Moral Theology – Page 3

Good News from the Synod–9 things to know and share

Remarks made by a key official at the opening of the current Synod of Bishops seem cool to the idea that there will be a change in the Church’s doctrine and practice regarding the divorced and civilly remarried.

This comes as heartening news to supporters of the Church’s historic doctrine and discipline.

Here are 9 things to know and share . . .

1) What is at issue here?

Jesus Christ taught that marriage is indissoluble. Consequently, a civil divorce does not free one from the commitments one made to be faithful to one’s spouse.

To obtain a civil divorce and then marry someone else, without establishing that the first marriage was null, is thus to enter a state of ongoing adultery.

As Jesus pointedly teaches in the readings for Sunday, October 4 (notably, the readings for the very day the Synod began):

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery (Mark 10:11-12).

The Church also teaches that adultery is a gravely sinful act that prevents one from receiving the sacraments.

Therefore, people living in such situations cannot receive Holy Communion unless they rectify their situation (e.g., by obtaining and annulment and marrying their current partner, by living chastely with their current partner and avoiding scandal, or by separating).

2) Who has been proposing a change in this practice?

According to a proposal advanced by the German Cardinal Walter Kasper, people who have divorced and civilly remarried could be given Holy Communion under certain circumstances.

This proposal has been picked up by a number of churchmen, particularly from Europe and especially by other German bishops.

It has met with stiff opposition from other churchmen, who point out that it is inconsistent with the Church’s teachings as described above.

3) What is the Synod of Bishops?

The Synod of Bishops is an advisory body that meets to consider questions and then make recommendations to the pope. It does not have authority on its own. It merely advises.

The current Synod of Bishops is devoted to the theme of how to offer pastoral care to the family.

It follows and is meant to complete the work of another synod, also on the family, which was held in 2014.

4) What has happened that gives hope to supporters of the Church’s historic teaching and practice?

Several things. Among them:

a) Before the present synod began, Pope Francis revised the Code of Canon Law to include a streamlined annulment process, making it easier for people living in irregular situations to pursue an annulment.

He did not change the grounds on which annulments are granted, but he introduced procedural changes to make it easier to have one’s case heard in a timely fashion (in some countries, processing the case could take a decade, resulting in some people refusing to use the process and simply getting civilly remarried after a divorce).

This action would take some of the pressure off the question, and it was widely interpreted as making a change in the Church’s historic practice less likely.

b) Various officials have downplayed the idea of there being a change in the Church’s doctrine.

At a press conference on Monday, Msgr. Bruno Forte, special secretary to the Synod, stated: “It will not lead to doctrinal changes, because it is about pastoral attention, pastoral care. We are about resonating pastorally.”

Similarly, Cardinal André Vingt-Trois, a delegate president to the synod, said that if one is looking “for a spectacular change in the Church’s doctrine you will be disappointed.”

However, advocates of the Kasper proposal have often said that the Church’s doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage is not in question and have claimed that giving Communion to the divorced and civilly remarried would not represent a doctrinal change (though this appears false).

c) Consequently, affirmations that the Church’s doctrine will not change may not address the issue in question. This means that the most significant development is found in remarks made at the synod by Hungarian Cardinal Peter Erdo.

5) Who is Cardinal Erdo?

Cardinal Peter Erdo is the Primate of Hungary. You can read more about him here.

For our purposes, the important thing is that he is the relator general of the synod.

This makes his remarks particularly significant, because his job as relator is not to express his personal opinions.

The relator general’s function is to make certain official reports, each known as a relatio.

Consequently, though Cardinal Erdo has personally expressed opposition to the Kasper proposal, what he says in his official reports is not simply an expression of his personal opinion. He is speaking in an official capacity.

6) When did he make his recent remarks?

He made them on Monday, October 5, in the course of his first report—the Relatio ante Disceptationem (i.e., the Report Before the Discussion)—whose function is to summarize the “working document” (Latin, Instrumentum laboris) which was prepared as a basis for the bishops to use during the synod.

The function of the Relatio ante Desceptationem is to inform the discussion that will take place at the synod, based on information received from bishops around the world in preparation for the synod.

This year’s relatio was titled “The Vocation of the Family in the Church and Contemporary World.”

According to Vatican Radio:

Cardinal Erdö explained [at Monday’s press conference] that his introductory address had followed the structure of [the] Instrumentum Laboris. “I tried to systematize all the data which was received from the Church around the world, including families and individuals who wrote to us, following the themes already in [the] Instrumentum Laboris.”

You can read the Instrumenum Laboris here.

7) What did Cardinal Erdo say?

At the time of this writing, an English translation of the full speech is not available, though one should be soon. However, according to the National Catholic Reporter:

Erdő said a “merciful pastoral accompaniment is due” to such persons [i.e., the divorced and civilly remarried], but that it cannot leave in doubt “the truth of indissolubility of marriage, taught by Jesus Christ himself.”

“The mercy of God offers the sinner forgiveness, but requires conversion,” said the cardinal.

The affirmation of Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage is good, as is the affirmation of the need of conversion for forgiveness.

Yet, by themselves, these could be interpreted in a way consistent with the Kasper proposal, since advocates of it have claimed that they do not deny the former and they have urged a “penitential path” (and thus conversion) regarding the failure of the first marriage.

What Cardinal Erdo went on to say, however, was not consistent with the Kasper proposal:

“It is not the failing of the first marriage but the living in a second relationship that impedes access to the Eucharist.”

This hits the nail on the head.

First, not all divorced people are at fault for the failure of their marriage, much less are they guilty of mortal sin that would keep them from Communion. Second, even if they were guilty of mortal sin, simply repenting and going to confession would take care of the problem.

The reason people who are divorced and civilly remarried are not able to receive Communion is that, unless they are living chastely, they are engaging in an ongoing adulterous relationship.

As one wag put it, paraphrasing the 1992 Clinton campaign, “It’s the adultery, stupid.”

Having the fact pointed out that it is the second relationship, not the failure of the first, that impedes access to Holy Communion is a very good and clear-headed sign.

Cardinal Erdo then went on to critique some of the arguments used in favor of the Kasper proposal.

8) What arguments for the Kasper proposal did he critique?

One was the suggestion that, unless they are given Communion, the divorced and civilly remarried are cut off from the life of the Church:

Referencing Pope John Paul II’s 1981 apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, Erdő said “integration of divorced and remarried persons in the life of the ecclesial community can be realized in various ways, apart from admission to the Eucharist.”

It is to be noted that Familiaris Consortio was issued in response to the 1980 Synod of Bishops, which was also on the topic of the family. In this document, John Paul II rejected prior proposals to give Communion to the divorced and civilly remarried who had not rectified their situation in one manner or another (see section 84 of the document), so Cardinal Erdo was calling attention to a proposal that had already been discussed and rejected.

He also critiqued the proposal that Communion could be given on the basis of certain “positive aspects” in adulterous unions:

“In the search for pastoral solutions for the difficulties of certain civilly divorced and remarried persons, it is presently held that the fidelity to the indissolubility of marriage cannot be joined to the practical recognizing of the goodness of concrete situations that stand opposed and are therefore incompatible,” said the cardinal.

And he critiqued the idea that an appeal to the “law of gradualism” could justify a change in the Church’s teaching and practice (see also section 34 of Familiaris Consortio):

“Indeed, between true and false, between good and evil, there is not a graduality,” he continued. “Even if some forms of living together bring in themselves certain positive aspects, this does not mean that they can be presented as good things.”

9) What does this mean going forward?

It does not mean that there will be no further discussion of the Kasper proposal. In fact, there is certain to be further discussion of it. Cardinal Erdo acknowledged as much. According to Vatican Insider:

In his speech, he mentioned “the need for further reflection on the penitential path. . . .”

However, to have the relator general of the synod frame the discussion in this way at the outset is a good sign.

Cardinal Erdo was not meant to be speaking for himself in these remarks but to be summarizing the feedback from bishops around the world in preparation for the current synod.

For purposes of comparison, see the relatio that Cardinal Erdo gave at the beginning of the 2014 synod. It does not contain anything like the present remarks rejecting the Kasper proposal. This represents a shift in the discussion of the question.

According to Vatican Insider, at the Monday press conference, Cardinal Erdo based his relatio on the feedback that came to the Vatican between the two synods:

“I was trying to bring together all the elements of the Church’s voice,” Erdö said. He added that “most of the responses reflected a wish” for the magisterium’s existing documents on this issue to be “taken into consideration.”

It is also unlikely that Cardinal Erdo included these remarks in his presentation without them being approved first. Barring explosive backlash and overt clarification, we may conclude that he did have approval.

Failing such clarification, it is less likely than it might have been otherwise that the present synod will recommend the Kasper proposal for Pope Francis’s consideration.

This, in turn, means it is less likely that Pope Francis would implement the Kasper proposal following the synod.

So Cardinal Erdo’s remarks are positive news for supporters of the Church’s historic doctrine and discipline on this point, though they by no means settle the matter.

As a result, supporters should not slack off in pressing their case, however. Upon hearing this news, a wise response would be, “Great, kid. Don’t get cocky.”

Debating Doctor-Assisted Suicide

After having failed to get a doctor-assisted suicide bill passed earlier this year though the normal legislative process, the California legislators who are in the pocket of the assisted-suicide lobby recently rammed one through in a surprise move.

The time they did it happened to be suicide prevention week!

Now the bill is on the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown, who has not announced whether he will sign it or not.

You can use this form to tell him no.

In May, 2015, Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) and I engaged in a cordial, online debate on doctor-assisted suicide.

He, and users of his web site, came up with the questions, and I provided answers.

Since the topic is now back in the news, I thought I’d re-present the exchange.

It got rather lengthy, since there were 18 questions (actually more than that, since some were compound questions) on a sensitive subject, and they could take a few hundred words to answer on average.

For that reason, I’m providing a set of questions with hyperlinks so that you can read the part of the exchange that most interest you.

You can read the original version, on Scott’s blog here.

Questions:

Also, here is Scott’s response to my answers.

Pope Francis on the Divorced and Remarried: 10 things to know and share

Pope Francis recently gave a general audience in which he discussed the situation of those who have divorced and remarried without an annulment.

His remarks are particularly significant in light of the upcoming Synod on the Family and the proposals to give Holy Communion to those in this situation.

They also attracted attention because he stressed that people in this situation are not excommunicated.

Here are 10 things to know and share . . .

1) Where did the pope make his remarks and where can I read them?

He made them at his Wednesday general audience on August 5, 2015. They are part of a series of catecheses he has been doing on the family.

You will eventually be able to read them at the Vatican web site here.

However, at the time of this writing there is only a brief summary of his remarks as a placeholder until the Vatican’s English translation can be prepared (usually a delay of a week or more).

Until then, here is the Italian original, and you can read Zenit’s English translation here.

2) What did the pope say about divorced and remarried couples not being excommunicated?

He said:

[I]n fact, these people are not at all excommunicated, they are not excommunicated! And they are absolutely not treated as such: they are always part of the Church.

3) Is he correct?

Yes. The idea of excommunication is commonly misunderstood as not being able to take communion. While the Church does not permit people who have divorced and remarried without an annulment to receive communion (unless they are living as brother and sister), this is not the same thing as excommunication.

Excommunication is a canonical penalty that has various legal effects which are described here.

Excommunication does not cancel one’s membership in the Church, and divorcing and remarrying without an annulment does not incur excommunication.

Therefore, people in this situation are not excommunicated, and even if they were, they would remain part of the Church.

Consequently, they are to be treated as such.

The pope is absolutely correct.

4) How did Pope Francis introduce his remarks on the subject of the divorced and remarried?

He said:

[T]oday I would like to focus our attention on another reality: how to take care of those that, following the irreversible failure of their marital bond, have undertaken a new union.

The Church knows well that such a situation contradicts the Christian Sacrament. However, her look of teacher draws always from her heart of mother; a heart that, animated by the Holy Spirit, always seeks the good and salvation of persons. See why she feels the duty, “for the sake of truth,” to “exercise careful discernment.” Saint John Paul II expressed himself thus in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio (n. 84), pointing out, for instance, the difference between one who has suffered the separation and one who has caused it. This discernment must be made.

5) Did John Paul II refer to these things in Familiaris Consortio?

Yes. He said:

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

He went on, in the same section, to say:

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”

6) Did Pope Francis cite any particular reasons, apart from the good of the spouses, why these situations need to be looked at carefully?

Yes. He called attention, in particular, to how children are affected (something also mentioned by John Paul II). Pope Francis said:

If, then, we look at these new bonds with the eyes of little ones – and the little ones are looking – with the eyes of children, we see even more the urgency to develop in our communities a real acceptance of persons that live such situations. Therefore, it is important that the style of the community, its language, its attitudes are always attentive to persons, beginning with the little ones. They are the ones who suffer the most, in these situations. Otherwise, how will we be able to recommend to these parents to do their utmost to educate the children in the Christian life, giving them the example of a convinced and practiced faith, if we hold them at a distance from the life of the community, as if they were excommunicated? We must proceed in such a way as not to add other weights beyond those that the children, in these situations, already have to bear! Unfortunately, the number of these children and youngsters is truly great. It is important that they feel the Church as a mother attentive to all, always willing to listen and to come together.

7) What did Pope Francis say the Church’s response has been?

He said:

In these decades, in truth, the Church has not been either insensitive or slow. Thanks to the reflection carried out by Pastors, guided and confirmed by my Predecessors, the awareness has greatly grown that a fraternal and attentive acceptance is necessary, in love and in truth, of the baptized that have established a new coexistence after the failure of their sacramental marriage; in fact, these people are not at all excommunicated, they are not excommunicated! And they are absolutely not treated as such: they are always part of the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI intervened on this question, soliciting careful discernment and wise pastoral support, knowing that “simple recipes” do not exist (Address to the 7th World Meeting of Families, Milan, June 2, 2012, answer n. 5).

8) What did Benedict XVI say in the passage that Pope Francis quotes?

He said:

Indeed the problem of divorced and remarried persons is one of the great sufferings of today’s Church. And we do not have simple solutions. Their suffering is great and yet we can only help parishes and individuals to assist these people to bear the pain of divorce.

He went on to say:

As regards these people – as you have said – the Church loves them, but it is important they should see and feel this love. I see here a great task for a parish, a Catholic community, to do whatever is possible to help them to feel loved and accepted, to feel that they are not “excluded” even though they cannot receive absolution or the Eucharist; they should see that, in this state too, they are fully a part of the Church. Perhaps, even if it is not possible to receive absolution in Confession, they can nevertheless have ongoing contact with a priest, with a spiritual guide. This is very important, so that they see that they are accompanied and guided. Then it is also very important that they truly realize they are participating in the Eucharist if they enter into a real communion with the Body of Christ. Even without “corporal” reception of the sacrament, they can be spiritually united to Christ in his Body.

9) What did Pope Francis say about how people in these situations should be received?

Building on the remarks of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, he said:

Hence the repeated invitations of Pastors to manifest openly and consistently the community’s willingness to receive and encourage them, so that they live and develop increasingly their belonging to Christ and to the Church with prayer, with listening to the Word of God, with frequenting of the liturgy, with the Christian education of the children, with charity and service to the poor, with commitment to justice and peace.

The biblical icon of the Good Shepherd (John 10:11-18) summarizes the mission that Jesus received from the Father: to give his life for the sheep. This attitude is also a model for the Church, which receives her children as a mother that gives her life for them.

He then quotes his own apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium:

“The Church is called to be the House of the Father, with doors always wide open […]”

No closed doors! No closed doors!

“Everyone can share in some way in the life of the Church; everyone can be part of the community. The Church […] is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium, n. 47).

10) What significance do these remarks have for the upcoming Synod on the Family and the proposals to give Holy Communion to people in these situations if they are not living as brother and sister?

They do not appear to have a decisive significance, one way or the other.

On the one hand, Pope Francis does not mention such proposals. In fact, he is frank in saying that “such a situation contradicts the Christian Sacrament.” He also stresses continuity with his predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and he quotes from passages where both of these predecessors explicitly reject giving Holy Communion to people in these situations if they are not living as brother and sister.

On the other hand, he does not quote from those parts of the passages, and he also is clear that he wants to find ways to help such people have more involvement with the Church—particularly in light of the effect that their situation has on their children.

There is thus not a decisive indication of what he is likely to do, either way, though on balance the text of this audience seems to favor continuity with the Church’s historic practice more than it indicates any forthcoming change on this point.

Shock Treatment or Selfishness?

Recently I heard a priest describe something that happened to him in the early days of his priesthood.

From his age, I’m guessing this would have been the mid-1970s.

He said that, for the first twenty-five years of his priesthood, he had really long hair (down to his waist, if he stretched it out) and a full beard.

At one point, he was assigned to a parish and came to know a local gentleman by phone but not by sight.

In one phone conversation the gentleman said that he really respected the priest and wanted his help with his son, who he felt was “going over to the other side.”

By this, he meant that his son was getting rebellious and not wanting to have his hair cut.

The gentleman asked if the priest could come over to dinner and perhaps talk to his son.

“I’d love to come to dinner,” the priest replied.

At this point in the homily, several people in the congregation laughed, knowing the kind of punchline that was coming.

So the priest went to dinner.

But, as for the topic of hair length, he said, “It never came up.”

Big laugh from the congregation.

Personally, I was cringing.

A Disclaimer

First, a disclaimer: I get the humor in this situation.

It’s a standard trope: Person A is unaware of a relevant fact about Person B, assumes the opposite, and then gets surprised.

Big laughs.

Comedy fish in a barrel.

I can think of lots of instances where this trope is used, like that episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show where Rob and Laura Petrie are driven frantic with worry by the thought that their newborn may have been accidentally switched with the baby of another couple with a similar last name.

They talk to the other couple by phone, and though the other couple is quite sure that the babies weren’t switched, they agree to come over.

When they do, Rob and Laura discover that the other couple is black and thus, if the children had been switched, it would have been obvious. All their worry was for nothing.

A contemporary use of a long-standing comedy trope. For some older ones, just think of all those plays where Shakespeare has women disguised as men and fooling even the men closest to them before the Big Reveal at the end of the play.

Big laughs in the 1500s. Shakespeare used the device in around a fifth of his plays.

Or go back a little further, to when the two disciples on the road to Emmaus suddenly discovered that they had been hosting Jesus himself.

So yeah, there is inherent humor in this kind of situation.

But I was still cringing.

What Was He Thinking?

Anecdotes told by priests in the course of homilies are often of dubious historicity and are frequently intended for rhetorical and entertainment value rather than factual accuracy, so the priest may have been embellishing what really happened.

I hope so.

But taking him at his word, what was he thinking?

I imagine that he was thinking he would teach his phone friend a lesson of some sort, such as that you shouldn’t look down on people with certain hairstyles.

After all, the man had come to respect the priest through their phone conversations—enough to ask for help with his son—and yet the priest had precisely the kind of hairstyle that wasn’t to the man’s taste.

Perhaps the priest thought that showing up would provide a dramatic illustration of the point and thus teach the man a lesson—maybe one that would let him get along better with his son.

Maybe these or similarly high-minded things were what were going through the priest’s head.

But if the story is as he told it, there’s something that seems not to have been going through his mind.

What He Wasn’t Thinking

What the priest wasn’t thinking about was what his sudden appearance with long hair would actually likely do to the gentleman.

It would likely humiliate him.

In his own home.

In front of his son.

At a time when generational tensions were especially high.

Think about it: The man had gone to significant lengths to set up an encounter between the priest and his son in which he hoped the priest will straighten out his son on the subject of hair length.

And the priest led the man to believe that he was amenable to that plan.

But really, the priest was planning to turn the tables on the father.

The father would have every right to feel betrayed by the priest.

Further, the man may well have told the son that the priest was coming over and would be discussing hair length with him. If so, the father would feel even more humiliated by the priest when the he showed up and reversed expectations.

Even if the father hadn’t told the son about the expected conversation, the son knew his father’s views about long hair. For the priest to show up without warning the father would not only put the father in an embarrassing position, it would enable the son ever after to say, “Well, that priest you like so much has long hair. Why can’t I?”

The priest thus undermined the father’s authority in his own home.

What the Priest Could Have Done

Instead of deciding to teach the father a lesson by shock treatment, the priest could have thought more about how he could really help the man.

Instead of simply saying, “I’d love to come to dinner,” he could have said, “I’d love to come to dinner—but there is something you should know first. I have long hair myself, and I don’t want to do anything that would undermine your authority with your son. If you’d like me to come, I’d be honored to be your guest, but I totally understand if you’d rather I not come. I know how delicate situations can be between parents and children, and I don’t want to make your situation any more difficult. I want to do whatever I can to serve you and your family.”

Taking this open, honest, and supportive approach would have done several things.

For a start, it would have avoided making the father feel humiliated, betrayed, and undermined by the priest.

It would have avoided throwing gasoline on a tense family situation (possibly even sparking a family argument after the priest left).

Most importantly, it would not have communicated to the man the message that priests may humiliate, betray, and undermine you in front of your family.

And, as an added bonus, it may have even opened the man’s eyes to the fact that not all longhairs are bad. They can even care about you and try to help and support you.

Taking this approach might have led the man to respect the priest even more.

But if the event happened as the priest related it, he chose a much riskier and less loving path.

A Warning for All of Us

Of course, the priest is not alone in taking the kind of approach he did.

We can all fall into that.

Sometimes we rationalize our actions by saying that we’re going to teach a person a lesson by “shock treatment” or “tough love” when in reality we’re just being selfish. We’re not genuinely thinking about how to help the other person.

This is a constant danger in apologetics, and I’ve fallen victim to it myself.

To my shame, I vividly recall times when I took this approach in responding to a non-Catholic or even a fellow Catholic who was being rude.

It’s a human temptation, and it doesn’t just apply in apologetics. It applies in all areas of life.

Of course, sometimes, there is just no way to avoid a blunt lesson.

But frequently, there is—and the fault is ours if we don’t look for ways to be helpful and supportive of others, even when they disagree with us or come off abrasively.

Pope Francis on Spanking

Spanking is quite controversial in some quarters. Some people speak of it as if it is tantamount to child abuse.

Other say, that they were spanked as children, that it didn’t do any long-term harm, and that it actually did them good.

So I was interested to see Pope Francis’s remarks on spanking in a recent audience.

Cards on the Table

Before I get to them, let me put my cards on the table.

As I’ve written before, my own conviction is that the issue of corporal punishment is one for parents to decide.

I have known some parents who have successfully raised children using it seldom or never. I also know there are parents who feel it has played an important and needed role in raising their children.

The fact is that children are different, and some respond to different things. To one child a time out may be far more agonizing (and motivating) than a paddling. To others, just the reverse will be the case.

Whether corporal punishment is to be used in the case of their own children—and how much and when—is something that I view as within the natural law rights of parents to determine.

So what did Pope Francis say?

The Pope Speaks

As you may know, he’s currently giving a series of catecheses on the family in his Wednesday audiences, and earlier this month he was talking about fathers when he said:

A good father knows how to wait and knows how to forgive from the depths of his heart.

Certainly, he also knows how to correct with firmness: he is not a weak father, submissive and sentimental.

The father who knows how to correct without humiliating is the one who knows how to protect without sparing himself.

Once I heard a father at a meeting on marriage say:

“Sometimes I have to strike the children lightly… but never in the face so as not to humiliate them”.

How beautiful! He has a sense of dignity. He must punish, but he does it in a just way, and moves on [General Audience, Feb. 4, 2015, emphasis in original].

It thus seems that Pope Francis sees a positive role for corporal punishment, in at least some cases.

“How Beautiful”?

I know that he’s talking about the father’s attitude—not the corporal punishment itself—when he says, “How beautiful!” (see the statements that immediately follow this remark; they clarify what he is saying is beautiful), though I’ll confess I was a bit taken aback by the phrase.

Juxtaposed with “Sometimes I have to strike the children lightly . . . but never in the face so as not to humiliate them,” it came across to me as rather arresting.

I don’t know what culture this father was from (or how close Pope Francis’s memory of his precise words is to what he said), but I’m not sure why a light strike on the face would be more humiliating than one elsewhere.

A hard strike could leave a bruise (or worse), which could lead to further humiliation—as well as a visit from child protective services in the developed world.

But Pope Francis remembers the man saying that he only used light strikes, and then not on the face, so perhaps he meant that he never even gave a light slap on the cheek.

In that case, the man would have been emphasizing that he only used light strikes and then only where they wouldn’t lead to ongoing harm/humiliation.

In any event, what Pope Francis is praising is the administration of discipline with “a sense of dignity. He must punish, but he does it in a just way, and moves on.”

What Would Jesus Do?

When discussing a subject like this in a Christian context, a question that is bound to come up is whether this is something Jesus would do.

I’ve written before about the difficulties of solving moral dilemmas by asking “What would Jesus do?”, but for now let me point to an event that we’re going to be hearing about this year on the Third Sunday of Lent.

According to St. John’s account of the clearing of the temple (quoted from the NAB):

He found in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, as well as the money-changers seated there.

He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables, and to those who sold doves he said, “Take these out of here, and stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.”

His disciples recalled the words of scripture, “Zeal for your house will consume me” [John 2:14-17].

These merchants weren’t children, but they were behaving badly, and our Lord saw fit not only to spill their coins and overturn their tables (leading to a hopeless confusion and probable loss of income for the money-changers in question), he also saw fit to make a whip and start swinging it at people.

Note that he is swinging the whip at people. The text says that he “made a whip out of cords and drove them [i.e., those who sold … as well as the money-changers], with the sheep and oxen.” So he didn’t just use the whip on the animals. He swung it in the direction of people, too.

It’s easy to say that we find it difficult to imagine Jesus spanking someone, just as it’s easy to suppose that he wouldn’t splatter people’s money, overturn their property, and physically attack a group of businessmen. Surely the meek and mild Jesus would never do those things! Our God is a God of order, not chaos, after all. And violence never solves anything.

Yet here we have the Savior of mankind brandishing a whip.

The Bible on Child Discipline

Jesus’ actions took place in a broader biblical context.

Sacred Scripture takes a positive attitude toward childhood discipline. As the author of Hebrews writes:

For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it [Heb. 12:11].

The author of Hebrews doesn’t specify that he’s talking about physical discipline, though he surely wasn’t excluding it. There simply was no anti-spanking ethic in ancient Hebrew culture. Indeed, Proverbs counsels:

He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him [Prov. 13:24].

That’s not to say that we must use these methods today, but it does show that they are not foreign to the Judeo-Christian tradition, including in the New Testament period in which the author of Hebrews was writing.

And even if the author of Hebrews (very implausibly) didn’t have corporal punishment in mind, he clearly acknowledged the use of painful discipline to train towards proper conduct.

What do you think?

Intellectual dishonesty and the “Seamless Garment” argument

“The image of the ‘seamless garment’ has been used by some theologians and Catholic politicians, in an intellectually dishonest manner.”

That’s a sentiment that many Catholics, particularly in the pro-life movement, have expressed.

What’s significant about this expression of the sentiment is the person who uttered it: the pope’s own doctrinal watchdog.

Here are 11 things to know and share . . .

1) What is the “seamless garment” argument?

It’s the claim that Catholic teaching on life is like a seamless garment, so that if you accept one part of it, you need to accept it all.

This is sometimes referred to as having a “consistent ethic of life.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

2) Where does the image of the seamless garment come from?

The image of the seamless garment is taken from the Gospel of John, where we read:

When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic.

But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom; so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the scripture, “They parted my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots” [John 19:23-24].

3) How has the Church historically used this image?

It has been commonly used as a symbol of the Church’s unity. You’ll see that in various Magisterial documents. For example, in 2007, Benedict XVI stated:

An indispensable characteristic of the Church is unity, symbolized by Christ’s seamless garment [General Audience, June 6, 2007].

4) How did this image get applied to the Church’s teaching on life?

Apparently, the image was first applied this way in 1971 by Catholic pacifism activist Eileen Egan.

In 1983, this use was popularized by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin.

5) What kinds of “life issues” have been proposed as belonging to the seamless garment?

Numerous things. Among them are abortion, euthanasia, nuclear war, capital punishment, and even poverty.

6) Who is the pope’s “doctrinal watchdog”?

This is a common way of referring to the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the department in Rome that is charged with protecting the Church’s teaching.

This is the position that Benedict XVI held before his election to the papacy. Today it is held by Cardinal Gerhard Muller (pictured).

7) Where did Cardinal Muller address the seamless garment argument?

He did so in an address he gave at a workshop sponsored by the Pontifical Academy for Life in 2013.

You can read the full text of his remarks here (pdf).

8) What did he say about it?

He began by giving an overview of the subject, saying:

We are all familiar with the image of the “seamless garment” which is used to illustrate how Catholic moral teaching is a consistent whole – uniting ethical, religious, and political threads in a unified moral vision.

Attributed to Cardinal Bernardin, the “seamless garment” image was used to great effect to root the Church’s response to various moral issues – from nuclear proliferation to poverty – within the overarching teaching on the sanctity of human life, from natural conception to natural death.

9) What did he say when he accused some of using it in an intellectually dishonest manner?

He said:

Unfortunately, however, it is also true that the image of the “seamless garment” has been used by some theologians and Catholic politicians, in an intellectually dishonest manner, to allow or at least to justify turning a blind eye to instances of abortion, contraception, or public funding for embryonic stem cell research, as long as these were simultaneously accompanied by opposition to the death penalty or promotion of economic development for the poor – issues which are also part of the fabric of Catholic moral teaching.

10) Did he say anything about why people use the argument this way?

Yes. He stated:

Often this abuse of the “seamless garment” theory stems from a natural tendency on the part of some in the Church to look for “common ground” with the surrounding culture; that is to say, to emphasize in their teaching and preaching those elements of Catholic doctrine that are acceptable to the non-Catholic ambient culture; for example, social justice, human rights, and other similar issues.

This is understandable and sometimes it is an appropriate pastoral strategy.

But what also must be taken into account is the difference which exists between those elements of Catholic teaching that may be attractive to the surrounding culture and those elements which are profoundly counter-cultural and which Catholics themselves need to hear proclaimed by their pastors.

11) What solutions did he propose?

He stressed that Church teaching must be presented as a whole, without turning a blind eye to particular aspects of it.

He particularly emphasized the need to proclaim the Church’s teaching on human sexuality as found in Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae, saying:

The experience of the Church . . . demonstrates that where the Church has tried to accommodate her teaching to this secular understanding by deemphasizing the specific witness of her moral teaching, this has lead neither to a greater societal acceptance of the Church nor to a renewal in her own life.

Rather where the teaching of Humanae vitae has been down-played, or worse still ignored, we have witnessed a collapse of family life, an increase in extra-marital infidelity and a diminishment of vocations to the priesthood and consecrated life.

He had much more to say on this and related subjects, so be sure to check out the full text of his remarks, linked above.

Debating Assisted Suicide

Recently, I appeared on the local PBS radio and television affiliate (KPBS) to discuss a new assisted suicide bill that has been introduced in the California legislature.

Although the station representatives weren’t initially aware of it, both I and the gentleman taking the opposing view were widowers who lost our wives to cancer.

They were surprised and supportive when this turned out to be the case, and it helped balance the discussion since we both had very moving personal stories.

We first did a 15-minute radio debate, which can be listened to through a specialized audio player at this link:

ttp://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/jan/21/brittany-maynard-family-pushing-california-right-d/

Look for the “KBPS Midday Edition” player, about half way down the page (just under the YouTube video).

They also had us discuss the subject on their “KPBS Evening Edition” television program, the video for which is here:

This was the first time that I met John La Grange, and we had very cordial discussions off the air. I gave him my condolences for his loss, and I told him that I would be praying for him and his late wife, which he appreciated. I’d ask others to do so as well. Thank you in advance!

My jaw dropped when I read the latest from Benedict XVI . . .

Since Benedict XVI resigned from the papacy and began his retirement in seclusion, he has said nothing publicly.

There’s a very good reason for that, and that’s why the most recent thing he’s written is so amazing.

He’s just publicly weighed in on Cardinal Kasper’s proposal to give Holy Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

Here’s the story . . .

1) Why is Benedict XVI so silent these days?

To give his successor a free hand. If a pope emeritus continued to speak out and play a substantial role as a public figure, it could cause all kinds of problems for his successor.

If the two were perceived as being in opposition to each other, it could be extremely traumatic for the Church. Hypothetically, it could even create a schism.

That’s why, when St. Celestine V resigned, his successor kept him imprisoned in a castle until he died.

By choosing to live in a monastery at the Vatican and staying out of the public eye, Benedict is deliberately staying out of Francis’s way.

He’s also setting a precedent for future popes emeritus.

2) What has Benedict said since retirement?

Very little. We know that he has been writing letters. In one letter, he took an atheist mathematician to the woodshed, and the mathematician later published the letter.

He also wrote a speech that was read at a Roman university by his aide, Archbishop Georg Ganswein.

But, in general, he has written very little that has come to public light.

And none of what he has written has dealt with controversial issues in the Church.

Until now.

3) What does Benedict think of “the Kasper proposal”

Over the last year, the Church has been wracked by a revival of Cardinal Walter Kasper’s proposal to give Holy Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics in some circumstances.

Cardinals have been publicly debating each other in the press.

We don’t need to rehash the whole, sad history of that here.

As we’ve watched that situation play out, I’ve repeatedly wondered what Benedict must be thinking—and doing.

Since Pope Francis allowed public discussion of this subject to continue, and since it’s a source of controversy in the Church, you wouldn’t expect him to speak out publicly on the subject.

That would be precisely the kind of interference in his successor’s affairs that he set out to avoid by going into seclusion.

But this issue is so important, with such high stakes, that it’s also precisely the kind of situation that would test that resolve.

I thought, perhaps, he would play a background role—giving advice to Pope Francis off the record at an opportune moment. We know that kind of thing happens.

But he’s now done much more than that.

He’s told us what he thinks.

And it happened through an unusual chain of events that seems providentially structured.

4) What happened?

Back in 1972, when he was still a theology professor, Joseph Ratzinger wrote an essay on the indissolubility of marriage in which he tentatively floated a variation of the Kasper proposal.

This was one of several ideas that Prof. Ratzinger tried out in the days of theological experimentation after the Council but later abandoned.

Indeed, he became a leader in the opposition to the idea that Holy Communion could be given to the divorced and civilly remarried.

Thus, when Cardinal Kasper and two other German bishops floated the proposal in 1993, Cardinal Ratzinger—as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—wrote a paper forcefully rejecting the idea.

You can read it here.

But that 1972 essay was still out there, and when he revived his proposal last year, Cardinal Kasper started quoting it.

I can only imagine that this deeply displeased Benedict.

Nobody likes having his words thrown back in his face—particularly when they are words that one has disowned.

For Cardinal Kasper to publicly cite the 1972 essay in an effort to associate Benedict’s name with and thus promote a position that Benedict has rejected must really come across as twisting the knife.

And yet it would seem that Benedict’s hands were tied by his seclusion.

Only they weren’t.

5) Why not?

Because, for the last few years, there has been an effort underway to re-publish collected editions of all of Benedict’s theological writings. (His private ones, that is; not his magisterial documents.)

This effort has been led by Cardinal Gerhard Muller.

And now they’ve published—in German—a volume of Benedict’s writings that includes a revised version of the 1972 essay.

The publication of this series of volumes thus allowed Benedict, from one perspective, to yank the rug out from under Cardinal Kasper’s use of the 1972 essay.

From another perspective, it allowed him to weigh in on the present controversy without having to make a new, public statement that could be perceived as deliberately interfering in the affairs of his successor.

The fact that this set of volumes was underway, and that that particular essay had not yet been republished when Cardinal Kasper started using it for his own purposes, is a providential blessing.

And what Benedict said is extremely encouraging.

6) What did he say?

You can read the full text of the part of the essay that changed—and the 1972 original—at Sandro Magister’s site (ht: Fr.Z).

Of course, the initial variation of the Kasper proposal is gone. There is no trace of it.

Benedict says a number of very interesting things, and the section dealing with divorce, remarriage, and Holy Communion reads as follows:

The 1981 apostolic exhortation “Familiaris Consortio” of John Paul II . . . states: “Together with the Synod, 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 […] Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.”

This gives pastoral care an important task, which perhaps has not yet been sufficiently incorporated into the Church’s everyday life. Some details are indicated in the exhortation itself. There it is said that these persons, insofar as they are baptized, may participate in the Church’s life, which in fact they must do. The Christian activities that are possible and necessary for them are listed. Perhaps, however, it should be emphasized with greater clarity what the pastors and brethren in the faith can do so that they may truly feel the love of the Church. I think that they should be granted the possibility of participating in ecclesial associations and even of becoming godfathers or godmothers, something that the law does not provide for as of now.

There is another point of view that imposes itself on me. The impossibility of receiving the holy Eucharist is perceived as so painful not last of all because, currently, almost all who participate in the Mass also approach the table of the Lord. In this way the persons affected also appear publicly disqualified as Christians.

I maintain that Saint Paul’s warning about examining oneself and reflecting on the fact that what is at issue is the Body of the Lord should be taken seriously once again: “A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor 11:28 f.). A serious self-examination, which might even lead to forgoing communion, would also help us to feel in a new way the greatness of the gift of the Eucharist and would furthermore represent a form of solidarity with divorced and remarried persons.

I would like to add another practical suggestion. In many countries it has become customary for persons who are not able to receive communion (for example, the members of other confessions) to approach the altar with their hands folded over their chests, making it clear that they are not receiving the sacrament but are asking for a blessing, which is given to them as a sign of the love of Christ and of the Church. This form could certainly be chosen also by persons who are living in a second marriage and therefore are not admitted to the Lord’s table. The fact that this would make possible an intense spiritual communion with the Lord, with his whole Body, with the Church, could be a spiritual experience that would strengthen and help them.

He thus proposes pastoral care for those in this situation and finding ways to further involve them in the life of the Church—including allowing them to serve in church associations and perhaps as godparents.

However, he recommends no change on the question of administering Holy Communion.

Instead, he asks us all to engage in serious self-examination and not to receive Communion unthinkingly.

And he recommends the custom of approaching the minister for a blessing when—as with the divorced and civilly remarried—one is not able to receive Communion.

7) How significant is this?

Benedict’s revision of his 1972 essay is extremely significant.

It makes the general lines of his thought publicly known, and this is bound to be a great encouragement for those who wish to see the Church’s traditional teaching and practice maintained.

It also makes it harder to use Benedict’s name in association with the contrary proposal—as Cardinal Kasper and others have been doing.

It’s a net gain. It’s a gift from God. And, with the former pope weighing in on the issue publicly, it may even be a game-changer.

Were the early Christians pacifists?

There is a persistent claim that the early Christians were pacifists—in the strong sense of being opposed to all use of violence—and that it was not until the time of the Emperor Constantine that this began to change.

After Christianity became the official religion of the empire, the Church embraced the use of military force, with St. Augustine playing the part of the enabling villain, who came up with the idea of the just war.

This story plays with well-worn tropes: the fall from original innocence into corruption, the idea that Constantine corrupted the Church, that the Christianization of the empire was a bad thing, etc.

You may notice that these same tropes are often used in anti-Catholic apologetics stemming from the Protestant Reformation. That’s not surprising, since these tropes were needed to justify separation from the Church at the time of the Reformation.

It’s also not surprising that, relying on these same tropes, the denominations that historically have been strongly pacifistic stemmed from the Protestant community.

Most Protestants, of course, are not pacifists and recognize the legitimate use of military force, and there is a good reason for that: Protestants are the majority in many countries, just as Catholics are in others, and so they have been confronted with the task of ensuring the safety of their nations.

No nation can be safe if it is unwilling to use military force to defend itself. If, in the present, fallen state of the world, a nation were to suddenly renounce the use of military force and beat its swords into ploughshares, it would suffer a dire fate.

Either:

It would be conquered by its external enemies,
Its internal, criminal element would overrun it and turn it into a failed state,
Its more sensible-minded citizens would stage a coup and re-establish a government willing to use force to defend the nation, or
It would depend for its defense on another country that is less scrupulous about the use of force, making its safety and freedom dependent on the whims of that foreign state.

Any way you go, pacifism is not a stable, self-sustaining enterprise. It’s a dangerous world out there, and pacifists depend for their safety and security on the generosity and good will of non-pacifists.

Prior to the Christianization of the Roman empire, many Christians were not faced with the responsibility of defending the public and ensuring public order. As a result, some authors of this period had the luxury of entertaining pacifistic ideals without having to worry about keeping people safe.

But were they all in this condition? What about those Christians who were in the military?

What about the era of the New Testament itself? What attitude toward military service did it take?

Is the idea of a uniformly pacifist early Church accurate? Or does it distort what actually happened?

Here’s a video in which I take on the subject.

Click here to watch the video in your browser.

If a person commits suicide, is he automatically lost?

Suicide is a delicate and disturbing subject.

After the recent suicide of Brittany Maynard, many people are discussing it, and some are asking perennial questions, like whether those who commit suicide are automatically lost.

While suicide can be a mortal sin, it is not always one, and the Church both prays for those who have committed suicide and encourages us not to despair of their salvation.

Here is a video in which I discuss the subject.

Here are is the Catechism’s discussion of the conditions necessary for mortal sin.

1857 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.”

And here is the passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on suicide:

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him.

It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life.

We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls.

We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us.

It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life.

It is gravely contrary to the just love of self.

It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations.

Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal.

Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. the Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

As I said in the video, let’s pray for all those who are tempted to commit suicide, for all those who have committed it, and for all those who have lost someone to suicide.