Buenos Aires Bishops' letter
[Read Part 1 on Amores Laetitia here.]
Is it possible to make sense of the Buenos Aires bishops' letter regarding Amoris Laetitia by reading it in light of previous Church teachings?
Pope Francis said the the Buenos Aires bishops' letter regarding Amoris Laetitia "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 as a minimum have a obsequium religiosum (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 by Dr. Joseph Arias.) I have made divisions in the text and underlined phrases to assist my analysis.
"The Couple" Living as Brother and Sister
Paragraph 5: The first guideline in counseling the divorced and remarried is to require continence of "the couple."
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 is that even after resolving to live together in continence, a person may fall into sin. When this happens, in order to receive the sacraments again, the person must go to confession and renew his resolve to live in continence.
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. Although the letter does not mention this, we must consider it implicit that if both are not at this point of choosing continence, 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 featured in our previous post 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, grave sin that is habitual, is resolved by continence. However, there remains an obstacle to the Sacraments in the "manifest" nature of their irregular situation. 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].
Because their sin is manifest and not secret, the "scandal" which their sin causes to others needs to be "removed." Legal divorce and separation of the invalidly married couple 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 - not in sin, no never in sin, but 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. It would depend, too, on how far the scandal extends. Perhaps in some cases 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, the principle stands, that once scandal is removed there is no impediment to the Sacraments.
"A Person" Choosing Continence
Paragraph 6: The situation is more complicated when only one of the invalidly married decides to live continently.
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 to 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, there is no way for a person in an invalid marriage to move out with her children. 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. Or 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, for serious motives, a remarried couple lives as brother and sister, 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 still confess and renew her resolve of continence and so may still 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...
Despite the fact that no one is shocked anymore by evil behavior, even the appearance of living in sin while approaching the Sacraments does harm to faith. Again, I don't know precisely what this removal of scandal 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.
Paragraph 5 and 6 of the bishop's letter, refer to different cases, the former to one to when a couple decides together to live continently, and the latter to when only one chooses continence. In both cases, it is clear that only a person committed to continence can receive the sacraments while living in an invalid marriage. And further, that the scandal must first be removed. The person who has resolved continence is not only free to approach the Sacraments, but is even encouraged to do so, 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 Aires Bishops' letter is just one example of teachings which may at first glance seem confusing but must nonetheless be submitted to with obsequium religiosum... because to reject the authoritative 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.
*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
Comments