Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

Pope Francis on Intercommunion with Lutherans

lutheran-800x500Pope Francis recently answered a Lutheran woman’s question regarding the possibility of her taking Communion with her Catholic husband at Mass.

His remarks, which he made at an ecumenical meeting in a Lutheran church, have raised eyebrows.

You can read them online here. Another translation is here. You can also watch the exchange in Italian here.

 

What the woman asked

This is what the Lutheran woman said:

My name is Anke de Bernardinis and, like many people in our community, I’m married to an Italian, who is a Roman Catholic Christian. We’ve lived happily together for many years, sharing joys and sorrows. And so we greatly regret being divided in faith and not being able to participate in the Lord’s Supper together. What can we do to achieve, finally, communion on this point?

 

What might the pope have said?

Of course, one response would be, “Become Catholic.” But if popes said that routinely when they were in a Lutheran church, they wouldn’t be invited to Lutheran churches and would lose this form of outreach to other Christians.

Intra-Christian unity proceeds slowly. Being too explicit right up front is a little like saying “Marry me!” on the first date.

So you wouldn’t really expect Pope Francis to explicitly propose swimming the Tiber in this particular context.

He could have said, “Study and pray—especially pray for the day when Christian unity is restored and we can have full sharing at the Lord’s table.”

Or he could have said, “It is a profound sadness that, because of the differences that divide us, we cannot presently share the Eucharist. This does not mean that you and your husband cannot share and celebrate the aspects of the Christian faith that we have in common, and you can work to overcome the obstacles that remain.”

There are all kinds of brief responses the pope might have made.

Presumably, he didn’t have to take the question at all. Papal questions are regularly screened to keep the pope from being put in the position of commenting on something he doesn’t want to address.

Since he took the question, Pope Francis apparently wanted to address this issue—he felt he had something useful to say about it.

 

What the pope said

The pope’s response is hard to summarize. His answer was somewhat stream-of-consciousness.

After joking that the question of sharing the Lord’s Supper was hard for him to answer—particularly in front of a theologian like Cardinal Kasper (who, as the former Vatican head of ecumenical affairs, was there)—he reflected on the role of the Lord’s Supper in the Christian life.

He noted that we will all receive it at the eternal banquet in the New Jerusalem, but he had questions about intercommunion here on earth, saying:

To share the Lord’s banquet: is it the goal of the path or is it the viaticum [provisions] for walking together?

 

Goal or assistance?

Here he refers to two views of intercommunion. The first would make it the goal of ecumenical dialogues. In other words, we need to restore full unity in faith, and the crowning result of that will be sharing the Eucharist.

The second view would be that sharing the Eucharist is something Christians of different confessions should do now as a way of fostering growth in Christian unity (walking together).

The pope does not decide between these two views, the first of which is the one the Holy See has consistently maintained. Instead, he says:

I leave that question to the theologians and those who understand.

The fact he speculates on this question in public, in an ecumenical setting, could be viewed as a source of concern.

Even if he thought the question of eucharistic sharing needed to be further explored, is this the right context to be discussing that? It seems to carry several risks. One is that the pope could look like he’s not backing the Catholic position.

Apparently, Pope Francis thought such risks were worth taking.

 

Doctrine and baptism

Pope Francis goes on to say:

It’s true that in a certain sense, to share means there aren’t differences between us, that we have the same doctrine—underscoring that word, a difficult word to understand—but I ask myself: but don’t we have the same baptism?

The first part of this acknowledges the principle supporting the Church’s historic position on intercommunion: that sharing in the Eucharist means holding the same doctrine, so that people who disagree with Church teaching, especially its infallibly defined teaching, should not be receiving the Eucharist at Mass.

Pope Francis acknowledges the legitimacy of this principle, but he appears to ask whether it is the only relevant principle and whether the common baptism that we share could affect the situation.

 

Current intercommunion

It’s surprising the pontiff didn’t take this occasion to refer to something that would make the point that baptism does have an effect on the question of intercommunion.

The Church does permit—and has for some time—intercommunion in limited circumstances, on the basis of our common baptism.

Canon 844 §§2-3 of the Code of Canon Law describes the particular requirements for when baptized non-Catholic Christians can be admitted to the Eucharist, confession, and the anointing of the sick.

More on that below.

 

Further reflections

Pope Francis reflected further on baptism, though it is somewhat difficult to follow his train of thought. The impression is that he was answering off the top of his head, which can result in hard-to-follow answers, at times, for anybody.

Returning to the subject of the Eucharist, he says:

The question: and the [Lord’s] Supper? There are questions that, only if one is sincere with oneself and with the little theological light one has, must be responded to on one’s own. See for yourself.

This is true. The question that springs to mind is the one every Catholic must ask before receiving Communion: Am I in a state where I can receive worthily?

Only the individual knows whether he has fulfilled the requirements, and however much or little theological knowledge he has, he needs to apply it before going to Communion.

That’s not to say that a person can simply “discern” that it’s okay for him to go to Communion. Canon 844, among others (such as canon 915), provides limits on who can receive Communion and when. It is only when such canons do not impede an individual that the question of one’s personal judgment comes into play.

Pope Francis continues:

This is my body. This is my blood. Do it in remembrance of me—this is a viaticum that helps us to journey on.

This echoes his point about the Eucharist being assistance for the journey rather than exclusively a goal. The principle certainly applies to the life of the individual believer—Jesus means to strengthen us through the Eucharist throughout life, not just give us admission to the banquet at the end of time.

Whether the principle applies in the same way to the ecumenical movement is a separate question.

 

An illustration involving a bishop

Pope Francis then tells a story about a bishop “who went a little wrong.”

According to this translation, the bishop was an Episcopalian, and his wife and children were Catholic. However, another translation omits the reference to it being an Episcopalian bishop and, in the commentary, takes it to be a reference to former Catholic bishop Jeronimo Podesta.

The first translation appears to be correct. A check of the Italian original (also here) reveals Pope Francis saying “un vescovo episcopaliano”—“an Episcopalian bishop.”

He says:

He accompanied his wife and children to Mass on Sunday, and then went to worship with his community. It was a step of participation in the Lord’s Supper. Then he went forward, the Lord called him, a just man.

It is unclear what this means. It could mean that the Episcopalian bishop “went forward” to receive Communion at a Catholic Mass. It could mean that he “went forward/onward” in his walk with God and became a Catholic or somehow addressed the fact that he had gone “a little wrong.” The latter is suggested by the second translation, which reads, “Then he went forward, then the Lord called him [to realize] ‘I’m not right.’”

 

Answering a question with a question

I’m not sure what to make of the pope’s story about the Episcopalian bishop who “went a little wrong,” and he doesn’t seem to draw any decisive lesson from it. Instead, he tells the woman:

To your question, I can only respond with a question: what can I do with my husband, because the Lord’s Supper accompanies me on my path?

Or:

I can only respond to your question with a question: what can I do with my husband that the Lord’s Supper might accompany me on my path?

Pope Francis thus invites the woman to explore what she and her husband can do either because the Eucharist accompanies her in some sense or so that it might accompany her.

If the former translation is correct, he might be suggesting she explore how the closeness of Christ in the Eucharist (or perceived closeness, given the Eucharist’s invalidity in Lutheran circles) might better inform her marriage.

If the latter translation is correct, he might be inviting her to consider becoming a Catholic to be able to receive the Eucharist with her husband.

Or he might mean something else entirely. It isn’t clear what he is trying to say.

 

What’s the difference?

Whatever he is inviting the woman to do, Pope Francis considers it a matter that must be sorted out individually. He says:

It’s a problem each must answer, but a pastor friend once told me: “We believe that the Lord is present there, he is present. You all believe that the Lord is present. And so what’s the difference?”

The pastor he refers to is, apparently, a Protestant who believes in the Real Presence.

“So what’s the difference?” could mean, “So what’s the difference between the Catholic position and mine?” Or it could mean, “So why can’t we have intercommunion?”

Pope Francis responds to the question by saying:

Oh, there are explanations, interpretations.

He appears to mean that there are different understandings of the Real Presence, which is true. The Catholic position is not just that Christ is present in the Eucharist but that the bread and wine become his body and blood (transubstantiation).

Not everyone who believes in the Real Presence shares that view. A common Lutheran formulation is that Christ is “in, with, and under” the bread and wine; Orthodox sometimes use the term transubstantiation, but sometimes they understand the Real Presence differently; Anglicans have a range of views; etc.

The pope then says:

Life is bigger than explanations and interpretations. Always refer back to your baptism. “One faith, one baptism, one Lord.” This is what Paul tells us, and then take the consequences from there.

By this, I assume he means that our fundamental unity as Christians (“one Faith, one baptism, one Lord”) is more significant (“life is bigger”) than the divisions that exist among Christians on particular questions, such as the precise way the Real Presence works.

This isn’t to say that the divisions aren’t important or that they don’t genuinely divide us, just that they don’t deprive us of the common status of being Christians.

The way we should proceed is thus to recognize our common identity as Christians, despite our differences, and work to figure things out from there (“take the consequences from there”).

 

Pope Francis’s ultimate answer

Returning to the woman’s original question about intercommunion, Pope Francis concludes by saying:

I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more.

This is a strong statement. “I wouldn’t ever dare allow” is an emphatic way of saying that he can’t give the woman permission to take intercommunion. In fact, if you watch the video, he uses his vocal inflection to add extra stress to the point that he cannot give permission.

He also cites a reason: It’s not his area of competence. He appears to be using this admission to signal that he’s not refusing to give permission out of ill will. Instead, he recognizes that he’s not an expert in the relevant area and considers it too important an area to make further pronouncements without consultation.

 

A matter for experts

Why might Pope Francis think that consultations with experts would be needed to answer the woman’s question? Why not simply say, “Sorry, but we can’t offer you Communion as a Lutheran”?

Because the situation isn’t that simple. The current Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1983 by St. John Paul II, allows for Communion to be given to Lutherans in some circumstances.

This woman’s case doesn’t meet the criteria named in the Code, but Pope Francis may be wondering if it would be possible to give Communion in additional circumstances beyond those mentioned in canon 844.

For example, canon 844 §4 states that Communion, confession, and anointing of the sick can be given to Protestants who share the Church’s faith in these sacraments (note that qualifier; it’s an important one) only “if the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it.”

However, according to canon §3, danger of death or other grave necessity is not required to grant these sacraments to Orthodox Christians. They only need to “seek such on their own accord and [be] properly disposed.”

One could ask whether it would be theologically possible to modify the Code so that danger of death or grave necessity isn’t required for Protestants who share the Church’s faith in these sacraments, allowing such Protestants to receive them on terms like those that presently apply to the Orthodox.

That’s a delicate question, and it would require consultation and deliberation among experts.

So it’s understandable why Pope Francis would punt on the question due to it not being within his personal area of expertise.

 

A general answer

He thus gives a general answer referring to the common elements of our Christian identity, saying, “Talk to the Lord and then go forward.”

In this case, “go forward” does not mean “go forward and receive Communion.” He’s just said he can’t give permission for that. “Go forward” means “proceed on the basis you discern after speaking with the Lord,” and that can mean all kinds of things.

It could mean “proceed to become a Catholic” or “proceed to receive the Eucharist at Mass” or anything in between. The Pope isn’t telling her what course of action she should pursue. He’s pointedly not telling her that, and he’s expressly not giving her permission to receive.

He appears to feel this kind of general answer is all that it’s possible for him to offer, given the limitations of his expertise. Thus he says, “I don’t dare to say anything more,” for he would be moving beyond his personal competence.

 

Concluding thoughts

It’s good that Pope Francis considers the subject important enough not to go further and to leave technical matters like what may be possible in the future to be explored by those who are competent in these areas.

It’s also good that he recognizes the limitations of his own expertise, despite the fact he is pope.

Indeed, watching the video shows him being somber and seeming to struggle at points, particularly when he is speaking most directly to the woman’s question.

However, it is not easy to piece together his line of reasoning, and at some points it isn’t clear what he was trying to say.

As someone who answers questions live on a regular basis, I know what it’s like to struggle with an answer. You can have an idea what you want to say and yet have difficulty putting it into words.

That happens to everyone. “Even Homer nods,” as they say.

Because of the cautions Pope Francis makes during the course of his answer, I don’t view it as the earthquake that some took it for.

Is the pope giving permission to Lutheran spouses to take Communion at Mass? No. He expressly says he’s not.

Is this a portent of an imminent shift in Catholic doctrine or sacramental practice? No.

Is it possible that the current rules regarding when Communion can be given to other Christians could one day be tweaked? Yes. It’s imaginable that a pope might one day decide that any baptized Christians who share the Church’s faith respect to Communion, confession, and anointing could receive those sacraments on the same basis that Orthodox Christians can.

Are the pope’s remarks a sign that this—or anything like it—is going to happen any time in the foreseeable future? No.

Could the pope have answered more clearly? Yes. One might argue that, if the pope were going to struggle with the question as much as he did, he would have been better advised not to take it. But these things happen, and there is no reason to see this as a sign of an impending doctrinal or sacramental earthquake.

Is God showing us a fictional past?

Wouldn’t it be great if scientists invented a device that enabled us to have a window into the past–so that we wouldn’t just have to read about the past in books?

Instead, with the new device–let’s call it a Time Window–we could actually see events occurring in the past in real time, with our own eyes?

That would be awesome, wouldn’t it?

The exciting news is that scientists have invented this device!

That’s right! The Time Window is real!

What’s more, they invented it just over 400 years ago, so they’ve had the chance to mature the technology to the point that now it’s really, really good.

For comparison, imagine how good an iPhone would be today if Steve Jobs had invented the first one 400 years ago.

The only problem is that they missed a great marketing opportunity.

Instead of calling it the Time Window ™ they gave it a much more boring name . . . the telescope.

 

How the Time Window Works

The reason that the Time Window–er, telescope–lets us look into the past and see it with our own eyes is that it takes time for light to reach our eyes. The speed of light is not infinite.

Technically, this means that any time you see anything, you are technically witnessing something that happened in the past.

Since light travels so fast, however, if you see someone across the room pick up an iPhone, that happened only the tiniest fraction of a second ago. In fact, you started seeing it while it was still happening. That’s not long enough ago to make it an exciting glimpse into history.

But things get more interesting when you take a telescope and point it at something really distant.

 

By Jove!

For example, back in 1609, Galileo Galilei pointed his telescope at the planet Jove–er, Jupiter–and discovered that by it there were several moons.

Now the thing is, depending on where Earth and Jupiter are in their orbits, Jupiter is between 33 and 54 light minutes away from Earth.

Let’s just say it’s an average of 44 light minutes away for the sake of simplicity.

That means, it takes 44 minutes for the light from Jupiter to reach an astronomer on Earth.

So when Galileo looked at Jupiter through his telescopes and saw its moons, he was seeing where those moons were 44 minutes ago.

He was viewing actual history that occurred 44 minutes in the past!

Woo-hoo!

 

Party Like It’s 1879!

The same thing keeps happening when you look further out.

Back in 2008, scientists used one of their spiffy modern telescopes to capture the light in this image . . .

This is an image of the solar system HR 8799.

It’s got a single star in the middle, and we can see that it has at least three planets orbiting it.

What’s more, it’s 129 light years away from Earth.

That means that this image, which was taken in 2008, is of events taking place in 1879.

This is an image of where those planets were in the year that the apparition at Knock, Ireland took place, that the California Constitution was ratified, and that Thomas Edison unveiled incandescent light to the public.

It’s an image of things happening in that year.

Now let’s look really far into the past . . .

 

An Earth-Shattering Ka-Boom

Also in 2008, astronomers captured an image of a supernova known as SN 2008D.

Here’s a time-lapse image of the supernova happening, both in x-rays and visible light. Take a moment and watch it:

Hoo-eee! It blowed up real good! (Particularly in x-rays.)

Now here’s the thing: SD 2008D is in the galaxy NGC 2770, which is in the constellation Lynx.

It’s also 88,000,000 (88 million) light years away.

That means that when you’re watching the supernova explode in the images above, You Are Watching an Event That Took Place 88 Million Years in the Past.

That’s right. Dinosaurs were roaming the earth when this event took place. It was the middle of the Cretaceous Era.

 

So What’s This Have to Do with God? 

Historically, many people have thought that the universe was only a few thousand years old, based on the most common understanding of Genesis.

Modern science has suggested that it is much, much older.

If the above picture reveals an event that took place 88,000,000 years ago, then the view that the universe is only a few thousand years old can’t be right.

So what alternatives do we have in resolving this situation?

Here are three . . .

 

Option 1: We’re Really, Really Wrong

One option would be to say that we are really–desperately–wrong in our understanding of science today.

Either light doesn’t travel at the speed we think it does or SN 2008D isn’t as far away as we think it is–or something.

This cannot be ruled out on theoretical grounds. The best scientific thought of the day has turned out to be really, really wrong before.

But how likely is this?

At this point we seem to have very, very good evidence about the age and dimensions of the cosmos, about how fast light travels and how far away things like supernovas are.

 

Option 2: God Is Showing Us Fictions

Another option would be to say that, when the world began a few thousand years ago, God created light already en route from what appeared to be more distant galaxies.

If that’s the case, then any event we see that appears to be happening more than a few thousand light years away is a fiction.

Beyond a certain point, we’re watching God’s Imaginary Astronomy Show.

Mixed in with God’s Real Astronomy Show that’s taking place closer to home.

Hmmm.

That doesn’t seem consistent with God’s Truthfulness.

At a minimum, an advocate of this view would need to provide an explanation for why God would do this, why it wouldn’t be inconsistent with his Truthfulness.

Some have tried to mount such an explanation by saying that God created the world with an “appearance of age,” the same way that he created Adam and Eve as full-grown adults rather than babies.

That is the way Genesis seems to depict the creation of our first parents, since they are both apparently created on Day 6 of the creation week in Genesis 1, and since they are married as soon as Eve is created in the second creation narrative in Genesis 2.

If you think that God used evolution to make the bodies of the first humans (of course, he made their souls directly and immediately) then this issue doesn’t arise–at least not in the same way.

But what if you think that God literally created an adult Adam out of earth and an adult Eve out of Adam’s side? Does that provide much support for the “appearance of age” explanation of distant astronomical events?

I have never thought so.

It’s always seemed to me that, if God were to directly create the first humans as adults, there would be a very good reason for that–namely: Babies Cannot Take Care of Themselves.

Without the presence of other humans–or near-humans–to take care of our first parents, they would need to be adults (or at least teens). Either that, or God would have to run his own, direct daycare service, and Genesis doesn’t suggest that he did.

So I can see a reason why God would make the first humans as adults. That’s because of the incapacity to care for themselves that human infants have.

But that doesn’t give us any reason why God would need to plant false dinosaur bones in the ground or false astronomical images in the sky, let alone mix them up with real ones.

He could have just let God’s Real Astronomy Show play in the sky each night.

The sky wouldn’t have had quite as much stuff in it each night, but it would all have been true stuff.

 

Option 3: God’s Word in the Heavens and in the Bible Is True

The best approach would seem to be the classic one of saying that God’s word in nature and God’s word in the Bible are both true.

They have to be understood in harmony with each other.

Thus if we have good evidence from God’s word in nature that the universe is quite old then that helps shed light on the meaning of God’s word in the Scriptures.

This is the approach taken by the Catholic Church.

Concerning the creation narrative in Genesis 1, John Paul II stated:

Above all, this text has a religious and theological importance. It doesn’t contain significant elements from the point of view of the natural sciences. Research on the origin and development of the individual species in nature does not find in this description any definitive norm [General Audience, Jan. 29, 1986].

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.

These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.

With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.”

And:

337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day.

On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.”

Having said that, I’m looking forward to seeing more events from distant history–with my own eyes–through the amazing Time Window! (Er, telescope.)

Did the German-Speaking Bishops Just Endorse the Kasper Proposal?

synod-of-bishopsThe German-speaking members of the Synod of Bishops have made a report which some are touting as a breakthrough for the proposal to give Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

What did they really say, and what significance does it have?

Here’s what we know at present . . .

 

1) What was the report that the German-speaking bishops made?

After the synod opened, the bishops divided up into small groups (known as circuli minores or “smaller circles” in Latin). These were divided based on the language the bishops speak (Italian, English, French, Spanish, or German).

The small groups have produced a number of reports as they worked their way through the synod’s preparatory document.

This week they each turned in their final report, which covered the part of the preparatory document that dealt with the divorced and civilly remarried.

The German-speaking group’s report thus was just one of several reports on this section, which was turned in as a matter of course.

You can read the full text of the report in German here.

And you can read part of it translated into English here.

 

2) Who is part of the German-speaking group?

The group is headed by Cardinal Christoph Schonborn and Archbishop Heiner Koch.

Members of the group include Cardinals Walter Kasper—who made the proposal to give Communion to the divorced and civilly remarried—and Cardinal Reinhard Marx—who favors the proposal.

The group also includes Cardinal Ludwig Muller, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who has opposed the plan.

 

3) How is the German report being portrayed?

It is being portrayed—both by advocates and critics—as suggesting a way in which the Kasper proposal could be implemented using what is known as an “internal forum” solution.

This is particularly striking since the group includes Cardinal Muller and each of the German group’s reports has been unanimously approved.

Since Cardinal Muller has previously and strongly opposed the Kasper proposal, it’s natural to ask what happened here.

Did Cardinal Muller change his view? Did he not change his view? Is someone misrepresenting something?

 

4) What is an “internal forum” solution?

Canon law draws a distinction between what are known as the external and internal fora.

The external forum deals with actions that can be publicly verified—e.g., this person attempted marriage with such-and-such a person on such-and-such a date, they were later civilly divorced, they later civilly remarried.

The internal forum deals with matters that cannot be publicly verified—e.g., a real but never-expressed intention to refuse to have children, hidden sins, legally unverifiable private convictions.

The discussions held in the sacrament of confession represent one expression of the internal forum.

More on the distinction between the internal and external fora here.

In recent years there have been proposals to allow Catholics who otherwise would not be qualified to receive Communion to do so based on “internal forum solutions.”

The idea is that if a person is convinced in the internal forum that he is qualified to receive Communion, even though this cannot be verified in the external forum, that he should be able to do so.

The so-called internal forum solution is fraught with difficulties and has been the subject of much abuse. See here and here for comments on it by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

 

5) Did the German-speaking bishops propose an “internal forum solution” in this case?

This is ambiguous. They certainly didn’t come out and say, “We propose that Communion be given to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics based on an internal forum solution.”

Instead, the text reads like a compromise. It is ambiguous—apparently deliberately so—about whether an internal forum solution is being proposed.

 

6) So what did the German-speaking bishops say?

The relevant section of their report begins by noting:

We have at length discussed the integration of the civilly divorced and remarried into the church community.

This can be important because it frames what follows as a summary of what they discussed. A person can agree, “Yes, that is what we discussed,” without always agreeing with every proposal that came up in the discussion.

They continued:

It is a well-known fact that at both sessions of the Episcopal Synod there was an intensive struggle over the question of whether and in how far divorced and remarried people who want to take part in the life of the Church, may receive the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist under certain conditions.

The debates have shown that there are no simple or general solutions here. We bishops experienced the tensions connected with this question just as much as many of our faithful whose worries and hopes, warnings and expectations accompanied us throughout our consultations.

The discussions clearly showed that certain clarifications and in-depth study were necessary in order to further deepen the complexity of these issues in the light of the Gospel, of the Church’s teaching and with the gift of discernment.

So they’re saying this is a difficult and complex subject.

They then go on to point to something John Paul II said:

We can, of course, name certain criteria that help to differentiate. Pope St. John Paul II states the first criterion in [his 1981 encyclical] Familiaris Consortio, paragraph 84:

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.

It has been pointed out that they don’t quote the part of Familiaris Consortio, which followed this, that explicitly rejected the Kasper proposal.

Of course they don’t. You’d hardly expect a group including Cardinal Kasper to quote that part (not and arrive at a unanimous vote—which was apparently important to them—see below). But everyone knows that passage followed this one. It’s the elephant in the room.

They then get to the role of individual pastors:

A pastor’s task is therefore to accompany the person concerned on the path towards this differentiation. In so doing, it will be helpful to proceed together in an honest examination of conscience and undertake steps of reflection and repentance.

Thus the divorced and remarried people should ask themselves how they treated their children during their marriage crisis. Were there attempts at reconciliation? What is the situation of the abandoned partner? What consequences has the new partnership had as far as the extended family and the community of the faithful are concerned? What example is it for the younger members considering marriage?

An honest reflection can strengthen the trust in God’s mercy, which no one who brings his or her failure and need before God is refused.

All of this is non-controversial. People who are divorced and civilly remarried should undertake such examinations of conscience.

Now we get to the important part:

In view of the objective situation in the talks with the confessor, such a path of reflection and repentance can, in the internal forum, contribute towards the formation of conscience and the clarification of whether admission to the Sacraments is possible.

According to the words of St Paul, which apply to all those who approach the Lord’s table, everyone must examine themselves:

“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.” (I Corinthians 11, 28-31)

The German-speaking bishops then conclude:

As with the procedures for the first two parts of the Instrumentum laboris [i.e., the synod’s working document], the procedures of [this] third part were handled in a good synodal spirit and unanimously approved.

This is a message that, despite their known differences, they played nice with each other (“good synodal spirit”) and that they agreed on the final report (“unanimously approved”).

 

7) What should one make of the part of their text about the internal forum?

As noted above, they don’t come out and say, “We propose giving Communion in these cases based on an internal forum solution.” That would state the matter much more strongly than what we’ve got.

In actuality, the text is ambiguous.

For a start, it’s true that talks with one’s confessor in the internal forum can “contribute to the formation of conscience.” In fact, that’s a key things that a confessor should try to accomplish during internal forum discussions with penitents—help them understand the requirements of God’s moral law better.

It’s also true that such discussions can help with “the clarification of whether admission to the Sacraments is possible.”

And therein lies the ambiguity.

For an advocate of the Kasper proposal, this could mean a dialogue like this:

Confessor: Do you feel in conscience that it’s okay for you to receive the sacraments?

Penitent: Yes.

Confessor: Then it’s okay for you to do so.

But the same text can be read another way, envisioning a dialogue more like this:

Confessor: Since you are divorced and civilly remarried, I need to ask if you are living chastely with your present, civil spouse.

Penitent: No, I’m not.

Confessor: I’m sorry to hear that. You need to understand that God loves you but, until such time as you are living chastely, you are not eligible to receive the sacraments.

The text of what the German-speaking bishops wrote can be read either way, but only the first of these scenarios is what would be called an “internal forum solution.” Therefore, it’s ambiguous whether the text calls for such a solution.

Advocates of the Kasper proposal can read it as calling for one; opponents of the Kasper proposal can read it as not calling for one.

Opponents can even point to the warning that follows, quoting St. Paul about eating and drinking judgment on oneself, as evidence that the text is not calling for an internal forum solution.

 

8) Why would the German-speaking bishops write this kind of text?

Based on the clues in the text itself, my sense is that they very much wanted to present a report that was as unified as possible.

One reason for this is that, if they presented a fractious one, it could undermine their respective positions when it comes time for Pope Francis to decide.

He knows that the German-speaking group includes both some of the strongest advocates of the Kasper proposal (e.g., Kasper and Marx) and some of its strongest opponents (e.g., Muller).

If he got the idea that their group had a big, fractious, uncivil blowup then that could sour Pope Francis on whichever group he blamed for the bad behavior.

To preserve their positions’ credibility with Pope Francis, both groups needed to appear as cordial, flexible, and unified as possible. If anyone was perceived as being hostile or rigid, it would undermine him and his position.

The result was an ambiguous, compromise text that concludes with a formula noting the positive spirit of the German-language discussion and the unanimity it achieved.

With this in view, you can see which elements of the text were likely proposed by which parties.

For example, the Kasper advocates would have wanted the reference to the internal forum and the fact that discussions in it can clarify the extent to which one can receive the sacraments. This could be read as calling for an “internal forum solution.”

Muller would not have been able to oppose this without appearing fractious—because it’s true that internal forum discussions can shed light on this matter.

By contrast, Muller or his associates would have wanted the warning from St. Paul about eating and drinking judgment on oneself if one receives Communion unworthily.

The Kasper advocates would have, in turn, found that difficult to oppose because it is in Scripture and thus is also true.

 

9) So what is the takeaway from this?

It’s important to recognize the German-speaking bishops’ text for the compromise document that it is.

Somewhat like Schrodinger’s cat (Schrodinger himself being a German-speaker), the document both does and doesn’t call for an internal forum solution.

What role it will have going forward remains to be seen. An early sign of this will be what note is taken of it in the upcoming document that the synod fathers will be voting on and that may or may not be released by Pope Francis.

Stay tuned. And keep praying!

What’s the relationship between the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles?

question-markA reader writes:

Does the Church teach of any parallel between the 12 Apostles and the 12 tribes of Israel?

I don’t know of a Church document that stresses this connection off the top of my head, though there probably are some that do. It is generally acknowledged among Bible scholars that the New Testament draws clear parallels between the twelve apostles and the twelve tribes–and, more specifically, with the twelve patriarchs (sons of Jacob/Israel) who were the progenitors of the twelve tribes.

By appointing twelve apostles, Jesus clearly indicated his intention to establish the Christian community as a New Israel, without depriving the original Israel of its place in God’s plan.

Does each Apostle represent a separate tribe or a characteristic associated with the tribe?

So far as we know, the twelve apostles correspond to the twelve patriarchs/tribes only in a generic manner. We can’t match each of them up one-to-one.

Also, are the Apostles the inhabitants of the twelve thrones of judgement for the tribes?

Without excluding the idea that there will be other thrones of judgment, Jesus does say that the apostles will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28, Luke 22:29-30).

Lastly, do many faithful Jewish people still know their tribe ancestry or is that knowledge long gone?

At this point, no. Most Jewish people do not know their specific tribal ancestry, though most would be descended from Judah, Benjamin, or Simeon (the southern tribes).

An exception is the tribe of Levi. Jewish people with names like Cohen (“priest”), Levi (“Levite”), etc., are generally thought to derive from the tribe of Levi and–in the case of Cohens–to be descendants of the priestly line of that tribe. They thus can have special roles in the synagogue liturgy.

Is there such a thing as “godparents-in-law”?

question-markA reader writes:

I have been asked to be the godfather to my cousin’s daughter.

My fiancee wanted to know, given the unifying nature of the marriage vows, what her responsibility/relationship to my goddaughter would be once we were married.

So, what is the role of the godparent-in-law?

Canon law does not provide any particular role for godparents-in-law. It doesn’t contain that category.

That said, they can always help the actual godparents just do good in the world.

How to respond to old devotions that refer to Mary “worship”?

question-markA reader writes:

How does a Catholic answer this devotion that uses the word worship?

I would say it is a private devotion that is not binding on Catholics.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ThyshainaMariaMartina17/posts/CKLH4UykXPD?pid=6207924185574319314&oid=116480916868136707341

The word “worship” originally referred to showing honor to someone in a general way.

Thus some British officials are still referred to as “Your worship” (note that Han Solo calls Princess Leia this to annoy her).

Over time, the word “worship” has come in popular speech to be associated with the specific form of honor due to God, however, this was not originally the connotation that the word had.

As a result, particularly in older works, you find it used in a broader sense. In these cases, it does not connote the worship due to God but the honor due to men.

Conscience and Communion

holy communionThere is a good bit of conversation about how conscience may play a role in the question of whether divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can receive Holy Communion.

For example, Chicago’s Archbishop Blase Cupich discussed the subject at a press briefing in Rome during the synod of bishops.

What the archbishop said or was trying to say is not entirely clear to me from the quotations I’ve seen in the press, and I do not wish to speculate based on incomplete press accounts.

I have, however, received a number of queries about the role of conscience in this area, and a brief look at the question may be in order.

 

1) Acknowledging past abuses

Some people immediately become suspicious whenever the word “conscience” is brought up in connection with controversial moral subjects.

That’s understandable. The concept has been much abused.

After Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae there was a huge push to justify dissent from the Church’s teaching on contraception using conscience as a guise.

Dissidents were turning Jiminy Cricket’s slogan “Always let your conscience be your guide” into “Always let conscience be your guise.”

This is one of the reasons why the word “conscience” appears more than a hundred times in John Paul II’s 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor and why the Catechism of the Catholic Church has a lengthy section specially devoted to conscience.

The concept has been profoundly abused.

And it’s no surprise that many become suspicious whenever conscience comes up in a moral controversy.

On the other hand, not every invocation of conscience is contrary to Church teaching. So what does the Church teach?

 

2) The primacy of conscience

It is often stressed that one must obey one’s conscience. This can be a tactical dodge to justify rejection of Church teaching, but it is not necessarily so.

The Church agrees that one must obey one’s conscience. The Catechism states:

A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself [CCC 1790].

In other words, it is a sin to defy a certain judgment of your conscience. If you are certain that you must not do something and you do it anyway, you are sinning by violating your conscience. You are similarly sinning if you are certain that you must do something and you refuse to do it.

Notice that this applies when you are certain. If you are uncertain, the situation can be different.

Even when you are certain, that doesn’t mean that the judgment of your conscience is right. The Catechism continues:

Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

What happens when a person’s conscience is wrong? Does that mean he’s off scot-free?

 

3) Personal responsibility and erroneous conscience

The Catechism states:

This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits [CCC 1791].

So saying that you are acting in accord with your conscience doesn’t protect you from the charge that you are sinning—and culpable for doing so. If, through your own fault, you have warped your conscience then you are still responsible.

What if your conscience is mistaken but through no fault of your own?

If—on the contrary—the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience [CCC 1793].

In this case, you aren’t culpable for your actions, but they are still evil.

 

4) Conscience and Communion

Prior to receiving Holy Communion, every person needs to examine his conscience:

To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” [1 Cor 11:27-29]. Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to Communion [CCC 1385].

This applies to people who are divorced and civilly remarried as much as anyone else.

 

5) Properly Formed Conscience on Civil Remarriage and Communion

What should a person who has divorced and civilly remarried conclude when he makes this examination of conscience? The Catechism states:

Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ—“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” [Mk 10:11-12]. The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive eucharistic Communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence [CCC 1650].

A person with a properly formed conscience will conclude that he cannot receive Communion until he has addressed his situation properly.

 

6) Erroneous Conscience on Civil Remarriage and Communion

Based on the above, a civilly remarried person not living chastely would be unable to receive Communion, and so his conscience would be erroneous if it told him that he could. What are the implications of this?

As we’ve seen, if “the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him.” He thus would not be personally culpable for receiving Communion. However, “it remains no less an evil” for him to do so (CCC 1793).

However, the ignorance responsible for a person’s erroneous conscience “can often be imputed to personal responsibility. . . . In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits” (CCC 1791).

 

7) Pastoral Care and Erroneous Conscience

What would appropriate pastoral care be for persons in this situation who have an erroneous conscience?

If the individual is not personally culpable for receiving Communion, it remains objectively evil for him to do so, and thus the Catechism states “one must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience” (CCC 1793). The Catechism’s statement could be taken to mean that one must work to correct one’s own errors, but since the pastors of the Church have an obligation to assist the faithful in forming their conscience, they share in this obligation as well.

If the individual is personally culpable for receiving Communion then the matter is even more urgent. Not only is he committing an objectively evil act but he is culpable for doing so—eating and drinking judgment upon himself, in St. Paul’s words—and the pastors of the Church need to take effective action to address the situation.

Thus in both cases—whether the person is culpable or not—it is not sufficient to simply say, “The person is following his conscience” and leave it at that. If it is an erroneous conscience, the pastors of the Church must work to correct it.

This is particularly so in light of what the Catechism has to say about common causes of errors in moral judgment:

Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct [CCC 1792].

Since “rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching” is one of the known causes of erroneous conscience, pastors of the Church must combat this by issuing calls to accept the Church’s authority and teaching (as well as explaining the reasons for doing so).

Further, simply concluding that a person is acting on his conscience and leaving the matter fosters precisely the “mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience” that the Catechism warns against.

And there is another reason why the matter cannot simply be left up to conscience . . .

 

8) Civil Remarriage, Communion, and Canon Law

The Code of Canon Law contains a provision which applies in this situation:

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion [CIC 915].

Note that this canon does not have the qualifier “unless they are acting on their conscience.”

What it specifies for the denial of Communion is “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.”

Couples who have civilly remarried are presumed to be sleeping together and thus committing grave sin, unless they are known to be living chastely. If their civilly remarried status is known in their community then the presumed state of grave sin is manifest. And if their pastor has warned them about their situation and they do nothing to address it then they are obstinately persevering in it. In such a circumstance—the way canon law is presently written—the pastor is obliged to refuse Communion.

There is thus a canonical requirement constraining pastoral action in addition to the theological ones discussed above.

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

peter-erdoRemarks 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.”

Who (or What) Was Lucifer?

morning-starRecently I got a query from someone wondering about an anti-Catholic video that claimed “the pope’s deacon” invoked Lucifer during the Easter Vigil liturgy and referred to Jesus as his Son.

Of course, that’s not what happened, but to understand what really did happen, you need to know a few things about “lucifer.”

 

What does the word lucifer mean?

It’s a Latin word derived from the roots lux (light) and ferre (to carry).

It means “light-bearer” or “light-bringer,” and it was not originally used in connection with the devil.

Instead, it could be used multiple ways. For example, anybody carrying a torch at night was a lucifer (light-bringer).

It was also used as a name for the Morning Star (i.e., the planet Venus), because this is the brightest object in the sky other than the sun and the moon. As a result, Venus is the first star seen in the evening (the Evening Star) and the last star seen in the morning (the Morning Star).

Venus is also known—in English—as the Day Star because it can be seen in the day.

Because its sighting in the morning heralds the light of day, it was referred to by Latin speakers as the “light-bringer” or lucifer.

 

So there was no connection with the devil?

No. In fact, it was used as an ordinary name. Thus in the 300s, St. Lucifer of Cagliari was a defender of the deity of Christ and of St. Athanasius against the Arians.

Another bishop in the 300s—Lucifer of Siena—also bore this name.

 

Is the symbol of the Morning Star used in any surprising ways?

Yes. The Bible uses it as a symbol for Jesus Christ. In the book of Revelation, we read:

“I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star” (Rev. 22:16).

(Spoiler alert! This is going to play a key role in what we have to say about the liturgy.)

 

So we shouldn’t freak out just because we see references to the words “lucifer” or “light-bringer” or “morning star”?

No. They have no intrinsic connection to the devil. In fact, they may be used—as in Scripture itself—as symbols of Jesus Christ.

 

How did this word get connected with the devil?

It’s based on a passage in the book of Isaiah. Chapter 14 of that book contains a taunt (a kind of ancient insult song or poem—like you might find at a modern rap battle) against one of the oppressors of Israel: the king of Babylon.

It predicts his downfall, but it also depicts his pride, which sets him up for the downfall.

Thus we read:

How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low! (Is. 14:12).

In the Latin Vulgate, that’s:

Quomodo cecidisti de caelo,
lucifer, fili aurorae?
Deiectus es in terram,
qui deiciebas gentes.

The king of Babylon thus fancies himself as something high and mighty—like the Day Star itself—but God brings him low in the end.

In this passage the reference to the Day Star/the Morning Star/lucifer is thus an ironic allusion to the king of Babylon’s prideful self-image.

 

But surely we’re talking about the human king of Babylon—not the devil. Doesn’t the passage refer to him as a man who dies?

Yes. This passage explicitly refers to the king of Babylon as a man (Heb., ’ish) who conquered kingdoms:

Those who see you will stare at you, and ponder over you:

“Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?” (Is. 14:16-17).

It also refers multiple times to his decay after death and how he will not lie in his own tomb!

Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, the sound of your harps;
maggots are the bed beneath you, and worms are your covering” (Is. 14:11).

All the kings of the nations lie in glory, each in his own tomb;
but you are cast out, away from your sepulcher, like a loathed untimely birth (Is. 14:18-19).

So we’re talking about a human king—at least in the literal sense of the text.

 

How did this passage get connected with the devil?

Some of the early Church Fathers took it that way.

They compared the pride that the king of Babylon displays in the passage (“I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High”; Is. 14:14) with the pride of the devil.

They also compared the fall of the king of Babylon to Jesus statement that he “saw Satan fall like lightning” (Luke 10:18)—though in context that passage refers to the defeat of the devil in the ministry the apostles just engaged in.

It is legitimate to use the spiritual sense of this text as an application to the devil, but many people have lost sight of the literal sense of the text, which applies to the human king of Babylon.

Worse, in the popular mind “Lucifer” has simply become a name for the devil, and that causes problems when people who only know this use encounter other uses of the term—as in the Latin liturgy.

 

Is thus just a Catholic interpretation?

No. In fact, the Protestant Reformers Luther and Calvin acknowledged it.

Luther wrote:

12. How you are fallen from heaven, Lucifer! This is not said of the angel who once was thrown out of heaven but of the king of Babylon, and it is figurative language. Isaiah becomes a disciple of Calliope and in like manner laughs at the king. Heylel [the Hebrew word used in the text] denotes the morning star, called Lucifer and the son of Dawn. “Heaven” is where we are with our heads, and that is obviously above the ground, just as that most powerful and extremely magnificent king was once above, but now his lamp is extinguished (Luther’s Works 16:140; Preface to the Prophet Isaiah, ch. 14).

Calvin as quite hostile to the application of this passage to the devil, writing:

12. How art thou fallen from heaven! Isaiah proceeds with the discourse which he had formerly begun as personating the dead, and concludes that the tyrant differs in no respect from other men, though his object was to lead men to believe that he was some god. He employs an elegant metaphor, by comparing him to Lucifer, and calls him the Son of the Dawn; and that on account of his splendor and brightness with which he shone above others. The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables (Commentary on Isaiah at 14:12).

 

So what have anti-Catholics claimed about the Easter Vigil liturgy?

Some have claimed that “the pope’s deacon” invoked Lucifer and described Jesus as the devil’s Son.

This claim is based on translating part of the Easter Vigil liturgy this way:

Flaming Lucifer who finds mankind;
I say O Lucifer, who will Never be defeated.
Christ is your Son, who came back from Hell;
shed his peaceful light and is alive and reigns in the world without end.

 

What’s the real story?

The pope does not have a personal deacon, though deacons can sing the part of the Easter Vigil liturgy known as the Exsultet, Easter Proclamation, or Paschal Proclamation. (Exsultet is its first word in Latin: “Let them exult!”)

You can read about it here.

The Exsultet is part of a ceremony involving the Paschal Candle, which symbolizes the light of Christ.

In Latin, the relevant part of the Exsultet reads:

Orámus ergo te, Dómine,
ut céreus iste in honórem tui nóminis consecrátus,
ad noctis huius calíginem destruéndam,
indefíciens persevéret.
Et in odórem suavitátis accéptus,
supérnis lumináribus misceátur.

Flammas eius lúcifer matutínus invéniat:
ille, inquam, lúcifer, qui nescit occásum.
Christus Fílius tuus,
qui, regréssus ab ínferis, humáno géneri serénus illúxit,
et vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum.

In good English (as opposed to the incompetent translation given by the anti-Catholic commentator), this means:

Therefore, O Lord,
we pray you that this candle,
hallowed to the honor of your name,
may persevere undimmed,
to overcome the darkness of this night.
Receive it as a pleasing fragrance,
and let it mingle with the lights of heaven.

May this flame be found still burning by the Morning Star:
the one Morning Star who never sets,
Christ your Son,
who, coming back from death’s domain,
has shed his peaceful light on humanity,
and lives and reigns for ever and ever.

Up to the first reference to the Morning Star, this passage of the Exsultet is asking God to let the Paschal Candle continue to give light, so that it still be burning in the morning (“May this flame be found still burning by the Morning Star”).

Then the prayer pivots to re-conceive of the Morning Star not as the literal one in the sky but as Jesus Christ himself, based on the symbol in Revelation 22:16 (“the one Morning Star who never sets, Christ your Son”).

It is a moving, poetic prayer to God—not an invocation of the devil.

Did Pope Francis Really Say Jesus Was a Failure?

pope-francis-st-patrickIn his recent homily at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Pope Francis made a comment that some have leapt on as yet another outrage committed by the pope.

Allegedly, Pope Francis said that Jesus was a failure.

I’d provide links, but I don’t want to give the outrage mongers the traffic.

I have, however, received several queries from people saying they are troubled and wonder what to make of the remark.

So for those concerned by the situation, let’s take a look at it.

 

1) What did Pope Francis actually say?

In his Sept. 24 vespers homily at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, in which he was addressing a group of priests and religious, Pope Francis said:

We can get caught up measuring the value of our apostolic works by the standards of efficiency, good management and outward success which govern the business world.

Not that these things are unimportant!

We have been entrusted with a great responsibility, and God’s people rightly expect accountability from us.

But the true worth of our apostolate is measured by the value it has in God’s eyes.

To see and evaluate things from God’s perspective calls for constant conversion in the first days and years of our vocation and, need I say, it calls for great humility.

The cross shows us a different way of measuring success.

Ours is to plant the seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labors.

And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus… and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, in the failure of the cross.

 

2) People are really upset about that?

Yes.

 

3) Really?

Yes. Next question.

 

4) Why would they be upset about it?

I’m not going to go into the psychology of the outrage mongers, beyond noting that they appear to have an anti-Francis animus that distorts their ability to read straightforward texts.

However, they are objecting to the statement that Jesus’ “life . . . ended in failure, in the failure of the cross.”

 

5) But wait! Didn’t you just omit an important qualifier in what the pope said?

Yes. The ellipsis (i.e., the “ . . . ”) in the above statement replaces the all-important qualifier “humanly speaking.”

It’s only by omitting or ignoring or misunderstanding this qualifier that one could take offense at the pope’s remark.

This qualifier tells the listener (or reader) that the statement is only an apparent, not an actual, description of affairs.

Pope Francis means that from a superficial, human point of view Jesus’ death might make it look like he was a failure, but from God’s perspective, this was not so.

 

6) How would that human assessment work?

In Jesus’ day, people expected the Messiah to lead a triumphant rebellion against the Romans, restore political independence to Israel, and reign in Jerusalem as a Davidic king.

Jesus didn’t do any of those things.

Instead, the Romans killed him, and they did so in a particularly painful and humiliating way via his death on a cross.

Similarly, his followers were scattered and took to meeting in secret after his crucifixion.

From the perspective of most people of the day, based on their expectations of what the Messiah would do, he looked like a failed political revolutionary.

 

7) How does that contrast with the true perspective on Jesus?

From God’s perspective, Jesus did exactly what he was supposed to.

He was never meant to lead a political rebellion against the Romans. He expressly told the Roman governor, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

Instead, he fulfilled God’s plan precisely by dying on the cross.

And, while his followers may have been scattered and driven to meeting secretly for a time, they later became a massive movement that converted the Roman Empire to the Christian Faith.

Even in the first generation of that process, the early Christians could be described as having “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6).

While, from a human perspective, Jesus and his movement looked like failures at the moment he was killed, from God’s perspective, Jesus was a success, and in time this would be revealed by the fruit his movement bore.

 

8) How do we know this is what Pope Francis has in mind?

Well, the phrase “humanly speaking” tells the reader that the pope is setting up precisely this kind of contrast between the human and the divine perspective.

So does the surrounding text. Look at the beginning of the quotation above: The pope is telling priests and religious that they should not judge the success of their efforts by purely worldly standards. That kind of evaluation has a role, but it is not the definitive standard. Instead, God’s perspective is.

Thus he stressed:

But the true worth of our apostolate is measured by the value it has in God’s eyes. . . .

The cross shows us a different way of measuring success.

Ours is to plant the seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labors.

The pope’s point is that, judged by worldly standards, our efforts might seem to end in failure, when in reality—from God’s perspective—they are actually succeeding!

Thus he reminds us that

if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus

It is at this point that he introduces the merely apparent failure of Jesus’ efforts in human terms and how the apparent “failure of the Cross” was actually a brilliant success that bore fruit according to God’s timetable rather than man’s.

 

9) Isn’t this contrast between the human and the divine perspective on Jesus’ ministry reflected in the New Testament?

Yes. Multiple times. One example is 1 Corinthians 1, where St. Paul writes:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men (1 Cor. 1:18, 22-25).

The fact that Jesus’ death on the cross was scandalous and a mark of failure to people in Paul’s own day (“folly . . . a stumbling block to Jews and folly to the Greeks”) is being contrasted with the true perspective, according to which it is “the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

It is precisely this contrast in perspective that Pope Francis is referring to.

 

10) Couldn’t Francis have been clearer?

One can always say that someone could have been clearer (even when this isn’t true).

But we, as listeners and readers, have an obligation to devote reasonable efforts to understanding what is being said in the things we hear and read.

Pope Francis is not obliged to speak at all times in public as if he were addressing small children.

When he’s addressing adults, he can reasonably expect them to know what is meant by phrases like “humanly speaking” and to be able to recognize the use of ironic references like “the failure of the cross.”

St. Paul expects the same thing of his readers when he uses phrases like “the foolishness of God.” (Just imagine how the outrage mongers would get the vapors if Pope Francis had uttered that phrase!)

Popes—and this certainly includes Pope Francis—are not always clear, but this is not one of those times. What Pope Francis said is perfectly clear for anyone who reads it attentively and with good will.

In the Foreword to his Jesus of Nazareth series, Pope Benedict XVI made a simple request:

I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.

That is precisely what the outrage mongers are not showing to Pope Francis in this case.