Watering Down Baptism?

 While listening to Personally Speaking, a  Catholic interview program hosted by Monseigneur Jim Lisante, the prelate host shared sua sponte that he recently was approached by two lesbians who sought to have their child baptized.  Despite being turned away at two other parishes, the priest proclaimed to the couple:  “There isn’t anything in the bible about being gay so it must be OK” thus he consented to perform the sacrament.

The cleric’s superficial scriptural analysis speciously seems to ignore Jesus’ perspective on marriage in MT 19 as a married man and woman become one flesh. That passage clearly does not include alternative arrangements.   But the conundrum is on the propriety of baptizing a child to parents who manifestly are living contrary to the teachings of the church. 

While I appreciate the pastoral inclinations, the scenario calls into question the rationale for the sacrament of initiation and what is involved in infant baptism. Ideally, baptism claims the person as a child of God with an indelible mark on the soul. But an infant is unable to make baptismal promises, so those proclamations of faith are made by parents and godparents. Thus, pastoral discernment is required of the parents and godparents

Canon 1255 anticipates that the faith promise given infant baptism be supplemented by the parents, godparents and community.  In Acts 2:38 St. Peter exhorts us to “Repent and be baptized” which requires a metanoia (i.e. turning away from sin) in those professing the faith.

Practically speaking, the faith must be nurtured by the practice in the home church as well as with the People of God. The difficulty is when parents are living lives that are manifestly and publicly contrary to the tenants of the faith.

Those inclined to seek the mercy of God would surely say that an innocent child should not be punished for the sins of the parents.  But baptism involve promises made in rearing the child in the faith.   In this scenario, we can assume that they are living as a same sex couple and have pride in their lifestyle.  If one of the couple is biologically the mother, it raises issues about artificial insemination or procreation outside of marriage. This would mean that a child would be expected to be raised in the faith by a couple co-habitating outside of sacramental marriage and with orientations that the church teaches are disordered? 

 Despite Monseigneur Lisante’s claims, the Church in Canon 2357 considers homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered.   It is unclear if the couple was civilly married but the Church does not recognize such unions as being covenantial or sacramental. Perhaps the couple was not church going and those pastors deemed the sacrament of baptism being used as a ritualistic rite of passage rather than a conferral of grace.

Near the beginning of Pope Francis’ papacy, the Holy Father chided young priests to not become “little monsters” doggedly adhering to doctrine but instead to focus on compassion, evangelization and inclusion.  In that spirit, pastors may be reluctant to turn away anyone from the Church, even if adherence to baptismal promises made for them seem tenuous so as to see if takes hold. This calls to mind the conversion story of Fr. Donald Calloway who was baptized at age ten at the behest of Episcopalian kin even though his parents were not practicing their faith.  The only thing that he remembered from his baptismal sacrament of initiation was the donuts they eat afterwards.  Hearing his hair raising testimony, the graces of baptism did not take from merely that liturgical ritual.  Is it merciful to give the impression that one is saved by baptism but has no context to living properly as a Catholic Christian?

Pope Francis’ encyclical, Amoris Laetitia, attempted to reconcile the practice of the Catholic faith with the Modern Family.  Pope Francis declared that marriage was between a man and a woman for life (para. 62), same sex unions can not be equated with marriage (para. 52) and that education is the of a child is the “primary right” of parents (para. 84).  It is hard to believe that the child would be brought up in the ways of the church in the aforementioned scenario, which argues against  a profligate administration of baptism.

Pro arguendo, one could attempt to apply the logic of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia in this instance.  After all, Pope Francis opined that pastors ought not throw moral stones and be done with irregular situations.  In footnote 351, the Holy Father sought to reconcile those in irregular marriages (Catholics civilly remarried after a divorce without obtaining an annulment) with the Church through a circuitous procedure in lieu of canon law.  

This alternative approach required extensive pastoral counseling for the couple so they could understand the wisdom of the Church and conforming their lives to the teaching.  In conforming irregular marriage to the norms of the church, the couple would need  to be catechized and gain an informed conscience. If children were a consideration and couples could not easily separate, so they would be enjoined from marital relations in order to receive the sacraments. And the couple would be encouraged to join another parish so as to avoid the appearance of scandal.  Of course, that is asking a lot. But the Gospel exhorts us: “The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.” 

So how would this Amoris Laetitia logic be applied to parents of a child seeking baptism who are flagrantly living their lives contrary to Church teachings?  That’s the rub.  Those making the baptismal promises are more than falling short of virtue.  They are publicly living their lives contrary to the teaching of the Faith.  Amoris Laetitia anticipates some metanoia as well as a resolve to sin no more.  Is it reasonable to expect the child to be raised under the Church’s precepts, particularly with the Home Church defies the theology of the body and a sacredness of the covenant of marriage?  

In America, we fret about the lack of Sunday Mass by many baptized Catholics  and of the glaring lack of understanding of fundamental precepts of faith (e.g. the Real Presence in the Eucharist). So many poorly catechized Catholics are poached by Evangelical denominations since they hunger for the divine, but are sacramentalized but not catechized.  So much for the fruits from the Church of Nice. For seekers of Divine Truth, it is disheartening if they discover that were holy fools for playing by the rules because mercy to the unrepentant overrides all.

While it sounds merciful to baptize a child from a proud lesbian couple, sadly it seems that the child would be left as a spiritual orphan through a perfunctory ceremony which waters down the sacrament.

Ruminating on the Book Primal Loss by Leila Miller

Recently, I had some coffee talk with a more liberal Catholic friend who wondered why I am aghast at the sleight of hand in Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (2016) concerning communion for Catholics in irregular marriages.  My interlocutor argued that I should not care as this change neither effects me nor rocks my faith and it is meant to reach out to an increasingly secularized culture that needs healing. 

The impetus of Amoris Laetitia's pastoral provision can be characterized as offering band aids to the wounded in the field hospital of faith. However, by  circumventing the annulment process with a suggestion of pastoral counseling, it seems intended to attract more wayward Catholics who have “moved on” from a bad marriage  back to the faith with the incentive of receiving the Eucharist.  Such a procedure moots the Magisterium and risks cheapening the faith and endangers souls.

This theological conversation took place as I was reading Primal Loss: The Now-Adult Children of Divorce Speak (2017) edited by Leila Miller. The author graduated summa cum laude from Boston College, is a reverted Catholic mother of eight who became known for her blog “Little Catholic Bubble”.  Leila Miller has now turned to writing apologetics on thorny moral issues.  Primal Loss which aggregates the oral histories of 70 adult children of divorce in reaction to six simple but revealing questions:

1) What effect has your parents’ divorce had on you?
2) What is the difference between how you felt about the divorce as a child and how you feel as an adult?
3) Has your parents’ divorce affected your own marriage or view on marriage?
4) Asking for reactions to the bromides “Children are resilient”, “You’ll be just fine and live a successful life after your parents’ divorce.
5) Asking what would you say to your parents about their divorce and if their reactions are just unconscious revenge.
6) What should society know about how divorce affects children.

Sociologists might dismiss Primal Loss as anecdotal evidence from a self selected contributors which did not stem from a controlled study.  The author’s objective was to given unvarnished opinions from those directly impacted by a divorce and to educate people on the ignored pitfalls of the Divorce Ideology which is championed in current culture and is one of the linchpins of the Sexual Revolution.

Indubitably, divorce is more prevalent today than it was a half century ago before the widespread. implementation of No-Fault Divorce.  But those bent on accommodating the new reality of divorce culture cite the statistic that 50% of marriages in America end in divorce.  But the index of Miller’s interviewees (whom she scrupulously protected their anonymities) belie that false fact.  So many of the contributors to Primal Loss have parents who were married several times after their initial divorce.  This certainly inflates the marriage rate.  Michael Medved points to studies which show that two thirds of marriages last until one person dies.  But the bogus 50% divorce rate statistic is part of the mythology that people in troubled marriages use to justify their self-centered action of divorce.

It was remarkable to read in Primal Loss the unvarnished opinions and reflective reactions that the now adult children of divorce had to their parents breaking up their family.  Several of them chronicled abusive parents or adults mired in addiction (sometimes both parents), where it was understandable that separation was necessary for safety. Many times adultery (or the desire for a newer or more compatible mate) was the driving force for the divorce.    But more often than not, these grown children of divorce recognized that parental selfishness was at play.  Divorcing parents also broke up their families for seemingly trivial reasons under the generous guise of No Fault Divorce without weighing the devastating consequences on their children.

It was unsurprising that divorce pushes custodial parents into poverty and unsupervised parenting which makes kids prone to promiscuity, abortions and addiction to fill the void that they feel. These interviews also highlight how their parents example of divorce negatively impacts their faith.  To justify their life style choices which are contrary to traditional church teaching, previously faithful parents pull back on their religiosity and children follow suit.  The domestic church is decimated. 

There is also the uncomfortable dynamic that with joint custody, kids of divorce have to adapt to two different households and parental styles.  So during adolescence, when kids are struggling to discern their true identities, they must act to please the powers that be in their household du jour (which often may harbor bad feelings towards churchy purveyors of guilt).  Add on the feeling of betrayal and abandonment for an institution which seems to be made of straw caused a fair number of interviewees to abandon their faith, seek more conducive pastures or seek self destructive secular solutions.  As Primal Loss originated from Catholic social media connections, most of the contributors seemed to have reverted back to Catholicism.

A set of lies which the Divorce Ideology trumpets is the knee jerk reaction “Oh, kids are resilient, they’ll get over it.” and the self serving “Kids will be happy if I am in a happier relationship.”.  The tangled webs we weave when first we learn to deceive.  Children crave acceptance so they will fake it until they make it and to great extends mask their woundedness from their family identity being torn away from their through divorce.  Superficially, they’ll embrace the prospect of having two Christmases etc...  But that comes at a cost of not having a stable place of their own.  And the reality that they will have to grow up quickly, often becoming their custodian parent's sounding board about the failed marriage. 

Combine an emotionally fragile adolescent who has been wounded by their parents’ divorce and parents preoccupied with their own love life along with authority issues with step parents, these children of divorce often are laxly parented lest they scion leave (and give their divorced spouse a “victory”).  That interplay creates FINE kids, which one interviewee used as an acronym for “F-‘ed up Insecure Neurotic Emotional”.


Another reaction to their hemaneutic that divorce is OK because it allows the parent to seek a happy relationship was:

Before I say anything to them, can I slap them around a little first, and let them know that that makes me happy so they should be happy too? No. Okay...

A reconstituted family rarely runs as smoothly as portrayed in the TV myths like “The Brady Bunch”.  Most adult children revealed that they long yearned for the possibility that their parents may become reconciled.  Adult children of divorce ruefully recall that their well being was perennially put in a lower position than their parents’ happiness.  And it is usually made clear to divorced children what their place is in a blended family. No wonder the contributor harbored that slap happy reaction.


What really seemed to be lacking in a Divorce Culture is the notion of sacramentality of marriage. If one views marriage as a contract, it is relatively easy to mentally justify walking away from it if you are not happy.  Marriage ought to be  properly understood as a covenant which is a sacrament modeled as the Lord wedded himself to a stiff necked people who He called his own despite their weaknesses and infidelity.  Moreover, if we understand the Trinity as a divine relationship which results in the overflowing of love of the Holy Spirit, we should see the analogy in our own participation in creation through the sacrament of marriage and having children.  Being wedded to someone is never easy and often requires sacrifice.  And it is not just for us mere mortals. After all, the Lord endured having His only begotten Son sacrificed to reconcile with an estranged humanity. 

The Church also needs to improve its catechesis about divorce.  While dining with some on fire social justice warrior faithful, one person gave uninformed assent to provisions of Amoris Laetitia because divorced Catholics have already had it hard enough and ought to receive the Eucharist.  He seemed stunned when I observed that those who remain celibate (honoring their covenental nuptuals) can.  And those in irregular marriages (civilly divorced and remarried) can go through an annulment.  The author tried to solve this by including Catholic teaching on marriage in her last chapter, but the message is better disseminated from the pulpit as well as Catholic media.

Some Catholics consider annulments to be a Catholic divorce, and contend that annulments  are much easier to get today in America.  But the process for a certificate of nullity asks incisive questions of petitioners and their witnesses which require deep introspection.  I appreciated the suggestion by one Primal Loss contributor that couples should be allowed to go through the annulment process BEFORE having a civil divorce proceeding as it might encourage more couples to work through their problems and stay together. 

Circumventing the annulment process to allow for pastoral counseling to educate couples in irregular marriages poses several problems.  Priests already have severe time constraints and the necessity of educating thoroughly secularized consciences may make true faith formation challenging.  The reliance on abiding by individual consciences without the surety of formal pronouncement of nullity from church authorities means that either souls are endangered or the process is a fiction.  Furthermore, to continue to have an annulment process when this pastoral provision is foisted as being magisterial (which is mistaken as paragraph 3 of Amoris Laetitia indicates that it is a persuasive document intended pastorally) makes anyone seeking annulments as a pious patsy.

I appreciated the observation that when an annulment is granted, it may bring closure to the ex-spouses but it does not have the effect on the offspring as it does not change the dire circumstances of blowing up the family and snatching away their identities.  An adult friend of mine declared that he was a bastard because his parents had their marriage annulled.  I tried to tell him church teaching that while the sacramentality of the marriage was void, he was not born out of wedlock.  That nugget of truth did not change his long held self perception.

One contributor to Primal Loss eloquently expressed the resulting marred self perception of being a child of divorce:

Divorce creates its own language for a child. Much of it is unspoken and the child is the only one who achieves fluency.  It might be the voice of doubt in the back of one's mind one day, or the voice of indecision where I should be resolute another day.  This perpetually dysfunctional language replaces the language of family love that otherwise forms a child's internal dialogue. So, in a way, divorce becomes the 'everlasting gift' to the child that a child can't overcome. The dysfunction replaces the permanence and security of an intact family.

Since most of Primal Loss were oral histories grouped together by topics, it was in many ways an easy read. Yet absorbing the tales of pain, reflections on the adverse impact of divorce on kids lives and the intractable issues associated with breaking up families also made it a painful read.  A virtue of Leila Miller’s organization of the book is that aside from grouping narratives together which corresponded to her six questions, there was scant thematic argumentation, so a reader was not led to obvious take away conclusions, other than divorce is bad, it harms children in innumerable ways and ought to be avoided at almost all costs.

The penultimate chapter of Primal Loss contained Stories of Hope. Many of these accounts attest to the power of prayer. But they are not saccharine stories of sanctimoniousness.  These adult children of divorce find themselves at the brink of a marital breakup. But the reoccurring theme is that they do not surrender to selfishness and look beyond themselves, turning to prayer along with considering their childrens’ plight.

Recently, Cardinal Robert Sarah, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, offered high praise of Primal Loss for highlighting a world view which denies the value of self sacrificial love along with the damaging and long lasting consequences of divorce.  This is a recommended read for anyone in a troubled marriage to contemplate before their break up their family.  These testimonials may also give real life examples for adult catechesis. For myself, it illustrated the ill born consequences of the Church circumventing the Magisterium on marriage to be more appealing in a populist driven New Evangelization.

Archbishop Chaput Speaks the Catholic Truth in Defending Traditional Marriage

Since the Synods of the Family of 2014 and 2015, Munich Archbishop Reinhard Cardinal Marx, the Chairman of the German Bishops Conference, has been associated with the theology of gradualism, proffered by Cardinal Walter Kasper (said to be Pope Francis' favorite theologian).

That is why Cardinal Marx interview with Bavarian State Broadcasting that "there can be no rules" about Catholic priests blessing Same-Sex Marriages is so alarming.  The attitude which embraces the ambiguity coupled with the supposed pastoral discretion implements the progressive theological gradualism which is being implemented in some diocese regarding Amoris Laetitia.

To preclude the faithful from getting the wrong idea that Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of traditional marriage is gradually changing, Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput wrote a column in the Archdiocese newspaper to set things straight.



Moreover, Archbishop Chaput affirmatively issued a directive explicitly forbids clergy from blessing any same-sex union, mindful that this does not constitute a rejection of persons but is a defense of the truth of marriage.

On the Politicization of Church Life

Cardinal Raymond Burke gave an extended interview with Christopher Altieri for "Thinking With the Church" about matters of controversy among Catholics.  Burke's interview was recorded as a podcast and the transcript was published in the Catholic World Reporter. The Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta expressed anguish that some consider his request to the Holy See for clarifications (dubia) about the  apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (2016) are motivated to create a schism in the Catholic church.  

Cardinal Burke is concerned that the interpretation and application of Amoris Laetitia contradict long standing traditional teachings on the Sacrament of Marriage.  While Cardinal Burke scrupulously avoided ideological labels in his Altieri interview, he noted the Bishop of Malta's innovation regarding irregular second marriages, which clearly are progressive in nature.

One of the characteristics of Pope Francis' reign is the injection of secular progressive politics into papal pronouncements.  In Laudato Si' (2015), Pope Francis implored world leaders to approve the Paris Climate Change Accords.  Pope Francis' visit to the Mexican-US  border was a pointed ploy to champion open borders, counter to the platform of then  candidate now President Donald Trump. Even Pope Francis' annual announcement for World  Communication Day  railed against "fake news". 

Pope Francis' advocated a journalism of peace, which the Holy Father defined as:

“A journalism created by people for people, one that is at the service of all, especially those – and they are the majority in our world – who have no voice,” A journalism less concentrated on breaking news than on exploring the underlying causes of conflict, in order to promote deeper understanding and contribute to their resolution by setting in place virtuous process. A journalism committed to pointing out alternatives to the escalation of shouting matches and verbal violence."

A true faith ought to be challenged and should not be confined to the sanctuary of the Church. There is the danger , however, that the Catholic faithful are being shepherded to take sides on secular political issues which are outside of the aura of competency of the Petrine office) and sometimes seem counter to traditional church teachings).  Those who object to this progressive polarization and stand fast to the Magisterium have increasingly been scorned, ostracized or dismissed as getting with today's program, even if the innovation is not magisterial.

For example, Chicago's Archbishop Blase Cardinal Cupich interpreted Amoris Laetitia as being a development of doctrine which the Petrine office has loosened requirements when pastorally addressing irregular marriages. But the apostolic exhortation did no such thing.  

Paragraph 3 of Amoris Laetitia indicates that the document was not doctrinal and was intended to start the conversation.  The controversy over Amoris Laetitia involves footnote 351 regarding Paragraph 305 which suggests that there might be some pastoral means of curing irregular second marriages.  But Pope Francis has refused to answer dubia's regarding the implementation. And progressive powers in the Church are attempting to steamroll their will, in a jesuitical manner, speaking with great force but not having the facts on their side.

As we grapple with the politicization of Church life, we ought to heed 16th Century Lutheran theologian Peter Meiderlin's wisdom that we ought to have "[U]nity on necessary things, liberty on dubious things and charity in all things." 

Fr. James Martin on Traditional Catholics and the Church Militant

This "The Vortex" video  asserts that  Fr. James Martin being a heretic might explain the Jesuit media darling's animus against Church Militant TV as much as the cancelled public appearances.  

Canonically, Fr. Martin's claim that such associations have zero legitimacy is jesuitical, that is to speak with great force but not have facts on one's side.  Canons 298 and 299 allow for associations:

"[T]o foster a more prefect life to promote public worship or Christian doctrine or to exercise other works of the apostolate such as initiatives of evangelization, works of piety or charity and those which animate the temporal order with a Christian spirit." 

Moreover, Fr. Martin rails "Traditional Catholics" subverting tradition by challenging legitimate Church authorities.  However, Canon 212(3) recognizes the right, and even the duty, to make their opinions on faith and morality known to their public. 

Michael Voris, Church Militant TV

Michael Voris paints the internecine struggle as being heretics versus the Catholics.  A more charitable viewpoint is progressive ultramontanism versus upholders of traditional Magisterium.



Our Church shepherds are owed our allegiance when they preach the Gospel in accords with the Magisterium.  Alas, as seen in Amoris Laetitia, progressive pastoral proposals dealing with marriage are treated as almost as Ex Cathedra announcements, even when the aforementioned Apostolic Exhortation did not align with the sensus fidae of the Extraordinary Synods on the Family. 

Rueing the Spirit of Amoris Laetitia

Preface:

This piece was originally written in October 2016 after participating in an Igantian retreat aimed at rolling out this Apostolic Encyclical to the faithful. The resulting article seemed too lengthy for publication and impossible to edit down to a "typical Readers Digest"  version. However, I have passionately argued specifics from the analysis when discussing Amoris Laetitia and some have expressed interest in reading the piece. 

Perhaps the capstone of Pope Francis’ Jubilee Year of Mercy is the promulgation of the Apostolic Exhortation-- Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love, 2016).  Amoris Laetitia is Pope Francis’ reflections on the 2014 and 2015 Extraordinary Synods of the Family.

Pope Francis’ persistently reaches out to minister to those in the peripheries, especially those in irregular family situations. However  Amoris Laetitia has created sparks from critics who wonder about how the document ought to be interpreted and ramifications from its proposed New Mercy implementation.

While Amoris Laetitia purports to reflect the Extraordinary Synods on the Family’s final report, it goes beyond chronicling the Synod Fathers conclusions.  As is Pope Francis’ style, the Holy Father wrote a long work (356 paragraph 264 page English document) piece that mixes in pastoral suggestions along poetic, collegial (citing various Conferences of Bishops) and scriptural allusions as well as quoting the preceding pontiffs’ teachings.

Pope Francis’ charismatic communication style is not always exact in nature and his spontaneous utterances can seem contradictory.

Much of the material in Amoris Laetitia mirrored the Magisterium and the final report of the Synod of the Family Fathers.

• Marriage is a gift from the Lord between a man and a woman for life (para. 62) . 
• Same Sex unions can not be equated with marriage (para. 52). 
• Gender theory which denies sexual differences between men and women is rejected (para. 56) 
• Blessed Pope Paul VI’s teaching from the encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968) which prohibited  artificial contraception is reaffirmed  (para. 68).  
• Abortion is explicitly condemned and the right of health care workers conscience to respect the sanctity of life in their profession is stressed. (para. 83). 
• The education of children is the “primary right” of parents (para. 84).

Despite this ample echoing of the Church teaching and tradition, there is some ambiguity on how the faithful ought to interpret Amoris Laetitia.  Unlike other Apostolic Exhortations, Pope Francis proffered pastoral perspectives which are certainly sagacious but are obviously not ex cathedra, such as suggesting couples take quality time to listen to each other (para 137). Such rhetoric seems reminiscent of documents from Vatican II which sought to persuade rather than inculcate.

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) generated an alluvia of documents which exhorted “aggiornamento” (opening the windows of the Church to the world).  The gist of Vatican II documents intimated change couched in consensus committee style.  The volume of Vatican documents generated along with sometimes disjointed conclusions inspired some who implemented reforms to invoke “the Spirit of Vatican II” to actuate changes which the Vatican II Synod Fathers did not advocate (e.g. changing the altar from ad orientam to versus populem).

The considerable length of Amoris Laetitia, along with a couple of ambiguous paragraphs make it more more than conceivable that a similar phenomenon of “the Spirit of Amoris Laetitia” could overshadow  the many positive points of this Apostolic Exhortation. Those steeped in Jesuit education may recognize Ignatian elements from the Spiritual Exercises such as accompaniment, discernment and integrating weakness, but they seem insufficiently contexualized and may be unfamiliar to the Church Universal.

The uncertainty on how to understand Amoris Laetitia is amplified by a predicate for Pope Francis’ reflections:

Since ‘time is greater than space’, I would to make it clear that not all of the discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the Magisterium. Unity of teaching or practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. (para. 3).

That seems to suggest that there may be back door mechanisms which circumvent customary Church procedures while also affirming the need for a unity of Church practice.  Hence,  it crucial to discern the hermaneutic for assessing Amoris Laetitia.

Employing  Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI’s dialectic for Vatican II Golden Anniversary observances, should Amoris Laetitia understand through a be a hermaneutic of continuity or a hermaneutic of rupture? Put another way, does the New Mercy restate and  contemporize traditional teachings or does Amoris Laetitia manifest a new way to address irregular family challenges?

As befitting the Jubilee Year of Mercy, Pope Francis reaches out to the peripheries to reach faithful who might feel estranged from Mother Church.  While that is laudable to bring souls back into the fold of the Church, it seems extraordinary for Pope Francis to assert:

It is important divorced who entered into a new union should be made to feel part of the Church. “They are not excommunicated” and they should not be treated as such, since they remain part of the ecclesial community.(para. 243).

This intimates an innovation, as the Magisterium holds that a sacramental marriage is indissoluble hence a civil remarriage without obtaining an annulment (technically a certificate of nullity), then those in the irregular marriage are committing adultery.

Many people mistake Excommunication (barring reception of the sacraments) as a punishment. Some think that it is kicking someone out of the Church.  So Pope Francis is quite right to note that they remain part of the Church. But traditionally they would be prohibited from unworthily receiving sacraments, especially the Body and Blood of Christ in a state of grave sin as it imperils their souls.

Pope Francis, however, considers the simple application of Canon Law is characteried as bureaucratic.   Pastors are extolled not to throw moral stones and be done with irregular situations. In fact, a footnote states: “I want to remind priest that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy (para 305 footnote 351).

Keeping to his Ignation roots, Pope Francis encourages pastors ministering to such irregular marriages to accompany the couple and consider mitigating factors (para. 301). Supposedly, in certain situations, an irregularly married couple may grow in grace while receiving the Church’s help, which may include the sacraments.  This is a law of gradualism, which Pope Francis oddly attributes to Pope St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (1981), but more closely tracks with Cardinal Walter Kasper’s theological take on gradualism.

This is the crux of the sparks regarding Amoris Laetitia.  This footnote seems like a pastoral end around of Church law, done for the sake of mercy, to a couple which has not resolved impediments.  This goes beyond pastoral provisions and calls into question adherence to the traditional teachings of the Church and the meaning of the sacraments.

Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia postulates that there may be some situations which divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can still access the sacraments despite not having an annulment.  During the 2015 Synod on the Family, Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith Gerhard Mueller stated: "The valid and sacramental marriage is either indissoluble or dissoluble. There is no third option."  of  So if an irregular couple can still receive sacraments, in the name of mercy, then what is the validity of the rule?

One of the hard teachings in the Gospel of Matthew is the reinstatement of natural marriage.

Jesus replied, "Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because your hearts are unyielding. It it wasn't that way from the beginning.  I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."  (M 9: 8-9)

That states things pretty clearly from a scriptural standpoint.  Amoris Laetitia points to other examples in which Jesus has mercy on people in irregular situations, like the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery or the woman at the well.

But certain statements by Pope Francis and the theology concealed in pastoral provisions have cast doubts on the Catholic concept of sacramental marriage, as well as the precepts for other sacraments. In June 2016, Pope Francis posited that: the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null" because they do not have a proper understanding of permanence and commitment (official transcripts modified this quip to "a portion"). 

The gradualist approach, as articulated by Cardinal Kasper, moots the Messiah's invocation of natural law of marriage.  It can be liked to how Orthodox Christianity handles divorce and remarriage for economia (the Orthodox Church’s concern for the salvation of people) giving an irregular couple a tentative blessing after a period of penance.  Since Amoris Laetitia sought to avoid doctrinal interventions of the Magisterium, this comparative theological perspective on second marriages was not spelled out.

Kasperian gradualism looks to expand the playground between dogmatic principle and pastoral consequence which he attributes to Pope St. John Paul II's concession in Familaris Consortio   Kasper exaults  the good which can spring forth from the second (non-sacramental) civil marriage of love, commitment and exclusivity. This assertion is troubling since there is still a valid sacramental marriage hence ecclesially there is neither commitment nor exclusivity to the sacramental spouse.

Pope Francis gives latitude to pastoral counseling and may recommend that the counseled couple resume church life in another parish so as not to create scandal. For Cardinal Kasper, the scandal is not irregular Catholic couples unworthily receiving the sacraments but denying the sacraments

In this pastoral process, the couple is to be helped in discernment which “guides the faithful to an awareness of their situation before God” (para. 300).  Essentially, this is an appeal to Thomistic sense of conscience, which if sincerely held may countermand established customary procedures. This pastoral process is supposed to be limited to certain situations which:

 [I]n an objective situation of sin–which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such– a person can be living in God’s grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. (para 300)

That passage seemed rather muddied, but practical examples would illuminate how the Church is impeded from offering mercy to people in irregular situations.

So during a Christian Life Community retreat which contemplated Amoris Laetitia, I asked for two concrete examples in which this exception would apply. One hypothetical was a divorced man who was civilly remarried but living a devout Catholic life without an annulment but who was informed that he only had a few months to live.  It was contended that it would not be merciful for this poor soul to be excluded from the sacraments in his dying days.

Another abstract example would be the case of a woman who was divorced and civilly remarried who was chary to go through with an open and shut annulment process because she did not want to think about much less interact with her abusive spouse.

In both instances, those in an irregular situation chose to violate their vows and circumvented the Church rules to be publicly united with another spouse, but because of exigencies, the law should not apply. In law school, one is taught that difficult cases makes for bad law. Thus the suspicion that it is likely that these exceptions become the rule.

In America, this pastoral provision may not matter, but there are pecuniary interests in other regions to lessen the stigma of irregular relationships.  In Germany, the Church tax is 8% of one’s income (which is 70% of church revenues). German bishops have denied sacraments to those who do not pay.   Many in irregular marriages are hesitant to pay as they were not eligible for to receive the Eucharist.  Amoris Laetitia offers a way around that impediment.

There are systematic challenges  with this pastoral modus vivendi for irregular couples. Firstly, why does not Amoris Laetitia point divorced and remarried couples into the annulment process?

 Pope Francis declared that sacraments should be free of charge, thus removing any cost barrier from seeking an annulment.  Moreover, there is a 97% success rate for finding a nullity of marriage.  By suggesting this pastoral provision of accompaniment, discernment and integrating weakness,  there seems to be little need to do the formal scrutinizing by a Roman Rota when "Fr. Friendly" can just  counsel the irregular couple and skirt the formalities by changing to another parish.

Juristically, there is still a sacramental marriage which has been super-ceded in practice by a second civil marriage that Amoris Laetitia seeks to accommodate. This calls into question whether sacramental marriage is dissoluble or if under Amoris Laetitia that we say that it is, much like Americans pretend the Tenth Amendment is good law but jurists pay it no mind.

There is also a conundrum of different applications of the pastoral approach towards irregular couples.  Germany would be quick to regularize divorced and remarried Catholics so that they could receive the sacraments (and the Church receive its government payments). But the Polish Conference of Bishops is adamant against applying this modus vivendi. Germany and Poland share a common border, so on one side cheap grace is permitted and the other side deprives irregular couples the sacraments. So much for one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Granted, we are all sinners and in need of God’s mercy.  Grave sin is typically confessed in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. But a Catholic who is divorced and then civilly remarried made a public commitment which contradicts his or her sacramental marriage. The question remains, as posed by Fr. Tom Reese, S.J. whether those in irregular relations committed one sin in the civil marriage or if it is a continuing sin each time the couple engages in the marital act.

It is liturgical legerdemain to claim that gradualism need not involve the Magisterium.  Confession is to make manifest times which a penitent acts contrary to the way of God. The Sacrament of Reconciliation seeks contrite hearts who vow to sin no more. But if the sacramental marriage is not annulled yet the civil marriage is regularized in the eyes of the Church, then it seems to make the Magisterium teaching that the marriage covenant is indissoluble to be mere words.

Furthermore, if the irregularly married couple is counseled to resume the sacramental life without clarifying their vocational status or radically changing marital behavior (i.e. no sex) then does this not circumvent the precept that the faithful should not be in grave sin to receive the Eucharist?



In the 1930 Lambeth Council, the Anglican Communion tried to address vexing family issues The Lambeth Council approved  the use of artificial birth control by married couples in exceptional circumstances, but was not specific on her prescriptions. The exception became the rule.

There is the danger that a similar situation could happen by applying the merciful pastoral provisions of Amoris Laetitia..  In many parts of the world, the Latin Church faces a shortage of priests.  Amoris Laetitia requires a considerable amount of study, prayer and then expending time to put into pastoral practice.  Amoris Laetitia requires discerning one’s conscience.  It is questionable how much honing must go into forming consciences in this day and age with the dominance of secular values which contravene being right with God.

It will be much easier for a time pressed priest to do some pro forma meeting and take the attitude “Who am I to judge?" (which takes Pope Francis' excited expression from a 2014 press conference aboard Shepherd One out of context)  while superficially counseling living and brother and sister and advising to attend a parish where their appearance will not create scandal. This would be in keeping with the “Spirit of Amoris Laetita” which embraces the conceit of the Church as a field hospital for those spiritually sick and the impulse to apply the salve of God’s mercy, without requiring metanoia and a contrite heart’s change in living.

The interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is key. It is reasonable to consider Amoris Laetitia as wrapping innovation within external affirmations of the Magisterium via pastoral provisions. Pope Francis imploring that there is no ex-communication is laudable but does that really reflect the traditions and teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?

The Apostolic Exhortation goes far beyond what the Synod Fathers agreed upon, but that has been the course of these Family Synod histories.

The Synod Fathers did not contemplate a pastoral provision which bypassed current procedures for irregular marriage, yet it was promulgated in a footnote.  The authenticity of interpreting the footnote was affirmed by Pope Francis  in a secular newspaper and a letter to the Argentine Conference of Bishops.

There is a credible perception that the Synod of the Family was rigged to encourage certain outcomes.

• The 2014 relatio (working document) introduced ideas on appreciating homosexuals gifts to the Church that were never discussed as parts of the first weeks’ discussions. Moreover, this interim report was released to the press before it was given to the Synod Fathers.
• Archbishop of Durban Winfried Cardinal Napier was told by a Synod official in 2014 Synod "This thing is  being manipulated. This thing is being engineered. They want a certain result." 
• During the 2014 Synod, Cardinal Kasper expressed exasperation that the African bishops  were holding  the Synod back on same-sex marriage.
• In the 2014 Synod, the fathers voted on what should be included. Several controversial sections, like cohabitation, same sex marriage and Communion for irregular couples, which failed yet Pope Francis included them on the 2015 Synod agenda and they were addressed within Amoris Laetitia. 
• There were some slights in naming Synod Fathers who were not invited back to participate who held a more traditional line (such as Cardinal Raymond Burke) whereas an influential emeritus Bishops over the voting age who aligned with the New Mercy (namely Cardinal Kasper) participated.
• Synod 2015 Father Australian Cardinal George Pell was absolutely certain that the final report of the Synod on the Family made no reference to communion to divorced and remarried Catholics. Yet at the same time, German Conference of Bishops President Cardinal Reinhard Marx praised the Synod for being a "real step forward" in pastoral care for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.  Judging from Amoris Laetitia and the emphasis on  Pope Francis' footnote 351 as being  the authentic key for interpretation, it seems that the Synod Fathers' deliberations were moot.
• Pope Francis named Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia and Monsignor Pierangelo Sequeri to lead the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family. Paglia has expressed opinions which endorse Kasperian Gradualism and is eager to implement Amoris Laetitia.   This is significant because if the is just a pastoral option, then implementing it sounds more systematic.

Some longstanding virtues of the Catholic faith is to have surety of authority in Scripture, Holy Tradition and the Magisterium. Likewise, in the Roman Church, there has been a uniformity in implementation. Sacraments are not mere signs but efficacious means of grace for those spiritually disposed to receive them. Amoris Laetitia, the conduit  for the New Mercy,  may break that mold and many of the faithful many find themselves ruing the Spirit of Amoris Laetitia. 

It is a pity that there is concerted effort by leaders in the Church to take an ultramontainist approach to implementing Amoris Laetitia, when the interpretation via a footnote goes far beyond what the Synod of the Family's final report held, and also seem to contravene a hard teaching of Jesus Christ.

Archbishop Chaput Comments on Wikileaks Catholic Bashing and the 2016 Election

Wikileaks has released some batches of John Podesta's emails which reveal that Hillary Clinton confidants have some scathing views of Catholics.  Some had suggested that there should be a "Catholic Spring" to overthrow "a middle ages dictatorship" and impose a democratic cult which honors gender equality (and presumably progressive approaches to hot button social issues).  Other emails mocked how conservative Catholics were pseudo-intellectuals who spouted sophisticated sounding nonsense.

Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput responded to these scathing critques stemming from the highest echelons of Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential campaign.

It is quite  a clever turn of phrase of Archbishop Chaput to quip:"In a nation where 'choice' is now the unofficial state religion, the menu for dinner is remarkably small." Chaput pithily impeaches America's obsession with choice (abortion), reflects on dangers to America's tradition of religious liberty while lamenting the paucity of choices to be elected Commander-in-Chief.

Not withstanding the sardonic style of the riposte, Archbishop Chaput has consistently eviscerated both major party Presidential candidates, as seen from his recent speech at Notre Dame University.




We love to label in order to create intellectual order in our minds.  But terms like liberal and conservative do not translate well into Church politics.  Archbishop Chaput can be considered a conservative in Church circles, as he is cautiously embracing implementation of the New Mercy contained in Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.  However, it would be mistaken to automatically assume that Chaput is a political conservative or would ever vote for Donald Trump.

It is a pity that Archbishop Chaput was passed over to be named a Cardinal  by Pope Francis' recent announcement for the November 19th consistory.  Philadelphia, like the large Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, is traditionally blessed with a Cardinal.  Pope Francis, however, chose three "red hats" which went to Dallas, Indianapolis and to Archbishop Blase Cupich from the longstanding Cardinal seat of Chicago.