Francis and Antonio, a Couple in Excellent “Society”

Francis and Antonio, a Couple in Excellent “Society”

null

The pope has in Fr. Antonio Spadaro, a Jesuit like him, his authorized translator. Here is how “La Civiltà Cattolica” restates in clearer words what “Amoris lætitia” presents in allusive form

by Sandro Magister
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351273?eng=y

ROME, April 12, 2016 – It was an easy prediction to make when the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro, (in the center of the photo, next to the superior general of the Society of Jesus) pontificated last November that “on access to the sacraments the ordinary synod has effectively laid the foundations, opening a door that at the previous synod had instead remained closed.” And this in spite of the fact that in the “Relatio finalis” of the synod the words “communion” and “access to the sacraments” do not appear even once:

> Francis Is Silent, But Another Jesuit Is Speaking For Him

In presenting the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Lætitia” today, in the latest issue of “La Civiltà Cattolica” – promptly released in conjunction with the publication of the papal document – Fr. Spadaro shows no hesitation in declaring that prophecy to have been fulfilled.

Francis – he writes confidently – has removed all the “limits” of the past, even in “sacramental discipline,” for “so-called irregular” couples: a “so-called” that is not Spadaro’s but the pope’s, and that in the judgment of Church historian Alberto Melloni “is worth the whole exhortation,” because all by itself it absolves such couples and makes them “eligible for the Eucharist.”

And this in spite of the fact that this time as well in the 264 pages and 325 paragraphs of the papal exhortation there is not even a single word in favor of communion for the divorced and remarried, but only a couple of allusions in two minuscule footnotes, numbers 351 and 336, this latter promptly defined by Melloni as “crucial.”

Fr. Spadaro is not just any Jesuit. He is director of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” which historically has always been “the pope’s magazine” and is so now more than ever, “because of the interest that Pope Francis shows concerning some statements of the magazine that accompany his magisterium,” as attested to last March by a witness of sure reliability, Fr. GianPaolo Salvini, its former director:

> “La Civiltà Cattolica” ha un direttore super: il papa

For Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Fr. Spadaro is everything. Adviser, interpreter, confidant, scribe. There is no counting the books, articles, tweets that he incessantly writes about him. Not to mention the pontifical texts that bear the imprint of his hand.

He was part of the circle that worked on the drafting of “Amoris Lætitia” in the closest contact with the pope.

And as procedure would have it, the presentation that Spadaro made of it in “La Civiltà Cattolica” was given to Francis to read before it was sent to press. One more reason to take this exegesis of the document as authorized by him, and therefore revealing of his real intentions.

Reproduced below are some of the passages of the 12 pages, out of 24 in all, that Fr. Spadaro dedicates to the question of “so-called irregular” couples and their access to Eucharistic communion.

With striking craftiness even John Paul II and Benedict XVI are made a part of the same “journey of healing” that Francis is now bringing to the point of Eucharistic communion for the divorced and remarried, with no more impediments as before.

But the whole article is worth reading, on the website of “La Civiltà Cattolica”:

> “Amoris lætitia”. Struttura e significato dell’Esortazione post-sinodale di Papa Francesco

__________

“Without putting limits on integration, as appeared in the past…”

by Antonio Spadaro, S.J.

The exhortation incorporates from the synodal document the path of discernment of individual cases without putting limits on integration, as appeared in the past. It declares, moreover, that it cannot be denied that in some circumstances “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified” (“Amoris Lætitia” 302; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1735) because of various influences. [. . .]

Therefore, the pontiff concludes, if one takes into account the innumerable variety of concrete situations, “it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since ‘the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases’, the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same” (AL 300). [. . .]

So the consequences or effects of a norm do not necessarily have to be the same, which “is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists” (AL 3000, footnote 336). “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end” (AL 305).

And – it is specified – this help “in certain cases can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy.’ I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak’” (AL 305, footnote 351).

FROM JOHN PAUL II TO FRANCIS

If we go back to “Familiaris Consortio,” we can verify that the conditions it set up 35 years ago were already a concretization more open and attentive, with respect to the previous time, to personal experience.

On the civilly divorced and remarried, the apostolic exhortation of Saint John Paul II (1981) affirmed: “I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life” (FC 84).

On access to the sacraments, John Paul II reiterates the previous norm, and nonetheless affirms that the civilly divorced and remarried who are living their conjugal life together, raising their children together and sharing in everyday life, can receive communion.

But he sets up a “condition” (which is at another level with respect to the norm): that of taking on “the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples” (ibid.).

So in “Familiaris Consortio” the de facto norm does not apply always and in all cases. In the situation described there is already an “epieikeia” concerning the application of the law in a concrete case, because if continence eliminates the sin of adultery, it nevertheless does not suppress the contradiction between the conjugal rupture with the formation of a new couple – who nonetheless live bonds of an affective character and of coexistence – and the Eucharist.

With regard to sexual relations, the formulation of Saint John Paul II required that the couple “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence.” In “Sacramentum Caritatis” Benedict XVI had incorporated this concept, but with a different formulation: “The Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God’s law, as friends, as brother and sister” (SC 29). The “encouragement to commit themselves” implies a journey and places the accent better and in a more adequate way on the personal dimension of conscience.

Pope Francis moves forward in this direction when he speaks of a “dynamic discernment” that “must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized” (AL 303). An irregular situation cannot be turned into a regular one, but there are also journeys of healing, of exploration, journeys in which the law is lived step by step. [. . .]

NOT A “CHURCH OF THE PURE,” BUT OF JUST AND SINNERS

“Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors,” the pontiff writes, “we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage” (AL 303). This is a culminating point of the apostolic exhortation, in that it attributes to conscience – “the most secret core and sanctuary of a man, where he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths” (GS 16; AL 222) – a fundamental and irreplaceable spot in the evaluation of moral action. [. . .]

The conscience “can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal” (AL 303).

This passage of the exhortation opens the door to a more positive, welcoming, and fully “Catholic” pastoral practice, which makes possible a gradual exploration of the demands of the Gospel (cf. AL 38).

In other words, it does not say here at all that one’s weakness should be taken as a criterion for establishing what is good and what is evil (this would be what is called the “gradualness of the law”). Nonetheless there is affirmed a “law of gradualness,” meaning a progressiveness in knowing, in desiring, and in doing the good: “Reaching for the fullness of Christian life does not mean doing that which abstractly is most perfect, but that which is concretely possible.” [. . .]

With the humility of its realism, the exhortation “Amoris Lætitia” situates itself within the great tradition of the Church, reconnecting with an old Roman tradition of ecclesial mercy for sinners.

The Church of Rome, which since the 2nd century had inaugurated the practice of penance for sins committed after baptism, in the 3rd century was just about to provoke a schism on the part of the Church of northern Africa, led by Saint Cyprian, because it did not accept reconciliation with the “lapsi,” those who had become apostates during the persecution, who were in fact much more numerous than the martyrs.

In the face of the rigidity of the Donatists in the 4th and 5th centuries, as later in the face of the Jansenists, the Church of Rome always rejected a “Church of the poor” in favor of the “reticulum mixtum,” the “composite net” of just and sinners of which Saint Augustine speaks in “Psalmus contra partem Donati.”

The pastoral practice of “all or nothing” seems more sure to the “rigorist” theologians, but it inevitably leads to a “Church of the pure.” Valuing formal perfection before all else and as an end in itself brings the risk of unfortunately covering up many behaviors that are in fact hypocritical and pharisaic.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2016/04/12/francis-and-antonio-a-couple-in-excellent-society/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

2 comments on “Francis and Antonio, a Couple in Excellent “Society”

  1. During the sin-nod process, “conservatives” were quick to reference Wojtyla’s FC. This foxy Jesuit clearly finds Francis’ opening in the very document. So much for the saint.

    If we go back to “Familiaris Consortio,” we can verify that the conditions it set up 35 years ago were already a concretization more open and attentive, with respect to the previous time, to personal experience.

    On the civilly divorced and remarried, the apostolic exhortation of Saint John Paul II (1981) affirmed: “I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life” (FC 84).

    On access to the sacraments, John Paul II reiterates the previous norm, and nonetheless affirms that the civilly divorced and remarried who are living their conjugal life together, raising their children together and sharing in everyday life, can receive communion.

    But he sets up a “condition” (which is at another level with respect to the norm): that of taking on “the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples” (ibid.).

    So in “Familiaris Consortio” the de facto norm does not apply always and in all cases. In the situation described there is already an “epieikeia” concerning the application of the law in a concrete case, because if continence eliminates the sin of adultery, it nevertheless does not suppress the contradiction between the conjugal rupture with the formation of a new couple – who nonetheless live bonds of an affective character and of coexistence – and the Eucharist.

    Checkmate!

  2. Does anyone else feel ill? A catastrophic betrayal has been completed while we all watched. Francis is like that fag pilot who deliberately crashed into the Alps last year, and we are like the passengers. But what Francis has done is much worse. The Sixth Commandment is reduced to an “ideal”, and is effectively gone. Same for the prohibition on birth control. A multitude of souls will fall into Hell now with nothing to impede them.

    The betrayal is thorough and continuous since the Council. This article proves that Wojtyla played his part, too. No, he would never have done what Francis has done. As we see, however, he contributed to the erosion, the evolution of the betrayal. Had he taken care to avoid all novelty, knowing it was afoot in the Church, he would have not allowed himself to be used. Can you imagine using St. Pius X’s words to advance novelty? Of course not. Hence, Wojtyla is at fault, too. As are Montini and Roncalli. Wolves, not saints.

    Will any bishop speak out? Can we now better appreciate a bishop who speaks out? Specifically, Abp. Lefebvre, who was horribly scandalized by Wojtyla’s Assisi atrocity. He must have felt quite ill — more so, I’m sure, than I feel today.

    Another kick in the gut, another punch in the teeth. O Lord, how can You allow Your enemies to ridicule Your Church? Your Bride is being trampled by the unholy, while wolves devour the flock. Have mercy, lest we all perish.

Leave a Reply