Synod of Bishops was presented. The text of the Instrumentum is structured in such a way that it contains the entire final document of the previous synod, Relatio synodi, which is clearly marked within the Instrumentum by a different type font. The Relatio synodi is supplemented by the text that summarizes the responses to the presynodal questionnaire that the secretariat of the synod received from the entire world in the spring of 2015. Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the general secretary of the Synod of Bishops; Cardinal Péter Erdő, the archbishop of E ­ sztergom-Budapest and the general relator of the synod; and Bruno Forte, the archbishop of ­Chieti-Vasto and the special secretary of the synod, presented the document.35 Instrumentum laboris consists of three parts, each of which correspond to the structure of the previous document, Relatio synodi. The first part, “Considering the Challenges of the Family,” in a way analogous to the previous documents of the synod, though more developed, describes how deep changes in today’s culture affect marriage and the family.36 Instrumentum laboris first points to contemporary changes in understanding the connection between sexuality and procreation, problems created by unstable conditions in the labor market, poverty, migration, the change in understanding the role of the woman in the family, and so on. The second part 35. See “Conferenza Stampa di presentazione dell’ “Instrumentum Laboris” della XIV Assemblea Generale Ordinaria del Sinodo dei Vescovi,” BSS, June 23, 2015. 36. XIV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, “The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the Church and the Contemporary World. Instrumentum Laboris,” Vatican City 2015, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/­rc_synod_ doc_20150623_instrumentum-xiv-assembly_en.html.

161

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly of Instrumentum laboris, “The Discernment of the Family Vocation,” presents in three chapters the outline of the theology of marriage and the family in a way analogous to the previous documents, though much more extensively. The first chapter pertains to the divine pedagogy and concerns topics already addressed in earlier versions of the document. The second chapter, “The Family and Church Life,” identifies the most important topics in the teaching of the Church on marriage and the family after Vatican II. The third chapter, with its somewhat strange title “The Family and the Path Leading to Its Fullness,” stresses that the Church should also care for the unions that do not have a sacramental character and include them in the salvific space of the Church. The third part, “The Mission of the Family Today”—the most extensive and evoking the most doubts—consists of four chapters. The first chapter, “The Family and Evangelization,” takes up the topic of effective proclamation of the Gospel of the Family to reach in particular the persons who live in various difficult situations. Therefore, the document speaks of “missionary conversion by everyone in the Church, that is, not stopping at proclaiming a merely theoretical message with no connection to people’s real problems.”37 This conversion must also pertain to the renewal of the language: “The Christian message ought to be preferably proclaimed in a manner which might inspire hope. A clear, inviting and open communication needs to be adopted, one which does not moralize, judge or control, but bears witness to the Church’s moral teaching, while, at the same time, remaining sensitive to the circumstances of each individual.”38 It is worth noting that such a call evokes very ambivalent feelings in the reader since the phrase “­non-judgmental attitude” used in the text is understood today 37. Synod of Bishops, Instrumentum laboris (June 23, 2015), 76 (hereafter IL 2015). 38. IL 2015, 78.

1 6 2 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  often in the context of subjectivist and relativistic attitudes. Can this call not to judge be reconciled with being “the witness to the Church’s moral teaching”? The second chapter concerns the Christian formation of marriage and the family. One finds there an important call to intensify the formation preparing young people for marriage and to accompany them especially in the first years of their life together. This chapter also contains the important statement that the Church ought to place greater emphasis on the appropriate preparation of priests for this specialized pastoral ministry to married couples and families. The weakest part of this chapter treats the s­ ocial-political dimension of family life, evidenced by the fact that the only ­socio-political problems that disturb the authors of Instrumentum laboris are “market logic” and poverty.39 The reader should ask to what extent this blindness or naiveté of the authors is linked to the methodological presupposition of adopting a “­non-judgmental attitude” and the attempt to see positive values in everything, and to what extent it denotes the authors’ lack of awareness of how destructive for marriage and family the law is in many countries. Regardless of the answer to this question, this inability to identify real threats to the family makes the authors of Instrumentum laboris betray their methodological presuppositions of being close to real families and their problems. Is this closeness binding only when one justifies human weakness, and not in the situations when one must clearly and courageously accuse various potent institutions of acting to the detriment of marriage and the family? The inability to defend the family is a betrayal of the mission of the Church. The third chapter of the third part of Instrumentum laboris, the longest chapter in the entire document, concerns the art of accompaniment and pastoral care of persons who live in various 39. IL 2015, 90, 95.

163

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly irregular situations. Stressing the significance of indissoluble and sacramental marriage, Instrumentum laboris quotes a fragment of Relatio synodi that reads, “a new element in today’s pastoral activity is a sensitivity to the positive aspects of civilly celebrated marriages and, with obvious differences, cohabitation.”40 This new sensitivity must go hand in hand with discerning the elements in the irregular situation of spouses that “can lead to a greater openness to the Gospel of Marriage in its fullness.”41 In this context, the controversial reference to the law of gradualness and the “seed of the Word,” which were removed from Relatio synodi, returns to the Instrumentum, though in a very peculiar and ambivalent form: “The Church also ought to accompany those in a civil marriage or those living together in a gradual discovery of ‘the seeds of the Word’ (nella graduale scoperta dei germi del Verbo) which lie hidden, so as to value them until the fullness of union in the Sacrament might be achieved.”42 This chapter also addresses the issue of admitting to Communion divorced persons who live in second unions. In this context, the document speaks of “fostering pastoral initiatives in common,” such as the fact that when these persons decide to live in chastity, they can receive the sacrament of the Eucharist.43 With respect to the possibility of receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist by persons who engage in sexual intercourse in another union, it is worth pointing out that the Instrumentum indicates different possibilities of approaching this situation. As it says, “Various synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present discipline, because of 40. IL 2015, 98; por. RS, 41. 41. IL 2015, 98; RS, 41. 42. IL 2015, 99. 43. Por. IL 2015, 119. It is worth noting that this point was not included in the previous version of the synodal document. This reference to John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation Familiaris consortio is a positive development.

1 6 4 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church as well as her teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage.”44 At the same time, the Instrumentum adds to Relatio synodi a new fragment, which speaks of the possibility of the persons who live in new unions to undergo a path of penance that ends with the fact that “the priest himself might come to a sufficient evaluation as to be able to suitably apply the power of binding and loosing (la potestà di legare e di sciogliere) to the situation.”45 It is difficult to perceive in this veiled statement anything other than the conviction that the priest can grant absolution to persons who live in new unions.46 Although this opinion was presented in the Instrumentum as one held by just some of synod fathers, it is worth noting that it was presented on a par with Familiaris consortio and the current theology of the Church. The Instrumentum seems to say: some speak this way, others that way, and each statement contains some truth, so we only need to find a compromise. Although during the previous session of the synod one could justify such sociological and inductive approach to various theological questions, the ordinary session of the synod in the fall of 2015 aimed at providing clear solutions in the area of pastoral care for marriage and the family. Thus, the ambivalence and obscurity of formulations in the documents of the 2015 synod are very significant. The last chapter of the third part of Instrumentum laboris is de44. IL 2015, 122; RS, 52. 45. IL 2015, 123. 46. The Viennese Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, one of the closest theological collaborators of Pope Francis, understands this passage in this way. In his interview for La Civiltà Cattolica from September 26, 2015, he explains this fragment as follows: “There are situations in which the priest, the guide, who knows the persons, can come to the point of saying: ‘Your situation is such that, in conscience, in your and in my conscience as a pastor, I see your place in the sacramental life of the Church.’” See Sandro Magister, “Synod. First Shot on Target Comes from the Conservatives,” www.chiesa.espressonline.it, October 8, 2015, http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351150bdc4.html?eng=y.

165

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly voted to the topic of the transmission of life and education of children. The document points to a series of issues linked to this topic: the postulate to facilitate the adoption process, various forms of caring for infertile couples, the need for intergenerational cooperation, the inclusion of older persons in the process of educating children, and so forth. The Instrumentum indicates the significance of Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae vitae, but unfortunately—as with the 2014 Relatio synodi—it does so in an ambivalent way. As the document claims, the encyclical stressed “the need to respect the dignity of the person in morally assessing methods in regulating births,”47 while the key in applying the teaching of the encyclical consists in the balance between two principles—conscience and the moral norm. These formulations in Instrumentum referring to Humanae vitae, in fact, resemble the position of the old critics of this prophetic document.48 We shall return to this topic in the presentation of the voices criticizing Instrumentum laboris. Instrumentum laboris is undoubtedly a very uneven text. One finds there some valuable remarks and indications, the application of which could be beneficial for the pastoral ministry of the Church in the area of marriage and family. At the same time, however, many ambivalent formulations and theses—as were noted above— make possible the interpretation that it essentially diverges from the teaching of the Church. It is not surprising that shortly after the publication of Instrumentum laboris, there appeared statements and studies critical of this document.49 According to Matthew McCusker, who expressed 47. IL 2015, 136; RS, 58. 48. See IL 2015, 137. 49. In addition to the texts that will be analyzed below, we should note the letter of Theresa Farnan, a professor of philosophy at the Franciscan University of Steubenville (United States), and Mary Rice Hasson, a director of Catholic Women’s Forum in Washington, D.C., in which one finds a sharp criticism of the watered down and unclear concept

1 6 6 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  the position of the Voice of the Family, the Instrumentum repeats essential errors contained in Relatio synodi, among which the central one is “to adopt a positive view of current social trends and a marked reluctance to challenge the real moral and social evils that threaten families in the modern world.”50 This signifies that a number of real problems that families encounter are presented in the document in a deformed, simplified, or unilateral way. We noted above the problematic way in which the Instrumentum speaks of Humanae vitae. McCusker refers to this problem in a considerably harsher manner: “Paragraph 137 effectively nullifies the central teaching of the encyclical. . . . The implication of the passage is that contraceptive acts may be permitted by a confessor or spiritual director in some circumstances, such as when the moral norm would otherwise be ‘an insupportable burden.’”51 The controversial paragraph 137 became the main topic of an article published in a prestigious American journal, First Things, by two professors of the John Paul II Institute for the Studies on Marriage and the Family, David S. Crawford from Washington, D.C., and Stephan Kampowski from Rome.52 Under the article, in a gesture of support for its content, ­sixty-two ­well-known Catholic philosophers and theologians from thirteen countries placed their of the family in Instrumentum laboris. See “Letters from the Synod: Letter Number Fourteen,” ed. Xavier Rynne II, First Things, October 15, 2015, https://www.firstthings.com/­webexclusives/2015/10/­letter-number-fourteen. A precise criticism of Instrumentum laboris was also presented by three European theologians: Claude Barthe, Antonio Livi, and Alfredo Morselli: “Osservazioni sull’ Instrumentum laboris. Offerte all’ attenzione dei Padri Sinodali,” www.chiesa.espressonline.it, September 29, 2015, http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/ articolo/1351138.html. 50. Matthew McCusker, “Analysis of the Instrumentum Laboris of the Ordinary Synod on the Family,” 5, http://voiceofthefamily.com/­wp-content/uploads/2015/10/­Analysis-ofthe-IL-of-the-Ordinary-Synod.pdf. 51. McCusker, “Analysis of the Instrumentum Laboris,” 6. 52. David Crawford and Stephan Kampowski, “An Appeal: Recalling the Teaching of Humanae Vitae (and Veritatis Splendor),” First Things, October 9, 2015, https://www.first things.com/­web-exclusives/2015/09/­an-appeal.

167

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly signatures; among them: Stephen L. Brock, Basil Cole, OP, Bishop Peter Elliott, John M. Finnis, Kevin Flannery, SJ, Luke Gormally, Germain Grisez, Bishop Andreas Laun, Livio Melina, Martin Rhonheimer, Walter Schweidler, Josef Seifert, Robert Sokolowski, Robert Spaemann, and Josef Spindelböck. This impressive list of ­well-known public intellectuals representing various schools of Catholic thought is all the more significant if we consider the fact that the article offers a very sharp criticism of the text of the Instrumentum. Because this criticism accurately unveils the center of the document’s weakness, and its significance transcends both the topic of the ethical assessment of contraception and the context of the synodal discussion, we will attempt to faithfully summarize the argumentation of this article. The professors from the John Paul II Institute express the main thesis of their criticism right at the beginning of the text: “Paragraph 137 addresses a key document of the modern Magisterium, Humanae vitae, in a way that both calls the force of that teaching into question and proposes a method of moral discernment that is decidedly not Catholic.”53 They therefore propose to remove the fatal text from the synodal document and replace it with another, which “speaks of the conscience in a more precise fashion, that celebrates the wisdom and beauty of Humanae vitae, and that helps spouses to appreciate that the graces are available to them to live out God’s plan for the gift of sexuality.” Why is their assessment so severe? According to these authors, the text falsifies the teaching of the Church in four fundamental areas: the understanding of the moral norm, conscience, moral judgment, and the presentation of the proper content of the encyclical Humanae vitae. With respect to the first issue, paragraph 137 presents a legalistic and nominalistic vision of moral norms, one that 53. Crawford and Kampowski, “An Appeal.”

1 6 8 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  is alien to Catholic orthodoxy: “It tends to portray the moral norm as exterior to human persons and the good life we are called to live. It thereby suggests that the norm is exclusively negative and, as it were, coercive. This emphasis on the norm’s prohibitive function ignores the norm’s positive role in promoting the moral actor’s personal growth and fulfillment in the good.”54 The authors stress that the formulation of paragraph 137, affirming that the objective norm can be “unresponsive to a person’s needs,” suggests that “conformity to its commands might not promote a person’s moral good, i.e., the ‘good of the person’”—a thesis that is contrary to the Catholic understanding of morality. The authors further write that “the view that moral norms might not promote human happiness suggests a nominalist and arbitrary view of the moral law, according to which an act is bad for no other reason than its being forbidden. Such a perspective in no way corresponds to the reality of God’s creation. Rather, the moral law, corresponding to the truth of God’s creative act, expresses anthropological truths about the human person that cannot be ignored or violated without doing harm to . . . ourselves.”55 The erroneous understanding of the moral norm in paragraph 137 goes hand in hand with its ambivalent understanding of conscience. Although the synodal document emphasizes that conscience is “God’s voice resounding in the human heart which is trained to listen,” it lacks any reference to the fact that this “voice” of God refers to the objective law inscribed on our hearts.56 Crawford and Kampowski protest the possibility of a subjective understanding of this “voice” in the human heart: “God does not tell one person one thing about morality and another person another, and it never speaks against an objective norm taught by the Church. 54. Crawford and Kampowski, “An Appeal.” 55. Crawford and Kampowski, “An Appeal.” 56. See Rom 2:14–15 and the interpretation of this biblical passage in John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis splendor, 57.

169

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly To speak of a voice of God in a manner that seems detached from the moral law, or that appears to lack a reference to it, is grossly inadequate.” Nominalistic understanding of the moral norm and a subjective interpretation of conscience leads to an erroneous understanding of the way by which man makes a moral judgment: According to the logic of paragraph 137, then, moral judgment is no longer a judgment of conscience illuminated by the law, but rather the “combination” of two poles, one subjective and one objective. We must emphasize that the conjunction of the two dialectical elements occurs without any criteria. With conscience and the law being the two poles that need reconciliation, neither of them can provide criteria for how their combination can be worked out. In other words, the Instrumentum laboris seems to imply that the ultimate criterion of morality is arbitrary.57

An external help that may come from a “competent spiritual guide,” as is advised by the authors of the Instrumentum, in no way solves the dilemma: While faithful spiritual direction undoubtedly can have many benefits, the need for appealing to it in this context is nothing but a way of acknowledging a lack of criteria—other than the spiritual director’s guidance—on which to base a final decision. It should be pointed out that few spouses in fact have access to regular spiritual direction. More fundamentally, this solution makes married people dependent on the moral judgment of pastoral experts, a dependence that contradicts the very nature of conscience.58

As we see, the criticism of paragraph 137 of Instrumentum laboris is devastating. Crawford and Kampowski accurately demonstrate the theological incompetence of the authors of the synodal docu57. Crawford and Kampowski, “An Appeal.” 58. Crawford and Kampowski, “An Appeal.”

1 70 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  ment in the area of Catholic ethics, not only when sexual ethics is concerned, but also when the principles of moral understanding are at stake. This incompetence can be also seen in their presentation of the content of the encyclical Humanae vitae, which is the object of the fourth and final critical point in the First Things article. We read in Instrumentum laboris that Paul VI’s encyclical teaches “the objective moral norm which does not permit considering the act of generation a reality to be decided arbitrarily, irrespective of the divine plan of human procreation.” Crawford and Kampowski note that, in light of other errors in that same paragraph, one can understand this in such a way that the decision to use contraception is permitted when it is not “arbitrary,” in other words, when in the conflict between the objective law and subjective conscience, there exist serious and reasonable reasons for using contraception. Such an understanding of Humanae vitae directly contradicts the content of the encyclical, which stresses that God’s plan for human procreation excludes “any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.”59 The last voice critical of Instrumentum laboris that we would like to briefly examine is that of Douglas Farrow, a professor at McGill University in Montreal, in a piece entitled “Twelve Fatal Flaws in the Instrumentum Laboris.”60 The Canadian theologian begins with a forceful statement: “The Instrumentum Laboris should be abandoned as a guide for the Synod fathers in October. . . . In, reality it undermines both the family and the Church itself, by legitimizing a way of thinking that the Church has always regarded as illegit59. Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter, Humanae vitae (July 29, 1968), 14. 60. Douglas Farrow, “Twelve Fatal Flaws in the Instrumentum Laboris,” in Letter number two, ed. X. Rynne II, First Things September 30, 2015, https://www.firstthings.com/­webexclusives/2015/09/­letter-number-two.

171

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly imate.”61 Farrow observes that the criticized text uses important phrases that it fails to define and that, over the course of the text, acquire various meanings. One such phrase is “the Gospel of the family”; in vain, we search in the text for a more precise description of this concept. The suggestion that this concept has already been sufficiently described in the previous Magisterium of the Church, for example in the teaching of John Paul II, does not suffice because the Instrumentum differs in an essential way from the teaching of previous popes. Likewise, the Instrumentum speaks of today’s crisis of the family without explaining of what this crisis actually consists. The synodal document indicates poverty, wars, and migration, but “the world has always known poverty and brutality and moral confusion, and it doesn’t need the Church to tell it that such evils exist. What is most noteworthy about the situation of the family today?”62 A similar superficiality appears when referring to the Holy Family, which is “a wondrous model” for the family.63 Farrow asks: “But if the Holy Family is to be held up as a beacon in the dark, should there not be some analysis of what the Holy Family can teach us? . . . Why does [IL] take no interest in the glaring contrast between the presuppositions of the society in which we live and those revealed by the Holy Family as fundamental to God’s purposes for humankind?”64 Even more serious is the Instrumentum’s obscurity and lack of precision when speaking of the indissolubility of marriage. This indissolubility is moved from the sphere of the objective norm to the sphere of subjectivity and becomes “a personal response to the profound desire for mutual and enduring love.”65 61. Farrow, “Twelve Fatal Flaws.” 62. Farrow, “Twelve Fatal Flaws.” 63. IL 2015, 58. 64. Farrow, “Twelve Fatal Flaws.” 65. IL 2015, 42.

1 72 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  These critical remarks of the Canadian theologian are all the more significant if we recall the proposal in the document of the Swiss bishops to abandon the idea of the Holy Family as a model for today’s marriages and the postulates that appeared in the discussions around the synod to depart from the idea of the indissolubility of marriage, as we already discussed. The theologian from Montreal also notes that the Instrumentum uses euphemisms in relation to the problems connected with human sexuality. Not even once does the word “contraception” appear; the texts speak only a few times of the “openness to life”:66 “That in itself is a remarkable feature, for the entire sexual revolution, with all its ideological and cultural and legal offspring, including widespread divorce, broken and fatherless families, religious ignorance, hopelessness . . . is built on ready access to contraception. What kind of examination of ‘the concrete circumstances of our lives’ is being undertaken here, if contraception can be referenced only obliquely, and the worldwide abortion industry only in passing?”67 These euphemistic references to contraception in the text of the Instrumentum are not merely an error of the editors or translators of the text. Farrow repeats the argument that appeared above in other analyses of Instrumentum laboris: its way of presenting the teaching of the Church on contraception vividly resembles the argumentation of the theologians who from the beginning criticized the encyclical Humanae vitae. As Farrow emphatically states: “Instrumentum Laboris belongs to the Humanae Vitae rebellion.”68

66. IL 2015, 54, 96, 102, 133, 136. 67. Farrow, “Twelve Fatal Flaws.” 68. Farrow, “Twelve Fatal Flaws.”

173

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly

The Synodal Debate In the fall of 2015, the organization of the October synod proceeded at full speed. On September 15, the Holy See announced the list of the synod participants.69 Three basic functions, namely, that of general secretary, relator, and special secretary, remained without change; as during the previous synod, they were held by Lorenzo Baldisseri, Péter Erdő, and Bruno Forte, respectively. The pope assigned four cardinals to lead the synod: Archbishop André ­Vingt-Trois of Paris, Archbishop Luis Antonio Tagle of Manila, Cardinal Raymundo Damasceno Assis from Aparecida in Brazil, and Archbishop Wilfrid Fox Napier of Durban. There were 270 synod fathers: ­forty-two ex officio, 183 ex electione, and ­forty-five ex nominatione pontificia, including ­fifty-four from Africa, ­sixty-four from the Americas, ­thirty-six from Asia, 107 from Europe, and nine from Oceania. The first group of synod fathers ex officio included the presidents of fifteen synods of bishops of Catholic Eastern Churches sui iuris, the presidents of ­twenty-five Vatican dicasteries, the general secretary of the synod, and the ­vice-secretary.70 In addition to synod fathers, tw ­ enty-four experts and collaborators of the special secretary, fi ­ fty-one observers, and fourteen delegates from other Christian Churches were to participate in the sessions. It is worth underscoring that several married couples from different places in the world, most often those engaged in various forms of marital pastoral ministry, were also invited as experts or observers. At the press conference on Friday, October 2, two days before the start of the synod, General Secretary Cardinal Baldisseri pre69. “XIV Assemblea Generale Ordinaria del Sinodo dei Vescovi (4–25 ottobre 2015)— Elenco dei Partecipanti,” BSS, September 15, 2015. 70. See Ordo Synodi Episcoporum, 5.

1 74 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  sented the plan of the synodal sessions.71 Because the text of Instrumentum laboris, which was to be the basis for work and discussion during the synod, consisted of three parts, each of the three weeks of the synod was devoted to a debate on one part of the text. The general secretary stressed that the Holy Father desired an active and lively synodal debate, and that due to a large number of synod participants possessing the right to vote (318 persons), the greater part of the discussions during the synod would take place in language groups. At the end of each discussion in circuli minores, reports from each group would be submitted and published. At the same time, Cardinal Baldisseri announced the composition of the ­nine-person commission, designated by the pope, whose task was to create the final document of the synod on the basis of Instrumentum laboris by taking into account all corrections submitted both in the synodal hall and in the language groups. The commission included Cardinal Péter Erdő; Archbishop Bruno Forte; Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Bombay; Cardinal Donald William Wuerl of Washington, D.C.; Cardinal John Atcherley Dew of Wellington; Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, rector of the Pontifical University in Buenos Aires; Bishop Mathieu Madega Lebouakehan of Gabon; Bishop Marcello Semeraro; and Adolfo Nicolás Pachón, SJ, who represented religious superiors general. The Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops was solemnly inaugurated during the Holy Mass celebrated by Pope Francis in St. Peter’s Basilica on Sunday, October 4; the next day, sessions began. The Monday session was initiated by Cardinal Baldisseri, the general secretary of the synod, who presented the history of synodal works linked to the organization of the last (extraordinary) and the present (ordinary) sessions of the Synod 71. “Briefing per fornire informazioni su tema e metodo della XIV Assemblea Generale Ordinaria del Sinodo dei Vescovi (Vaticano, 4–25 ottobre 2015),” BSS, October 2, 2015.

175

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly of Bishops; he also outlined the course and method of the work at the synod. Next, the Holy Father spoke and encouraged all synod participants to listen intently to the Holy Spirit, while “put[ting] on apostolic courage, evangelical humility, and trusting prayer.” The bulk of the first general congregation was filled by a presentation by Cardinal Erdő, the general relator of the synod, of the first part of Instrumentum laboris, which was to be debated during the first week of the sessions.72 Because the synod participants did not expect anything surprising from this introduction to the ­already-known document, they listened to it at first without any special emotions. However, during this precise presentation, the following words spoken by the Hungarian cardinal surprised all synod fathers who knew Italian: The integration of the divorced and remarried in the ecclesial community can be realized in various ways, apart from admission to the Eucharist, as already suggested in Familiaris Consortio 84. In the traditional practice of the Latin Church, the penitential path could have signified for those who were not ready to change their living conditions, but who tried to communicate the desire for conversion, that confessors could hear their confession, giving them good advice and proposing penitential exercises, in order to direct them to conversion, but without giving them the absolution which was possible only for those who actually intended to change their lives.73

Erdő’s words surprised almost all listeners in the synodal hall, both those who agreed and who disagreed with him. During the 72. Although the agenda of the synod’s sessions spoke only of an introduction to the first part of Instrumentum laboris, Cardinal Erdő introduced all parts of the document. Accordingly, for the next two weeks, the general relator made no introductions to the individual parts of the documents as was initially scheduled. 73. In the written version of Cardinal Erdő’s speech, the reference is made to the manual of an ­eighteenth-century canonist: F. A. Febeus, SJ, De regulis iuris canonici Liber unicus, Venetiis 1735, 912–92; see Péter Erdő, “Relazione introduttiva del Relatore Generale,” BSS, October 5, 2015. An English version is available at https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ news/­full-text-of-cardinal-erdos-introductory-report-for-the-synod-on-the-family-67404.

1 76 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  sessions of the previous synod, Cardinal Erdő, then also the general relator, was one of the persons accused of attempting to arbitrarily direct the sessions, imparting on the synod a direction that did not necessarily correspond to the views and wishes of the synod participants. Hence, it is not surprising that after his presentation, both in the synodal hall and during the subsequent press conference, Erdő was asked to elaborate his position. The Hungarian cardinal answered that in his presentation of Instrumentum laboris, he wanted “to assemble the voice of the Church,” that is, “the objective result, almost mathematical, of what came to the secretariat of the synod in the interval between the two sessions and after the publication of Instrumentum laboris.”74 For as he stated, the majority of the responses emphasized that the teaching of the Magisterium should be taken more into consideration. These remarks of Cardinal Erdő caused smiles on the faces of some listeners and consternation on the faces of others; his remarks indicated that the content of the controversial Instrumentum laboris did not accurately reflect the results of the presynodal consultations. A response came quickly. During the same press conference, Archbishop Forte said: “Although it holds true that this synod must not be expected to change doctrine, it must be said very clearly that this synod is not meeting to say nothing. It is not a doctrinal synod, but it is pastoral. Addressing pastoral questions and seeking new ways of approach brings the Church closer to the women and men of our time.”75 After Cardinal Erdő’s presentation, the remaining part of the first day was spent on a discussion that continued in the morning session on Tuesday. On Tuesday afternoon, in accord with the 74. Sandro Magister, “Synod. First Shot on Target Comes from the Conservatives,” www. chiesa.espressonline.it, October 8, 2015, http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351150 bdc4.html?eng=y. 75. Magister, “Synod. First Shot on Target Comes from the Conservatives.”

177

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly schedule, the meetings of language groups started; their first act was to elect for each group the president and the relator. After two days of meetings in language groups, the synod was to meet on Friday morning at the fourth general congregation, during which the reports from circuli minores were to be presented together with any corrections to the first part of Instrumentum laboris. On Friday afternoon, during the fifth general congregation, the discussion was scheduled to shift to the second part of the Instrumentum. The most important occurrence of the first week of the debate, however, did not pertain to the course of the synod discussions but rather to a letter that was written to the Holy Father by thirteen cardinals, participants in the synod, and personally delivered to him on the first day of sessions by Cardinal George Pell, the prefect of the Vatican Secretariat for the Economy and a member of the Council of Cardinals.76 Among those who signed the letter in addition to Pell were: Archbishop Carlo Caffarra of Bologna; Archbishop Thomas C. Collins of Toronto; Archbishop Daniel N. DiNardo of G ­ alveston-Houston; Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, ­vice-president of the American Conference of Bishops; Archbishop Willem J. Eijk of Utrecht; Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith; Archbishop Wilfrid Fox Napier of Durban; Archbishop John Njuer of Nairobi; Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments; and Archbishop Jorge L. Urosa Savino of Caracas.77 The first important thesis of this brief, precise letter concerned 76. Gerard O’Connell, “Thirteen cardinals, including Dolan and Di Nardo, challenged Pope Francis’s decisions on the synod,” America. The Jesuit Review October 12, 2015, https:// www.americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/­thirteen-cardinals-including-di-nardoand-dolan-challenged-popes-decisions-synod. 77. See Sandro Magister, “Thirteen Cardinals Have Written to the Pope. Here’s the Letter,” www.chiesa.espressonline.it, October 12, 2015, http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/ articolo/1351154bdc4.html?eng=y.

1 78 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  Instrumentum laboris. The authors stressed that despite interesting passages, the text is deeply defective and cannot serve as the basis for creating the final document of the synod. The second thesis of the letter concerned the procedures of the synod. Whereas in the past the procedure of voting on the corrections to the text by the entire assembly supported an open synodal debate and helped in probing the opinion of the synod participants, the present proposal of voting on the final document of the synod during the last days of the discussion did not provide synod fathers sufficient space and time for them to have a real influence on the document. In this sense, the present synodal procedures did not contribute to “openness and genuine collegiality.” The signatories of the letter also noted critically that in contradistinction to other synods, the members of the synodal editorial committee, on whom the content of final document of the synod depended, were nominated and not elected by the assembly, which caused concern among many synod participants: “the new procedures are not true to the traditional spirit and purpose of a synod. It is unclear why these procedural changes are necessary. A number of fathers feel the new process seems designed to facilitate predetermined results on important disputed questions.” In the last part of the letter, the cardinals expressed their concern that the work of the synod, the goal of which was to find new pastoral ways of working with marriages and families, would be limited to one topic only: the admission of divorced persons who live in second unions to the Eucharistic Communion. During the afternoon session of the first working day at the synod, some of the theses from the cardinals’ letter were expressed by synod participants—without an explicit reference to the letter— in the presence of the pope during the discussion in the synodal hall. Pope Francis responded to these remarks the next morning

179

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly during the opening of the third general congregation. Sandro Magister summarized the pope’s response with one sentence: “Francis has rejected the requests of the letter en bloc, apart from the marginal recommendation not to reduce the discussion only to ‘Communion for the divorced.’” Antonio Spadaro, SJ, the director of the Jesuit periodical La Civiltà Cattolica and a close friend of the Holy Father, made one more statement of the pope from that morning public, in which he called synod fathers “not to give in to the conspiracy hermeneutic, which is sociologically weak and spiritually unhelpful.”78 Synodal language groups met on Wednesday and Thursday, and on Friday morning, during the fourth general congregation, the synod participants could hear the reports from these meetings. We will report here only the remarks that occurred most frequently in these reports.79 Many groups noted the danger of an exclusively sociological description in the first part of the document. Indeed, the Church should read the signs of the times, but “in the light of the Gospel” because “it is with eyes fixed on Jesus that we begin.”80 The inductive description of today’s culture in the first part of the Instrumentum, they said, is also too negative, thus, “more attention needs to be given to theological reflection on the faithful, loving married couples and family, who, so often heroically, live an authentic witness to the grace of the family.”81 At the same time, several language groups noted that the synod should clearly recognize “the inadequacy of the pastoral support that families receive from the Church on their itinerary of faith.”82 78. Antonio Spadaro, cited in Magister, “Thirteen Cardinals Have Written to the Pope.” 79. All summaries can be found on the official site of the press office of the Holy See: BSS, October 9, 2015. 80. “Relatio—Circulus Anglicus A.” 81. “Relatio—Circulus Anglicus A.” 82. “Relatio—Circulus Anglicus B.”

1 8 0 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  In the summary of the second Italian group, one finds an essential clarification concerning the discussed text: “At the beginning, the articles speak of anthropological and cultural change, but the question arises: a change of what? Certainly not the change of the teaching of Christ, but the change of the world, and this should be clarified. One would prefer to speak of the ‘cultural change in the current society.’”83 Among proposals for supplementing the description of these cultural changes, there were recurring postulates to recognize the dangers coming from gender ideology and contemporary feminism. In the reports, a critical remark recurred that pointed out the excessively Western and Eurocentric character of Instrumentum laboris, “especially in the description of the aspects and challenges opened by secularization and individualism that characterize consumer societies.”84 Several language groups noted defects in the method of the synod’s work: it seems impossible to discuss all articles of Instrumentum laboris during just three weeks.85 During the fifth general congregation on Friday morning, the synod fathers started the discussion of the second part of Instrumentum laboris. The debate lasted all Saturday during the sixth and seventh general congregations; on Monday, October 12, the discussions in language groups resumed. The summaries of the discussions in language groups were presented at the eighth general congregation on Wednesday, October 14, in the morning.86 In the reports concerning the second part of Instrumentum laboris, a consensus appears among participants that the work on this part was easier than the work on the first one; the second part of 83. “Relatio—Circulus Italicus B.” 84. “Relatio—Circulus Italicus C.” 85. See “Relatio—Circulus Gallicus A” and “Relatio - Circulus Anglicus C.” 86. All summaries from this stage of synodal discussion can be found in BSS, October 14, 2015.

181

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly the document was less controversial and better written than the first. The participants in the debates had developed, to a considerable extent by way of trial and error, a certain debate methodology. Nonetheless, the majority of the groups noted the need for a more theological grasp of the vocation to life in the family than appeared in Instrumentum laboris. The first ­English-speaking group stressed the Christological and Trinitarian sources of the family; the second E ­ nglish-speaking and the third I­ talian-speaking groups postulated a considerable expansion of the description of the salvation economy pertaining to the family; the first ­Italian-speaking group noted the need for a clearer theology of the sacramentality of marriage; the first F ­ rench-speaking group emphasized the significance of showing the Christian theology of marriage as the Good News for all people and of rooting it in Sacred Scripture; the third ­English-speaking group stressed that in speaking of the joy of conjugal and familial life, we should also speak of the life of sacrifice and suffering that lead to joy in conformity with the logic of the Paschal Mystery. The summaries postulate “to find a more positive way of speaking about it” and “to present the indissolubility of marriage as a gift from God rather than a burden”87 or “an abstract ideal.”88 In many summaries, the postulate appears to note in the final document of the synod the “good practices” that support the life of faith in families, for example, participation in the sacraments together, common prayer, and common reading of Sacred Scripture. After the reports about the second part of Instrumentum laboris were presented, the ninth general congregation opened its discussion of the third part of the Instrumentum. The discussion lasted through Thursday and Friday, October 15 and 16. During the Fri87. “Circulus Anglicus D.” 88. “Circulus Italicus A.”

1 8 2 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  day morning session of the twelfth general congregation, the synod participants heard brief presentations by the delegates from other Christian churches, and later that day during the thirteenth general congregation, the lay observers of the synod spoke. Because the press office published the texts of the Friday presentations, we can give the reader a sense of those debates; one should remember, though, that the statements of different delegates and observers reflect the differences in the theology of various Christian denominations and culture of different countries.89 One of the delegates from other Christian churches was Stephanos, the primate of the Orthodox Church of Estonia, who represented Bartholomew I, the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, stressed that the Church must above all show today’s men and women that they are not orphans, but that they are loved by God: It is absurd to approach our contemporaries with a language of judgment about sexuality, in the perspective of permission or prohibition, when in many cases they do not know whether they really believe in the Lord. . . . The Christian message in the area that concerns us is not a law to impose but something attractive to propose. The Church is not to dictate the laws of the state or block them as any ‘pressure group.’ The Church inspires and sanctifies. She does not constrain. What she is trying to change are the hearts.90

The metropolitan Bishoy, the representative of the Coptic Church from Alexandria, spoke on two issues. The first was the relationship of the Christian to homosexual persons. The Coptic metropolitan recalled that the task of the Church is to explain to homosexual persons “in a tender, tolerant and convincing way that homosexuality 89. See “12a Congregazione generale: Audizione dei Delegati fraterni,” BSS, October 16, 2015. 90. “12a Congregazione generale: Audizione dei Delegati fraterni,” BSS, October 16, 2015.

183

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly is a great sin forbidden by God according to the Holy Scriptures.”91 Referring to the Sacred Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Metropolitan Bishoy emphasized that the main mission of the Church is to encourage such persons to conversion, which will guide them “to lead a pure life.” The second topic was the issue of the indissolubility of the sacramental marriage. The Coptic patriarch familiarized the audience with the practice of the Coptic Church in Alexandria in this area: “Our Church allows divorce in cases of adultery and in cases of what we call ‘legal adultery’; which is anything that is adultery like: homosexuality, intercourses against natural use, urging or compelling an innocent party into forbidden relations for materialistic gain or sexual exchange.”92 In such and similar situations, the Coptic Church allows divorce and a second marriage for only the party who is not guilty of the b ­ reak-up of the sacramental marriage. Similarly, Mar Youstinos Boulos, a Lebanese archbishop of the Syriac Orthodox Church, spoke about the Orthodox understanding of the principle of economy: “This principle finds in the sacrament of the Eucharist a medicine for wounded souls, as well as an aid for people who want to recover their relationship with the Lord. This sacrament, which has salvific effect, should not be part of the norm of punishment, except for certain exceptional cases. The Eucharist is not a reward or a recompense, but the means through which the Lord Jesus heals our weaknesses and draws us to himself.”93 That same afternoon, the lay synod observers were given the floor. The synod participants listened to thirty very different and, not infrequently, utterly personal and moving speeches from different parts of the world. We will note only some of those statements here.94 91. “12a Congregazione generale: Audizione dei Delegati fraterni,” BSS, October 16, 2015. 92. “12a Congregazione generale: Audizione dei Delegati fraterni,” BSS, October 16, 2015. 93. “12a Congregazione generale: Audizione dei Delegati fraterni,” BSS, October 16, 2015. 94. All statements were published in the press bulletin of the Holy See. See “Audizione

1 8 4 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  ­ nca-Maria Cernea, a member of the G A ­ reek-Catholic Church and the president of the Association of Catholic Physicians in Bucharest, noted in a very moving way that the family is constantly the object of ideological attacks: “Material poverty and consumerism are not the primary cause of the family crisis. The primary cause of the sexual and cultural revolution is ideological. . . . Now we need Rome to tell the world: ‘Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.’ Not only us, the Catholic laity, but also many Christian Orthodox are anxiously praying for this Synod. Because, as they say, if the Catholic Church gives in to the spirit of this world, it is going to be very difficult for all the other Christians to resist it.”95 Next, Sharron Cole, the president of Parents Centers in New Zealand, took the floor. Her speech went in a completely different direction: “the second [greatest commandment] is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. Have we as a Church failed to practice this charity? The experience of many lay people has been of being judged, of being labelled as ‘intrinsically disordered’ and of being rejected by their Christian community. There are those who have walked away never to return and the others who are just waiting, hoping to again be fully in communion with the Church.” Cole, who teaches natural family planning in New Zealand, expressed a conviction that this method is effective for motivated spouses. At the same time, however, she stressed the need for reinterpretation of the encyclical Humanae vitae: “for many couples, the method is simply not practicable—they may hold multiple ­low-wage jobs, have mental health problems. . . . Every family has difficulties di Uditori nelle Congregazioni generali del 15 e del 16 ottobre,” BSS, October 16, 2015, and “Audizione di Uditori nelle Congregazioni generali del 15 e del 16 ottobre (Continuazione),” BSS, October 20, 2015. 95. BSS, October 16, 2015.

185

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly which might lead them for a period of time to use artificial contraception in the interests of responsible parenting. . . . The response of the Church to this unsatisfactory situation has been for better catechesis or to ignore the dissent. This ‘paralysed status quo’ cannot continue. The matter must be discussed afresh but lay people will not be content to leave it to clergy alone.”96 Even these two voices of lay women, originating from Eastern Europe and Oceania, show us the extent of divergence in the views and expectations concerning the synod. These essential differences undoubtedly arise from different cultural and historical contexts, which strongly influence the understanding of the teaching of the Church. The attempt to seek points of convergence between these views requires serious effort in applying comparative hermeneutics—cultural and theological. Even this small sample of the theological pluralism of the participants in the synodal debate shows that the synod faced an extremely difficult challenge of finding the truly Christian and universal response to various questions and problems, each of them being linked with the particularities of time, place, national culture, and the state of the local Church. Certainly, one important criterion of the plausibility of any suggested pastoral prescriptions or doctrinal solutions should be the question of whether the application of these solutions in the local Church contributed to her growth or decline.97 Before we move to describe the last week of the synod, it is worth noting an important event that occurred on Saturday, October 17, during the morning general congregation: celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the institution of the Synod of Bishops. First, Cardinal Baldisseri spoke, recalling the content of Paul VI’s document Apostolica sollicitudo, which instituted the Synod of Bish96. BSS, October 16, 2015. 97. George Weigel points to this criterion in his article “Between Two Synods.”

1 8 6 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  ops.98 He then recalled the most significant data during the history of the synod, the number of convoked synods, their subject matter, and the most important changes in the way they functioned. Following Cardinal Baldisseri, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the president of the Austrian Conference of Bishops, delivered an important presentation.99 It is worth taking a closer look at the main theses of his speech as he is one of Pope Francis’s closest theological collaborators. He discussed not only significant topics concerning the Synod of Bishops in general but also commented on some of the controversial subjects discussed during the synod. Schönborn stressed the fact that for the past half a century, the Synod of Bishops “has certainly been one of the privileged instruments for the implementation of the Second Vatican Council.”100 This conviction however, even though shared by all postconciliar popes, does not answer the question about the theological character of the authority of the Synod of Bishops and the common synodal responsibility of the bishops for the universal Church. In order to answer this question, the Viennese cardinal considered the dynamic of the Council of Jerusalem. Schönborn reminded his listeners that the reason for convoking the first council in the history of the Church was the “dramatic conflict” concerning the question of circumcising the pagans who accepted the faith in Christ. Importantly, this problem was not silenced but was instead expressed and openly discussed. This honesty between the Apostles reminded Schönborn of parrhesia, to which Pope Francis encouraged all participants of the previous and present synods. The tensions and 98. Lorenzo Baldisseri, “Introduzione,” in “Commemorazione del 50.mo anniversario del Sinodo dei Vescovi: Introduzione, Relazione commemorativa e Comunicazioni,” BSS, October 17, 2015. 99. Christoph Schönborn, “Relazione commemorativa,” in Commemorazione del 50.mo anniversario del Sinodo dei Vescovi.” 100. Schönborn, “Relazione commemorativa.”

187

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly discussions of the synodal process ignited an intensive theological debate around the whole world, and this ­world-wide exchange of opinions brings new hope for “the organic development of the doctrine of the Church,” as the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms.101 Cardinal Schönborn also stressed that the New Testament description of the Synod in Jerusalem may shed light on the proper direction of the present synodal debate. When Peter had to respond to the conflicting opinions, he did not quote the Old Testament; rather, he recognized the authentic action of God, who gave the Holy Spirit to the uncircumcised pagans as he did to the circumcised Jews: “God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the Holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts” (Acts 15:8–9). The Viennese cardinal commented on St. Peter’s method of discernment: “[His conclusions] are not the result of theological reflections, but attentive looking at and listening to God’s work.”102 After Peter’s speech, the Apostles “listened while Paul and Barnabas recounted the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them” (v. 12), which Schönborn elaborates upon: “They recounted! They gave no theological discourse. They did not abstractly theorize about the salvation of the pagans but explained what they ‘saw and heard’ (see Acts 4:20).”103 In this context, Schönborn turned directly to the synod participants: “Please, let us take the Apostolic Council as a model! Let us talk in a less abstract and distant way. Let us testify to each other, what the Lord shows us and how we experience his action.”104 Just as the synod in Jerusalem “enabled, promoted, and indeed made the missionary dynamic of 101. See CCC, 94. 102. Schönborn, “Relazione commemorativa.” 103. Schönborn, “Relazione commemorativa.” 104. Schönborn, “Relazione commemorativa.”

1 8 8 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  the early Church flourish,”105 so—in Schönborn’s opinion—the imitation of the first synod in our times will allow us to move closer to the goal of the present synod of bishops: the mission. One can imagine how the synod participants received these words a few days before the end of the synod where one of the points of disagreement concerned faithfulness to the teaching of the Church ­vis-à-vis pastoral openness. On the one hand, his words distancing himself from “abstract, irrelevant” theology (does this refer to all theology, one wonders?) were understood as a support for new, controversial pastoral practices criticized for their lack of conformity with the teaching of the Church, for example, admitting divorced persons who live in second unions to Communion. On the other hand, this emphasis on experience of God could point to this fundamental criterion in judging the Church’s proper pastoral solutions: wherever faithfulness to the difficult and demanding teaching of the Church is preserved, one could see the growth of the Church; wherever the Church teaching is compromised and no longer is “the sign of contradiction,” she dies.106 After Cardinal Schönborn’s presentation, five bishops representing five different continents shared their experiences of participating in previous synods. The final presentation was delivered by Pope Francis.107 Relying on the words of St. John Chrysostom that “Church and Synod are synonymous,” Pope Francis showed, first, the theological significance of ecclesial synodality. The synodality of the Church is rooted in the baptismal anointing of all Christians, which enables the existence of the sense of faith in the People of God. The Second Vatican Council spoke of that in Lumen gentium: 105. Schönborn, “Relazione commemorativa.” 106. See Weigel, “Between Two Synods.” 107. Pope Francis, “Discorso del Santo Padre Francesco,” in “Commemorazione del 50.mo anniversario dell’Istituzione del Sinodo dei Vescovi: Discorso del Santo Padre Francesco,” BSS, October 17, 2015.

189

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One (see 1 Jn 2:20.27), cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith (sensus fidei) when from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.”108 This conviction that speaking to all the baptized God leads the Church, was at the source of the decision that, in the process of preparing both synods on the family, extensive presynodal consultations were conducted, including among the laity: “A synodal Church is a Church which listens, which realizes that listening ‘is more than simply hearing.’ It is a mutual listening in which everyone has something to learn. The faithful people, the college of bishops, the Bishop of Rome: all listening to each other, and all listening to the Holy Spirit, the ‘Spirit of truth’ (Jn 14:17), in order to know what he ‘says to the Churches’ (Rv 2:7). The Synod of Bishops is the point of convergence of this listening process conducted at every level of the Church’s life.”109 Next, the pope indicated the particular stages of this synodal process of listening: it starts with listening to the People of God, which participates in the prophetic function of Christ in virtue of the baptismal consecration.110 This is followed by listening to the pastors, especially synod fathers, the “authentic guardians, interpreters and witnesses of the faith of the whole Church, which they need to discern carefully from the changing currents of public opinion.”111 The culmination of the synodal process consists of listening to the bishop of Rome, who speaks as “pastor and teacher of all Christians”112—not expressing his personal opinions, but wit108. LG, 12. 109. Pope Francis, “Discorso.” 110. See LG, 12. 111. Pope Francis, “Discorso.” 112. Vatican Council I, Pastor aeternus IV, Dogmatic Constitution, July 18, 1870. See also Code of Canon Law, 749, 1.

1 9 0 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  nessing to the faith of the whole Church ( fides totius Ecclesiae). Synodality thus understood is to characterize the entire Church and all levels of the Church: dioceses with diocesan synods and various forms of consultation and collegiality, parishes with pastoral and economic councils, and so on. Pope Francis stressed that all Christians are called to create such a synodal Church, which will be the example and new standard in the world that “often consigns the fate of entire peoples to the grasp of small but powerful groups.”113 The speech of the Holy Father concluded the Saturday morning celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Synod of Bishops. That afternoon, the synod participants met in small language groups to begin discussing the third and most controversial part of Instrumentum laboris. The meetings of circoli minori lasted until noon on Tuesday; that afternoon, in the fourteenth general congregation, reports from these sessions were presented.114 These reports reflect the difficulties that the synod participants encountered in these last days of work. During nine-and-a-half hours of debate, they had to evaluate nearly eighty points from the third, and most controversial and most criticized, part of Instrumentum laboris. This frustration found different means of expression: the second F ­ rench-speaking group simply stated that it had too little time to discuss all important issues;115 the third ­French-speaking group did not evaluate the text of the Instrumentum at all, but rather discussed metathemes concerning the presence of the Church in the world.116 In several summaries, we find some traces of the fact that the groups did not achieve agreement on the controversial topics of the third part of the Instrumentum. One summary contains the 113. Pope Francis, “Discorso.” 114. All cited reports are available in “Synod15—14a Congregazione generale: Relazioni dei Circoli minori sulla terza parte dell’Instrumentum laboris,” BSS, October 21, 2015. 115. “Relatio—Circulus Gallicus B.” 116. “Relatio—Circulus Gallicus C.”

191

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly characteristic euphemism that allows us to infer what is behind it: “Our discussion on certain issues brought up strong feelings and sentiments.”117 This lack of agreement is particularly evident in the response of some language groups to the proposal to admit divorced persons who live in second unions to the Eucharist. The first F ­ rench-speaking group accepts the idea of a path of penance for such persons, but also emphasizes that it cannot in any way undermine the indissolubility of marriage.118 It is worth noting that among the thirteen reports, the idea of admitting divorced persons who live in second unions to Communion was clearly rejected in three,119 while others do not mention this problem at all, instead concentrating on other ways of including these persons in the Church.120 Some reports suggest a commission that would study this issue more deeply;121 other groups want to leave the ­decision-making to the Holy Father.122 Even the text of the G ­ erman-speaking group seems to express a conviction that the present synod is unable to make revolutionary decisions in this matter, therefore allowing such decisions to be left to the competence of particular conferences of bishops.123 At the beginning of the third week of the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, more and more of its participants shared a conviction that one should not expect from the synod any groundbreaking steps regarding controversial pastoral issues. A majority of the synod participants understood that many of the controversial proposals presuppose theological shifts 117. “Relatio—Circulus Anglicus A.” 118. “Relatio—Circulus Gallicus A.” 119. See “Relatio—Circulus Gallicus B,” “Relatio—Circulus Anglicus A,” and “Relatio—Circulus Anglicus C.” 120. See “Relatio—Circulus Italicus A” and “Relatio—Circulus Gallicus C.” 121. See “Relatio—Circulus Anglicus B.” 122. See “Relatio—Circulus Gallicus A.” 123. See “Relatio—Circulus Germanicus.”

1 9 2 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  that should be thoughtfully considered in a calmer context than three weeks of nervous and exhausting debates. In the summaries of the last meetings of circoli minori, therefore, a majority opinion emerged that the final document of the synod, due to its compromising and unfinished character, should be treated only as a reference for the Holy Father Francis, with a suggestion that the pope himself—taking advantage of the “power of the keys” and considering the various positions that appeared in the two synods on the family—would make appropriate decisions that would be communicated to the Church in a postsynodal exhortation.

Relatio finalis Undoubtedly, the compromising attitude of the synod participants in its last days must have also been influenced simply by human fatigue. Each of the synod participants must have welcomed with relief the free day, Wednesday, October 21, during which the ­ten-person commission, established before the synod by Pope Francis, worked on creating the final document of the synod. The first version of Relatio finalis was presented to synod participants on Thursday afternoon; and during the Friday morning general congregation, the whole text was discussed. During this discussion, the synod fathers were able to present written corrections to the text (modi). On Friday afternoon, the commission continued to work on the text of Relatio finalis, trying to incorporate various remarks from the synodal hall and the modi. During the Saturday morning and afternoon general congregations, the final version was read, with each point voted on. In conformity with the Holy Father’s decision, as in the case of the previous synod, both the text of the final document and the results of the vote were made public. Essentially, the final document of the synod preserved the

193

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly structure of Instrumentum laboris in regard to the division into three parts and the topics of the chapters in each part.124 The first part, “The Church Listening to the Family,” describes the situation of the family in today’s world; its four chapters, as in Instrumentum laboris, analyse the ­anthropological-cultural context, the ­socio-economic context, the task of including everyone in the structure of the family, and the affective life in the family. In the new text, one could see some important but still secondary changes. In the chapter on inclusion, a new article appeared concerning the persons who do not live in marital relationships;125 next to the article concerning the problem of women in today’s society, a new article was added concerning the problems of the identity of the man;126 in the short chapter pertaining to the affective life, a new article was added, dealing with the formation of young people not only toward psychological maturity but also toward a gift of self.127 All articles of the first part of Relatio finalis were accepted almost unanimously by the 265 voting synod fathers; the majority of them received over 250 approving votes (placet). The most negative votes (non placet), fifteen and twelve respectively, were cast for two poorly written articles that addressed complicated issues: article 25 on mixed marriages and article 33 on artificial insemination. The second part of Instrumentum laboris underwent more significant changes. Instead of the old title, “The Discernment of the Family Vocation,” this part in Relatio finalis is entitled “The Family in God’s Plan.” It has more chapters, four instead of three, but is 124. See “Relazione Finale del Sinodo dei Vescovi al Santo Padre Francesco,” BSS, October 24, 2015. 125. See Relatio finalis, 22 (hereafter RF  ). 126. See RF, 28. 127. See RF, 31. It is a pity that on this point there is no reference to the fundamental text, Gaudium et spes, 24, nor to the most important commentary to this text: John Paul II’s “theology of the body.” See Jarosław Kupczak, Gift and Communion: John Paul II’s Theology of the Body (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2014).

1 9 4 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  about o­ ne-third shorter, providing a more accurate presentation of the teaching of the Church on marriage and the family, with particular attention to the teaching of the tw ­ entieth-century popes. The wordy Instrumentum laboris was replaced by text that places a stronger emphasis on the classic elements of the Catholic theology of marriage: indissolubility, fecundity, three goods of marriage, the sacramentality of the union between man and woman, and the Trinitarian dimension of marriage. During the final vote on the second part of Relatio finalis, the majority of its ­twenty-one articles received almost unanimous approval. The most negative votes, fifteen, ­twenty-one, and fourteen non placet, respectively, were cast for articles 53–55, which deal with the Church’s pastoral care for marital unions in difficulties. The third part of Relatio finalis, “The Mission of the Family,” also underwent some serious modifications from the previous version. In accord with numerous suggestions from synod participants, the new first chapter is devoted to “The Formation of the Family” (it was the second chapter in the Instrumentum); it is considerably shorter in its final form—from fifteen to five articles. In the final vote, all articles of this chapter were approved by a remarkable majority; the most negative votes (fourteen) were cast for article 58, which speaks of the sexual education of young people in a culture in which gender ideology introduces a false separation between biological and cultural sex. After a considerable abridgment, from thirteen to seven articles, the last chapter of the Instrumentum, “The Family, Procreation and Upbringing,” became the second chapter of Relatio finalis. The most negative votes (­twenty-one) were cast for article 63 on the fertility of spouses, which is a corrected version of the disastrous article 137 of Instrumentum laboris. Fortunately, the most serious theological errors of the old text, regarding Humanae vitae and the

195

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly relation between the moral norm and individual conscience, were corrected in the new text. Article 63 of Relatio finalis stresses that conscience is not a subjective conviction to which the individual owes his or her absolute allegiance; in the new formulation, the activity of conscience refers the subject to follow objective divine law: “The more the couple try to listen in their conscience to God and his commandments (cf. Rom 2:15), and are accompanied spiritually, the more their decision will be intimately free from a subjective arbitrariness and the adaptation to people’s conduct where they live.” The third chapter of the final document is a shortened version of the third chapter of Instrumentum laboris; only eighteen articles in three subchapters remained out of ­thirty-five articles in seventeen subchapters in the previous version. The chapter discussing families in difficult and irregular situations was the most criticized and controversial part of Instrumentum laboris. Its three articles did not receive the required tw ­ o-thirds majority during the final vote of the previous synod but due to the decision of the pope were included in its final document and so found their way into the preparatory documents for the 2015 synod. During this synod’s final vote, all articles from this chapter received the required ­two-thirds majority; nonetheless, some received the highest number of negative votes cast during the whole process of voting. In the first subchapter of the third chapter, where “Complex Situations” are discussed, many negative votes (­forty-seven and ­forty-two, respectively) were cast for the introductory articles 70 and 71. The first contains a formulation that constantly evoked criticism from the participants in both synods: “Pastoral ministry on behalf of the family clearly proposes the Gospel message and gathers the positive elements present in those situations, which do not yet or no longer correspond to this message.” This unclear

1 9 6 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  formulation about finding positive elements in irregular (sinful) situations is in a certain way supplemented in the text with a call to clarity in proclaiming the Gospel. Fortunately, we do not find in Relatio finalis the strange formulation that appeared in Instrumentum laboris and which was rightly criticized by the synod participants for its lack of theological precision: “The Church also ought to accompany those in a civil marriage or those living together in a gradual discovery of ‘the seeds of the Word’ (graduale scoperta dei germi del Verbo) which lie hidden, so as to value them until the fullness of union in the Sacrament might be achieved.”128 Concluding the description of the first subchapter, it is worth noting that its final article on the relation of the Church to homosexual persons, received relatively few negative votes (­thirty-seven). The reason for that was probably the fact that it simply repeats the teaching of the Church concerning this issue. The second subchapter of the third chapter, “Accompaniment in Different Situations,” contains some articles from several subchapters eliminated from Instrumentum laboris. One of its important subject concerns simplifying the procedures in the declaration of nullity of a marriage. A rather surprising part of this subchapter expresses gratitude toward the spouses who, while being abandoned by their ­co-spouse, decide to live in chastity in order to remain faithful to the marital vow. All articles of this subchapter were approved by synod fathers almost unanimously. The most negative votes in the entire final document of the Synod of Bishops were cast for articles 84–86 of the last subchapter of the third chapter in the third part of Relatio finalis, “Discernment and Integration”: ­seventy-two, eighty, and ­sixty-four votes, respectively. The first article called for an integration of divorced 128. IL 2015, 99.

197

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly persons who live in second unions to Christian communities “while avoiding any chance of scandal.”129 In order to accomplish this integration, all forms of discrimination currently practiced in various spheres of the Church’s activity—liturgical, pastoral, educational, institutional, etc.—should be reconsidered so that these persons think of themselves not as excommunicated but “instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church and experience her as a mother, who welcomes them always.”130 Despite the large number of the non placet votes, one ought to appreciate the caution in the wording of this article. It calls for seeking new paths for integrating these persons to the community of the Church rather than mandates clearly indicating specific solutions. The next article continued the same topic by referring first to John Paul II’s exhortation Familiaris consortio from 1981, in which the Polish pope noted in article 84 a variety of irregular situations and different levels of responsibility for the b ­ reak-up of the previous union. Therefore, Relatio finalis concludes that, “It is therefore the duty of priests to accompany such people in helping them understand their situation according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the Bishop.”131 The essential element of this path is an examination of conscience with respect to one’s fault for the b ­ reak-up of the previous union, fulfillment of one’s obligations toward children, an attempt to reconcile, and so on. As in the formulations of previous documents on this topic, the text refers to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which stresses that in particular situations, “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified.”132 This truth about the dependence of personal responsibility for the performed act on concrete cir129. RF, 84. 130. RF, 84. 131. RF, 85. 132. CCC, 1735. See IL 2015, 122, and RS, 52.

1 9 8 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  cumstances is linked in the next article of Relatio finalis with the person’s conscience: “Conversation with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of Church and Church practice which can foster it and make it grow.”133 It is worth noting that the three articles of Relatio finalis discussed above, which were in the final vote the most critically assessed by synod fathers out of the entire document, do not mention the access of divorced persons who live in second unions to Holy Communion, whereas the previous documents in the analogous articles spoke of that directly.134 At the same time, these three articles repeat almost word for word the whole ethical argumentation of previous documents that was used to justify this new access to the sacraments. The aforementioned reference to the exhortation Familiaris consortio and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is to show that divorced persons who entered second unions are not always in the state of grave sin, so consequently there is no basis for denying such persons absolution and preventing them from receiving Holy Communion. It is difficult not to treat the decision of the authors to formulate these three articles precisely in this way as a certain elusion, aimed at preserving what these articles meant while smoothing over their content so that they could be easier accepted by synod fathers. Only in this way can one understand the fact that after the conclusion of the synod, both the advocates and the opponents of the controversial pastoral postulates discussed their expressed satisfaction with its achievements and the formulations in Relatio finalis. We will return to this ambivalence of the final document of the synod at the end of this chapter. When the final vote on the Relatio finalis ended, the work of the 133. RF, 86. 134. See IL 2015, 122, and RS, 52.

199

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops was done. The final event of the eighteenth general congregation on Saturday, October 24, was an address by Pope Francis.135 After thanking all who made the synod possible, the pope posed the following question: “What will it mean for the Church to conclude this Synod devoted to the family?” As he stated in his answer, “Certainly, the Synod was not about settling all the issues having to do with the family, but rather attempting to see them in the light of the Gospel and the Church’s tradition and ­two-thousand-year history. . . . It was about urging everyone to appreciate the importance of the institution of the family and of marriage between a man and a woman, based on unity and indissolubility, and valuing it as the fundamental basis of society and human life.” It was also about “listening to and making heard the voices of the families and the Church’s pastors, who came to Rome bearing on their shoulders the burdens and the hopes, the riches and the challenges of families throughout the world.” In this context, Pope Francis referred to some synodal controversies, leaving no doubt what side he was sympathetic with: “It was about bearing witness to everyone that, for the Church, the Gospel continues to be a vital source of eternal newness, against all those who would ‘indoctrinate’ it in dead stones to be hurled at others. It was also about laying closed hearts, which bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families. . . . It was about trying to open up broader horizons, rising above conspiracy theories and blinkered viewpoints, so as to defend and spread the freedom of the children of God.” 135. “Discorso del Santo Padre a conclusione dei lavori della XIV Assemblea generale ordinaria del Sinodo dei Vescovi,” BSS, October 24, 2015.

20 0 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  Judging others in the light of the Gospel or the teachings of the Church turns out to be, according to the pope, contrary to the Gospel, and the only wrong attitude criticized by him consists in “hiding behind the teaching of the Church or good intentions to judge difficult cases and wounded families.” Pope Francis’s listeners have become accustomed to the fact that his statements often require clarification, but that does not apply to the statement above. The Pope repeated the words about the “conspiracy hermeneutic,” used in the synodal hall in the first days of the synod and applied then to the letter of the thirteen cardinals. The Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops concluded with the solemn Holy Mass celebrated by Pope Francis on Sunday, October 25. The pope’s homily continued the themes from his speech delivered the previous day. Commenting on the Gospel about the healing of the blind man Bartimaeus (see Mk 10:­462-52), the pope contrasted the attitude of Jesus, who interrupts his journey to Jerusalem in order to be with the suffering man, with the attitude of the apostles. The apostles did not notice the blind man, and in this, they resemble today’s disciples of Jesus: “In this way, just like the disciples, we are with Jesus but we do not think like him. We are in his group, but our hearts are not open. . . . We can walk through the deserts of humanity without seeing what is really there; instead, we see what we want to see. We are capable of developing views of the world, but we do not accept what the Lord places before our eyes.”136 This lack of sensitivity to human suffering often goes hand in hand with that which the pope called a “scheduled faith” (fede da tabella): “We are able to walk with the People of God, but we already have our schedule for the journey, where everything is listed: we know where to go and how long it 136. “Santa Messa a conclusione della XIV Assemblea Generale Ordinaria del Sinodo dei Vescovi,” BSS, October 25, 2015.

2 01

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly will take; everyone must respect our rhythm and every problem is a bother.”

First Responses and Assessments Among a multitude of publications that appeared directly after the conclusion of the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, it is worth pointing out one that illuminates and explains what took place at the synod: the article by a French Dominican, Thomas Michelet, OP, a professor of theology at the Roman University of St. Thomas Angelicum, entitled “What Does the Synod Really Say about the Divorced and Remarried?”137 Due to the significance of this text, it is worth to devote more space to it. Michelet stresses that the issue of Communion for divorced persons who live in second unions—despite the variety of topics the two Synods of Bishops discussed—became their main focus, the issue by which they will be remembered. The ambivalent formulations of Relatio finalis on this issue created the basis for very different interpretations of what the synod really said. Michelet shows the possibility of different interpretations by analyzing how three separate texts of the Church Magisterium are cited and understood on this issue: the controversial article 85 of Relatio finalis: article 84 of John Paul II’s exhortation Familiaris consortio, article 1735 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Declaration from June 24, 2000, of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. In speaking of irregular situations, Relatio finalis, article 85, refers to the comprehensive criterion (un criterio complessivo) mentioned in the exhortation Familiaris consortio and quotes the follow137. See Thomas Michelet, “What Does the Synod Really Say about the Divorced and Remarried?” in Sandro Magister, “Synod of Discord: Toward a “De Facto Schism” in the Church?” www.chiesaespressonline.it, November 4, 2015, http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica. it/articolo/1351170bdc4.html.

20 2 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  ing fragment from this exhortation: “Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.”138 Relatio finalis states that the text of Familiaris consortio calls pastors to accompany (accompagnare) the persons interested in the path of discernment (via del discernimento). On this path of discernment, persons in second unions should make an examination of conscience and ask themselves several questions: How did they behave with respect to their children while the marriage was in crisis? Were they searching for reconciliation? What is the present situation of the abandoned spouse? What consequences did the new bond hahave for the entire family and community of the faithful? And what example did this behavior sets for young people who think of marriage? This paragraph of Relatio finalis concludes with a statement that “a sincere reflection can strengthen trust in the mercy of God which is not denied anyone.”139 Let us recall that these elements of the examination of conscience are in fact a repetition of five conditions for admitting divorced persons who live in second unions to Holy Communion, which Cardinal Walter Kasper formulated in his speech at the papal consistory in February 2014.140 The text of Relatio finalis does 138. RF, 85, and FC, 84. 139. RF, 85. 140. See the first chapter of this book.

2 03

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly not even mention the issue of admitting these persons to Holy Communion; instead, we find there a formulation about the “logic of integration” (la logica dell’integrazione) of all to the community of the Church. In the context of this “logic of integration,” Relatio finalis quotes Familiaris consortio. In accord with the academic principles of proper citation, however, Michelet notes the need to consider the context of the cited passage: “Familiaris consortio no. 84, recalling the need to distinguish these different situations, drew an identical conclusion in all cases: the impossibility of receiving communion unless one ‘regularizes’ one’s situation in one way or another.”141 One reads in Familiaris consortio the following passage, which is not cited in Relatio finalis: the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified 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 and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity 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.”142 141. Michelet, “What Does the Synod Really Say?” 142. FC, 84. Tracey Rowland and Connor Sweeney, two Australian theologians, ask whether according to the principles of the development of the doctrine formulated by

20 4 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  Michelet asks: “What can one gather from the absence of an explicit reference in [Relatio finalis] to this powerful conclusion of Familiaris consortio?”143 Two different interpretations of this omission are possible: one expressing the hermeneutics of continuity and another one expressing the hermeneutics of rupture.144 Michelet elaborates the theological consequences of this alternative: “In a ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ it will be maintained that silence equals consent, that the citation of a text refers to the whole text, which furnishes the citation with its true context. Therefore, such a process of discernment can lead to the Eucharist only insofar as the believer has truly been able to emerge from this objectively disordered situation through a commitment kept by a firm intention and has therefore been able to ask for the forgiveness of his faults and finally receive absolution. Short of this point one cannot receive communion.”145 What does the interpretation of the quotation from Familiaris consortio by Relatio finalis look like when we adopt the hermeneutics of rupture? In that case, Michelet states, “silence equals dissent,” that is, “if the conclusion of Familiaris consortio is not expressly included, this signifies that it has become obsolete.”146 This interpretation suggests that the situation of the family changed so draJohn Henry Newman, one can treat the decision to admit the persons in irregular unions to the Eucharist as a development of the theology of the exhortation Familiaris consortio. Their conclusion is in the negative. See Tracey Rowland and Conor Sweeney, “The Elephants at the Synod: Logos, Ethos and Sacramentality,” Anhropotes 30, no. 2 (2014): 491–517. In a very similar way, Cardinal Gerhard Müller builds his reflections in “Development or Corruption?” First Things, February 20, 2018, https://www.firstthings.com/­webexclusives/2018/02/­development-or-corruption. 143. Michelet, “What Does the Synod Really Say?” 144. This dualism of interpretation is present during the entire discussion on the two synods of bishops as well as on the relation of Pope Francis’s teaching to the legacy of John Paul II. 145. Michelet, “What Does the Synod Really Say?” 146. Michelet, “What Does the Synod Really Say?”

2 05

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly matically from the time of Familiaris consortio that its teaching is no longer binding. According to this interpretation, therefore, a “process of discernment can lead to the Eucharist, even without a change of life, as long as the person has repented of past sins and has judged that he can ‘in conscience’ receive communion.”147 The lack of clarity in Relatio finalis, then, opens this text to two opposing interpretations. The choice, the hermeneutics of rupture or the hermeneutics of continuity, is left to the reader. This arbitrariness in interpreting Relatio finalis is confirmed in its next paragraph, where one finds the reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.”148 This statement from the Catechism is the basis for the declaration that one finds in the next sentence of Relatio finalis: “the judgment of an objective situation should not lead to a judgment on ‘subjective imputability’ (il giudizio su una situazione oggettiva non deve portare ad un giudizio sulla ‘imputabilità soggettiva’).”149 This sentence of Relatio finalis is provided with a footnote that refers the reader to the Declaration from June 24, 2000, of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts,150 but Michelet notes that this reference to the Declaration can be misleading. The Declaration was written in order to explain the proper meaning of canon 915 of the Code of the Canon Law, which states the following: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others ob147. Michelet, “What Does the Synod Really Say?” 148. CCC, 1735. See RF, 85. 149. RF, 85. 150. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration from June 24, 2000. The English version is available at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html.

20 6 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  stinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”151 As the authors of the Declaration note, erroneous interpretations of this canon denied that it pertains to the faithful living in second unions after the ­break-up of a sacramental marriage. In order to substantiate why the formulation “others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” does not refer to the faithful living in new unions, these erroneous interpretations—as we read in the Declaration—hold that: since the text speaks of “grave sin,” it would be necessary to establish the presence of all the conditions required for the existence of mortal sin, including those which are subjective, necessitating a judgment of a type that a minister of Communion could not make ab externo; moreover, given that the text speaks of those who “obstinately” persist in that sin, it would be necessary to verify an attitude of defiance on the part of an individual who had received a legitimate warning from the Pastor.152

In order to oppose these erroneous interpretations of canon 915, the Pontifical Council explains its proper meaning: The phrase “and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable. The three required conditions are: (a) grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability; (b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church; and (c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.153

151. CCL, 915. 152. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, 1. 153. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, 2.

2 07

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly The Declaration uses many phrases that point to the objective situation of sin: “state of sin” (stato di peccato), “being publicly unworthy” (essendo pubblicamente indegno) to receive the Eucharist, “grave habitual sin” (peccato grave abituale), and “one who is publicly unworthy” (chi sia pubblicamente indegno) to receive the Eucharist. As the authors of the Declaration write, clearly thinking about the divorced faithful who live in new unions: “the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion.”154 The judgment on the real fault of the persons “publicly unworthy” in foro interno, which is the task of a confessor or spiritual director, is here only in the background: the Church has the right to demand that the faithful in foro externo live so as not to scandalize others and not to be ­anti-witnesses. Having presented the proper sense of the Declaration of the Pontifical Council, let us note how the text Relatio finalis refers to it: Moreover, one cannot deny that in some circumstances “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified” (CCC, 1735) due to several constraints. Accordingly, the judgment of an objective situation should not lead to a judgment on “subjective imputability” (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration of 24 June 2000, 2a). Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while supporting a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment (il discernimento pastorale), while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases.155

154. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, 1. 155. RF, 85.

20 8 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  When referring to the text of the Declaration of the Pontifical Council, Relatio finalis interprets the discussed situations contrary to the way the Declaration does. Instead of emphasizing the objective state of sin, Relatio finalis pays attention to the subjective conditionings of the objective state of sin, which leads it to say that “responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases” and that “the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases.” According to the Code of Canon Law and its interpretation in the Declaration of the Pontifical Council, the decision to offer Communion must be rooted in the objective perspective because “the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability.”156 Relatio finalis holds to the contrary that because one cannot assess the subjective fault of the person from without, one should refrain from the objective, external moral assessment of human conduct. Because of this ambivalence, readers of the Relatio finalis may again choose an interpretation: one according to the hermeneutics of continuity, the other according to the hermeneutics of rupture. Michelet concludes his analysis of the way that Relatio finalis cites the documents of the Magisterium as follows: In this case as well, a “hermeneutic of continuity” will lead one to interpret this text by specifying what it does not say and maintaining the definition of “grave and manifest sin,” while a “hermeneutic of rupture” will take this silence as a cue to join in abstention from judging in terms of subjective guilt, which will lead one to eliminate any qualification of this situation in terms of sin, whether grave and manifest or not. In the first case, therefore, one will hold firm, in the light of the encyclical Veritatis splendor, that remarriage after divorce is an evil act that can never be willed under any circumstances, in the context of a morality of objectivity and finality. The second case will present the invitation to convert 156. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, 2.

2 09

F ourteen th Ord ina ry Ge ne ra l As s e mbly one’s pastoral vision and to take circumstances more into account, and therefore to modify the doctrinal equilibrium of Veritatis splendor, appealing to a morality of subjectivity and conscience. The pope has guaranteed that doctrine has never been touched, which inclines toward the first meaning. In fact, there are enough references to the magisterium to reinforce the supporters of the hermeneutic of continuity in their interpretation. But there are also enough silences and positive signals for the supporters of the hermeneutic of rupture to feel justified in their new approach. In the absence of further clarifications, both interpretations seem to be permitted.157

Let us conclude these reflections with two last important remarks from Michelet’s article. The first one refers to the fact that the two interpretations of Relatio finalis that—for the sake of the clarity—are presented here in opposition, do not have to exclude each other. This is how the French Dominican explains it: The limitation of the pure logic of objectivity is found in the consideration that we need time and various stages to reach the truth, so that this truth may be received not only as true in itself but also as true for its own sake, desirable and good, and finally possible to live and fruitful. The limitation of the pure logic of conscience is found in affirming the possibility of an erroneous conscience and in the evangelical necessity of freeing it from this error, so that it may become what it is, truly free, in act and not only potentially: “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free” (Jn 8:32).158

Michelet assigns here a serious task to theologians, namely, to accomplish a coherent synthesis of these two perspectives, which in this chapter are presented in opposition and which, often in conflict and dispute, function both in the academic life and in the ecclesial praxis.159 Of course, this postulate does not bring an easy 157. Michelet, “What Does the Synod Really Say?” 158. Michelet, “What Does the Synod Really Say?” 159. Giacomo Samek Lodovici attempts such a synthesis in “La coscienza può autorizzare

21 0 

F ourte e nth Ordina ry Gen er al A ssem b ly  end to the opposition between the hermeneutics of continuity and hermeneutics of rupture. There always will be those who refuse to acknowledge the arguments of the other side and strive toward a compromise. This, however, does not deny the need for such work. The second remark, with which Michelet concludes his article, and with which this chapter will end, is even more important. Thinking about the future, in particular, about the need for a clear postsynodal exhortation, Michelet wrote at the end of October 2015: The Relatio synodi as such has no magisterial value, it is only a document delivered to the pope so that he may make a decision.160 One may therefore hope that in a ­post-synodal exhortation the pope will clearly determine the approach to be taken. Or that a document from the congregation for the doctrine of the faith may provide the necessary clarifications, for example in the form of a reminder of the correct interpretation of the magisterial documents, according to a hermeneutic of continuity. In the absence of this, what could happen? Everyone could go home happy, certain of having obtained what they wanted and of having avoided the worst, what the other side was calling for. Now, an agreement obtained against a background of ambiguity does not produce unity: it covers up a division instead. The pastoral practices already in existence could continue to exist and to develop, some according to the hermeneutic of continuity and others according to a hermeneutic of rupture. . . . Ultimately, if in one territory the priests encouraged by the “guidelines” of their bishop end up establishing practices that are uniform but divergent from those of other territories, this could lead to a de facto schism, legitimized for both sides by a dual possible interpretation of this document.161

deroghe alle norme?” Anthropotes 31, no. 2 (2015), 507–24, where an abundant bibliography on that topic can be found. 160. When writing on Relatio synodi, Michelet is referring to the final document of the 2015 synod, which in this book is referred to as Relatio finalis. The name Relatio synodi has been reserved here for the final document of the 2014 synod, in accord with the proper title of this document. 161. Michelet, “What Does the Synod Really Say?”

2 11

Awaiting the Postsynodal Exhortation C ha pt e r 5

Awaiti ng th e Postsynodal Exhortation

Some books are written to transmit one’s knowledge to others. This book was born out of the need to understand. When the press office of the Holy See announced in October 2013 that over the course of the next two years two synods of bishops on the family would be convoked in Rome, few people could imagine that the most important issue of theological dispute in the Catholic Church would be the proposal to admit divorced persons who live in second unions to Holy Communion. A few days before that October announcement, Pope Francis announced the date of the canonization of John Paul II: April 27, 2014, Divine Mercy Sunday. In his homily during the canonization in St. Peter’s Square, the pope called John Paul II “the pope of the family” (il Papa della famiglia). It seemed then that the teaching of John Paul II on marriage and the family, which Bishop Andreas Laun, an Austrian moral theologian, said “overshadows everything that has been done in this field in the twenty centuries of Church history,”1 would become the solid foundation for the evangelical mission of the Church in the tw ­ enty-first century. This claim was reflected by the experience of the Churches in many countries that 1. Laun, Aktuelle Probleme der Moraltheologie, 70.

21 2 

Awaiting the P ostsynodal E xh ortati on  decided to include John Paul II’s “theology of the body” in their evangelical work.2 February 20, 2014, was a crucial day leading up to the synods. During the papal consistory in Rome, concerned with a preparation for the two synods on the family, Cardinal Walter Kasper delivered the key address at the invitation of Pope Francis. The German cardinal called the Church to a “paradigm change” (un cambiamento del paradigma) in the pastoral ministry of marriages and families. This paradigm change should lead the Church to change her practice in three concrete areas: the validity of the sacrament of marriage contracted by s­ o-called “baptized pagans,” a simplification of the canonical process in the declaration of the nullity of marriage, and an access of divorced persons who live in second unions to Holy Communion. It is beyond any doubt that this address by Kasper in February 2014 presaged not only the basic themes for the two synods on the family in 2014 and 2015 but also most heated theological dispute in the Church since the conclusion of Vatican II. At the same time, it is also clear that this would not have been possible without the permission of Pope Francis. Given the time that has passed, one can now take a more penetrating look at the first programmatic document of his pontificate, the exhortation Evangelii gaudium— we tried to do so in the prologue to this book—and notice that its fundamental theses concerning the Church “going forth,” the Church “whose doors are open,” the Church “in a permanent state of mission” and a state of “pastoral conversion,” originated in the thought of Walter Kasper, the “papal theologian.”3 2. See Robert Marczewski, A Legacy of Saint John Paul II: The Reception of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body in the Catholic church in the United States of America (1984–2012), (Plymouth, Mass.: SqOne Publishing and Design, Inc., 2015). 3. See David Gibson, “Cardinal Kasper Is the ‘Pope’s Theologian,’” National Catholic Reporter, June 3, 2014, https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/­cardinal-kasper-popestheologian.

2 13

Awa itin g th e P ostsynoda l E xhortation In Kasper’s address, the ideas of the exhortation Evangelii gaudium have been translated into concrete theological proposals—pastoral and doctrinal. As demonstrated in the first chapter of this book, these proposals of Cardinal Kasper line up closely with the theological positions held in the early 1970s by Joseph Ratzinger, whose article from 1972, analyzed in the first chapter, included strong theological arguments for offering Holy Communion to divorced persons who live in second unions. These arguments have been repeated in various debates even today, even as Joseph Ratzinger has changed his opinion on this subject. The arguments on which Cardinal Kasper relied in his address were confronted at the end of the first chapter by the recent teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. It is important to note that the documents of the Church point to the objective state of the divorced, which makes them unable to receive the Eucharist— the sign of union with Christ: “The incompatibility of the state of remarried divorced persons with the precept and mystery of the Paschal love of the Lord makes it impossible for these people to receive, in the Eucharist, the sign of unity with Christ.”4 Such argumentation returned in John Paul II’s exhortation Familiaris consortio of 1981: divorced persons who entered in another marital union cannot be admitted to Holy Communion because “their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.”5 Cardinal Kasper’s address in February 2014 made the subject of the indissolubility of sacramental marriage and its relation to the Eucharistic Communion the most important topic in the ecclesial 4. International Theological Commission, Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage, 5.3. 5. FC, 84.

21 4 

Awaiting the P ostsynodal E xh ortati on  debate during the following months at nearly every latitude and longitude of the world. It is not surprising, then, that the extraordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops began in the first days of October 2014 under great pressure from various sides of this theological dispute, which clearly influenced the course of synodal sessions. The most significant theological disputes during the synod referred to a large extent to points raised by Cardinal Kasper. Let us look once again, in a synthetic way, at some of the controversies. The preparatory document of the 2014 synod, Instrumentum laboris, started with a sociological descriptive section, in which the authors attempted to present the current situation of the family in the world, though clearly with a focus on the ­post-Christian West. One of the main debates during the synod pertained to the theological significance of this description and the question to what extent the Church’s preaching should be influenced by today’s crisis of marriage and the family. Is the lack of acceptance of the Church’s teaching on human sexuality among many Catholics a testimony to the anachronism of this teaching or, rather, is it a sign that this teaching is transmitted to the faithful ineffectively? Has the time arrived for a serious reinterpretation of the Church’s teaching—in particular the teaching of Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae vitae and John Paul II’s Theology of the Body—and an admission that this theology of marriage was too “idealistic,” “abstract,” and maladjusted to the realities of today’s life? Some synod fathers seriously considered three postulates that were found in the summary of the presynodal questionnaires prepared by the German Conference of Bishops: the consent for the use of contraception, the acceptance of homosexual unions (though without equating them with heterosexual marriage), and the access of divorced persons who live in second unions to the sacraments, especially to the Eucharist. The controversial Relatio post

2 15

Awa itin g th e P ostsynoda l E xhortation disceptationem devoted disproportionally large space to the topic of “wounded families and in irregular situations,” proposing a certain theology that would permit looking at the life of these people in a positive way. This “positive” theology is based on two conceptions that—due to their obscurity and openness to erroneous interpretations—met with strong criticism from the synod fathers. The first is the principle of gradualness: since in the history of salvation God gradually, through the Old Covenant, prepared the coming of his Son, then the pastors of today should be aware that Christians need time to live up to the demands of the Gospel in their lives. The second concept is the patristic theology of “the seeds of the word,” which in pagan culture prepared the coming of Christ and facilitated proclamation of the Gospel. This search for a “positive” language was expressed in Relatio post disceptationem as a postulate of “welcoming the homosexual persons in the Church” and “accepting and valuing their sexual orientation.” The debate that took place at the 2014 synod led to essential improvement of Relatio post disceptationem, and that debate indicated clearly that the majority of synod fathers supported the current teaching of the Church on the controversial issues. Nonetheless, the conclusion of the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops did not bring to an end to this heated dispute; rather, it was extended until the following October, when the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops was scheduled to take place in Rome. The third chapter of this book is devoted to the presentation and introductory critical analyses of the texts that were delivered at the conference in Rome in May 2015 at which the German, French, and Swiss Episcopates prepared for the upcoming October synod. This ­one-day conference was only one of many meetings during which the bishops from many countries prepared to take part in

21 6 

Awaiting the P ostsynodal E xh ortati on  that synod. I have asked myself whether it was worthwhile to devote an entire chapter of this book to this conference, yet barely mention other such meetings. Given my conviction that the participants at the Roman conference presented the theological views that lie at the source of various controversial statements by synod fathers and formulations in synod documents, the answer is clearly yes. Only by becoming familiar with this “new theology” can we understand what was at stake in the synodal debates. The presentations of two exegetes at the beginning of the Rome conference essentially undermined the conviction that the texts of the New Testament categorically attest to the indissolubility of marriage. Those scholars’ application of the principles of biblical hermeneutics to Christ’s words that “whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery” (Mk 10:11) caused them to lose the sense that had been ascribed to it by consecutive generations of Christians for centuries. Another of the lecturers proposed expressis verbis to redefine the Catholic understanding of the indissolubility of marriage: in light of Vatican II theology, the indissolubility of marriage can be allegedly understood as God’s promise granted constantly anew wherever there arises “a partnership of life and love.” The redefinition of the Catholic understanding of the indissolubility of marriage was only one of the radical proposals that echoed through the walls of the venerable Gregorianum. One lecturer stated that abandoning the erroneous concept of intrinsically evil acts will allow the Church to understand that the use of contraception, extramarital sexual acts, and homosexual acts cannot be assessed as sinful in principle. Taking narrative theology into account, that is, seeing the acting subject in the whole complexity of his or her action as well as appreciating the value of individual conscience, allows for more a nuanced ethical assessment of

2 17

Awa itin g th e P ostsynoda l E xhortation such behaviors. A careful reading of the speeches from the Rome conference allows one to understand that in this theological milieu, which manifested itself before the Gregorianum’s audience, Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae vitae was not the only document rejected on account of its lack of conformity with the spirit of Vaticanum II and the theology of the postconciliar Church. The second document that was under constant attack at Gregorianum was John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis splendor. One cannot deny that the six lectures delivered that day provided interesting insights and observations, but one should remember that this was not an academic debate among a small group of experts, where there is room for controversial hypotheses and intellectual provocation. The conference was to prepare the bishops participating in it for the theological debate concerning marriage and the family during the upcoming synod. In this context, the content of this conference is terrifying and certainly sheds light on what is at stake in the current dispute in the Church. The theological dispute delineated above was not settled by the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, which faced an impossible task to respond to all these complicated theological problems within three weeks. In the documents and debates of the 2015 synod, the dilemmas from the previous session of the synod returned: the problem of the theological interpretation of cultural changes; the ambivalent longing for a Church that “does not moralize, judge or control” her members; the unclear law of gradualness combined with the theology of “the seeds of the word”; the desire to look positively at the situation of persons in irregular unions; and the call for a inclusion of all into the community of the Church. A close look at the introductory document of the synod (Instrumentum laboris)—in particular at the text referring to the encyclical

21 8 

Awaiting the P ostsynodal E xh ortati on  Humanae vitae—led not only to a critique for its lack of clarity but also to a stunning observation that at its source there lies a vision of morality alien to Catholic orthodoxy. In this legalistic and nominalistic ethics, the moral norm is presented as a form of coercion imposed from without on the acting subject that has no internal, ontological connection with the teleology of the person and his or her striving for the good life. In this understanding, the individual conscience by its nature defends the dignity and independence of the person by seeking a way of “protecting” one’s own freedom against the general moral norm in concrete ethical choices. As it was pointed out, the most important Magisterial document that criticizes this erroneous understanding of moral norm, conscience, and ethical reasoning is John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis splendor. Therefore, one should agree with those commentators of the synods who held that it is it was the validity of this papal document and the proposed vision of morality that was one at the heart of the synodal quarrels.6 The Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops did not take a clear position with respect to the most inflammatory issues. At the end of the synod, the majority of synod fathers arrived at the conviction that the controversial postulates discussed presuppose theological changes, which should be thought over in a calmer context than three weeks of nervous and exhausting synod sessions. Therefore, it was generally accepted that the final document of the synod, Relatio finalis, should not have a decisive character. Rather, it should present a variety of views that would allow Pope Francis to take advantage of “the power of the keys” and communicate his decisions to the Church in a postsynodal exhortation. 6. See Charles J. Chaput, “The Splendor of Truth in 2017,” First Things 10 (2017): 21–27.

2 19

Awa itin g th e P ostsynoda l E xhortation The final document of the 2015 Synod of Bishops to a large extenty corrects the errors and weaknesses of its working document, Instrumentum laboris. In accord with the intention of the authors, the text of Relatio finalis, however, remains ambivalent and open to mutually opposing interpretations. As Thomas Michelet, OP, remarkably showed, this lack of clarity on the part of Relatio finalis consists of the fact that the text invites the reader to an arbitrary choice of one of its two hermeneutics: of continuity or of rapture. In the former case, Relatio finalis will be read in conformity with the Magisterium of the Church of the past decades; in the latter case, this text will be understood as a break from the current teaching of the Church, in particular, from the teaching of John Paul II. Advocates of both of these two hermeneutics will find in the text of Relatio finalis a sufficient number of arguments they agree with. The dispute animating the 2014 and 2015 synods conceals a more serious dispute—a dispute about the interpretation of Vatican II. In the opinion of many synod fathers, during the pontificates of recent popes—Paul VI (especially after 1968, when Humanae vitae was promulgated), John Paul II, and Benedict XVI—a turning away from the reforms of Vatican II and an end to the conciliar aggiornamento took place. In this view, it is the pontificate of Pope Francis that returns to the “spirit” of Vaticanum II, giving hope for a continuation of conciliar reforms. In the synodal discussions, one could see a clear presence of such a view. The alternative understanding of the relation between Vatican II and the teaching of postconciliar popes—one that is definitely closer to the author’s view—emphasizes instead the continuity in theory and practice of the Church. The pontificate of Pope Francis should and will be interpreted in the future according to the hermeneutics of continuity because it is the proper interpretation of development and change in the Catholic Church.

220 

Awaiting the P ostsynodal E xh ortati on  The last sentences of this book were written in March 2018, two-and-a-half years after the conclusion of the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops and two years after the publication of the postsynodal exhortation Amoris laetitia by Pope Francis. References to the events and publications that occurred after the 2015 synod have been avoided in order to reconstruct faithfully the events that led to the publication of the exhortation Amoris laetitia and later disputes concerning its interpretation. The aim of this work has not been limited, however, to a historical genesis of the exhortation. Rather, the historical description served to present the most important theological dilemmas that the two synods on the family faced. Clear presentation of these theological issues may help to understand the storm caused by the exhortation of Amoris laetitia. The reader will assess to what extent the author has been successful in this task.

221

Bibliography

B ib l io g raph y

Adoukonou, Barthélemy. “Start from the Living Faith: An African Take on the Instrumentum laboris.” In Christ’s New Homeland—Africa. Contribution to the Synod on the Family by African Pastors, translated by M. J. Miller, 34–53. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2015. African Cardinals and Bishops. Christ’s New Homeland—Africa. Contribution to the Synod on the Family by African Pastors. Translated by M. J. Miller. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2015. Amherdt, ­François-Xavier. “Sexualité comme expression de l’amour. Réflexions sur une théologie de l’amour.” In Journée d’études commune á l’invitation des présidents des Conférences Épiscopales de France, d’Allemagne et de Suisse sur de questions de la pastoral du mariage et de la famille en vue du Synode des évêques, 26–32. http://www.bischoefe.ch/ dokumente/communiques/­studientag-familie-in-kirche-und-welt. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Allen, Tex.: Christian Classics, 1981. Baldisseri, Lorenzo. “Una lettura del Sinodo della famiglia.” Studia Moralia Supplemento 1 (2015): 11–28. Benedict XVI, Pope. Sacramentum caritatis. Postsynodal Apostolic Exhortation. February 22, 2007. Burke, Cormac. “The Bonum Coniugum and the Bonum Prolis: Ends or Properties of Marriage?” The Jurist 49, no. 2 (1989): 704–13. Caffarra, Carlo. “Da Bologna con amore: fermatevi.” Il Foglio, March 15, 2014. Cates, Diana Fritz. Aquinas on the Emotions: A ­Religious-Ethical Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009. Chaput, Charles. “The Splendor of Truth in 2017.” First Things 276 (October 2017): 21–27. Communio Editors. “Faith and the Sacrament of Marriage. A Response to the Proposal of a New ‘Minimum Fidei’ Requirement.” Communio: International Catholic Review 42 (Summer 2015): 309–30. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful.” In Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and

223

Bi bl io g ra p h y Communion in the Catholic Church, edited by R. Dodaro, 265–79. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014. Corbett, John, Andrew Hoffer, Paul J. Keller, Dominic Langevin, Dominic Legge, Thomas Joseph White, and Kurt Martens. “Recent Proposals for the Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried: A Theological Assessment.” Nova et Vetera, English edition 12, no. 3 (2014): 601–30. D’Auria, Andrea. “Mitis Judex Dominus Jesus. Sfide pastorali peri il dritto. Alcune considerazioni all’art. 14 delle regole procedurali.” Anthropotes 31, no. 2 (2015): 525–73. Diriart, Alexandra. “Le mariage, un idéal a proposer? Communiquer une parole performative.” Anthropotes 30, no. 2 (2014): 473–91. Dodaro, Robert, ed. Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014. Faber, ­Eva-Maria. “Das Geschenk des eigenen Lebens. Überlegungen zu einer Theologie der Biographie.” In Journée d’études commune á l’invitation des présidents des Conférences Épiscopales de France, d’Allemagne et de Suisse sur de questions de la pastoral du mariage et de la famille en vue du Synode des évêques, 98–112. http://www.bischoefe.ch/ dokumente/communiques/­studientag-familie-in-kirche-und-welt. Fides—foedus. La fede e il sacramento del matrimonio. Edited by A. Diriart and S. Salucci. Siena: Cantagalli, 2014. Francis, Pope. Evangelii gaudium. Apostolic Exhortation. November 24, 2013. ———. Misericordiae vultus. Bull of Indiction of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy. April 11, 2015. ———. Amoris laetitia. Postsynodal Apostolic Exhortation. March 19, 2016. Fransen, Piet. Ehescheidung bei Ehebruch Die theologischen und geschichtlichen Hintergründe der ersten Stellungnahme zum 7. Kanon in der 24. Sitzung des Trienter Konzils. Scholastik 29 (1954): 537–60. Granados, José. “The Sacramental Character of Faith: Consequences for the Question of the Relation between Faith and Marriage.” Communio: International Catholic Review 41 (Summer 2014): 245–69. ———. Eucaristia e divorzio: cambia la dottrina? Saggio sulla fecondita dell’insegnamento Cristiano. Siena: Cantagalli, 2015. Gratian. Decretum. Corpus Iuris Canonici. Vol. 1. Leipzig: A. E. Friedberg, 1879. Guillebaud, ­Jean-Claude. La tyrannie du plaisir. Paris: Seuil, 1998. Healy, Nicholas J. “The Merciful Gift of Indissolubility and the Question of Pastoral Care for Civilly Divorced and Remarried Catholics.” Communio (Summer 2014): 306–29. ———. “The Spirit of Christian Doctrine: Logike Latreia and Pastoral Accompaniment.” Anthropotes 31, no. 2 (2015): 379–95. International Theological Commission. Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage. 1977. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/­rc_ cti_1977_sacramento-matrimonio_en.html.

224 

Bi b l io g r a p h y  John XXIII, Pope. Gaudet Mater Ecclesia. Second Vatican Council Opening Address. October 11, 1962. John Paul II, Pope. Dives in misericordia. Encyclical Letter. November 30, 1980. ———. Familiaris consortio. Postsynodal Apostolic Exhortation. November 22, 1981. ———. Address to the Roman Rota. January 21, 2000. ———. Address to the Roman Rota. January 30, 2003. Journée d’études commune á l’invitation des présidents des Conférences Épiscopales de France, d’Allemagne et de Suisse sur de questions de la pastoral du mariage et de la famille en vue du Synode des évêques. http://www.bischoefe.ch/dokumente/communiques/­ studientag-familie-in-kirche-und-welt. Kaczor, Christopher. Proportionalism and the Natural Law Tradition. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010. Kampowski, Stephan. “Is There a Saving Judgment?” Anthropotes 30, no. 2 (2014): 600– 608. ———. Famiglie diverse: espressioni imperfette dello stesso ideale? Siena: Cantagalli, 2015. Kasper, Walter. Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life. Translated by William Madges. New York/Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 2013. ———. The Gospel of the Family. New York/Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 2014. Keenan, James F. A History of Catholic Moral Theology in the Twentieth Century: From Confessing Sins to Liberating Consciences. New York: Continuum, 2010. Kroczek, Piotr. “Is Dialog a Useful Tool for the Church Legislator? Deliberations on the ­So-called ‘Pope Francis Questionnaire.’” Annuarium Iuris Canonici 1 (2014): 17–31. Kroczek, Piotr, Józef Krzywda, and Andrzej Sosnowski. Droga do Amoris laetitia. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UPJPII, 2017. Kupczak, Jarosław. Gift and Communion: John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2014. ———. “John Paul II on Marriage: A Theological Breakthrough or a Continuation?” In De revolutionibus orbium populorum Ioannis Pauli II: The Pope against Social Exclusion, edited by K. Pilarczyk, translated by Jan M. Głogoczowski, 305–27. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, 2015. ———.“Walter Kasper i Joseph Ratzinger o komunii dla osób rozwiedzionych i w powtórnych związkach.” Teologia i moralność 23, no. 1 (2018): 39–61. ———. Vaticanum Secundum—A Conflict of Interpretation. In Legado Juan Pablo II El Magno, edited by G. ­Melo-Guevara and B. Piotrowski, 329–42. Bogota: Universidad Sergio Arboleda, 2015. Laun, Andreas. Aktuelle Probleme der Moraltheologie. Wien: Herder, 1991. Luhmann, Niklas. Soziologische Aufklärung 5: Konstruktivistische Perspektiven. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1990. Marczewski, Robert. A Legacy of Saint John Paul II: The Reception of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body in the Catholic Church in the United States of America (1984–2012). Plymouth, Mass.: SqOne Publishing and Design, Inc., 2015.

225

Bi bl io g ra p h y Müller, Gerhard. La speranza della famiglia. Edited by Carlos Granados. Milano: Edizioni Ares, 2014. ———. The Hope of the Family. Edited by Carlos Granados, translated by Michael J. Miller. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014 Paul VI, Pope. Apostolica sollicitudo. Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio. September 15, 1965. ———. Address at the Final Public Session of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. December 7, 1965. ———. Humanae vitae. Encyclical Letter. July 25, 1968. Pell, George. Foreword to The Gospel of the Family: Going beyond Cardinal Kasper’s Proposal in the Debate on Marriage, Civil ­Re-Marriage and Communion in the Church, by Juan José ­Pérez-Soba and Stephan Kampowski, 7–11. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014. Pelletier, ­Anne-Marie. “Sur la réception de Matthieu 19, 3–12.” In Journée d’études commune á l’invitation des présidents des Conférences Épiscopales de France, d’Allemagne et de Suisse sur de questions de la pastoral du mariage et de la famille en vue du Synode des évêques, 6–11. http://www.bischoefe.ch/dokumente/communiques/­studientagfamilie-in-kirche-und-welt. Pentin, Edward. The Rigging of a Vatican Synod: An Investigation into Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2015. ­Pérez-Soba, Juan José, and Stephan Kampowski. The Gospel of the Family: Going beyond Cardinal Kasper’s Proposal in the Debate on Marriage, Civil R ­ e-Marriage and Communion in the Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014. ———. Il Vangelo della famiglia nel dibattito sinodale oltre la proposta del cardinal Kasper. Siena: Cantagalli, 2014. Petri, Thomas. Aquinas and the Theology of the Body: The Thomistic Foundations of John Paul II’s Anthropology. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2016. Pius XI, Pope. Casti onnubii. Encyclical Letter. December 31, 1930. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. Declaration from June 24, 2000. Ratzinger, Joseph. “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe: Bemerkungen zum dogmengeschichtlichen Befund und zu seiner gegenwärtigen Bedeutung.” In Ehe und Ehescheidung. Diskussion unter Christen, edited by F. Henrich and V. Eid, 35–56. München: Münchener ­Akademie-Schriften 59, 1972. ———. “Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe: Bemerkungen zum dogmengeschichtlichen Befund und zu seiner gegenwärtigen Bedeutung.” In Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. 4, Einführung in das Christentum, 600–621. Edited by G. Müller. Frei­ burg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 2014. Reali, Nicola. “Il sacramento del matrimonio e la fede dei nubendi.” In La sfide della famiglia oggi. Atti del convegno, 101–13. Rome: Aditiones Academiae Alfonsianae, 2015. Ricoeur, Paul. ­Soi-meme comme un autre. Paris: Seuil, 1990. Rist, John M. “Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church: Some Historical and Cultural Reflections.” In Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in

226 

Bi b l io g r a p h y  the Catholic Church, edited by Robert Dodaro, 64–92. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014. Rowland, Tracey, and Conor Sweeney. “The Elephants at the Synod: Logos, Ethos and Sacramentality.” Anthropotes 30, no. 2 (2014): 491–517. Samek Lodovici, Giacomo. “La coscienza puo autorizzare deroghe alle norme?” Anthropotes 31, no. 2 (2015): 507–24. Sánchez Navarro, Louis. Cosa ne pensa Gesu dei divorziati risposati? Siena: Cantagalli, 2015. Sarah, Robert. “What Sort of Pastoral Mercy in Response to the New Challenges to the Family? A Reading of the Lineamenta.” In Christ’s New Homeland—Africa. Contribution to the Synod on the Family by African Pastors, translated by M. J. Miller, 13–33. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2015. Schockenhoff, Eberhard. “Sexualität als Ausdruck von Liebe. Überlegungen zu einer Theologie der Liebe.” In Journée d’études commune á l’invitation des présidents des Conférences Épiscopales de France, d’Allemagne et de Suisse sur de questions de la pastoral du mariage et de la famille en vue du Synode des évêques, 77–83. http://www.bischoefe.ch/ dokumente/communiques/­studientag-familie-in-kirche-und-welt. Skrzypczak, Robert. “Magisterium po obniżonej cenie? Teologiczne obawy na marginesie synodu poświęconego rodzinie.” Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne 28, no. 3 (2015): 67–90. Söding, Thomas. “Ehebund in Gottes Hand. Ein exegetisches Statement zur Familiensynode.” In Journée d’études commune á l’invitation des présidents des Conférences Épiscopales de France, d’Allemagne et de Suisse sur de questions de la pastoral du mariage et de la famille en vue du Synode des évêques, 70–76. http://www.bischoefe.ch/dokumente/ communiques/­studientag-familie-in-kirche-und-welt. Szostek, Andrzej. Normy i wyjątki: filozoficzne aspekty dyskusji wokół norm ogólnie ważnych we współczesnej teologii. Lublin: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski, 1980. Thomasset, Alain. “La prise en compte de l’histoire et des développements biographiques dans la vie morale et la pastorale de la famille.” In Journée d’études commune á l’invitation des présidents des Conférences Épiscopales de France, d’Allemagne et de Suisse sur de questions de la pastoral du mariage et de la famille en vue du Synode des évêques, 33–40. http://www.bischoefe.ch/dokumente/communiques/­studientag-familie-inkirche-und-welt. Vatican Council I. Pastor aeternus. Dogmatic Constitution. July 18, 1870. Vatican Council II. Lumen gentium. Dogmatic Constitution. November 21, 1964. ———. Unitatis redintegratio. Decree on Ecumenism. November 21, 1964. ———. Christus dominus. Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church. October 28, 1965. ———. Dei verbum. Dogmatic Constitution. November 18, 1965. ———. Ad gentes. Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church. December 7, 1965. ———. Gaudium et spes. Pastoral Constitution. December 7, 1965. Waldstein, Michael. “The Common Good in St. Thomas and John Paul II.” Nova et Vetera, English edition 3, no. 3 (2005): 569–78.

227

Bi bl io g ra p h y ———. “John Paul II and St. Thomas on Love and the Trinity.” Anthropotes 18, no. 1 (2002): 113–38, 269–86. Weigel, George. “Between Two Synods. An Analysis of the Challenge of this Particular Catholic Moment.” First Things 249 (January 2015): 39–45. ———. “An Extraordinary Synod, Indeed.” First Things (October 2014). Web exclusive. https://www.firstthings.com/­web-exclusives/2014/10/­an-extraordinary-synodindeed ———. “Liberal Racism Bares Its Fangs.” First Things (December 2015). Web exclusive. https://www.firstthings.com/­web-exclusives/2015/12/­liberal-racism-bares-its-fangs Wiltgen, Ralph. The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II. New York: Hawthorne Books, 1967.

228 

Index

I n de x

abortion, 10, 53, 58, 92, 94 abortion industry, 173 abstinence, sexual, 93. See also chastity accompaniment, pastoral, 76, 83, 121–23, 125, 130, 163–64, 197–98, 203 adoption, 166 Adoukonou, Barthélemy, 99–101 adultery, 28, 37, 104–6, 110, 112–14, 127, 184; redefined, 142, 217 affectivity, human, 84, 132 Ahern, Barnabas, 22 alienation, 11 Ambrose, Saint, 30, 32 Ambrosiaster, 30, 32, 37 Amherdt, François-Xavier, 116, 120–23 Amoris laetitia, ix–xiii, 3, 8, 10, 117n33, 221 artificial insemination, 194 Assis, Raymundo, 174 atheism, 99–100 Augustine, Saint, 13, 26, 31–32, 34 Baldisseri, Lorenzo, 9, 52, 53, 65, 69, 73n53, 78n66, 80, 147, 161, 174–75, 186–87 baptism, 3, 105, 111, 114, 189–90; character of, 59 baptized pagans, xii, 45, 139, 213. See also marriage and faith; secularization Barthe, Claude, 167n49 Bartholomew I, 183 Basil, Saint, 26, 30–31, 36 Benedict XVI, 1, 21–24, 28n54, 34, 36, 39, 40n79, 42n83, 43–46, 78, 81, 85, 98,

143, 147, 158, 220. See also Ratzinger, Joseph Bergolio, Jorge Mario, 1. See also Francis Bernardin, Joseph, 1 bigamy, 63 Bingham, John, 89n88 Bishoy, Anba, 183–84 Boniface, Saint, 31 Bonny, Johan, 64 Bordeyne, Philippe, 122 Boulos, Mar Youstinos, 184 Brock, Stephen, 168 Bunderson, Carl, 40n79, 157n27, 158n29, 159n32 Burke, Cormac, 23n37 Burke, Raymond, 78 Caffarra, Carlo, 22n35, 62–63, 178 Cajetan. See Tomasso de Vio Casti connubii, 37, 140, 142 casuistry, 62, 138 Catharinus, Ambrosius, 37 celibacy, 55, 138 Cernea, Anca-Maria, 185 Chaput, Charles, 219 chastity, 31, 112–13, 121, 138, 164, 197. See also abstinence; continence Church, 14–15; circles of belonging, 75, 81; as field hospital, 25, 39, 146. See also conversion, missionary civilization of love, 11 cohabitation, vii, 7, 52, 86, 95, 164 Cole, Basil, 168

229

I n dex Cole, Sharron, 185, collegiality, episcopal, 64, 70, 179. See also synodality Collins, Thomas, 178 compromise, pastoral, 35 concubinate, 28, 122 conscience, xiii, 17, 41–42, 64, 93, 132, 149, 196, 198, 203, 208, 210; conflict with moral norm, 166, 168–71; creative, 133; primacy of, 125–27, 130, 217 continence, 40, 204. See also abstinence; chastity contraception, 10, 53, 55–56, 64, 68, 73n54, 92–93, 125, 129, 154, 171, 173, 186; permitted, 167, 215, 217; seen positively, 127, 142. See also Humanae vitae; natural methods of family planning; Paul VI contraceptive mentality, 72 conversion, 2n6, 67, 77, 112, 149, 154, 176, 184; missionary, 2–4, 123, 146, 162, 213 Corbett, John, 16n20, 20n31 Cordes, Paul Josef, 158–59 Councils, Church: Jerusalem, 187–88; Nicea, 2; Trent, 13, 25, 33–34, 37 Crawford, David, 167–70 creation, 11, 62 Cyprian of Carthage, Saint, 91, 106 Daneels, Godfried, 64 D’Auria, Andrea, 19n29 Decalogue, 11 Dei verbum, 128 Delhaye, Phillipe, 22n35 De Mattei, Roberto, 57 depositum fidei, 42. See also doctrine of faith De Simone, Pia, 65 De Vio, Tomasso, 37 Dew, John Atcherley, 175 dignity, human, 58 DiNardo, Daniel, 178 Diriart, Alexandra, 24n41, 136n72 discernment, 28, 76, 121, 125, 127, 188, 203, 208

23 0 

discrimination, 76, 88, 97, 121, 185, 198 Dives in misericordia, 7 divorce, 33, 62–64, 79, 86, 102, 105, 109, 156, 184; justification of, 113–14 divorced and remarried persons, ix, 17, 45, 55, 107, 127; integration into the Church, 198, 204. See also irregular unions doctrine of faith, 2; its development, 106, 188, 204n142. See also depositum fidei; tradition of the Church Dodaro, Robert, 14n15, 16n21, 47, 48n91 Dolan, Timothy, 96, 178 ecology, human, 68 Eijk, Willem, 178 Elliott, Peter, 168 episcopal conference, 159. See also collegiality Erdő, Péter, 65, 70, 74, 79, 160–61, 174–77 Ernst, Wilhelm, 22n35 eschatology, 105, 107–8 Eucharist, 3–4, 25 Eucharistic Communion, 46; as a medicine, 184; spiritual, 24, 88; for the divorced and remarried, x–xii, 27, 35–41, 48–49, 56, 76, 82, 87, 152, 157, 164–65, 179, 189, 192, 199, 203, 204, 212, 214, 215–16 Europe, 100–101 Evangelii gaudium, xvii, 1–5, 8, 25–26, 97, 146, 213 evangelization, 14, 100, 162, 212–13; new, 139 experience, 128–29, 188 Faber, Eva-Maria, 124, 133–41, 143 faith, 201; crisis of, 84, 95; sensus fidei, 14, 61n28, 106, 189–90; transmission of, 106. See also marriage and faith Familiaris consortio, 13n12, 16, 24n42, 39, 59, 61n28, 62, 82, 85, 127–28, 135, 143, 164n43, 176, 198–99, 202–6, 214 family, 15, 61, 74; in crisis, 81, 99, 155, 215;

I n dex  as domestic Church, 13–14; as field hospital, 12; in God’s plan, 11–12 Farnan, Theresa, 166n49 Farrow, Douglas, 171–73 feminism, 52, 181 Fernandez, Victor Manuel, 175 Finnis, John, 168 Flannery, Kevin, 168 fornication, 112. See also adultery Forte, Bruno, 65, 79, 161, 174–75, 177 Francis, ix–xi, xiii, 1–9, 18, 25, 39, 50, 69, 71, 80, 85, 89, 96, 97, 99, 100, 143, 146–47, 165n46, 175, 178–80, 187, 189– 93, 200–201, 205n144, 212–13, 219–21 Fransen, Piet, 34 freedom, human, 62, 132 Fritz Cates, Diana, 132n64 Gagliarducci, Andrea, 102 Gaudium et spes, 117n33, 140, 146–47, 194n127 Gądecki, Stanisław, 79n67 gender ideology, 67, 181, 195 George, Francis, 1 Gibson, David, 213n3 Gormally, Luke, 168 grace, 48, 113, 139 Gracias, Oswald, 175 Granados, José, 3n9, 24n41 Gratian, 31–32 Gregory II, 31–32 Gregory of Nazianzus, Saint, 26 Grisez, Germain, 168 Grotti, Leone, 153n16 Grygiel Stanisław, 60–62, 148n5 Hamel, Edouard, 22n35 Hasson, Mary Rice, 166n49 Healy, Nicholas, 3n9, 118n33 hermeneutics, biblical, 103, 108, 114–15 Hickson, Maike, 152n13, 160n33 Hoffer, Andrew, 16n20 holiness: marital, 106; redefined, 151; universal call to, 129–30 Holy Family, 98, 152–53, 172–73

homosexual: acts, 77, 125, 142, 144, 184, 217; persons, 64, 77, 79, 82, 102, 121, 129, 183–84, 185, 197, 216; tendencies, 73n54, 85, 87, 123; unions, x, 7, 10, 52–53, 56, 63–64, 67, 83, 152, 215 homosexuality, ix, 55, 78 Humanae vitae, 11, 53, 56, 64, 68, 81, 85, 93, 98, 126, 133, 146, 154, 166–67, 168–73, 186, 195, 215, 219, 220; criticized, 173, 218 Ignatius of Antioch, Saint, 75, 96 Ignatius of Loyola, Saint, 133 image of God, 11, 140 indissolubility of marriage, xiii, 18–21, 29, 32–33, 36–37, 39–40, 43–45, 58, 60, 62–63, 75, 82, 87, 107, 110, 112, 116, 117n33, 123, 136–38, 142, 151, 156, 172–73, 182, 192; in the Coptic Church, 184; redefined, 217 individualism, 134, 181 infertility, 166 intrinsically evil acts, xiii, 125–28, 131, 217 Irenaeus of Lyon, Saint, 75, 96, 98 irregularity: situations, x, 8, 75, 82, 85, 94, 122, 164; unions, 53, 64, 75–76, 146, 218. See also concubinate, divorced and remarried Islam, x, 100–101 Jesus Christ: spouse of the Church, 38–39 John Chrysostom, Saint, 189 John Paul II, xiii, 7, 13n12, 15–16, 21, 24, 39, 57–60, 61n28, 62, 64, 78, 81–82, 85, 90, 95, 98, 112, 125, 127–28, 130, 164n43, 169n56, 172, 198, 202, 205, 212–15, 219–20; teaching as outdated, 134, 141–43, 147, 218; theology of the body, 95, 155, 213, 215. See also Wojtyła, Karol Jubilee of Mercy, 4–5, 8 justice, 7–8, 58–60 Jüngel, Eberhard, 119

231

I n dex Kaczor, Christopher, 131n63 Kampowski, Stephan, 14n15, 17, 75, 136n72, 167–70 Kasper, Walter, xi–xii, 8–19, 24–30, 34–35, 39–40, 46–48, 57–59, 61–64, 76, 87, 93n96, 107n11, 203, 212–15 Keenan, James, 144n85 Keller, Paul J., 16n20 Kondrusiewicz, Tadeusz, 72n52 Kroczek, Piotr, 89n89, 148n5 Krzywda, Józef, 89n89 Kupczak, Jarosław, 143n84, 194n127 Langendörfer, Hans, 55 Langevin, Dominic, 16n20 Laun, Andreas, 168, 212 law, 183; of the Gospel, 13; of gradualness, 13, 75, 81, 85, 128, 135, 164, 216, 218; natural, 53, 64 Lebouakehan, Mathieu Madega, 175 legalistic ethics, 95–96, 168–69, 219 Legge, Dominic, 16n20 Lehmann, Karl, 40 Livi, Antonio, 167n49 Lodovici, Giacomo Samek, 210n159 Lombardi, Federico, 79 love, 60, 95, 121; marital, 59, 141; as selfgift, 119, 136; today, 116–17. See also sexuality Luhman, Niklas, 118 Lumen gentium, 13, 75, 81, 129, 146, 189–90 Luther, Martin, 33–34 Mahoney, John, 22n35 Medina-Estevez, Jorge, 22n35 Magister, Sandro, 165n46, 177n74, 178n77, 180, 202n137 Magisterium of the Church, 159 Marczewski, Robert, 213n2 marital vocation, 82, 105 marriage, 15, 61; bond of, 37, 58–60, 105, 111, 117n33, 138; civil, xii; consent, 18, 44; as contract, 134, 141; as covenant, 13, 21, 40, 110; crisis of, 84, 155;

23 2 

dissolving a valid marriage, 111; duties in, 31, 141; and faith, 18–23, 111, 119–20, 139–40; in God’s plan, 11–12, 62; goods of, 23, 141; idealistic vision of, 135–37, 140, 150–51, 182, 215; impediments to, 44; monogamous, 109; natural, 154; nullity of, xii, 36; preparation for, 86, 139, 163; sacramentality of, 13, 33, 44; in teaching of Jesus, 104–5, 108–10, 181; Trinitarian dimension of, 195; unity of, 18–19; validity of, xii, 17–24, 45. See also indissolubility of marriage; procreation Martelet, Gustave, 38–39 Martens, Kurt, 16n20 Marx, Reinhard, 80, 103, 157–59 mass media, 90–91 McCusker, Matthew, 92–94, 166–67 Matzke, Małgorzata, 56 Melina, Livio, 168 Melo-Guevara, Gabriel, 143n84 mercy, 2, 4–8, 15, 26, 33, 48, 58–60, 99, 106–7, 130, 138, 203; relativistic interpretation of, 95–97, 101. See also Jubilee of Mercy; justice; Misericordiae vultus Miano, Francesco, 65 Michelet, Thomas, 202–11, 220 Misericordiae vultus, 4–8 mission, 1–2. See also conversion, missionary Mitis iudex Dominus Jesus, 18–19 moral act, 132 moral norms: historicity of, 128–29; nominalist understanding of, 168–71, 219. See also conscience morality of human act, 127, 132, 198, 206. See also sin Morselli, Alfredo, 167n49 motherhood: surrogate, 52 Müller, Gerhard, 28n54, 63, 64n33, 159, 178, 205n142 Napier, Wilfrid Fox, 78, 80, 174, 178 narrative theology, 123–24 natural methods of family planning, 68

I n dex  Newman, John Henry, 106, 205n142 Nichols, Vincent Gerard, 80, 89 Njuer, John, 178 O’Connell, Gerard, 178n76 oikonomia, 33, 184 Olson, Carl E., 78n64, Origen, 26, 30–31, 35 Pachón, Adolfo Nicolás, 175 pagan culture, 32, 75. See also baptized pagans; secularization paradigm change, 15, 213 parrhesia, 69, 96, 99, 187 Paul, Saint, 43, 46, 91, 188 Paul VI, 6–7, 11, 39, 50–52, 53, 56, 64, 68, 78, 81, 85, 93, 98, 133, 146, 154, 166, 171, 186, 215, 218, 220. See also Humanae vitae Pauline privilege, 44, 105, 110–11 pedagogy, divine, 85, 122, 124, 162. See also seeds of the Word Pell, George, 17, 77–78, 80 Pelletier, Anne-Marie, 104–9, 115 penance, 25, 31, 38, 41, 87, 129, 165, 176, 192 Pentin, Edward, 16n21, 71n51, 72n52, 78, 79n67, 79n69 Pérez-Soba, Juan José, 17, 58–60 personalism, 93n96, 125, 140–41 Peter, Saint, 91, 188 Petri, Thomas, 141n83 Petrine privilege, 44 Pilarczyk, Krzysztof, 141 Piotrowski, Bogdan, 143n84 Pius XI, 37, 140, 142 polygamy, ix, 109. See also bigamy; monogamous marriage Polycarp, Saint, 96 Pontier, Georges, 103 poor, the, 61, 98. See also suffering post-modernism, 100–101, 116, 138, 151 procreation, 121, 171 proportionalism, ethical, 93, 131, 142. See also moral norms

Ratzinger, Joseph, 22n35, 26n47, 29–37, 39–41, 43, 44n85, 45n88, 46–47, 139, 215. See also Benedict XVI Reali, Nicola, 24 reconciliation: sacrament of, 3, 39, 97 relativism: dictatorship of, 98–99 Rhonheimer, Martin, 168 Ricoeur, Paul, 126n51 Rist, John, 47, 48n91 Rędzioch, Włodzimierz, 73n52 Rocca, Francis X., 78 Rowland, Tracy, 204n142 sacraments, 3; for the divorced and remarried, 25, 39, 165. See also individual sacraments by name Salucci, Stefano, 24 Samaritan woman, 112 Sánchez Navarro, Louis, 108 Sarah, Robert, 94–99, 101, 178 schism, doctrinal, 65, 211 Schneider, Peter, 116–17 Schockenhoff, Eberhard, 115–20, 134, 143 Schönborn, Christoph, 165n46, 187–89 Schweidler, Walter, 168 secularization, 57, 68, 96, 106, 109, 115, 159, 181. See also baptized pagans; pagan culture seeds of the Word, 121, 122n43, 164, 197, 216, 218. See also divine pedagogy Seier, Oskar, 40 Seifert, Josef, 168 Semeraro, Marcello, 175 Semka, Piotr, 79n67 sex, premarital, 55, 64. See also irregularity sexual difference, 121 sexual ethics, 56, 64 sexuality, 118–21 sexual revolution, 90–91, 173, 185 sin, 7–8, 12, 72, 97, 123; moral responsibility for, 125–26, 198–99; objective state of, 207–10. See also intrinsically evil acts; morality of human act Skrzypczak, Robert, 65

233

I n dex sociological perspective, 60–62, 67, 84, 120, 139, 148, 160, 165, 180, 215 Söding, Thomas, 104, 108–15 Sokolowski, Robert, 168 Sosnowski, Andrzej, 89n89 Spadaro, Antonio, 180 Spaemann, Robert, 168 Spindelböck, Josef, 168 Stephan I, Saint, 91 Stephanos of Tallinn, 183 suffering, human, 2, 7, 87, 98, 182, 201. See also mercy Sweeney, Conor, 204n142 Synod of Bishops: structure and history, 50–51; as implementation of Vatican II, 187 Synod of Bishops (2012), 1, 62 Synod of Bishops (2014), ix–xiii, 8–9, 16n21, 40, 215–16; Instrumentum laboris, 52–53, 65–68; Lineamenta, 9–10, 52–53; presynodal consultations, 51–56; Relatio synodi, 83–89, 145, 152, 161, 166–67; synodal debate, 69–83 Synod of Bishops (2015), ix–xi, xiii, 8–9, 40, 53, 144, 218–20; criticism of procedures, 179; Instrumentum laboris, 145, 161–73; Lineamenta, 145–48; Relatio finalis, 193–202; synodal debate, 174–93 synodality, 70, 72, 189–191. See also collegiality Szostek, Andrzej, 133

23 4 

Tagle, Luis Antonio, 174 teleology of the person, 219 Thomas Aquinas, 7, 132, 141n83 Thomasset, Alain, 123–33, 143 tradition of the Church, 77 Urosa Savino, Jorge, 178 Vatican II, 4–7, 15, 128, 130, 141–43, 147, 187; redefinition of marriage, 134; spirit of, 218, 220 Veritatis splendor, 125, 127, 131, 133, 169n56, 210, 218–19 Vingt-Trois, André, 65, 174 vocation, 133, 162, 182 Vogt, Andrea, 89n88 Vonzun, Cristina, 153 Waldstein, Michael, 141n83 Weigel, George, 90–91, 101n113, 186n97, 189n106 White, Hilary, 65 White, Thomas Joseph, 16n20 Wiltgen, Ralph, 54n10 Winfield, Nicole, 79n68 Wojtyła, Karol, 60 Wooden, Cindy, 102 Wuerl, Donald, 16, 175 Zollner, Hans, 103

Before “Amoris Laetitia”: The Sources of the Controversy was designed in Garibaldi with Mr Eaves display type and composed by Kachergis Book Design of Pittsboro, North Carolina. It was printed on 55-pound Natural Offset and bound by Maple Press of York, Pennsylvania.