Buenos Aires Bishops' letter*
[Read Part 1 here.]
Is it possible to make sense of the Buenos Aires Bishops' letter regarding Amoris Laetitia by reading it in light of Church teachings?
Pope Francis said the bishops' document "explains precisely the meaning of Chapter VIII of 'Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations." He had both documents put into the Acta Apostolicis Sedes and said he wanted them recognized as authentic Magisterial teachings. As Catholics we must at least have a religious submission of intellect and will to such teachings.
Let's look at portions of the bishops' letter, Criterios básicos para la aplicación del capitulo VIII Amoris laetitia, from Región Pastoral Buenos Aires (translation of paragraphs 5-6 provided by Dr. Joseph Arias to my class.)
"The Couple" Living as Brother and Sister
The first guideline in counselling the divorced and remarried (paragraph 5) is to require continence of "the couple."
(I have made divisions in the text and underlined phrases to assist my analysis.)
5. When the concrete circumstances of a couple make it feasible, especially when both are Christians with a path of faith, one can propose the commitment to live in continence.
Amoris laetitia does not ignore the difficulties of this option (cf. nota 329) and leaves open the possibility of access to the sacrament of Reconciliation when one fails in that purpose (cf. nota 364, according to the teaching of Saint John Paul II to Cardinal W. Baum, of 3/22/1996).
There are two important points in this paragraph. The first is that we are talking about a couple who mutually agrees to continence. Invalidly married couples who for a serious reason cannot separate, must make an act of the will to choose continence, relying on grace.
The second important point is that even after resolving to live together in continence, a person may fall into sin. When this happens the person may renew his resolve to live in continence and thus receive the Sacraments.
The operative word is "feasible," because let's face it not everyone in an invalid marriage is going to be spiritually mature enough to choose a path of continence. This choice is most likely between two persons of strong faith. The goal is to get the couple to the point where they will choose continence. If both are not at this point then the teaching is that each must be refused the Sacraments until such time as the person resolves to live continently.
Dr. Arias' Crisis article quotes from the Declaration of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful Who Are Divorced and Remarried, 2000.
The three required conditions [for judging those not 'worthy' to receive Holy Communion] 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...
c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.
In the case of those living together, the first two conditions having been resolved by continence, the only obstacle to the Sacraments is the "manifest" nature of their irregular situation, and thus "scandal" needs to be "removed." According to the Declaration:
Given [that] the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio [i.e. abstaining from the acts proper to spouses] is per se occult [in itself hidden], while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo [scandal being removed].
Legal divorce and separation of the invalidly married would be the obvious way to remove scandal. But this is not always desirable...
How can one morally choose not to separate when in an invalid marriage? In situations when for good reason it is discerned that separation would be injurious to the children, there is the option to live as brother and sister in the same house, i.e. to have separate bedrooms and to cease conjugal relations. The Church proposes this because children need two parents and a stable home life. The unity of parents is so important that St. Thomas includes it as a natural reason for matrimony, saying that the primary end of marriage, the procreation and education of the children, requires the unity of parents. [ST III, 41,1]. In other words, the invalidly married couple may in certain circumstances be permitted to live together chastely.
There may be other serious reasons for not separating, but these would need to be discerned.
There is no practical guideline here for what it would mean to remove scandal before approaching the Sacraments.. Perhaps professing to the pastor that for the children's sake they have chosen to live as brother and sister is sufficient? The Declaration does not specify. In any case, once scandal is removed there is no impediment to the Sacraments.
"A Person" Choosing Continence
The situation is more complicated when only one of the invalidly married decides to live continently, (paragraph 6).
6. In other more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, the option mentioned may not be in fact feasible.
Nevertheless, a path of discernment is equally possible. If one comes to recognize that, in a concrete case, there are limitations that attenuate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302),
particularly when a person considers that he/she would fall into a further fault damaging [or injuring] the children of the new union,
Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). These in turn dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the strength of grace.
Paragraph 6 has four key points. The first is addressing when the option of living together in mutual continence is "not feasible." As far as I can tell there is only one way to understand this with the mind of the Church. Notice the use of "a person" in paragraph 6 as opposed to "the couple" in paragraph 5. It seems in 6 we are talking about a person who resolves to live continently at the hands of her housemate who may choose not to be continent. This situation is very likely when one of the couple is not Catholic. Perhaps the father of her children does not accept that this second union is invalid and that there is thus a need for abstain from conjugal relations. However, the previous marriage of one of the persons is valid and cannot be annulled. Or perhaps he is just not willing to make the effort to live chastely.
This brings us to the second point. Because there is not a mutual decision to live as brother and sister, the Christian would be required to move out in most circumstances, I should think. We are taught to avoid the near occasion of sin. But the key point here is that this person is not obstinately persisting in sin since she has resolved to be continent. Her choice not to separate is rather due to attenuating circumstances which reduce her "culpability."
Now the third point: moving out may lead to "a further fault damaging [or injuring] the children." What are examples? Perhaps in third world countries, where a family is fortunate to have even a roof over their heads. In first world countries psychological considerations may be more of a factor. Sure she** could move out if she was willing that her children starve or freeze to death... or maybe if she was not sick as a dog. Perhaps we are talking about someone prone to promiscuity who would find himself caught up in another relationship to the detriment of the children. It is hard to say which circumstances pertain and that is why discernment is necessary.
Finally, the fourth point: Since there is no sin when living as brother and sister for serious motives, then when only one resolves to live continently she does not "obstinately persist in manifestly grave sin." Even if she should be violated, or worse if she should succumb to temptation, she may confess and renew her resolve of continence and so may have "access to the Sacraments."
The only remaining impediment to receiving the Sacraments then would be the scandal. We have to say that in this situation also there must needs be removal of scandal. As the Declaration says:
That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act...
Even the appearance of living in sin while approaching the Sacraments does harm to faith. Again, I don't know precisely what this removal would consist in - I suppose she would need to discern that with counsel as in the previous case. For argument's sake, let's assume that scandal is somehow removed.
In both cases it is clear that only a person committed to continence can receive the Sacraments while living in an invalid marriage, scandal being removed. The person who has resolved continence is not only free, but is even encouraged to approach the Sacraments, whether succeeding in that resolve or repenting of having failed in it. How else could one hope to obtain grace enough to persevere in such difficult circumstances and so be saved?
The Buenos Bishops' letter is just one example of teachings which may at first glance seem confusing but must nonetheless be submitted to... because to reject the teachings of the Magisterium is not an option for a faithful Catholic!
Once we've made the decision to interpret a document with the mind of the Church, ambiguity begins to disappear and the Holy Spirit can enlighten our minds to the text's correct meaning. It is then, more than ever, that we thank God for the gift of the teaching office bestowed on our Holy Mother the Church!
*My apologies, but I took this post down after an objection because I wanted to make sure I was not unintentionally misleading anyone. This is a revised version of the post which I hope is much clearer than the previous version.
**For simplicity's sake I have stuck to one opposing pronoun for each person, but the pronouns could just as easily be reversed.
Photo by Joshua Newton on Unsplash