FROM THE FORMER CHIESA

Published as received. The author is an administrative magistrate in Rome and a scholar of philosophy and of law. This commentary of his on the “correctio” addressed to Pope Francis for seven heresies he is alleged to have propagated sounds like the preamble to that “dialogue” on the interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia” which secretary of state Cardinal Pietro Parolin yesterday defined as “also important within the Church,” which Cardinal Gerhard Müller wanted to be undertaken between a group of cardinals appointed by the pope and the critical and dubious, and on which Francis  himself commented on September 10 – when the “correctio” had already been delivered to him -  saying to the Jesuits of Colombia in a closed-door meeting, according to what was reported afterward by “La Civiltà Cattolica”:

“[I want] to say something else that I believe should be said out of justice, and also out of charity. In fact I hear many comments – they are respectable for they come from children of God, but wrong – concerning the post-synod apostolic exhortation. To understand 'Amoris Laetitia' you need to read it from the start to the end. Beginning with the first chapter, and to continue to the second and then on … and reflect. And read what was said in the Synod.

“A second thing: some maintain that there is no Catholic morality underlying 'Amoris Laetitia', or at least, no sure morality. I want to repeat clearly that the morality of Amoris Laetitia is Thomist, the morality of the great Thomas. You can speak of it with a great theologian, one of the best today and one of the most mature, Cardinal Schönborn. I want to say this so that you can help those who believe that morality is purely casuistic. Help them understand that the great Thomas possesses the greatest richness, which is still able to inspire us today. But on your knees, always on your knees....”

*

A FEW QUESTIONS, BEFORE SPEAKING OF HERESY

by Francesco Arzillo

1. The publication of a formal “correctio” issued to none other than the pope is raising a number of questions.

Is it possible to correct the correctors? The medieval speculative tradition tells us that it is: it should suffice to think of the famous “Correctorium fratris Thomae” of William de la Mare, which in turn was contradicted by various “Correctoria corruptorii” produced by various authors.

In the face of such a grave and singular action, which exceeds with audacity the chasm that separates the “dubium” from the judgment in such a delicate matter, it is possible to limit oneself for now to a few questions, in relation to the seven propositions pointed out as “false and heretical” and to the related presuppositions that emerge from a reading of the entire text.

2. Let us begin with two questions on method.

2.1. In the first place, the propositions identified as heretical seem to constitute already the fruit of a hermeneutic of papal statements and documents, as well as - cumulatively – of the actions and omissions attributed to the same. This is a matter of “second level” propositions, so to speak.

The first question is therefore twofold:

- why does the central part of the text formulated in Latin not reproduce directly and exclusively the original propositions of the papal texts?

- in the case that the propositions should be understood as referring also to active and omissive behaviors of the pope, has a sufficient demonstration been furnished concerning the congruence of these same [propositions] with such behaviors?

2.2. The second question is:

- is the designation of heresy considered here in its proper sense, which pertains to doctrines that require the assent of theological faith (doctrines “de fide credenda”) in accordance with can. 750 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law?

Or do the architects also mean to attribute the designation of “heresy” to statements that contrast only with doctrines “de fide tenenda” as per can. 750 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law, which also include, according to the illustrative doctrinal note of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith attached to the 1998 motu proprio “Ad Tuendam Fidem,” not a few truths of a moral nature? And if so, how could this designation be justified, when it would not seem to be in keeping with the guidelines of this same note?

3. Let us now proceed with the questions following the seven propositions defined as “false and heretical”:

1) "A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin."

In what point of his teaching does the pope speak of the impossibility of observing the commandments on the part of those who are justified?

Is this referring to an absolute impossibility, or to a more or less serious concrete difficulty, even a temporary one?

Are the two hypotheses equatable in relation to the doctrine presented in chapter 11 of the decree on justification of the Council of Trent?

2) "Christians who have obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom they are validly married and have contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of their spouse, who live 'more uxorio' with their civil partner, and who choose to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of their act and full consent of the will to that act, are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin, and can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity."

3) "A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action."

Given that at no. 305 of “Amoris Laetitia” it states that “because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end,” in what sense would this passage reflect the statements referred to in the “heretical” propositions 2 and 3, when instead it seems to specifically contradict them, with reference to the requirement of subjective culpability?

Moreover, in what other passage of his documents or discourses has the pope stated that such Christians, in the presence of a full awareness of the nature of their action or with the full consent of the will, would not be in mortal sin?

4) "A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience."

From where has this proposition been taken, formulated in these terms?

5) "Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God."

In what relationship does this proposition stand with that of “Amoris Laetitia” 303? Where it states: “Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.”

Is this a matter of only a linguistic and expressive difference, or also of a difference of content?

6) "Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely unlawful on account of their object."

Does the statement in “Amoris Laetitia” 304, according to which “it is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations,” really contradict under every aspect the doctrine of the “intrinsece malum”?

Does this also happen where consideration is given, in evaluating the particular situations, to the characteristics pertaining to subjective culpability, which as such do not pertain to the object of the actions?

7) "Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it."

Is the intention here to say that the abandonment of the discipline (to be understood as canonical discipline) also subsists where recourse is made to the classical “probata praxis in foro interno,” revised in light of the guidelines of “Amoris Laetitia,” inasmuch as it pertains to absolution in confession?

Concerning the Eucharist, what is the relationship, according to the “mens” of the architects of the “correctio,” for the purposes of interest here, between the notion of “mortal sin” and the notion of “grave manifest sin” in article 915 of the Code of Canon Law as interpreted by the “Declaration concerning the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried” of the pontifical council for legislative texts, issued in the year 2000?

4. The questions suggested here do not exhaust the topic. It is hoped, however, that they may induce some further reflection in the authors of the “correctio” and in those who may agree with its proposal without even imagining the enormous complexity of the questions at play when the word “heresy” is used, in particular if it is applied to magisterial texts.

In any case, the Catholic believer who gives the requisite “religious submission of intellect and will” (can. 752) to the ordinary papal magisterium, the scope of which includes “Amoris Laetitia,” must be encouraged to continue in this positive disposition of spirit.

As for the rest, the matter of the interpretation and application of this text will probably see further developments and contributions on the part of pastors, of theologians, of the faithful.

Nor must one rule out the possibility of further - perhaps desirable - statements from the Petrine see, in the more or less near future.

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)