Posted on 03/21/2017 8:04:07 AM PDT by ebb tide
In his address to the participants in a course on the internal forum at the Vatican, Pope Bergoglio promoted the novelty in moral theology which he has attempted to introduce into the life of the Church via the already infamous Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia (AL): discernment.
What exactly is this discernment? Quite simply, it is a code word for the application of situation ethics in the confessional in the case of public adulterers living in second marriages so that they can receive Holy Communion without having to cease their adulterous relations.
In other words, discernment is a sham. If that claim seems excessive, consider Pope Bergoglios own explanation of his novelty during the linked address:
Discernment enables one to distinguish always, to not confuse, and to never paint everyone with the same brush. Discernment educates the sight and the heart, making possible that delicacy of spirit which is so necessary before one who opens the sanctuary of his conscience to receive light, peace and mercy.
Discernment is also necessary because, one who approaches the Confessional, can come from the most disparate situations; he can also have spiritual disturbances, whose nature must be subjected to careful discernment, taking into account all the existential, ecclesial, natural and supernatural circumstances.
That this advice to confessors is unworkable and even immoral nonsense should be apparent on a moments reflection. Suppose, for example, penitents in Diocese X, who feel the guilt of adultery because they have put away their true spouses and purported to marry another, come to confess their sins to a local parish priest. Are we seriously expected to believe that in each and every such case the priest is required to conduct an examination of all the existential, ecclesial, natural and supernatural circumstances surrounding each penitents decision to enter into and remain in an adulterous union?
Even if such a brutally intrusive examination of every anonymous penitent confessing adultery were feasible in actual parish life and it clearly isnt what would be the point of the exercise? Are we also expected to believe that the priest conducting these inquisitions of each penitent will render an on-the-spot verdict of not guilty of mortal sin based on various disparate situations i.e., that the priest will practice some sort of situation ethics? No priest has any such authority. The subjective culpability of each soul is known only to God, and that judgment belongs to Him alone, not to a priest venturing his personal guess as to culpability.
And whatever happened to who am I to judge? Indeed, who is the priest, confronted with the confession of the objective sin of adultery, to judge the subjective state of the penitents soul based on certain external data? (Padre Pio reputedly had the gift of reading souls, but even he would not have absolved an objective adulterer. His gift, rather, was directed to detecting sin, not excusing it.)
In his important commentary on Five Serious Problems with Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, the moral theologian E. Christian Brugger focuses on the perniciousness of this aspect of discernment. He writes:
But if we shouldnt and indeed cant render a judgment of condemnation on another persons state of soul, then we shouldnt and cant render a judgment of acquittal either. But chapter 8 implies that pastors can have adequate certitude that a person lacks subjective culpability and so can free them to participate in the sacraments. No. 299 even refers to the divorced and civilly remarried as living members of the Church. The common understanding of a living member is a baptized person in grace.
But how can a priest judge that such people are in grace without judging? Pope Francis insists, and rightly so, that we mustnt judge. But judgment is not only about condemning; it also means acquitting. The presumption here, and throughout the chapter, is that pastors can in fact render a judgment of acquittal on consciences so the people in irregular unions can move forward.
But if we cannot and should not judge the souls of others, then we can neither condemn them by saying they are certainly guilty of mortal sin, nor can we acquit them saying they are not subjectively culpable for choosing grave matter. We cannot judge.
What, then, should a priest do? He should do what priests have always done in the confessional at least before Pope Bergoglio arrived to insist on his novelty of discernment: treat the objective sin and leave the judgment of subjective guilt to God. Brugger, who teaches moral theology to future priests, explains thus:
If pastors cant judge souls, what are they to do? They should accept a persons assessment of his own soul. If pastors pick up indications of mitigated culpability, they should gently help the person to see these factors, then charitably inform him about Jesuss fuller teaching on marriage (i.e., they should engage in conscience formation)
[T]he pastor should then find out if the person is resolved to live according to Jesus teaching as understood by the Catholic Church; if the person says no, or I cant, the pastor says, Well, I cannot tell you whether you are in serious sin by refusing to accept the Churchs teaching, for I cannot judge your soul. But even if you are truly in good faith, I cannot judge that you may rightly receive the Holy Eucharist, because I cannot know that, and my telling you that might well encourage you to rationalize ongoing mortal sin and result in your eternal damnation.
Then again, as noted above, in any event the exhaustive cross-examination of penitents that discernment would seem to require will not happen because it is unfeasible and indeed inappropriately invasive of the privacy of someone who relies upon anonymity and circumspection in coming before the priest to confess his guilt. And if the penitent did not think he was guilty of adultery in the first place, he would not be in the confessional to unburden his adulterous second marriage.
The implications, therefore, are staggering: discernment is a mere verbal disguise for what is really a disastrous permission to confessors to assist people objectively guilty of adultery in rationalizing their mortal sin so that they can be absolved and allowed to receive Holy Communion while continuing to commit adultery.
Never, absolutely never, has a Pope lent his name to such a radical deviation from the Churchs constant teaching and intrinsically related practice. The sham of discernment clearly pertains to the situation of which Sister Lucia warned Cardinal Caffarra: [T]he final battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan will be about marriage and the family.
Our Lady of Fatima, come to the aid of Your embattled Church!
All a pastor can, and must make a judgment upon, is the objective fact that a person confessing a sin can be absolved only if there is true repentance, with the stated intent to turn away from the sin.
This intent must be present.
This is the difference between equivocation and truth; and thus between death and life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.