On April 8th, 2016, CNN gave front-page privilege to a paper written by Pope Francis entitled Amoris Laetitia, or On Love in the Family. The hubub was over another classic example of a progressive pope expanding the fisher’s net in regards to sexual and familial integration in the Church—specifically, chapter eight entitled “Accompanying, Discerning, and Integrating Weakness”. Of course, the chapter is viewed by many as espousing a new, more inclusive theological philosophy from an ideological organization traditionally characterized dogmatic rigidity, but personally I find it to have the most unremarkable subject matter as far as the Scriptures are concerned. My understanding is that accompanying, discerning, and integrating weakness was Jesus’ whole point in coming here.
I suppose what I find most fascinating is how, on one hand, I am in disbelief about how the members of the press corps can have so badly skimmed and considered the Cliff’s Notes of the 251–page treatise, and on the other how I could possibly be surprised they would do such a thing. The fact is, when it comes to Pope Francis saying anything that contrasts positively with the conservative dogma of his predecessor it doesn’t seem to need any deeper exploration; that it occurred at all is sufficiently improbable enough to be taken prima facie as a genuine miracle. If society's standards of social progress in the Catholic Church begin at departing from the policies of a former Hitler Youth ringleader of the largest child sexual abuse scandal and coverup in the history of the world, then I guess that's the standard.
Although the press and the general public may be willing to grant another wholesale indulgence, I myself cannot. These days, criticism of the current pope and the last three words of the previous sentence both tend to invite an unfavorable comparison to a psychopathic cannibal. However, and I’m sorry to repeat this for anyone who has not forgotten, his writing is open to critical review just like anyone else, even at the risk of shattering an illusion of hope. It is one thing to be progressive, and another to be only relatively so. The subject matter of chapter eight in On Love in the Family serves almost entirely as a priestly manual for helping divorced and unwed couples realize and accept their sinfulness, by reminding the priests they can do so by extending them moderate inclusion in some church functions to keep them in the door. I can’t help but think that the President would also be on the homepage of CNN for that statement, albeit for slightly different reasons.
Chapter eight begins with the following:
The Synod Fathers stated that, although the Church realizes that any breach of the marriage bond “is against the will of God”, she is also “conscious of the frailty of many of her children”. Illuminated by the gaze of Jesus Christ, “she turns with love to those who participate in her life in an incomplete manner, recognizing that the grace of God works also in their lives by giving them the courage to do good, to care for one another in love and to be of service to the community in which they live and work”.
That is the outline of the entire chapter. I suppose it’s easiest just to ask: is that in any way an original or even mildly arousing statement about traditional Catholic dogma? If anything, I would say it’s promoting a somewhat more rigid standard than the man in their book who said in John 6:47 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”
Or was it Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven”? I can never remember which one is correct, but it doesn’t matter; as far as the pope and the Church are concerned, nothing has changed regarding the nature of marriage and sin. All he’s suggesting is that the Catholic church should be magnanimous enough to extend the papal ring to be kissed by the social lepers who may one day be healed through gradual rectification of their behavior.
Personally, I don’t care for that kind of hubris. Although Francis has often been lauded for saying "Who am I to judge?" when asked about homosexuality, the answer is obvious: the pope. It’s his job, and this paper is literally a summation of the process of him and the Synod doing just that.
Francis unambiguously states that “marriage is...fully realized in a union between a man and a woman...open to the transmission of life...and are consecrated by the sacrament.” That notwithstanding, the Synod does “not disregard the constructive elements in those situations that do not yet or no longer correspond to her teaching on marriage.” Don’t be mistaken. This is not talking about gay marriage. This is wholly within the context of cohabiting heterosexuals and divorcees, and it’s implicit in the following summary statement: “Whatever the case, ‘all these situations require a constructive response seeking to transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage and family’”.
I don’t believe any homosexual couples will be achieving that any time soon according to the Catholic Church. In any case, these irregular heterosexual “couples should be welcomed and guided patiently and discreetly.” Discreetly. It brings up an extremely important distinction between acceptance and toleration with an agenda. The pope touches on Pope John Paul II’s concept of the “law of gradualness”, whereby people are slowly coached to conform to their rules. “This is not,” Pope Francis states, “a ‘gradualness of law’ but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law.” The Catholic Church has no interest in socially evolving—only in being patient while you figure out why they’re right as they “advance gradually with the progressive integration of God and the demands of God’s absolute and definitive love in his or her entire personal and social life.”
In Francis's words: “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest.”
Popesplaining.
The final point, one to which I am merely limiting myself rather than exhausting the topic, can best be understood by the legions of battered women out there. I would paraphrase, but I think the Holy Father speaks quite well on his policy:
“Priests have the duty to ‘accompany [the divorced and remarried] in helping them to understand their situation according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop. Useful in this process is an examination of conscience through moments of reflection and repentance. The divorced and remarried should ask themselves: how did they act towards their children when the conjugal union entered into crisis; whether or not they made attempts at reconciliation; what has become of the abandoned party; what consequences the new relationship has on the rest of the family and the community of the faithful; and what example is being set for young people who are preparing for marriage.’ A sincere reflection can strengthen trust in the mercy of God which is not denied anyone’.
What we are speaking of is a process of accompaniment and discernment which ‘guides the faithful to an awareness of their situation before God.’ Conversation with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of the Church and on what steps can foster it and make it grow. Given that gradualness is not in the law itself (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34), this discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church. For this discernment to happen, the following conditions must necessarily be present: humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it. These attitudes are essential for avoiding the grave danger of misunderstandings, such as the notion that any priest can quickly grant ‘exceptions’, or that some people can obtain sacramental privileges in exchange for favours. When a responsible and tactful person, who does not presume to put his or her own desires ahead of the common good of the Church, meets with a pastor capable of acknowledging the seriousness of the matter before him, there can be no risk that a specific discernment may lead people to think that the Church maintains a double standard.”
I’m sorry, but I have to protest. That logic right there is the same logic that results in young boys being raped and then told it’s part of God’s plan to keep their mouths shut while the priest is moved to another church. What would you think of someone who told a battered woman that part of her healing process is realizing what she was doing that resulted in her getting beaten, and to gradually bring her around to understand why she should stay in her marriage? Perhaps the only humor to be found is in the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church claiming that church privileged cannot be bought.
I’m sure the pope is a nice man, and probably a very virtuous, loving, caring person. I printed the second paragraph out of honest, as he is saying that it could be possible for a reconciliation of a divorced person's status regarding the church, although he doesn't go so far as to offer a full restitution of privilege. It is progress for the Catholic Church as an ideological organization, but it's still light years behind current civilization to think that there exist an arbitrary body of people who maintain the right to pick apart your personal choices in that way. The Christian principle of forgiveness through faith are not subject to a pre-screening by a mortal committee. Nor does it make his larger ideas about society right, and it doesn’t make them OK just because they’re coming from a place of love, any more than the fact that your grandmother is loving and sweet makes her right that black people should still be slaves. Pope Francis's thoughts and teachings on this matter are misguided, antiquated, uncompromising and prideful—yes, prideful.
Humility is the mask that is being worn earnestly—sincerely, even—by a man who is regarded as one of the most humble people on the planet. There is nothing humble about explaining to people why you are right and they aren't because God said so, even if you do it gently. There is no humility in making a show of washing the feet of AIDS victims in Africa when you've got the above message of slowly bringing people around to your ideology in the back of your mind. Honesty is not the measure of humility, and therein lies the misconception. He is wonderfully and sincerely humble. However, humility is only in deference to one's ideas and conscience.
Those ideas must be scrutinized, and in my judgement they are damaging to a modern social ethic that has outstripped the Catholic Church’s social outlook by about 500 years. His moral medicine is delivered with a spoonful of castor oil, and we would all do well to remember that.