What's At Stake With Heterodox Interpretations of Church Documents and Teaching

It's truly sad to see the confusion in the Church rising more and more. It comes from various places, from Cardinals calling Martin Luther a "common Church Father" with Lutherans, to theologians contradicting constant Church teaching by saying that capital punishment is always and everywhere intrinsically evil. But today I want to focus on something that has been generating controversy for quite some time now: heterodox interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, promulgated by Pope Francis in the spring of 2016. As many have written about this before, bishops are contradicting bishops, priests are contradicting priests, and what is considered grave matter for mortal sin in one diocese is not grave matter in another diocese. 

It's important to make a distinction that there are those that support an orthodox interpretation of AL, and there are those that support a heterodox interpretation. Those that support a heterodox interpretation of the papal document accuse those that hold to the "traditional"(that is, timeless) and orthodox interpretation of Catholic doctrine present in the document are "enemies" of Pope Francis. This couldn't be further from the truth. The bishops, priests, and laymen who have spoken out against heterodox interpretations of the document overwhelmingly love His Holiness and respect him and his office. That's why it's sad to see yet another priest throw his hat into the ring with heterodox interpretations of AL, accusing those such as Cardinal Burke or Archbishop Chaput of being "opponents" of the Pope, and further saying that such people are "dissenters, [who] assert that Christians who divorce from a valid marriage and remarry with adequate knowledge and consent enter the state of mortal sin. They insist that God gives the justified sufficient strength to bear whatever difficulties that may arise, that married couples can endure what comes their way if they take advantage of the grace offered to them."

These are the words of Fr. Gerald J. Bednar, Vice-Rector and Professor of Systematic Theology at Saint Mary Seminary in the Diocese of Cleveland. They come from a recent essay he penned in the English language weekly of L’Osservatore Romano, the daily newspaper of Vatican City. Several religious and laymen have commented on the troubling things related in this essay. Proponents of heterodox interpretations of AL might not want to admit it, and neither would it seem those who have not really looked into the ramifications of allowing reception of the Eucharist to the divorced and civilly remarried who live together more uxorio, but there are serious things at stake which are fundamental to the life of the Church: namely, the meaning of her Sacraments, what sin is, and what it means for doctrine to legitimately develop.

Apostle With Glasses

First off, just looking at this first selection from Fr. Bednar, quoted above, to call people who do not accept his interpretation of AL as "dissenters" is pretty ironic. It could be argued that Fr. Bednar is dissenting from constant Church teaching, as he elucidates later on that he thinks more exceptions need to be made regarding the indissolubility of marriage: "If the Church remains a Spirit-guided institution, why can’t the Church of a later day make a similar exception [i.e., the Pauline privilege] as the occasion demands?" With Fr. Bednar immediately and explicitly labeling those he disagrees with as dissenters, their position is immediately cast into a negative light, thereby goading the reader into thinking that such a position (the orthodox position) and the arguments that make up that position are a waste of time to even consider.

Second, Fr. Bednar comes dangerously close to denying what makes up a mortal sin. As children learn in catechesis class, a person has committed a mortal sin if they (1) engage in activity which is grave matter, (2) they know that what they are doing is gravely sinful, and (3) they do it anyways with their free will and consent. Notice how he qualifies knowledge here; you might miss it at first and agree with him, as I almost did: "[D]issenters... assert that Christians who divorce from a valid marriage and remarry with adequate knowledge and consent enter the state of mortal sin." If we were talking about a person who did not have full knowledge that contracting a second civil marriage while their first, true, and only spouse was still living was grave matter, then we could accurately say that that person would not be in mortal sin. But with full and adequate knowledge, along with consent, we become culpable. We gravely sin against our Lord and cut ourselves off from the True Vine. It would appear that, here, Fr. Bednar is claiming one of two things. First, that even if all three conditions are met for making a sin mortal (as opposed to venial), one may not, in some situations, actually be in a state of mortal sin or have committed a mortal sin. Or second, and I believe this is the point he is trying to make, he appears to be denying that sexual activity that takes place in a second civil marriage is not always and everywhere grave matter. In other words, not all adultery is grave matter. Later in the essay, he opines: "The issue [at hand] is whether a second marriage must be characterized continuously as adultery." Of course, such a notion flies in the face of the teaching of the Church:

"For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: 'Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.' 

"Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.'" (CCC 1857-1858)

Pope St. John Paul II

Regarding this issue, he immediately continues, "That precise question has not been addressed before, not even in Familiaris Consortio (FC)." Actually, yes, it has. The second marriage need not be continually characterized as adultery, as St. John Paul II clearly spells out. If both partners in this civil relationship resolve, with a firm purpose of amendment, to not engage in conjugal relations that are reserved only for married couples, effectively living as "brother and sister", then we can safely say such people are not in a state of mortal sin and are not characterized as adulterers. We can also safely say that this is the only scenario that such people, if they chose to continue living under one roof, would be able to not characterize their relationship as ongoing adultery.

Going back to the original selection given from this essay, Fr. Bednar notes that the people he labels as dissenters, "insist that God gives the justified sufficient strength to bear whatever difficulties that may arise, that married couples can endure what comes their way if they take advantage of the grace offered to them." This is the orthodox understanding of God's grace, yet we see here that an incredulous disagreement with such a concept. He says that this understanding "rel[ies] dispassionately on the sense of the law." Mercy is pitted against justice, and mercy never needs to be pitted against justice. It is far from merciful to mistakenly tell someone to receive the sacraments when they are prohibited from doing so by the law that Christ has given us. But this concept, that man can "bear whatever difficulties may arise" does not come out of nowhere. It comes from the infallible teaching of the Church itself; specifically, from the canons of the Council of Trent:

CHAPTER XI. 

On keeping the Commandments, and on the necessity and possibility thereof. 

But no one, how much soever justified, ought to think himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one ought to make use of that rash saying, one prohibited by the Fathers under an anathema,-that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified. For God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes you to do what you are able, and to pray for what you are not able (to do), and aids you that you may be able; whose commandments are not heavy; whose yoke is sweet and whose burden light. For, whoso are the sons of God, love Christ; but they who love him, keep His commandments, as Himself testifies; which, assuredly, with the divine help, they can do. 

Canon XVIII.-If any one says, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

We are able to "endure what comes are way" with the help of God's grace; man is indeed capable of this. Whether it easy or not is one thing, but we are certainly capable. To think that we are not is extremely condescending, especially to the divorced and civilly remarried in this situation.

Fr. Bednar goes on to say that "Mercy subsists in a different realm. It pertains to concrete circumstances that need individual assessment. Mercy resists legal formulation... Mercy, on the other hand, listens for the voice of Jesus in the particular circumstances it faces." Again, why are we pitting mercy against justice? We do beg Jesus for mercy, but will He dispense His mercy to us if we say as St. Augustine did before his conversion, "Soon Lord, but not yet." It's like saying, "Please have mercy on me Lord... but don't make me stop having sexual relations with my civil partner. I realize I have a spouse I no longer live with, but I'm love with this person now. Have mercy on me and let me continue what has always been called adultery". Granted, that sounds really silly, but this is what we're dealing with here. This heterodox interpretation of AL looks just like it when we're honest and follow it's ramifications to its logical conclusions. But, as I mentioned above, it seems that some people have worked around this by claiming that not all adultery is grave matter.

At this point, we must point out St. John Paul's words in Veritatis Splendor. When dealing with the negative commandments ("Thou shall not..."), there are no "particular circumstances" that allow us to weasel out of our Lord's words on the indissolubility of marriage. If marriage is indissouable, and said marriage has never been found to be null, than sexual relations with anyone besides that person's spouse constitutes adultery. As CCC 1858 spells out above, adultery is grave matter. Here's what St. John Paul had to say, emphases mine:

The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behavior is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbor. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all. 

On the other hand, the fact that only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances does not mean that in the moral life prohibitions are more important than the obligation to do good indicated by the positive commandments. The reason is this: the commandment of love of God and neighbor does not have in its dynamic any higher limit, but it does have a lower limit, beneath which the commandment is broken. Furthermore, what must be done in any given situation depends on the circumstances, not all of which can be foreseen; on the other hand there are kinds of behavior which can never, in any situation, be a proper response — a response which is in conformity with the dignity of the person. Finally, it is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil. 

The Church has always taught that one may never choose kinds of behavior prohibited by the moral commandments expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testaments. As we have seen, Jesus himself reaffirms that these prohibitions allow no exceptions: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments... You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness" (Mt 19:17-18). (VS 52)

St. John Paul goes on to quote St. Augustine in VS 81:

St. Augustine- Francisco de Goya

"If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain 'irremediably' evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. 'As for acts which are themselves sins,' Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, 'who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives, they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?'"

Fornication, of course, is very closely related to adultery. Both acts are obviously grave matter and involve sexual relations with someone who is not that person's spouse. Fr. Bednar and others pushing this heterodox interpretation of AL appear to be those people that St. Augustine is asking about. They appear to affirm that one can commit adultery for "good motives". As Fr. Bednar states in his essay, "The traditional response to this unfortunate circumstance (a man civilly divorcing his wife and civilly marrying another woman) requires him and his second wife to live in a “brother-sister” relationship — denying to each other normal conjugal relations. Some circumstances may indeed call for such an arrangement. Some may not. Some couples may want their family to continue to grow, and may recoil at the very idea of simulating the sacrament. Can nothing be done?"

Why would some "circumstances" call for living as "brother and sister" and others would not? I often here this brought up, but I have yet to see anyone offer even a surface level explanation for such an assertion. Also, no one is being denied conjugal relations in this scenario because the man and woman in question are not actually married. They have a partnership recognized by the state, but they are not in any way married as the man's legitimate wife is still alive. Now, to answer his question, of course something can be done. St. John Paul addressed that in FC 84 explicitly. And obviously, although it may not be easy in the slightest, this man could return to his first wife and uphold the vows he made before his wife and our Lord.

Fr. John T. Zuhlsdorf of the Diocese of Madison notes something important regarding Fr. Bednar's repeated usage of "second wife":

No.  The second woman is not his wife.  NB: If she truly is his “second wife”, as he says, then there remain only two possibilities: either 1) there is no such thing as indissoluble marriage, or 2) he can be married to two wives simultaneously, which is polygamy.  So, Fr. Bednar, is this guy married to two women simultaneously?

This is truly what is at stake here: it would no longer be accurate to claim that marriage is indissoluble if these and other heterodox interpretations of AL are to be given credence. If this fundamental understanding of one of the seven sacraments can change, then what else can change? To answer this question fully, I would like to quote Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D. at length. What follows is from an exhaustive essay printed earlier this year in the Fall 2017 issue of The Latin Mass Magazine entitled "Divorced and Invalidly Remarried Catholics: The Magisterial Tradition". In this essay, he presents the following argument: not only is St. John Paul's declaration and reaffirmation found in FC 84, which prohibitis divorced persons who have remarried from Eucharistic Communion, a practice of the Church based on Sacred Scripture, it is also an infallible teaching. Fr. Harrison's answer to my question also begins with a question:

Does the Church teach infallibly the following proposition (P)? 

Divorced Catholics practicing sexual intimacy in an invalid second marriage may never be granted sacramental absolution, and may never receive Holy Communion.

The Confession- Giuseppe Molteni

Keep in mind that if such a couple has a firm purpose of amendment and contrition for their sins during confession, that couple would no longer be practicing sexual intimacy and would therefore be granted sacramental absolution and could receive Communion. If they slip up, as we all do since we are fallen, they can always return to Confession to be absolved again. Fr. Harrison is referring to those who see nothing wrong with their continued adultery, and do not have a firm purpose of amendment or sorrow for their sin. He is also referring to those who believe that there is such a thing as "permissible adultery", which, of course, there is not. Fr. Harrison continues:

We can see this uncompromising response of the papacy over several decades (cf. XXI above, and other passages in bold type in nos. XVI-XXIII) as the Church's discernment in confirming that P was certainly, undoubtedly, and immutably true. In other words, infallible and irreformable. In other words, this doctrine on a point of faith and morals is one that has been presented by Peter's successors as definitive tenenda - to be held definitively. ... 

We can see at least three points of revealed truth that would clearly be jeopardized by denying P and so admitting some of the people it mentions to the sacraments: 

1) Adultery is always objectively gravely sinful. this is a truth knowable by natural law, but we must believe it with divine and Catholic faith, since God's condemnation of adultery is very clearly revealed in Scripture - notably in the Decalogue - and its gravity is constantly confirmed in Tradition. 

2) It is also believed with divine and Catholic faith, having been revealed by Christ Himself, that Christian marriage is indissoluble, so that whoever attempts remarriage after divorce (when the original sacramental marriage was valid and consummated) commits adultery.  

3)  Also revealed and  de fide divina et catholica is Saint Paul's prohibition of receiving Holy Communion "unworthily": the one who does so "will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord."

It is easy to see how quickly these revealed truths will in practice be undermined or even nullified in the minds of countless millions of Catholics if the universal Church were to officially and openly admit to the sacraments some of these folks who according to Jesus' own words are committing adultery. Many would infer, against (1) above, that the Church no longer considers adultery to be intrinsically - always and everywhere - gravely immoral. Many others would infer, against (2), that the Church no longer considers Christian marriage indissoluble, and now admits that Jesus perhaps never really said, or didn't mean to apply universally, the words about divorce, remarriage, and adultery ascribed to Him in the Gospels. 

Finally, as regards (3), the admission to Holy Communion of certain folks who were previously always excluded because of the aforesaid Gospel texts would result in a progressive lowering of the bar: fornicating and same-sex couples wold, on similar grounds, soon come to Communion as well; and many or most Catholics would be led to become less and less diligent in examining their consciences before approaching the Holy Eucharist, dismissing such diligence as out-dated, 'old-Church' scrupulosity. The sanctity of this supreme mystery and gift of Christ's love would thus be profaned with ever greater frequency.

The undermining of point (3) that Fr. Harrison speaks of has already been seen in the Maltese bishops "Criteria For The Application of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia". Contradictions have been pointed out between this directive and Church teaching (such as in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 1994 letter to bishops) since it's release nearly a year ago. Besides referring to upholding marriage vows not as a commandment, but instead as an "ideal", the Maltese bishops' directive opens the door wide open for other people who have always been, in accord with Church teaching, prohibited from receiving the Eucharist:

9. Throughout the discernment process, we should also examine the possibility of conjugal continence. Despite the fact that this ideal is not at all easy, there may be couples who, with the help of grace, practice this virtue without putting at risk other aspects of their life together. On the other hand, there are complex situations where the choice of living “as brothers and sisters” becomes humanly impossible and give rise to greater harm (see AL, note 329). 

10. If, as a result of the process of discernment, undertaken with “humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it” (AL 300), a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (see AL, notes 336 and 351). 

The Four Doctors

It's easy to see why the quoted sections are problematic. Why can not this process of discernment apply also to polygamists, or as Fr. Harrison points out, to same-sex couples or "common law spouses"? What's stopping them from declaring that their conscience is "informed enough" and that they "are at peace with God"? But section 9 is particularly problematic, as it contradicts Canon XVIII of the Council of Trent's Decree on Justification. Our Lord's command that we stay true to our wedding vows, even if it means continence because the spouses are separated, becomes "impossible" now. Again, it may not be easy, but it is possible for man to keep this command by being open to God's grace through our prayers.

Returning to Fr. Bednar's article, towards the end he writes:

All agree that after a divorce from a valid marriage and upon remarriage, the guilty party should repent and reconcile. If there is no reconciliation, as years pass, the situation of the parties may change. Mercy may call for leaving the second marriage in place.

First off, we have to stop calling this a "second marriage". At least one of these people are already married, and they are now living in an adulterous relationship which is recognized by the civil state. As years pass, what exactly changes? Does the indissolubility of marriage degrade with the passage of time? Because if so, then that marriage, and no marriage, is actually indissoluble. Also, the last sentence is very problematic; it basically sounds like the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox practice of oikonomia, which allows for second, and even third marriages. Such marriages in the Orthodox Churches are done in a more penitential manner, and the two who are coming together are not crowned as we see in the actual celebration of the sacrament. Traditionally, after a brief time of penance, the couple is allowed to return back to the Eucharist. This has never been the constant practice of the Catholic Church. As Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon points out:

The critical difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy on marriage is that the latter does not consider Christian matrimony indissoluble. Everything in the administration of the sacrament suggests a permanent union, and all the writing on the subject encourages the people to remain steadfast until death. But the history of Orthodoxy shows that divorce with the right to remarry goes back to at least the sixth century when the Eastern Emperors passed marriage laws without the approval of Rome.

Of course, this is exactly what some such as Cardinal Walter Kasper have advocated for, or at least a form of this oikonomia, in the Catholic Church. Fr. Bednar appears to be supporting this idea as well, but it is an idea that is not consonant with the Gospel or the words of our Lord Jesus. What those who hold these heterodox interpretations always seem to forget is the "other" spouse. that is, the spouse who has been abandoned. As we saw in Fr. Bednar's essay, we often hear about the other spouse contracting another civil marriage, or they have "moved on". But what about those spouses who were left unjustly. What about those men and women who divorced their spouse, but some time later realize their error and want to reconcile, only to find that their true spouse is living with another person? What about these people that hold on to their vows despite the actions of their spouse? One such women commented on Fr. Zuhlsdorf's page, and I think it's important we listen to her:

My husband and I were married to each other back in 1973. It was the first marriage for both of us. We were both cradle Catholics and were married in the Catholic Church. “J” is now onto wife #4 – with various girlfriends in-between and – although he claims to be an atheist at this point – will be thrilled to know that the Catholic Church is now accompanying him on his journey and will give its imprimatur to his current marriage as it removes any remaining stigma...

Last Sunday, our new pastor spoke of Pope Francis’ desire to accompany people who find themselves in irregular unions. How nice. And what about the first wives or husbands, I asked myself. Where do we fit into this accompaniment? Where in Amoris Laetitia are we mentioned? Pope Francis never speaks about us. Our job is to shut up and disappear. If we talk about this we’re whiners, bitter losers. We haven’t “moved on”, ourselves gotten “involved” in new “relationships”. If we choose to do something as screwy as keep our marriage vows then we’re seen as embarrassing throw-backs to a more judgmental time. Better keep mum about it. Fly below the radar. Sit sedately during the homily and swallow the vomit in our throats.

Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller

My heart breaks for this woman, and for anyone in this situation. This is yet another consequence if we buy into the heterodox interpretations: first wives and husbands will be forgotten and will not be encouraged to keep their wedding vows that they made before God. But by far, the most scandalous consequence will be seeing more and more dioceses and their bishops contradicting each other.

In closing, I'd like to quote Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He makes it clear, and I want to as well, that Pope Francis has not taught anything contrary to the faith in AL. The document can be harmonized with all past teaching on the three sacraments of Holy Matrimony, Reconciliation, and the Eucharist. But it's clear some people have their own agenda, and have twisted the words found in the document. It's imperative that we educate ourselves on these sacraments, and be able to lovingly convey their true meaning to our brothers and sisters. Indeed, let us accompany them, and help them as much as we can in our particular station in life, but let us not accompany them somewhere where our Lord does not will them to go. We must always follow Him, no matter how difficult we might perceive it to be, for His yoke is easy, and His burden is light:

Amoris laetitia must clearly be interpreted in the light of the whole doctrine of the Church. The sacrament of Penance can accompany us to the sacramental communion with Jesus Christ, but some human acts, guided by the Spirit, are essential parts of the sacrament of Penance, which must be respected: contrition of heart, the resolution not to sin again, the accusation of sins and satisfaction. When one of these elements is lacking, or the penitent does not accept them, the sacrament is not effected. This is the dogmatic teaching of the Church, regardless of whether people can accept it or not. We are called to help people, little by little, to reach the fullness of their relationship with God, but we cannot make concessions.  

I do not like it, it is not right that so many bishops are interpreting Amoris laetitia according to their own way of understanding the teaching of the Pope. This does not follow the line of Catholic doctrine. The magisterium of the pope is interpreted only by himself or by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Pope interprets the bishops, it is not for the bishops to interpret the pope, this would constitute an inversion of the structure of the Catholic Church. To all these who are speaking excessively, I urge them to first study the doctrine on the papacy and on the episcopate in the two Vatican Councils, without forgetting the doctrine of the seven sacraments (the Fourth Lateran Council, the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent and Vatican II). The Bishop, as Teacher of the Word, must himself be well-formed first lest he fall into the risk of the blind leading the blind. Thus, says the letter to Titus: The Bishop “must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.” (Titus 1:9). 

...[W]e can say that Amoris laetitia wants to help people who live in a situation that is not in accord with the moral and sacramental principles of the Catholic Church and who want to overcome this irregular situation. But one certainly cannot legitimize those who are in this situation. The Church can never legitimize a situation that is not in accord with the divine will.