Your Eminence, dear brother Dominik Cardinal Duka,
I have read with great interest the response of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) to your “dubia” on the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (”Risposta a una serie di domande,” hereafter “Risposta”) and I would like to share my assessment with you.
One of the doubts you presented to the DDF concerns the interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia” found in a letter of the Bishops of the Buenos Aires Region dated September 5, 2016, which allows access to the sacraments of Confession and of the Eucharist to divorced persons who have entered into a second civil union, even when they continue to behave as husband and wife with no intention of changing their lives. The “Risposta” affirms that this text of Buenos Aires belongs to the ordinary papal magisterium, having been approved by the Pope himself. In fact, Francis has affirmed that the interpretation offered by the bishops of Buenos Aires is the only possible interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia”. Consequently, the “Risposta” indicates that the text of Buenos Aires, like other texts of the ordinary Magisterium of the Pope, must be given a religious submission of mind and will (cf. “Lumen Gentium” 25:1).
In the first place, it is necessary to clarify, from the point of view of the general hermeneutic of the Catholic faith, what is the object of this submission of mind and will that every Catholic must offer to the authentic Magisterium of the Pope and the Bishops. Throughout the doctrinal tradition, and especially in “Lumen Gentium” 25, this religious submission of mind and will refers to the doctrine of faith and morals, which reflects and guarantees the whole truth of Revelation. The private opinions of popes and bishops are expressly excluded from the Magisterium. Any form of magisterial positivism is also contrary to the Catholic Faith, since the Magisterium cannot teach what has nothing to do with Revelation, nor what is explicitly contrary to Sacred Scripture (“norma normans non normata”), the Apostolic Tradition, and the previous definitive decisions of the Magisterium itself (“Dei Verbum” 10; cf. DH 3116-3117).
Is it necessary that we adhere with a religious assent to the text of Buenos Aires? Formally, it is problematic to demand from the faithful a religious submission of intellect and will to a theologically ambiguous interpretation of a partial episcopal conference (the Buenos Aires region), which in turn interprets an affirmation of “Amoris Laetitia”e that requires explanation and whose coherence with the teaching of Christ (Mk 10:1-12) is in question.
Moreover, the text of Buenos Aires is in discontinuity at least with the teachings of John Paul II (“Familiaris Consortio” 84) and Benedict XVI (“Sacramentum Caritatis” 29). Although the “Risposta” does not say so, the documents of the ordinary Magisterium of these two Popes must also be given our religious submission of mind and will.
Now, the “Risposta” affirms that the Buenos Aires text offers an interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia” in continuity with previous popes. Is this so?
Let us first look at the content of the Buenos Aires text as summarized in the “Risposta”. The crucial paragraph of the “Risposta” is the answer to the third “dubium”. After stating that John Paul II and Benedict XVI had already allowed access to Communion if the divorced accepted to live in continence in the new union, the “Risposta” indicates the novelty of Francis:
“Francis maintains the proposal of total continence for the divorced and [civilly] remarried in a new union, but recognizes that difficulties may arise in its practice, and therefore allows, in certain cases and after due discernment, the administration of the sacrament of Reconciliation even when one does not succeed in being faithful to the continence proposed by the Church” (emphasis in the original).
The phrase “they do not succeed in being faithful to the continence proposed by the Church” can be interpreted in two ways. The first: these divorced persons try to live in continence, but because of the difficulties and because of human weakness, they do not succeed. In this case, the “Risposta” could be in continuity with the teaching of John Paul II. The second: these divorced persons do not accept to live in continence and do not even try to do so (there is no resolution to sin no more) because of the difficulties they experience. In this second case there would be a break with the previous Magisterium.
Everything seems to indicate that the “Risposta” refers to the second possibility. In fact, this ambiguity is resolved in the Buenos Aires text, which distinguishes the case in which one tries to be continent (n. 5) from other cases in which one does not even try (n. 6). In the latter case, the Buenos Aires bishops say: “In other, more complex circumstances, and when it has not been possible to obtain an annulment, the option mentioned [of trying to live in continence] may in fact not be feasible”.
It is true that there is another ambiguity in the last sentence, which states: “it has not been possible to obtain an annulment”. Some, noting that the text does not say “and when the marriage was valid”, have limited these “complex circumstances” to those in which, although the marriage is not valid for objective reasons, these reasons cannot be proven before the ecclesiastical forum. As we see, although Pope Francis has presented the Buenos Aires document as the only possible interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia”, the hermeneutical question does not disappear, because there are still different interpretations of the Buenos Aires document. In short, what we observe, whether in the “Risposta” or in the Buenos Aires text, is a lack of precision in the wording, which can allow for alternative interpretations.
However, apart from these inaccuracies it seems clear what both the Buenos Aires text and the “Risposta” mean. It could be formulated as follows: there are special cases in which, after a time of discernment, it is possible to give sacramental absolution to baptized persons who, having previously contracted a sacramental marriage, have sexual relations with someone with whom they live in a second union, without these baptized person having to make a decision not to continue these sexual relations, either because they think that it is not possible or because they judge that it is not God’s will for them.
Let us first see if this affirmation can be in continuity with the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The “Risposta” argues that John Paul II had already admitted some of these divorced persons to Communion, and that Francis was therefore only taking a step in the same direction. This reasoning, however, is not sound. The continuity or discontinuity lies not in the fact that someone is allowed or not to receive communion, but in the criterion of admission. In fact, John Paul II and Benedict XVI permit the reception of Communion by persons who, for serious reasons, live together in a second union without sexual relations. But they do not allow communion when these persons habitually have sexual relations, because in this case there is an objectively grave sin in which these persons want to remain and which, because it regards the sacrament of marriage, takes on a public character. The rupture between the teaching of the Buenos Aires document and the Magisterium of John Paul II and Benedict XVI can be seen when one looks at the essential point, which, as I said, is the criterion for admission to the sacraments.
To see it more clearly, let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that a future DDF document would make a similar argument in the case of abortion, saying: “Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis allowed abortion in some cases, such as when the mother has uterine cancer and this cancer must be treated; now it is allowed in some other cases, such as in cases of fetal deformity, in continuity with what these Popes have taught”. One can see the fallacy of this argument. The case of surgery for uterine cancer is possible because it is not a direct abortion, but an unintended consequence of a therapeutic action on the mother (according to what is called the principle of double effect). There is no continuity but discontinuity between the two teachings, because the latter denies the principle that underlies the former, which shows the moral evil of any direct abortion.
But the difficulty with the teaching of the “Risposta” and the text of Buenos Aires is not only the discontinuity with the teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. For it happens that the teaching of the “Risposta” is contrary to other teachings of the Church, which are not only affirmations of the ordinary Magisterium, but have been taught in a definitive way as belonging to the deposit of faith.
The Council of Trent teaches the following truths: That sacramental confession of all grave sins is necessary for salvation (DH 1706-1707); That living in a second union as husband and wife while the conjugal bond exists is a grave sin of adultery (DH 1807); That a condition of absolution is the penitent’s repentance, which includes sorrow for the sin committed and the resolution to sin no more (DH 1676); That it is possible for all the baptized to keep the divine commandments (DH 1536,1568). All these assertions do not merely require religious submission of the mind and will, but must be believed with firm faith, insofar as they are contained in divine revelation, or at least firmly accepted and held as truths proposed by the Church in a definitive way. In other words, it is no longer a question of choosing between two propositions of the ordinary Magisterium, but of accepting constitutive elements of Catholic doctrine.
In fact, the teachings of John Paul II, Benedict XVI and of the Council of Trent bear witness to the Word of God, to which the Magisterium ministers. All pastoral care for Catholics in second marriages after a civil divorce must be based on this witness, because only obedience to the will of God can serve the salvation of persons. Jesus says: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mk 10:11f.). And the consequence is: “Neither fornicators nor adulterers [...] will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9). Therefore, these divorced and remarried are not worthy to receive Holy Communion until they have received sacramental absolution, which in turn requires repentance for one’s sins, together with the intention to sin no more. There is no lack of mercy here, quite the opposite, because the mercy of the Gospel does not consist in tolerating sin, but in regenerating the heart of the faithful, so that they may live according to the fullness of the love that Christ lived himself and taught us to live.
It follows that those who reject the interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia” contained in the Buenos Aires text and in the “Risposta” cannot be accused of dissent. For it is not that they see an opposition between what they hold to be true and what the Magisterium teaches, but that they find an opposition between different teachings of the same Magisterium, one of which has already been definitively affirmed. St. Ignatius of Loyola invites us to accept that what we see as white is black if the hierarchical Church says so. But St. Ignatius does not invite us to accept, trusting in the Magisterium, that what the Magisterium itself has previously and definitively told us is black is white.
But the difficulties raised by the text of the “Risposta” do not end here. For the “Risposta” goes beyond what is affirmed in “Amoris Laetitia” and in the Buenos Aires document in two points of grave consequence.
The first concerns the question: who decides on the possibility of granting sacramental absolution at the end of the discernment process? Your fifth “dubium”, dear Brother, raises several alternatives that seem possible to you: it could be the parish priest, the episcopal vicar, the penitentiary… But the solution proposed by the “Risposta” must have really surprised you, because you did not even mention it. In fact, according to the DDF, the final decision must be made in the conscience of the faithful who live in a second union (n. 5). It must be concluded that the confessor is limited to following this decision in conscience. It is noteworthy that the “Risposta” says that the person must “place himself before God and reveal to him his own conscience, with its possibilities and limits” (ibid.). Now, given that conscience is the voice of God in man (“Gaudium et Spes”, 36) what could it mean to “place one’s own conscience before God”? It seems that, for the DDF, conscience is rather the private point of view of each person, which is then placed before God.
But let us put this last point aside to focus on the surprising affirmation made by the DDF. It turns out that the faithful themselves decide whether or not to receive absolution, and the priest only has to accept this decision! If we apply this conclusion to all sins, the Sacrament of Reconciliation loses its Catholic meaning. Confession is no longer the humble request for forgiveness of one who stands before a merciful judge, the priest, who receives his authority from Christ Himself, but it is a self-absolution after having examined one’s own life. This is not far from a Protestant view of the sacrament, condemned by Trent when it insists on the role of the priest as judge in the sacrament of Confession (cf. DH 1685; 1704; 1709). The Gospel, referring to the power of the keys, affirms: “Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:19). But the Gospel does not say: “Whatever people decide in their conscience that you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”. It is astonishing that the DDF could present to the Holy Father for his signature, in the course of an audience, a text with such theological flaws, thus compromising the authority of the Holy Father.
The surprise is all the greater because the “Risposta” seeks to rely on John Paul II’s “Ecclesia de Eucharistia” in order to maintain that the decision belongs to the individual faithful, thus concealing the fact that this encyclical directly contradicts the “Risposta”. The “Risposta” quotes “Ecclesia de Eucharistia” 37b, which states, in the case of the reception of the Eucharist: “The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience”. Now look at what John Paul II adds next, which the “Risposta” does not mention, and which is the main idea of the paragraph quoted from “Ecclesia de Eucharistia”: “However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who ‘obstinately persist in manifest grave sin’ are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion”. (ibid.). As can be seen, the DDF has selected a small part of the text of St. John Paul II, while omitting the main argument, which is contrary to the argument made by the DDF. If the DDF wants to present a teaching contrary to that of St. John Paul II, the least it can do is not try to use the name and authority of the Holy Pontiff. It would be better to honestly admit that, according to the DDF, John Paul II was wrong in this teaching of his Magisterium.
The second innovation included in the “Risposta” is that each diocese is encouraged to develop its own guidelines for this discernment. A conclusion follows: if there are different guidelines, some divorced persons will be able to receive the Eucharist in one diocese and not in another. Now, the unity of the Catholic Church has always meant unity in the reception of the Eucharist: by eating the same bread, we are the same body (cf. 1 Cor 10:17). If a faithful Catholic can receive Communion in one diocese, he can receive Communion in all the dioceses that are in communion with the universal Church. This is the unity of the Church, based on and expressed in the Eucharist. Therefore, for a person to be able to receive communion in one local Church and not in another is an exact definition of schism. It is inconceivable that the DDF would want to promote such a thing, but these are the likely effects of accepting its teaching.
Faced with all these difficulties, what is the way out for the faithful who want to remain faithful to Catholic teaching? I have already pointed out that the texts of Buenos Aires and the “Risposta” are not precise. They do not state clearly what they mean and thus leave open other interpretations, however improbable. This imprecision allows doubts to arise about the interpretation of these documents. On the other hand, the way in which the “Risposta” bears the approval of the Holy Father, with a simple dated signature at the bottom of the page, is unusual. The usual formula has been: “The Holy Father approves the text and orders (or allows for) its publication”, but none of this appears in this careless “Appunto”. Here opens another window of doubt on the authority of the “Risposta”.
We can find support in these hesitations to raise a new “dubium”: are there cases in which, after a period of discernment, it is possible to give sacramental absolution to a baptized person who maintains sexual intercourse with someone with whom he lives in a second civil union, if this baptized person does not want to make the resolution not to continue to have sexual intercourse?
Dear Brother, as long as this “dubium” is not resolved, the authority of the “Risposta” and of the Buenos Aires’ document remains in doubt, given the imprecision they reflect. This imprecision leaves a little room for hope that there will be a negative answer to this “dubium”. The primary beneficiaries of this negative answer would not be the faithful, who in any case would not be obliged to accept a positive response to the “dubium”, for such a response would be contrary to Catholic doctrine. The primary beneficiary would be the authority that responds to the “dubium”, which would be preserved intact, since it would no longer require of the faithful a submission of mind and will to truths contrary to Catholic doctrine.
In the hope that this explanation will clarify the meaning of the response you received from the DDF, I send you my fraternal greetings “in Domino Iesu”,
Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Rome