She
looked depressed when I saw her after Mass, so I went over to ask her
how she was doing. She seemed a bit reluctant to speak so I did not
push, but after a few minutes I offered to make an appointment to
speak with her some more apart from the crowd of people in the
gathering area after Mass. First she said, “no thanks”, and then
seemed to warm to the idea. When I asked her what time would work for
her schedule she said something that stuck with me for a while. She
asked, “Will you really meet with me to talk? Priests don't usually
do that, do they?” It was her sincerity that made me think more
deeply about what she was saying. She really wanted to know whether
it was the norm for priests to sit down and talk to their people.
Over the years, I have come to find out that this is the perspective
of quite a few parishioners.
Many
of the laity in the Church today do not believe that their priests
are talking to them enough. They feel as though they have been left
out in the cold and given little to no help in dealing with life's
challenges. I have personally heard of a few instances where there
were priests who did take the time to sit with their people and
discuss the challenges that they were going through, but often the
advice that they gave was problematic. More than once I have heard of
priests who told parishioners that the sin that they were struggling
with was “no big deal” and “did not need to be confessed”.
The person's conscience was deeply scarred by this because they
usually (trusting their priest's truthfulness) went away confused
about what the Church meant when it said “no” while the priest
was saying “yes”. In other words, the laity are usually not being
given the opportunity to form their consciences in a godly manner so
that they can know what is holy, and feel guilt when they fall into
what is sinful.
Let
me mention that I am a “dotted i’s and crossed t’s” kind of
guy. I like everything done appropriately, and when I make a mistake
or forget something, I lament my actions for quite a while. So when
someone says something like “Pope Francis did ‘such and such’
wrong” I am concerned that things be done right. Yet, in that, I
know that I must not jump to conclusions regarding the actions or
beliefs of anyone at all (especially the Holy Father). I am not a
pessimist or an optimist, per se, but rather a realist; because
“that’s the way things really are”. So my inclination is to
help the person think through the situation and try to find a path to
holiness that enables each of us to deal with the challenges that are
being thrown at us today.
With
this whole fiasco about the apparent unorthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia
and now the added layer of the Buenos Aires Bishop’s guidelines, I
have heard numerous Catholics lamenting the consequences of this. I
have also read a large quantity of articles regarding what this all
does and does not mean for us. As a result, I have come to realize
one thing: many of us (myself included) tend to seek the quickest and
shortest way to deal with our circumstances, and rarely do we want to
put in the harder (and more time consuming) effort. Traditionals will
tend to believe the bad news about things that look modernist, even
when they do not want to, and modernists will tend to believe the
things that look traditionalist, even when they do not want to.
Therefore,
I chose to grit my teeth, and wade through the daunting task (!) of
actually reading what the Bishops of Buenos Aires said, as well as
the Pope's actual response to them. I was a bit surprised that none
of it was as extreme as it has been claimed by many. True, I wish it
was more clear and direct on a few issues (the way that my own
Bishop, Steven Lopes, has done recently). Yet, I cannot claim that
they are advocating something that they are not. I cannot claim that
they are clearly and intentionally contradicting Church teaching. To
do so would be to assume that I have perfect knowledge and
understanding of their intentions. Furthermore, if they are trying to
create a situation where unrepentant Catholics in invalid marriages
can receive the Sacraments, then they are not doing a very good job
of it.
Their
guidelines never say “they don’t have to repent, just go ahead
and let them have the Eucharist”. In fact, they are carefully
worded in such a way that it appears very difficult (though,
unfortunately, not impossible) for anyone with that interpretation to
squeeze that in there. Realize that there are a lot of “ifs” in
the document, and that makes it clear that there are conditions. This
made me ask the question, “have I been blinded to what they are
really saying (because I am so concerned that they not teach
something unorthodox) and missed the actual primary point that Pope
Francis said was ‘the only proper interpretation’?” I think
this may be the case. I do need to be clear here on a couple things:
I do wish that both the Holy Father and the Bishops of Buenos Aires
were more clear about what they were saying, leaving no wiggle room
(dot your i's and cross your t's!), yet to assume the worst of their
intentions because someone can find a way to twist it is positively
sinful.
Let
me explain this last comment a bit more in depth. If I say something
that can be taken in more than one way, then I may be guilty of
inaccuracy, but not necessarily am I guilty of intentionally trying
to lead people into sin. Alternatively, if I say something that can
be taken in more than one way, then it may be the case that I want my
statement to be taken in more than one way, which is a bit odd, but
still possible. Finally, if I say something that can be taken in more
than one way, it may be that I am intentionally trying to be vague to
allow for the worst possible interpretation of what I am saying—but
who would actually do that? The first two options, yes, I can see
that these may occur, but the third seems like utter foolishness (and
who would imagine that his words would not eventually be noticed as
such?).
To
insist on perfect clarity in every statement that a person makes is
asking quite a lot. When I preach a homily, I occasionally find
myself needing to take a moment to clarify something that I just
said, because I realize that it may be misunderstood. That does not,
however, mean that my clarification will satisfy every single person
in the pews (as the questions I occasionally encounter after Mass
rightly show). How could a person ever be sure of all the possible
interpretations (or misinterpretations) of his words? This is
especially so when we are dealing with words written in another
country with another set of circumstances and another type of
culture. I honestly do not know the situation in Buenos Aires, or
what they are currently dealing with. It is likely similar to our
situation here in North America, but also not likely the exact same.
There
is one other problem with this insistence on accuracy. If I apply
this same judgment to the Holy Scriptures, then about half of them
are unorthodox, for there are a multitude of places where the Bible
is not as clear as I would like it to be! We must seriously consider
this as a major factor in this situation. Even Jesus Himself said
that He made statements that will be misunderstood by those whose
motivations are not holy, and only rightly understood by those who
are seeking for holiness (like with many of His parables). Do we want
things to be intentionally vague and unhelpful – of course not, no
one does. So then, yes, I will say again, that I would prefer that
there was greater clarity. Yet, if we are looking for errors, rather
than looking for truth, then we can easily find a lack of clarity in
even the most holy of writings, the very written words of God
Himself.
So,
then, what is that point (and this goes back to the first paragraph
of this post)? Priests need to stop giving out quick answers to
everyone’s situation and actually spend some time sitting down and
talking to people. They need to find out what their circumstances are
and help the faithful to think through what the Church says about
repentance, holiness, and the Sacraments (and the proper process and
order for those to occur). That is, after all, what the Buenos Aires
Bishops are clearly emphasizing in their guidelines: how to deal with
complicated and unclear situations that Catholics, in this day and
age, get themselves into. They did not say that priests can
break Canon 915, nor did they say that everyone can decide for
themselves whether they need to stop sinning (things that I have
heard upset Catholics [who appear to have not read the guidelines]
claim).
Are
there unusual circumstances that priests need to deal with? A
resounding “yes!” is the answer. Is everyone’s situation
clearly able to be resolved? An even louder “no!” is the answer.
Yet, we cannot treat every one Catholic in a bad marriage situation
as though they are “obstinately persisting in manifest sin”.
Marriage is under attack and large percentages of the faithful have
not been properly taught how to do marriage right (mostly because,
once again, their consciences have not been formed properly).
Sometimes
Catholics are in marital situations where the other spouse has chosen
a behavior which leads the first into a sinful situation. The first
spouse wishes to repent, but for fear of having the marriage
destroyed (especially when there are children in the home), he or she
is torn with trying to discover what really is the greater sin in the
circumstances. Should they make this decision on their own? No. They
are supposed to go to their priest and ask him to help guide them in
what is the best way to deal with the situation. Yet, precisely
because we live in an age where priests flippantly throw out “pat
answers” to their people (if they spend time talking with them at
all, and many do not!), then priests need to hear the admonition of
Amoris Laetitia (in spite of its vagueness), “accompany your people
to help them figure out how to deal with life’s challenges, and use
the process of reconciliation—first—and Eucharist—second—to
lead them to faithfulness.”
I,
for one, will take a stand right now and say that I am going to give
the best assumption to Francis' intent in Amoris Laetitia (as my own
Bishop, Steven Lopes, has already done). I am going to accept his
statement that the Buenos Aires Bishops have made the proper
interpretation, and not assume that they are saying something that
they have not clearly said. If any of them come out and
clarify that they are teaching something that contradicts the moral
teachings of the Church, then we can deal with that at that time,
until then, let us give each of them the grace that we ourselves wish
to receive. Remember, we can know for certain that we will be blessed
if we “[d]o nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility
count others better than [ourselves]” (Philippians 2:3). Here below
is the actual English translation of the text of the Buenos Aires
Bishop’s guidelines, and Pope Francis’ letter to them. Please
read it, and read it carefully.
***************************************************
Buenos
Aires Pastoral Region
Basic
criteria for the implementation of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia
Dear
priests,
We
have received with joy the exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which invites
us, above all, to encourage the growth of love between spouses and to
motivate the youth to opt for marriage and a family. These are
important issues that should never be disregarded or overshadowed by
other matters. Francis has opened several doors in pastoral care for
families and we are invited to leverage this time of mercy with a
view to endorsing, as a pilgrim Church, the richness offered by the
different chapters of this Apostolic Exhortation.
We
will now focus on chapter VIII, since it refers to the “guidelines
of the bishop” (300) in order to discern on the potential access to
sacraments of the “divorced who have entered a new union.” We
deem it convenient, as Bishops of the same Pastoral Region, to agree
on some basic criteria. We present them without prejudice to the
authority that each Bishop has over his own Diocese to clarify,
complete or restrict them.
1)
Firstly, we should remember that it is not advisable to speak of
“permissions” to have access to sacraments, but of a discernment
process in the company of a pastor. It is a “personal and pastoral
discernment” (300).
2)
In this path, the pastor should emphasize the fundamental
proclamation, the kerygma, so as to foster or renew a personal
encounter with the living Christ (cf. 58).
3)
Pastoral accompaniment is an exercise of the “via caritas.” It is
an invitation to follow “the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and
reinstatement” (296). This itinerary requires the pastoral charity
of the priest who receives the penitent, listens to him/her
attentively and shows him/her the maternal face of the Church, while
also accepting his/her righteous intention and good purpose to devote
his/her whole life to the light of the Gospel and to practise charity
(cf. 306).
4)
This path does not necessarily finish in the sacraments; it may also
lead to other ways of achieving further integration into the life of
the Church: greater presence in the community, participation in
prayer or reflection groups, engagement in ecclesial services, etc.
(cf. 299)
5)
Whenever feasible depending on the specific circumstances of a
couple, especially when both partners are Christians walking the path
of faith, a proposal may be made to resolve to live in continence.
Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulties arising from this
option (cf. footnote 329) and offers the possibility of having access
to the sacrament of Reconciliation if the partners fail in this
purpose (cf. footnote 364, recalling the teaching that Saint John
Paul II sent to Cardinal W. Baum, dated 22 March, 1996).
6)
In more complex cases, and when a declaration of nullity has not been
obtained, the above mentioned option may not, in fact, be feasible.
Nonetheless, a path of discernment is still possible. If it is
acknowledged that, in a concrete case, there are limitations that
mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), especially
when a person believes he/she would incur a subsequent fault by
harming the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the
possibility of having access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and
Eucharist (cf. footnotes 336 and 351).
These
sacraments, in turn, prepare the person to continue maturing and
growing with the power of grace.
7)
However, it should not be understood that this possibility implies
unlimited access to sacraments, or that all situations warrant such
unlimited access. The proposal is to properly discern each case. For
example, special care should be taken of “a new union arising from
a recent divorce” or “the case of someone who has consistently
failed in his obligations to the family” (298). Also, when there is
a sort of apology or ostentation of the person’s situation “as if
it were part of the Christian ideal” (297). In these difficult
cases, we should be patient companions, and seek a path of
reinstatement (cf. 297, 299).
8)
It is always important to guide people to stand before God with their
conscience. A useful tool to do this is the “examination of
conscience” proposed by Amoris Laetitia 300, specifically in
relation to “how did they act towards their children” or the
abandoned partner. Where there have been unresolved injustices,
providing access to sacraments is particularly outrageous.
9)
It may be convenient for an eventual access to sacraments to take
place in a discreet manner, especially if troublesome situations can
be anticipated. At the same time, however, the community should be
accompanied so that it may grow in its spirit of understanding and
acceptance, without letting this situation create confusion about the
teaching of the Church on the indissoluble marriage. The community is
an instrument of mercy, which is “unmerited, unconditional and
gratuitous” (297).
10)
Discernment is not closed, because it “is dynamic; it must remain
ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can
enable the ideal to be more fully realized” (303), according
to the “law of gradualness” (295) and with confidence in the help
of grace.
Above
all, we are pastors. This is why we would like to welcome the
following words of the pope: “I also encourage the Church’s
pastors to listen [to the faithful] with sensitivity and serenity,
with a sincere desire to understand their plight and their point of
view, in order to help them live better lives and to recognize their
proper place in the Church” (312).
With
love in Christ,
The
Bishops of the Region
5
September, 2016
* *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Vatican
City, 5 September, 2016
To
the Bishops of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region
Mons.
Sergio Alfredo Fenoy, Delegate of the Region
Dear
brother,
I
received the document of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region entitled
“Basic criteria for the implementation of chapter VIII of Amoris
Laetitia.” Thank you very much for sending it, and let me
congratulate you on the work that you have undertaken: a true example
of accompaniment of priests…and we all know how necessary it is for
a bishop to stay close to his priests and for priests to stay close
to their bishop.
The
bishop’s “neighboring” neighbor is the priest, and the
commandment to love your neighbor as yourself begins, for us bishops,
precisely with our priests.
The
document is very good and thoroughly specifies the meaning of chapter
VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no further interpretations. I am
confident that it will do much good.
May
the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity. And it is precisely
pastoral charity that drives us to go out to meet the strayed, and,
once they are found, to initiate a path of acceptance, discernment
and reinstatement in the ecclesial community.
We
know this is tiring, it is “hand-to-hand” pastoral care which
cannot be fully addressed with programmatic, organizational or legal
measures, even if these are also necessary. It simply entails
accepting, accompanying, discerning, reinstating.
Out
of these four pastoral attitudes the least refined and practised is
discernment; and I deem it urgent to include training in personal and
community discernment in our Seminaries and Presbyteries. Finally, I
would like to recall that Amoris Laetitia resulted from the work and
prayers of the whole Church, with the mediation of two Synods and the
Pope.
For
this reason, I recommend a full catechesis of the exhortation, which
will, most certainly, contribute towards the growth, consolidation
and holiness of the family.
Once
again, thank you for your work and let me encourage you to carry on
studying and teaching Amoris Laetitia in the different communities of
the dioceses. Please, do not forget to pray and to remind others to
pray for me.
May
Jesus bless you and may the Holy Virgin take care of you.
Fraternally,
FRANCIS
English
translation courtesy Religión Digital in Madrid, Spain.
