Sacraments – Page 2

Cardinal Muller on Amoris Laetitiae: 12 things to know and share

Gerhard-Ludwig-Müller Cardinal Gerhard Muller has made public comments on Pope Francis’s document Amoris Laetitiae and the controversy surrounding it.

Here are 12 things to know and share . . .

1) What is Amoris Laetitiae?

It’s a document issued by Pope Francis in April of 2016.

It deals with marriage and how the Church can help married couples.

The text of the document is online here, and a discussion of it is here.

More commentary, from a Catholic perspective, here.

2) Why has there been controversy around Amoris Laetitiae?

Certain passages in it have been taken to mean that couples who are divorced and civilly remarried can continue to have sex and receive the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist.

This would be at variance with the historic Catholic understanding because such couples would not be validly married to each other and thus sexual relations between them would be adulterous.

Because of different interpretations of the document, a group of four cardinals recently asked Pope Francis to answer several clarifying questions on the document and how it relates to Catholic teaching. Info on that here.

Thus far, Pope Francis has not publicly responded to these queries.

3) Who is Cardinal Muller?

He’s the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is the department at the Vatican charged with correcting doctrinal errors.

This is the same department that Pope Benedict XVI was head of before he was elected pope.

Cardinal Muller is thus, in terms of his office, Pope Francis’s right hand man when it comes to doctrine.

4) Where did Cardinal Muller make his remarks?

Most recently he did so in an interview that was published in the Italian apologetics magazine Il Timone (“The Rudder”).

That issue is available for purchase online here.

Thus far, I haven’t found a complete English translation of the interview, but key sections of it are provided here.

5) What does Cardinal Muller say in this interview?

He addresses several issues, including:

Whether there can be a conflict between doctrine and personal conscience
How Amoris Laetitiae is to be interpreted
Whether the requirement that divorced and remarried couples who cannot separate for practical reasons must live as brother and sister to receive the sacraments
How to resolve the chaos surrounding the different interpretations of Amoris Laetitiae

6) What did Cardinal Muller say on the conflict between doctrine and personal conscience?

This was the exchange on that point:

Q: Can there be a contradiction between doctrine and personal conscience?

A: No, that is impossible. For example, it cannot be said that there are circumstances according to which an act of adultery does not constitute a mortal sin. For Catholic doctrine, it is impossible for mortal sin to coexist with sanctifying grace. In order to overcome this absurd contradiction, Christ has instituted for the faithful the Sacrament of penance and reconciliation with God and with the Church.

I find this response somewhat puzzling. There may be a problem with the transcription or translation of the question or answer.

First, it is obvious that sometimes people’s consciences contradict Church teaching. In this situation they have what is termed an erroneous conscience.

I assume that Cardinal Muller means that there cannot be a contradiction between a person’s conscience and the Church’s teaching unless their conscience is in error.

Second, the Church holds that three conditions must be met for a mortal sin to be committed: It must have (1) grave matter and be committed with both (2) full knowledge of its moral status and (3) deliberate consent in spite of this knowledge.

An adulterous act always has grave matter, but there are cases in which a person may lack full knowledge or deliberate consent, in which case the sin is objectively grave but not mortal.

I assume that the cardinal is speaking of an adulterous act in which these two conditions are also met.

7) What did Cardinal Muller say on how Amoris Laetitiae is to be interpreted?

The exchange on this point was:

Q: This [see the previous Q and A] is a question that is being extensively discussed with regard to the debate surrounding the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Laetitia.”

A: “Amoris Laetitia” must clearly be interpreted in the light of the whole doctrine of the Church. […] I don’t like it, it is not right that so many bishops are interpreting “Amoris Laetitia” according to their way of understanding the pope’s teaching. This does not keep to the line of Catholic doctrine. The magisterium of the pope is interpreted only by him or through the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. The pope interprets the bishops, it is not the bishops who interpret the pope, this would constitute an inversion of the structure of the Catholic Church. To all these who are talking too much, I urge them to study first the doctrine [of the councils] on the papacy and the episcopate. The bishop, as teacher of the Word, must himself be the first to be well-formed so as not to fall into the risk of the blind leading the blind. […]

Again, Cardinal Muller’s response contains what might seem like puzzling elements that may be due to a problem with transcription or translation.

Obviously, anyone reading Amoris Laetitiae must seek to understand what the pope is saying and in that sense interpret it.

Therefore, I assume what the cardinal is referring to is what is known in ecclesiastical circles as an “authentic interpretation.”

“Authentic” is a term of art in ecclesiastical documents that means authoritative. An authentic interpretation is thus an authoritative declaration concerning the meaning of a text.

Cardinal Muller thus seems to be saying that bishops (and others) do not have the ability to make authoritative declarations about the meaning of the pope’s teachings. Only the pope himself and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (as authorized by the pope) are capable of doing so.

Authentic interpretations are periodically issued by the Holy See in official documents.

Thus an authoritative interpretation of Amoris Laetitiae would only be made in a new, public proclamation by the pope or the CDF.

Unless and until such a declaration is made, Amoris is to be interpreted “in the light of the whole doctrine of the Church,” including its historic understanding of the effects of divorce and civil remarriage.

8) What did Cardinal Muller say about the obligation of those who are divorced and civilly remarried to live continently if they are to receive the sacraments?

Here is the exchange on that point:

Q: The exhortation of Saint John Paul II, “Familiaris Consortio,” stipulates that divorced and remarried couples that cannot separate, in order to receive the sacraments must commit to live in continence. Is this requirement still valid?

A: Of course, it is not dispensable, because it is not only a positive law of John Paul II, but he expressed an essential element of Christian moral theology and the theology of the sacraments. The confusion on this point also concerns the failure to accept the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor,” with the clear doctrine of the “intrinsece malum.” [“intrinsically evil (act)”] […] For us marriage is the expression of participation in the unity between Christ the bridegroom and the Church his bride. This is not, as some said during the Synod, a simple vague analogy. No! This is the substance of the sacrament, and no power in heaven or on earth, neither an angel, nor the pope, nor a council, nor a law of the bishops, has the faculty to change it.

In this context, a “positive law” refers to a law that is made by humans (as opposed to “natural law,” which refers to the laws God built into human nature).

Cardinal Muller thus means that the principle in question is not simply a law John Paul II made up and that therefore would be capable of being changed. It belongs to divine law and cannot be changed by man.

He comments that confusion on this area is rooted in the refusal of some to accept the teaching John Paul II articulated in Veritatis Splendor that some acts are intrinsically evil and can never be done—such as an act of adultery.

He says that marriage “for us” (meaning either “from a Catholic point of view” or “marriage between the baptized”) has a sacramental nature that participates in the unity between Christ and the Church.

Such unity requires fidelity and thus absolutely excludes adultery—something he indicates nobody, including the pope, can change.

9) What did Cardinal Muller say regarding how to deal with the confusion surrounding Amoris Laetitiae?

Here is the exchange on this point:

Q: How can one resolve the chaos that is being generated on account of the different interpretations that are given of this passage of Amoris Laetitia?

A: I urge everyone to reflect, studying the doctrine of the Church first, starting from the Word of God in Sacred Scripture, which is very clear on marriage. I would also advise not entering into any casuistry that can easily generate misunderstandings, above all that according to which if love dies, then the marriage bond is dead. These are sophistries: the Word of God is very clear and the Church does not accept the secularization of marriage. The task of priests and bishops is not that of creating confusion, but of bringing clarity. One cannot refer only to little passages present in “Amoris Laetitia,” but it has to be read as a whole, with the purpose of making the Gospel of marriage and the family more attractive for persons. It is not “Amoris Laetitia” that has provoked a confused interpretation, but some confused interpreters of it. All of us must understand and accept the doctrine of Christ and of his Church, and at the same time be ready to help others to understand it and put it into practice even in difficult situations.

10) Since Cardinal Muller is the head of the CDF, does this mean his remarks can be taken as an authentic (authoritative) interpretation of Amoris Laetitiae?

No. Authentic interpretations by the CDF are issued in documents published by the Congregation and approved by the pope.

They are not made in interviews with apologetics magazines.

11) Could we see Cardinal Muller’s remarks as an unofficial response to the questions submitted by the four cardinals? I.e., that the pope doesn’t want to respond officially at this time, so he asked Cardinal Muller to give an unofficial response?

This is not likely. If we knew nothing else about Pope Francis’s views on the interpretation of Amoris Laetitiae, this would be a reasonable conjecture. However, we do know more.

We have significant evidence that Pope Francis has a different view (as acknowledged even in this piece by Fr. Raymond de Sousa, which is perhaps the most optimistic I have read).

However, thus far Pope Francis has not issued an authentic interpretation of the disputed points in Amoris Laetitiae, nor has he authorized the CDF to publish one.

It therefore appears that Cardinal Muller is giving his own views about how the document should be interpreted and that these views differ from the way Pope Francis would like to see the document interpreted.

12) For the pope and the head of the CDF to disagree on a point like this seems very serious. What should we do?

Pray for them both—and for the Church as a whole.

Pope Francis on Invalid Marriages

Pope Francis recently made some remarks regarding invalid marriages, and I’ve received a large number of requests for comment, so here goes . . .

1) When did Pope Francis make his remarks?

During a Q & A session on Thursday, June 16. He was answering questions at the opening ceremony for a diocesan congress dealing with his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (i.e., the document that he released after the two synods of bishops).

His remarks were, therefore, unscripted.

2) What did he say?

Unfortunately, the Vatican doesn’t yet seem to have a full transcript available in English. The Italian, however, is here.

Without an English transcript to quote, we switch over to news reporting, according to which:

A layman asked about the “crisis of marriage” and how Catholics can help educate youth in love, help them learn about sacramental marriage, and help them overcome “their resistance, delusions and fears.”

The Pope answered from his own experience.

“I heard a bishop say some months ago that he met a boy that had finished his university studies, and said ‘I want to become a priest, but only for 10 years.’ It’s the culture of the provisional. And this happens everywhere, also in priestly life, in religious life,” he said.

“It’s provisional, and because of this the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null. Because they say ‘yes, for the rest of my life!’ but they don’t know what they are saying. Because they have a different culture. They say it, they have good will, but they don’t know.”

3) Wait. “The great majority of our sacramental marriages are null”? He really said that?

Yes. He really said that. It’s on video (in Italian) on the Vatican’s YouTube channel here.

4) Is this Church teaching?

No. The Church does not have a teaching about what percentage of marriages (ostensibly sacramental or otherwise) are invalid.

Further, Q & A sessions are not the venue in which new magisterial teachings are promulgated.

At most, this would be an expression of pastoral opinion on the part of the pope.

5) Does anyone agree with this opinion?

Not that I am aware of.

I know of no competent expert in canon law, biblical studies, or theology that would hold the opinion that “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null.”

In fact, I don’t know of anybody—expert or not—who would hold this view.

If Pope Francis holds it, he would be the only one I am aware of.

6) Why do you say “if Pope Francis holds it”?

Because I’m not certain that he does.

Experience has shown that Pope Francis is a man who makes dramatic and inexact statements, particularly when speaking off the cuff.

This is related to his “make a mess” philosophy, according to which it is better to get people’s attention and shake things up rather than let the Church slide into cultural irrelevance.

In a fashion, he seems to be trying to imitate Jesus, who frequently used hyperbole to make arresting statements that tweaked the pious sensibilities of his age. Thus Pope Francis sometimes compares those he critiques to Pharisees and doctors of the law—the same groups that opposed Jesus.

On occasion, everybody blurts things out without fully thinking them through, and I can’t rule out the possibility that this was simply a case of hyperbole gone wrong—particularly in light of the problems with the claim in question.

Perhaps the pope meant to say something like “a vast number” and ended up saying “the vast majority” instead.

Even a moment’s thought would reveal that the claim is seriously problematic, suggesting that this is not the pope’s settled opinion but something that he blurted out without giving it serious thought.

7) Why do you say that?

There are multiple problems with the claim. Some emerge from considering the statement from a canonical perspective (see here). However, I would point to two additional considerations, one from a theological perspective and one from a biblical perspective.

8) What’s the theological argument?

From a theological perspective, the claim is extraordinarily sweeping. It’s not just that many Catholic marriages are invalid or even that a majority are (which would already exceed credibility) but that “the vast majority” of such marriages are invalid.

That would mean that Christ and the Holy Spirit have allowed conditions to degenerate so far among the baptized that “the vast majority” of those committed enough to follow the Church’s teachings and practice on marriage nevertheless enter marriage invalidly.

That’s inconceivable.

9) What’s the biblical argument?

From a biblical perspective, we don’t see Jesus taking this line in his day.

It is easy for us today to imagine that attitudes toward divorce were stricter in the ancient world, and particularly among first century Jews, than they are today, but they were not.

Basically everybody in the ancient world—except Christians—held that marriage did not prevent the possibility of getting divorced and remarried.

This was true among the Romans, among the Greeks, and among the Jews. Indeed, a prominent school of Jewish thought held that a man could divorce his wife over nothing more than a burned meal.

Seriously.

And even among Jews who had a more restricted view of divorce—such as the rival school which held a man could divorce his wife if she committed adultery or did something else to bring shame on him—it was always understood that divorce carried with it the right of remarriage.

The culture that Jesus lived in was just as much a “culture of the provisional” with respect to marriage as ours.

And yet Jesus didn’t treat their marriages as invalid but as valid. He stated:

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).

Jesus would not have spoken this way if he viewed “the vast majority” of marriages in his day as invalid. If you were only invalidly married to a woman, you divorced her, and you then attempted marriage with another woman, you wouldn’t be committing adultery against the first wife.

Without a valid first marriage, there would be no adultery.

Jesus thus indicated that one can enter a valid marriage without understanding it as precluding the possibility of divorce and remarriage.

And the Church has understood it likewise. Merely thinking you could, under some circumstances, divorce and remarry is not grounds for an annulment.

10) Have there been any developments since the pope made his remarks?

Yes. According to news reports:

When the Vatican released its official transcript of the encounter the following day, they had changed the comment to say that “a portion of our sacramental marriages are null.”

This is not unexpected. It is common practice, extending back multiple papacies, for the official version of a pope’s remarks to be amended to correct misstatements, sources of potential confusion, etc.

When the matter concerns something of substance, it is normal for the change to be personally approved by the pope, which is what happened in this case:

In the Vatican blog “Il sismografo,” Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that this change is a revision approved by the Pope himself.

“When they touch on subjects of a certain importance, the revised text is always submitted to the Pope himself,” Father Lombardi said. “This is what happened in this case, so the published text was expressly approved by the Pope.”

11) What should we make of all this?

The fact Pope Francis made the remark in the first place is a source for concern, and it should prompt him to reflect on and re-evaluate the way he answers questions in public, for this is far from the first time something like this has happened when he has answered questions off the cuff.

We may be thankful that there was sufficient presence of mind on the part of those around the pope to propose the change to the official version of the remarks, and we may be thankful that the pope approved the change.

Given the amount of confusion regarding the marriage issue, both in society and in Church circles, I suggest we keep the matter in prayer.

Looking for Something Good to Read?

May I suggest my commentary on the Gospel of Mark?

It goes through the whole text and provides fascinating information that you may have never heard before.

It also comes with a verse-by-verse study guide with questions that you or your study group can use.

And it comes with a lectionary-based study guide, so you can read along with Mark in the liturgy and ponder its meaning before or after Mass.

Right now, this commentary is available exclusively on Verbum Catholic software.

Verbum is an incredibly powerful study tool that I use every day, and I heartily recommend it to others.

I can also save you 10% when you get the commentary or one of the bundles of Verbum software. Just use the code JIMMY1 at checkout.

CLICK HERE TO GET JIMMY AKIN’S STUDIES ON MARK.

Pope Francis’s Commission on Women Deacons: 12 things to know and share

Pope Francis has agreed to create a commission to study the possibility of women deacons.

Here are 12 things to know and share . . .

1) What has happened?

On Thursday, May 12, Pope Francis was meeting with a group of women religious who asked him about the possibility of creating a commission to study the possibility of women deacons, or deaconesses.

Edward Pentin reports:

Speaking to around 900 members of the International Union of Superiors General today, representing half a million religious sisters from 80 countries, the Pope was asked if he would establish “an official commission” to study the question of women deacons.

He replied: “I accept. It would be useful for the Church to clarify this question. I agree.”

2) Who would be on this commission, when would it meet, and when would we know its results?

At present, all of these are unknown.

The commission could be run under the auspices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

The International Theological Commission, which is an advisory body run by the CDF, could be tasked with studying the issue.

Alternately, a new commission run by the CDF could be created to study the question.

Or a special, independent commission could be created, though its results would be vetted by the CDF.

Since the pope has only just agreed to the proposal, no timetable has been announced.

The commission could begin meeting within a year, but it likely would be several years before its work would be finished.

Once it is finished, the resulting report(s) would be submitted to the CDF and/or the pope.

They might or might not then be released publicly.

3) Why doesn’t the Church presently ordain women to the diaconate?

The Church holds that:

Only a baptized man (Latin, vir) validly receives sacred ordination (CCC 1577).

Although the matter has been debated historically, the Church’s present understanding is that the diaconate belongs to the sacrament of holy orders:

Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are all three conferred by a sacramental act called “ordination,” that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders (CCC 1554).

If the sacrament of holy orders can be validly received only by a baptized man and if the diaconate is a grade of holy orders then only a baptized man can be validly ordained a deacon.

Thus women could not be ordained to the diaconate, understood in its sacramental sense.

4) Are there other senses in which the term “deacon” can be used?

The Greek term for deacon is diakonos. Its basic meaning is “servant” or “minister,” and it can be used in a wide variety of senses.

Indeed, Jesus himself says the he came not to be served but to serve (diakonesai) in Matthew 20:28.

Similarly, Paul says he and Apollos are “servants” (diakonoi) in 1 Corinthians 3:5.

And all Christians are called to play this role, for “he who is greatest among you shall be your servant (diakonos)” (Matt. 23:11).

The term thus has a wide variety of meanings besides the one the Church understands as a grade of ordained ministry.

5) Were there female deacons—or deaconesses—in the early Church?

Yes. For example, St. Paul’s letter to the Romans was carried from Cenchreae (the port of Corinth, where Paul wrote it) to Rome by a deaconess named Phoebe. St. Paul writes:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae, that you may receive her in the Lord as befits the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a helper of many and of myself as well (Rom. 16:1-2).

In later centuries, deaconesses performed a variety of roles, primarily in ministry to women.

6) How could there be female deacons if only a male can be validly ordained?

This would be possible if the term “deaconess” was being used in a different way than to refer to the diaconal grade of ordained ministry.

Thus the canons of the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) refer to deaconesses that have not been ordained:

And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity (canon 19).

In other words, these deaconesses were servants or ministers in the Church but did not exercise ordained ministry.

7) Does the Church teach infallibly that only men can be ordained?

At present, the Church teaches infallibly that:

[T]he Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful (John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis)

This teaching is not regarded as being infallible due to a papal statement but because of the ordinary and universal exercise of the Magisterium (see here).

The Church thus infallibly teaches that that priestly ordination (i.e., ordination to the rank of priest or bishop) cannot be conferred on women, but this teaching has not been extended to diaconal ordination.

As we saw under (3), above, one can deduce that women cannot receive diaconal ordination from the fact that the Church teaches only a baptized man can be ordained and that the diaconate is a grade of holy orders, but the Church has not yet confirmed this inference as an infallible teaching.

8) Does that mean that the Church could one day revise this part of its teaching and allow women to be ordained to the diaconate?

That is, presumably, one of the questions the commission would be tasked with clarifying.

9) What might the commission recommend?

Assuming it issued a single report (as opposed to a set of reports reflecting the different positions of commission members), it might recommend a number of things, including:

No change to present teaching and discipline
Ordination of women to the diaconal grade of holy orders
Reintroduction of non-ordained deaconesses
Further study of the question

10) Would the commission’s recommendations change anything?

Commissions are advisory bodies. The Magisterium may take or not take their recommendations.

Any change to the Church’s present teaching and practice in this area would, at a minimum, require the pope’s authorization, and it might well involve a broader consultation of the Magisterium, such as by a synod of bishops.

11) What is the best guide to current, orthodox Catholic thought on the subject on women and the diaconate?

In 2002 the International Theological Commission, one of the advisory bodies operated by the CDF, issued a report titled From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles.

Although not a document of the Magisterium, it was approved for release by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and represents orthodox and learned Catholic opinion on the topic.

This document will likely serve as the starting point for the forthcoming commission on the question.

You can read it here.

12) What does the document say?

It has an extended section (IV. The Ministry of Deaconesses) dealing with the way deaconesses functioned in the early Church.

On the question of ordination, the document concludes by saying:

With regard to the ordination of women to the diaconate, it should be noted that two important indications emerge from what has been said up to this point:

The deaconesses mentioned in the tradition of the ancient Church—as evidenced by the rite of institution and the functions they exercised—were not purely and simply equivalent to the deacons;
The unity of the sacrament of Holy Orders, in the clear distinction between the ministries of the bishop and the priests on the one hand and the diaconal ministry on the other, is strongly underlined by ecclesial tradition, especially in the teaching of the Magisterium.

In the light of these elements which have been set out in the present historico-theological research document, it pertains to the ministry of discernment which the Lord established in his Church to pronounce authoritatively on this question.

The two points that it makes—that the ancient deaconesses “were not purely and simply equivalent to the deacons” and the support that tradition and the magisterium have given to the diaconal ministry as an element of holy orders—suggest that women could not be ordained to the diaconate. However, the matter was left to the future discernment of the Magisterium.

Looking for Something Good to Read?

May I suggest my commentary on the Gospel of Mark?

It goes through the whole text and provides fascinating information that you may have never heard before.

It also comes with a verse-by-verse study guide with questions that you or your study group can use.

And it comes with a lectionary-based study guide, so you can read along with Mark in the liturgy and ponder its meaning before or after Mass.

Right now, this commentary is available exclusively on Verbum Catholic software.

Verbum is an incredibly powerful study tool that I use every day, and I heartily recommend it to others.

I can also save you 10% when you get the commentary or one of the bundles of Verbum software. Just use the code JIMMY1 at checkout.

CLICK HERE TO GET JIMMY AKIN’S STUDIES ON MARK.

Pope Francis on Intercommunion with Lutherans

Pope 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.

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

The 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!

Conscience and Communion

There 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

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.”

Pope Francis Reforms Annulment Process: 9 things to know and share

On September 8, the Holy See released a pair of documents by Pope Francis which reform the way in which the Church handles annulments.

Here are 9 things to know and share . . .

1) What is an annulment? Is it the same thing as a divorce?

An annulment (formally known as a “declaration of nullity”) is a ruling that a particular marriage was null from the beginning—that is, something was gravely wrong at the time the time of the wedding and it prevented a valid marriage from coming into existence.

This is different than a divorce, which proposes to dissolve a marriage that is in existence.

2) Why are annulments an important issue in the Catholic Church?

Jesus Christ expressly taught that if two people divorce and then remarry that they are committing the grave sin of adultery. He taught:

“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).

Because of this teaching, the Church cannot simply give divorced people permission to remarry. To do so would be to give them permission to commit adultery.

Consequently, if a divorced person wishes to remarry, the Church needs to examine the first marriage to see if it was valid or not.

If it was valid then the person is still bound to their previous spouse and cannot marry another person.

If it was not valid then the parties to the first marriage are not bound and so, unless something else affects the situation, they are free to marry other people.

The number of people in our society who are divorced makes this a pressing pastoral problem.

3) How does the annulment process work?

This is a complicated subject, but in simplest terms, the rules governing annulments are expressed principally in two documents: the Code of Canon Law, which governs the western Catholic church, and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which governs the eastern Catholic churches.

When a man and a woman have divorced, they can contact the appropriate diocese and have their marriage investigated to see if it was valid.

This process could be simple or lengthy, depending on the nature of the case and the forms of evidence available.

If their marriage was not valid then they would be given a decree of nullity or “annulment.”

4) What has Pope Francis done?

He has issued two documents, each of which is a motu proprio. A motu proprio is a document issued on the pope’s initiative. They are frequently used to establish or clarify legal matters (as opposed to matters of doctrine, which are dealt with in other documents, such as encyclicals).

A famous example is the 2007 motu proprio issued by Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, in which he gave greater permission for the celebration of the traditional Latin liturgy.

The two documents issued by Pope Francis are:

Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (“The Lord Jesus, the Gentle Judge”), which reforms the annulment process for the western church (Latin, Italian), and
Mitis et Misericors Iesus (“Gentle and Merciful Jesus”), which reforms the annulment process for the eastern Catholic churches (Latin, Italian).

At the time of this writing, these documents are only available in Latin and Italian. An English translation is not presently available, though you can use Google to produce a machine translation of the Italian version using the links above. (Also, here’s a partial, unofficial translation provided by Vatican Radio.)

These documents were prepared, at Pope Francis’s direction, by a group of legal experts at the Vatican, which he appointed to the task in October of 2014.

Both documents contain an introduction explaining the pope’s actions, followed by a set of canons which replace the sections on annulments in the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

Appended to each document is a set of procedural rules explaining to bishops (and others) how the new processes are to work.

5) Why has Pope Francis done this?

He did so out of a desire to make the annulment process more efficient. In many parts of the world, the process has been notoriously slow and difficult. In some countries, it could be practically impossible to get a Church court to even hear one’s case, and if they did take it, it could take many years to get a ruling.

Thus, as Pope Francis notes, the 2014 Synod of Bishops requested changes to the annulment process. The Synod wrote:

A great number of synod fathers emphasized the need to make the procedure in cases of nullity more accessible and less time-consuming, and, if possible, at no expense.

They proposed, among others, the dispensation of the requirement of second instance for confirming sentences; the possibility of establishing an administrative means under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop; and a simple process to be used in cases where nullity is clearly evident.

Some synod fathers, however, were opposed to these proposals, because they felt that they would not guarantee a reliable judgment.

In all these cases, the synod fathers emphasized the primary character of ascertaining the truth about the validity of the marriage bond.

Among other proposals, the role which faith plays in persons who marry could possibly be examined in ascertaining the validity of the Sacrament of Marriage, all the while maintaining that the marriage of two baptized Christians is always a sacrament [Relatio Synodi 48].

The new documents seek to make the annulment process more accessible and less time-consuming.

They do not require the process to be free of charge (dioceses need to pay the people who work on these cases, and in some cases that means paying a fee to partially cover the costs), but the procedural norms attached to the documents do call for the costs to be minimized (see Art. 7 §2).

6) What changes did Pope Francis make to the process?

This is a complicated subject, because he replaced the sections in the two codes of canon law that deal with annulments. In the case of the western Code, that means he had twenty-one canons rewritten (canons 1671-1691).

Some of the changes were slight, but there are too many to go into here.

Among the major changes, as listed in the introduction to Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus, are as follows:

Only a single judgment of nullity is required. Until now, in most cases, if one tribunal determined that a marriage was null, the decision was automatically appealed to a court of second instance, and only if the second tribunal agreed was an annulment granted. Now the morally certain decision of the first court will be sufficient in uncontested cases.

The bishop himself is a judge. Although the bishop has always been the principal judge in his diocese, previously, the section on annulments did not establish that the bishop himself was a judge in marriage cases. Now, in keeping with his role as shepherd of the faithful, it does. In fact, he is the principal judge in his diocese, to be assisted by others whom he chooses. The new law thus puts the responsibility squarely on the bishop as a pastor.

A new, briefer process involving the bishop has been created. Up to now there have been two processes for handling annulments: the formal process (which is the lengthier one involving gathering and weighing testimony) and the documentary process (which deals with situations where a marriage can be proved invalid simply by presenting certain documents, such as showing that a Catholic got married outside the Church without the required permission). Now there is a middle process involving the bishop. If the evidences for nullity are especially clear, they can be presented to the bishop in a process intended to take less time than a formal process case. However, if the evidences require more examination, the case is to be referred to the formal process.

Appeals can be made against the judgment of the bishop to the metropolitan. As a check on the judgment of the bishop, parties can appeal his decision to the metropolitan bishop (i.e., the bishop who heads the local ecclesiastical province, composed of several neighboring dioceses). Or, if it was the metropolitan himself who heard the original case, appeal can be made to the senior suffragan bishop (i.e., the bishop in the province with the most seniority, apart from the metropolitan).

7) In what kind of situations can the new, shorter process be used?

According to the procedural norms attached to Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (see Art. 14 § 1), these cases include the following:

lack of faith resulting in the simulation of consent to be married or an error that determines the will regarding one of the requirements of marriage
the brevity of married life (i.e., the couple divorced very quickly after being married)
procured abortion to prevent procreation (presumably during the marriage itself, prior to bearing other children and thus showing an unwillingness to procreate)
the stubborn persistence in a extramarital affair at the time of the wedding or at a time immediately following
the malicious concealment of:
- infertility
- a serious contagious disease
- children born from a previous relationship
- an incarceration
a reason for getting married that is completely foreign to married life (presumably something like entering a legal fiction of a marriage to be able to immigrate or gain an inheritance) or consisting of the unplanned pregnancy of the woman
the physical violence inflicted to extort the consent to marry
the lack of use of reason proved by medical documents

8) When does all this take effect?

Not immediately. According to Vatican Information Service, the effective date is December 8, 2015.
9) Is there more to say about all this?

Lots. However, this will do for an initial look at the subject.

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.

The Logic of Baptism

There is a classic passage in the final chapter of Mark’s Gospel, where we read:

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” [Mark 16:15-16].

Christians through the ages have seen in this passage a powerful statement of the importance of baptism. Taken at face value, it indicates that baptism is instrumental in salvation.

Or does it?

Some (though by no means all) in the Protestant community argue that this passage doesn’t do that. Let’s look at a few such arguments.

Jesus’ Statements and Logic

The first argument is based on the logical structure of what Jesus says. This will be clearer if we restate it more formally, using a few conventions of propositional logic.

In the example that follows, let us use the following conventions:

F = “John believes/John has faith.”

B = “John is baptized.”

S = “John will be saved.”

With these conventions in place, we can restate the relevant claims from Mark in the following form:

1) If F and B then S

2) If not-F then not-S

The Argument

Although many of our Protestant brethren, including Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Church of Christ members, and many Presbyterians are prepared to acknowledge that baptism has a role in imparting salvation, others do not. This viewpoint is principally found in groups that are popular in American Evangelicalism, including Baptists and many non-denominational Christians.

When they consider the above statements based on Mark 16:15-16, they might argue this way:

Statement (1) does not prove that baptism has a role in salvation. Logically speaking, it names two conditions (F and B) and says that if these two conditions are fulfilled in the case of a particular person then that person will be saved (S). This does not mean, however, that the two conditions are both necessary.
It might be that one of these conditions is not necessary. In propositional logic, you can name non-necessary conditions without affecting the truth of a statement.
For example, let B represent “John bakes a chocolate cake.” Chocolate cake baking is in no way relevant to salvation, but the statement “If (John has faith) and (John bakes a chocolate cake) then (John will be saved)” is still true. Perhaps baptism is in the same category as chocolate cake baking with respect to salvation.
In fact, statement (2) indicates that having faith (F) is the necessary condition, because Jesus says that not having faith will result in not being saved. He does not say the same thing about baptism. Therefore, baptism is not necessary for salvation.

How Irrelevant Can You Get?

It is true that, in propositional logic, you can name non-necessary and even irrelevant conditions and not affect the truth value of a proposition. In fact, you can name nothing but irrelevant conditions and still have a true statement. For example:

If (it’s Thursday at 2:00 p.m.) and (it’s raining outside) then (2 + 2 = 4).

This proposition is quite true, but the conditions of it being Thursday at 2:00 p.m. and it raining outside have nothing to do with whether 2 + 2 = 4.

What this shows us is that, while propositional logic can be a useful tool, it doesn’t always model human discourse well. That’s one reason that philosophers have explored ideas like relevance logic.

The Relevance Rule

A key aspect of human discourse is the commonly unstated but nearly universal implication that what you are saying is relevant to the topic at hand.

That’s why statements like the one above about 2 + 2 = 4 seem bizarre to us. If someone makes a statement to you that begins by appealing to the day and time and then to the weather, you will expect the conclusion they draw to be relevant to the time and the weather. If they suddenly conclude that 2 + 2 = 4 then you will be jarred, because that’s not the way that human discourse normally works.

You may wonder whether they are joking with you, by breaking the rule about relevance in discourse, or you may wonder whether they have very eccentric notions about mathematics, but either way, you have an in-built expectation that what they are saying will be relevant to the conclusion they draw.

The example of John baking a chocolate cake is similar. It’s the kind of example that one would make in an abstract discussion about propositional logic, but to appeal to this kind of reasoning when looking at normal human discourse would be rightly regarded as logic chopping.

Jesus would not name irrelevant conditions when telling people how to be saved, and especially not in a solemn statement like the Great Commission. In this, of all places, one would expect the implication of relevance to be followed.

In fact, if Mark had recorded Jesus saying, “He who has faith and bakes a chocolate cake will be saved” then that would give us reason to think that chocolate cake baking is relevant to salvation, and Christians down through the ages would have understood accordingly.

No Mention of Baptism in the Second Statement?

What about Jesus’ statement that he who does not believe will be condemned? Does this show that baptism is not relevant to salvation?

Strictly speaking, no. All the statement establishes is that faith is a necessary condition for salvation. It does not mean that baptism is not also a necessary condition.

For example, consider this pair of propositions:

If (you have eggs) and (you break the eggs) then (you can make an omelet).
But if (you don’t have eggs) then (you can’t make an omelet).

Either not having eggs or not breaking the eggs would prevent one from making an omelet. They are both necessary conditions, and the mere fact that only one is mentioned in the second statement does not mean that the other is not also necessary.

Indeed, it is proverbial that you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

Why doesn’t the text say something like “He who does not believe or is not baptized will be condemned?”

Presumably for two reasons: First, the relevance of baptism for salvation has already been stressed in the previous statement. Second, in an evangelistic context, faith is naturally prior to baptism.

In the first century, the apostles and other evangelists were going out and preaching the gospel for the first time, and so the great majority of converts were adults. As a result, they first came to faith and then were baptized on the basis of their faith—the same way adult converts to Judaism first came to faith in the God of Israel and then were circumcised.

Failing to have faith was thus a conversion stopper. If someone didn’t come to faith then they would not go on to be baptized (or be circumcised). It thus wasn’t necessary to go into the second condition if the first was not fulfilled.

The situation is like our omelet example. You must first have eggs in order to break them, and so if you don’t have the eggs, that of itself means you can’t make an omelet. There is no need to mention that not breaking them will also result in the inability of make an omelet, because the importance of breaking them has already been established in the first statement.

Mark 16 and the Logic of Baptism

The passage on baptism in Mark 16 thus supports the idea that baptism is relevant for salvation:

First, given the implication of relevance that is present in normal human discourse, Jesus’ first statement indicates that baptism is relevant to salvation.

Second, given the presence of the first statement and the fact that faith is logically prior to baptism in this context, the fact that only faith is mentioned in Jesus’ statement does not mean that baptism is not relevant.

One could mount additional arguments against this passage, and some Evangelicals do.

The Hard Cases Argument

For example, one might ask about hard cases, where someone has faith but is unable to be baptized (e.g., because there is no one available to do it, as with a person who comes to Christian faith in the midst of a solidly Muslim society). Would these people automatically be damned?

Not according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, which acknowledges that there are exceptional cases.

The same thing would seem to be true about the condition of faith, though. Few if any Evangelicals would be willing to say that all dying infants are damned on the grounds that they don’t have faith in Jesus.

If it is possible for there to be exceptional cases with regard to faith, and yet this does not make faith irrelevant to salvation, then the same thing can be true of baptism.

The Canonical Argument

An argument that some Evangelicals might find appealing would be to point out that our early manuscript evidence suggests that the part of Mark 16 where the statements about baptism are found were not part of the original version of Mark’s Gospel.

The majority of New Testament scholars—Protestant and Catholic, conservative and liberal—hold that Mark 16:9-20 was written later than the rest of the Gospel—either in the late first century or in the second century.

There are good reasons for this view, which is supported by Benedict XVI in Jesus of Nazareth (see vol. 2, pp. 261-262).

If this passage was not in the original edition of Mark then one might argue that it does not belong in the canon and so does not have divine authority as Scripture.

Problems with the Canonical Argument

There are three problems with this view.

First, just because the passage doesn’t appear to have been part of the original version of Mark does not mean that it isn’t canonical. This is true regardless of whether Mark or someone else composed the passage.

Single authors can prepare longer and shorter editions of their own work. This happened, for example, when Jeremiah prepared a second edition of his own work, after an earlier, shorter version was destroyed by King Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:28). Similarly, some canonical books are the product of more than one hand, as illustrated by several of Paul’s epistles, which had input from other members of his circle (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1, 2 Cor. 1:1, Phil. 1:1, Col. 1:1, 1 Thess. 1:1, 2 Thess. 1:1).

From a Catholic perspective, the Magisterium of the Church can settle the canonicity of the longer ending of Mark, but this would not be authoritative for Evangelicals, which brings us to the second problem.

Second, even if one were to grant that the passage is non-canonical (something which I do not grant), it would still be an extraordinarily early testimony to what the early Christians thought about baptism.

On this view it might not be divinely inspired, but it would be a very impressive piece of patristic testimony dating from the first or second century showing that the early Church recognized the importance of baptism for salvation. This, then, would need to be taken into account when interpreting the New Testament teaching on baptism, which brings us to the third problem with the canonical argument.

Third, Mark 16:15-16 is far from the only New Testament text indicating the importance of baptism for salvation. In fact, there are too many to go into here, but let’s conclude by citing just one, which is as explicit as one might wish on the subject:

Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ [1 Peter 3:21].