The joy of love, “healthy self-criticism”
- Corner of the Confreres guests of the’Patmos Island –
JOY OF LOVE, "HEALTHY SELF-CRITICISM"
.
It is possible that, gradually the years pass, the post-synodal apostolic exhortations become increasingly lengthy? It is possible that it will not be possible to summarize the results of the Fathers' discussions in a few propositions? la cut, generally, goes well with effectiveness and incisiveness: when you go beyond what is necessary to convey a certain message, most of the time it meant the ideas weren't very clear.
.
.
John Scalese, CRSP *
.
.
.
Eros and psyche, work by Antonio Canova
I have been asked for an intervention on the apostolic exhortation The joy of love. The readers who follow me from the beginning [cf. WHO] they know that I don't really like commenting on pontifical documents. I wrote on another occasion: «The sentences are not discussed, apply ". In this circumstance, therefore, instead of going into the merits of the exhortation, I would prefer to focus mainly on some procedural aspects, even if it will be inevitable to make references to the contents.
.
The document invites us to be humble and realistic and to make a "healthy self-criticism" [n.36]. I believe that this attitude should not be directed only towards the Church of the past and its pastoral practice, ma, to be authentic, should extend to 360 ° and therefore also to the Church today. I would therefore like to ask a few questions, not with a polemical spirit, but as a simple invitation to reflection.
.
the post-synodal exhortation love joy
It is correct to return to questions which had already been addressed relatively recently (the previous Synod on the family dates back to 1980), without the situation having radically changed in the meantime? It is true that in these thirty-five years there have been quite a few new things, which had not been addressed at the time (p. it is., assisted fertilization, surrogate motherhood, the theory of gender, homosexual unions, the stepchild adoption, etc.); but it is equally true that these issues have not been at the center of the work of the last Synods and are touched upon only partially and in passing in the apostolic exhortation. The attention seemed to be focused exclusively on a question that had already been widely debated and defined: access to the sacraments by the divorced and civilly remarried. The question had been authoritatively resolved in the apostolic exhortation Family member company (n. 84); his teaching was then resumed from atechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1650) and confirmed by the Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of 14 September 1994 and the Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of 24 June 2000. I fully realize that The joy of love escapes this doctrinal-juridical logic, to place oneself on an exquisitely pastoral level; I just ask: it is correct to question a teaching which is now practically definitive?
.
the Holy Father Francis with Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, today Archbishop Emeritus of Bologna, considered one of the greatest experts on family problems
The procedure followed is correct to address this issue? First the Extraordinary Consistory in February 2014; then the extraordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops in October of the same year; subsequently, the emanation of the two motu proprio on the causes of matrimonial nullity in August 2015; then the ordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops in the immediately following October; finally, the just published post-synodal apostolic exhortation. Never before has such a procedure been seen: a single synodal assembly was not enough, duly prepared? This two-year "hammering" was really necessary? Which fine? Not to mention the anomalies recorded along the way: the secrecy of the report to the consistory and of the synodal debate; the relationship after the discussion of the Synod 2014, which did not reflect the results of the debate; the final report of the same Synod, which took up themes that had not been approved by the Fathers; the confidential letter of the thirteen cardinals at the beginning of the Synod 2015, publicly denounced as a "conspiracy"; etc.: these are normal things?
.
a session of the Synod of Bishops on the family
It is correct to suggest certain pastoral solutions, which had not been accepted by the Synod Fathers (and therefore could not be included in the text of the exhortation), in the document notes? It is correct to question the teaching of a previous document in a magisterium document with the following formula: "Many ... detect" [note 329)] "Many" who? They "detect" in what capacity? Moreover, what kind of membership the note requires 351, which admits a possibility in open contrast with the teaching and uninterrupted practice of the Church, based on arguments that had already been taken into consideration and deemed insufficient to justify an exception to that teaching and practice [cf. the Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of 14 September 1994, in particular n.5: «This practice of not admitting divorced and remarried people to the Eucharist], presented [it gives Family member company] as binding, it cannot be changed according to different situations "]?
.
assembly of the faithful
You shouldn't worry, when publishing a document, what will come to the faithful? In the gospel of joy stood, rightly, the problem of communicating the Gospel message [n.41)] in The joy of love warns against "avoiding the serious risk of wrong messages" [n.300]. The fact that conflicting comments were published in the days following the release of the exhortation should not make us think? It will not be that the language used was not clear enough? It is possible that on the same document there are those who say that nothing changes and those who consider it revolutionary? If a statement was clear, it should not be possible to give two opposite interpretations at the same time. The confusion caused should not be a wake-up call? In The joy of love the problem is not ignored: "I understand those who prefer a more rigid pastoral care that does not give rise to any confusion" [n.308], but then, with the gospel of joy [n.45)], the answer is that a Church that “does not renounce the possible good is preferable, although it runs the risk of getting dirty with mud of the road ". It is even tempting to think that confusion is intentionally sought, because in it the Spirit would act and in it God is to be sought. Personally I prefer to believe, with Saint Paul, that “God is not a God of disorder, but of peace " [1 Color 14:33].
.
the old ones, love and beautiful bookshelves …
It is possible that, gradually the years pass, the post-synodal apostolic exhortations become increasingly lengthy? It is possible that it will not be possible to summarize the results of the Fathers' discussions in a few propositions? la cut, generally, goes well with effectiveness and incisiveness: when you go beyond what is necessary to convey a certain message, most of the time it meant the ideas weren't very clear. Not to mention that, processing excessively long documents, there is the risk of discouraging even the most willing to undertake the reading and forcing them to settle for summaries, usually partial and biased, what the media do.
.
«… you begin to tell me about your childhood "
It is really necessary that the papal documents turn into psychology treatises, pedagogy, moral theology, pastoral, spirituality? This is the task of the Magisterium of the Church? First it is stated that “not all doctrinal discussions, moral or pastoral must be resolved with interventions of the magisterium " [n.3] then, de facto, we pronounce ourselves on every aspect and we even risk falling into that "unbearable casuistry", that as well, in words, it is said to deprecate [n.304]. The magisterium has the task of interpreting the word of God [God's word, # 10; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n.85], define the truths of the faith, keep and interpret the moral law, not just evangelical, but also natural [Human life, n.4]. The rest - the explanation, the in-depth study, practical applications, etc. - has always been left to theologians, confessors, to the masters of the spirit, to the well-formed conscience of the individual faithful. An apostolic exhortation, intended for all the faithful, He can not, in my opinion, become a manual for confessors.
.
the problem of abstractness …
It is right to insist on the abstractness of the doctrine [NN. 22; 36; 59; 201; 312], contrasting it with discernment and pastoral accompaniment, almost there was no possibility of coexistence between the two realities? That the doctrine is abstract, it does not take into account to underline it: it is by nature; like the practice, by itself, it is practical. But this does not mean that in human life there is no need for both: praxis always derives from a theory, just think that in The joy of love is repeated twice, nos. 3 e 261, a philosophical — and therefore abstract — principle that had already been stated in the gospel of joy nos. 222-225: "Time is greater than space". Which is why it is important that practice, to be good ("Orthopraxis"), is inspired by a true doctrine ("orthodoxy"); if not, an erroneous doctrine would inevitably generate bad practice. Disdaining the doctrine is of no use, it only serves to deprive praxis of its foundation, of the light that should guide it. You do not notice, Furthermore, that the talk of praxis is not identified with praxis itself, but it constitutes only one theory of practice? And the theory of praxis is still a theory, as abstract as the doctrine to which the praxis is to be opposed.
.
Bologna, Baraccano Church, 1950s [photo by Giuseppe Savini]
Describe the Church of the past as a Church exclusively interested in the purity of doctrine and indifferent to the real problems of the people, it is perhaps not a caricature that does not correspond in any way to historical reality? Getting to the point of using certain expressions [n. 49: “Instead of offering the healing power of grace and the light of the Gospel, some want to "indoctrinate" the Gospel, transform it into "dead stones to be thrown at others" "; n. 305: "A pastor cannot feel satisfied just by applying moral laws to those who live in" irregular "situations, as if they were stones thrown at people's lives. This is the case with closed hearts, who often hide even behind the teachings of the Church “to sit on the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families ""] it's not only offensive, but false and ungenerous towards what the Church has done and continues to do, despite a thousand contradictions and infidelities, for the salvation of souls. In the Church discernment and pastoral accompaniment, maybe called by different names and without making too many theorizing, they have always been there; only that until now everyone was doing his job: the magisterium taught the doctrine, theologians deepened it, confessors and spiritual directors applied it to individual cases. Today, however, it would seem that no one is able to distinguish the specificity of their role anymore.
.
Transforming the demands of the Christian life into "ideals" [NN. 34; 36; 38; 119; 157; 230; 292; 298; 303; 307; 308] it does not mean - really in this case - transforming Christianity into something abstract, worse, in a philosophy, if not even in an ideology? It does not mean forgetting that the word of God is alive and effective [EB 4:12], that revealed truth is a "truth that saves" [God's word, n. 7; The joy and hope, n. 28], that the gospel "is the power of God for the salvation of whoever believes" [RM 1:16], that "God does not command the impossible; ma, when he commands, admonishes you to do what you can and ask for what you can't, and helps you so that you can do it " [Council of Trent, Justification Decree, (c). 11; cf Augustine, Of nature and grace, 43, 50]?
.
pastoral care cannot be separated from doctrine and vice versa …
We are sure that "pastoral conversion" [the gospel of joy, n. 25], which is required of the Church today, be good for it? I have the impression that there is a basic misunderstanding behind this conversion, already present at the time of the announcement of the Second Vatican Council and has come down to our days: to think that it is no longer necessary for the Church to take care of doctrine today, it already being sufficiently clear, known and accepted by all, and that we should only be concerned with pastoral practice. But we are really sure that the doctrine is so clear today, which does not require further investigation and to be protected from erroneous interpretations? We are sure that everyone, today, know the Christian doctrine? It is not enough to answer these questions by saying that there is Catechism of the Catholic Church: first, because it is not taken for granted that everyone knows him; second, Why, even when it was known, not necessarily shared by all. If it is true that “mercy does not exclude justice and truth, but first of all we must say that mercy is the fullness of justice and the brightest manifestation of God's truth " [The joy of love, n. 311], it is equally true that “do not in any way diminish the salutary doctrine of Christ, it is an eminent form of charity towards souls " [Human life, n. 29; cf Family member company, n. 33;Reconciliation and Penance, n. 34; The splendor of truth, n. 95]. And the service that the magisterium must offer to the Church is, first of all, the service of truth [Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 890]; precisely by teaching the truth that saves the magisterium it assumes a pastoral and "merciful" attitude towards souls. Only when the magisterium has fulfilled its primary task, pastoral workers will be able, in turn, forming consciences, make a work of discernment and accompany souls on their journey of Christian life.
.
.
* John Scalese [Rome, 1955] he is a priest and theologian of the Order of Regular Clerics of St. Paul (Barnabite Fathers).
.
.
Free thoughts of a wandering Querciolino,
.
__________________________
graphics and photos by the editorial staff of’Pamos Island
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Dear Mrs,
certainly they must be assumed, in who wrote the apostolic exhortation, the best intentions and the desire to help those in difficult situations. The problem is what is the right pastoral attitude to adopt: if that of his friends (“Today, with Pope Francis, everything became possible”) or rather not that expressed in the Declaration cited in my previous response (“The Church reaffirms her maternal concern for the faithful who find themselves in this or similar situation, that prevent them from being admitted to the Eucharistic table. What is stated in this Declaration is not in contradiction with the great desire to encourage the participation of those children in ecclesial life, which can already be expressed in many forms compatible with their situation. On the contrary, the duty to reiterate this non-possibility of admitting to the Eucharist is a condition of true pastoralism, of authentic concern for the good of these faithful and of the whole Church”). Personally, I invite you to continue the line of conduct adopted thus far, in the hope that the situation can be resolved in court as soon as possible.
Dear Father. First of all, thank you for your article which, together with the other two on the topic written by other fathers, provides us with a very broad vision.
Allow me to bring my experience …
I Got 38 years and my first marriage was a disaster. Given that my previous husband turned out to be a dangerous violent man, which several times caused me injuries and transports to the emergency room, which the ecclesiastical judges themselves admitted, when they looked into the case, that the “canonical separation” it was completely necessary … Despite this, the ecclesiastical tribunal did not recognize the elements of nullity, and I accepted the “no place to proceed”.
After the separation, which occurred three years after the wedding, at the age of 32 year old, and after the divorce, got it when I had it 34, I met a truly extraordinary man, celibate, and after two years we got married civilly, when I had 36. Today we have a one year old baby, I had no children from my previous marriage.
Thanks to my husband, who is a man of faith, I too have returned to faith, and today I am engaged in various volunteer activities, both with the parish and with Caritas.
My husband and I, contrary to what certain Catholics all in one piece on blogs say, we are unable to live as brother and sister, what that, especially at a young age, It's a very, very unrealistic thing.
We are both aware, and we also suffer from it, that our situation is not regular, and we are also aware that for the Church we are two concubines, and precisely for this reason, even if we attend mass, we do not receive communion.
We have established, de facto, a truly Christian family, and we are certain that perhaps not even our salvation will be denied us.
What annoys me, since many began to argue and wage battles over this synod, the fact that many have transformed the problem of the sacraments for divorced and remarried people into their personal battle.
A month ago, my husband and I, we had a meeting with the head of the diocesan tribunal, that today, according to the motu proprio of Pope Francis, can examine the causes. They made it clear to us that my case had been treated very restrictively, without taking into account “two elements lacking” which are at the very basis of the validity of the sacrament. So they reopened the proceedings, making me understand that there is good hope.
wrong, for great satisfaction, I talked about it with some friends from the parish, but two of those present, true Catholics, those from war, those for which it must be black or white, they mocked me by saying that today, with Pope Francis, everything became possible.
I read the post-synodal exhortation, e, sincerely, as well as long, I found it confusing, not clear … but maybe because I am not able to understand it. He certainly makes hypotheses, gives no answers, and I don't know this, if it's good, you specialist theologians can evaluate it. Reading it, But, I asked myself, so I ask her: may be that, who wrote it, I tried to immerse myself in the discomfort and suffering of who knows how many people like me and my husband?
Thank you for patiently listening.
I would like to ask Father Scalese whether the ban on access to Communion for divorced and remarried people is a Divine Law and therefore unchangeable or an ecclesiastical law and as such subject to possible modification.
I read in the Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts about the admissibility to Holy Communion of divorced and remarried people of 24 June 2000 (you see http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_it.html), about the can. 915 ("Do not be admitted to holy communion the excommunicated or interdicted, after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin "): «The prohibition made in the aforementioned canon, by its nature, It derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: latter can not introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: “Therefore everyone who unworthily, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord, It will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Each, therefore, examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup; because whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord, he eats and drinks his own condemnation” (1 Color 11, 27-29)».
First of all, I would like to thank Don Angelo for the nicest comment that could have been made: “Instead of giving the fish, he offered us all the rod to catch it ourselves”. This is what I have always tried to do in teaching; I didn't realize I did that in this case.
To Mr. Monari and Sr. M. Paola responds by saying that you shouldn't expect it The joy of love the clarity we would like, clear YES or NO answers. And this is because we have entered a new phase: we have moved from the doctrinal to the pastoral level. I'll just quote a few sentences that explain this “pastoral conversion”:
— «It's not just about presenting legislation, but to propose values" (n. 201);
— «If we take into account the innumerable variety of concrete situations, … it is understandable that one should not expect new general canonical regulations from the Synod or from this Exhortation, applicable to all cases" (n. 300);
— «I understand those who prefer a more rigid pastoral approach that does not give rise to any confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the good that the Spirit spreads in the midst of fragility" (n. 308).
Dad, Thank you for your enlightening article, before which I ask you if you can enlighten me with an answer to this question of mine: a document like Amoris laetitia should serve to provide clear and precise answers. But I have only read hypotheses, Since it touches on issues having to do with the sacraments, I ask her: you don't think it was necessary to give precise and unequivocal provisions, that repeat, I don't find it in the text?
SR. Maria Paola
Rev. Dad.
A question.
In three days I read the text, and perhaps my fault, or due to my inability, I didn't find it in it ( maybe I missed it), how to behave.
Since they wanted to reduce this synod entirely to a matter of whether or not to give the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried, my question is simple: I'm wrong, or in these 260 pages, everything is hypothesized, but it's not said though “and” and yet it is not said “no”?
Please enlighten me.
Thank you.
Congratulations for the learned and stimulating article and well found here on the Island of Patmos, I've been following the blog for a while now “wandering querciolino”.
I am diocesan, but I attended middle and high school at the time with the Barnabites.
The Island of Patmos has once again offered us some splendid articles, written by three priests and theologians, one of which was written by an exceptional guest of honour, Father Giovanni Scalese, who I have been following on your blog for some time.
The idea of a dedicated space for the publication of articles by other priests and theologians is excellent.
The series of questions that make up Father Giovanni's article are excellent, subtle pedagogue. Instead of giving the fish, he offered us all the rod to catch it ourselves.
Dear Father Giovanni Scalese, what a pleasure to find her also on the Island of Patmos in such good company!
I don't know her personally, but I've been reading it for a while, and I read it with the affection of a “querciolino”.
I am one of the several Florentines who studied in your Querce college … What wonderful memories I have! Species of the Barnabite Fathers. And how sad, when today, over sixty years old, I pass by my old closed college.
Thanks for this article.
Carlo Alberto Manfredini
Just this morning, before mass, I started the prayer chain that Father Scalese proposed on his blog!
That seems like an excellent idea to me “break the balls” in San Giuseppe, patron of the Church, in this really dark time…
http://querculanus.blogspot.it/2016/04/catena-di-preghiere-san-giuseppe.html