A Monk and Theologian Breaks the Silence on the Church's Metamorphosis
This is from Sandro Magister's blog at LaStampa:
“AMORIS LAETITIA” AND THE OBLITERATION OF THE SACRAMENTS
by Giulio Meiattini, OSB
(passages selected from the interview in “Catholica” no. 140)
NOT DISCERNMENT, BUT CUNNING
The situation of confusion is evident. Naturally there are those who
deny that this is a matter of confusion, maintaining that this is the
positive result of a style of ecclesial governance aimed at “initiating
processes rather than possessing spaces” (cf. “Evangelii Gaudium” 223).
Therefore, the first discernment to be made would be precisely on the
nature of this situation: can confusion, disagreement among bishops on
sensitive doctrinal points, be fruits of the Spirit? To me it seems not.
To discern also means understanding if it is appropriate or not to
initiate processes in certain fields, and also with what timing,
modalities, and objectives.
Let us observe, for example, the manner in which the new discipline for the “divorced and remarried” was reached.
After Cardinal Kasper’s talk at the consistory had prepared the
terrain so to speak, the two synods, with an intermediate year of heated
discussions, were unable to give rise to a common approach on the
problem discussed. Those who read the accounts of the “circuli minores”
of the 2015 synod realize very well that on the point in question there
was not a shared perspective.
But one thing is clear: that a large majority of the fathers had not
developed the conviction to change the traditional discipline. So much
so that the authors of the “Relatio finalis,” on the controversial
point, took care not to introduce innovations.
But - here is another small step - they drafted formulas of an
indefinite tone that, while not providing for access to the sacraments,
changed the atmosphere so to speak. Thus the “non-opposition” to those
hesitant formulas (which had trouble getting two thirds of the votes)
was enough to allow another subsequent small step: a couple of ambiguous
little footnotes in “Amoris Laetitia,” which do not affirm or deny but
hint at a certain direction.
This further passage smashed the interpretive boundaries, until in
the autumn of 2017 - another step - there came the pope’s official
approval of the “Criteria” of the bishops of the region of Buenos Aires
on chapter VIII of “Amoris Laetitia.”
But these criteria, if one is honest, are not a simple interpretation
of “Amoris Laetitia.” They add and say things that are not to be found
in “Amoris Laetitia” and that, above all, had never been approved at the
synods and never would have been. […]
Thus, through small successive steps, over the course of three years a
very large one was made and the discipline was slowly changed, but
certainly not in a synodal manner, in my view.
I may be wrong, but this “modus operandi” is not discernment, but
rather cunning. In place of reasonable and open debate (the famous
“dubia” have never received a response!), the strategy of persuasion and
of the fait accompli took hold.
FAITH REDUCED TO ETHICS
Among the ethical demands and the sacramental foundation of Christian
existence, the center is undoubtedly the sacrament, which is the
communication to the believer of the grace that saves, and, in that it
is welcomed by and transforms man, is also an act of glorification,
doxology. […] Ethics is neither the first word not the last.
In “Amoris Laetitia,” however, the opposite logic is followed: the
starting points are categories taken from the natural law and principles
of general ethics (attenuating factors, the relationship between
universal norm and subjective situation, non-imputability, etc.), and
from these major premises are drawn the consequences for the pastoral
practice of the sacraments.
In this way, the dimension of the symbolic and the sacramental, which
should anchor, embrace, and transcend the moral sphere, loses its
significance and becomes a mere appendix to ethics. […] The
demonstration is given by the fact that in concrete terms the sin of
adultery loses its public significance linked to the testimonial aspect
of the sacrament, and can be remitted in the “internal forum” without
any need to explain before the community why a spouse who publicly
contradicts the sacramental sign of fidelity should publicly receive the
Eucharist.
In short, the result of the decisions of “Amoris Laetitia” is the
reduction of the sacramental to the moral, meaning of faith to ethics,
which to me does not seem to be a mere question of pastoral practice.
What is at stake here is something essential to the nature of
Christianity.
A “TREMENDOUS BURDEN”?
I sincerely do not understand how a bishop, above all that of Rome,
could write phrases of this kind: “There is no need to lay upon two
limited persons the tremendous burden of having to reproduce perfectly
the union existing between Christ and his Church” (“Amoris Laetitia”
122).
Here is the glaring exemplification of what I stated before in a
general way: if the evangelical ethic is isolated from the sacrament and
reduced to a general norm it becomes “a tremendous burden,” like the
Mosaic law, instead of “an easy yoke and a light burden.” Whatever
happened, in this perspective, to the transformative effect of the
sacrament? […] So then we could ask ourselves whether the encouragement
of bearing witness to faith in Christ to the point of bloodshed is not
an even more tremendous burden, not to be placed on the shoulders of the
people. […]
One arrives at this point only if one is accustomed to conceiving of
Christianity - perhaps without fully realizing it - as ethics.
“SIMUL IUSTUS ET PECCATOR”
“Amoris Laetitia” goes so far as to say that even if according to
outward appearances one is living in a condition of objective sin, on
account of attenuating factors one could be in the state of grace and
even “grow in the life of grace” (no. 305).
It is clear that if this is the way things are, the interruption
between sacrament and moral action, as already highlighted, leads to
outcomes that overlap with the Lutheran conception of “simul iustus et
peccator,” condemned by the Council of Trent. […] In this way, one could
be at the same time just (before God, invisibly) and a sinner (before
the Church, visibly). Works are at risk of having no more significance
in the “discernment” of grace.
CATHOLIC COMMUNION EVEN FOR A BUDDHIST?
The direction that is taking shape around intercommunion between
Catholics and Protestants obeys the same logic: it is not symbolic
realism that determines the decision, but the simple evaluation of the
presumed interior condition: if a Protestant is presumably in the state
of grace (based on the attenuating factors of invincible ignorance,
diminished responsibility, an honest way of life, etc.), why could he
not receive the Catholic Eucharist? Perhaps one does not realize that
posing the question this way could lead to making the same argument for a
Buddhist or a Hindu who lives a good and just life. Tampering with the
relationship between morality and the sacraments ultimately can lead to
ecclesiological conceptions that are not Catholic.
(English translation by
Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)
