A Modern Pandora’s Box: Amoris Laetitia II

Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. Rom 12:2

My last post, “A Modern Pandora’s Box: Amoris Laetitia,” cited instances, triggered in part by the encyclical, whereby certain cardinals, Bishops and Vatican clergy expressed views that were not in line with traditional Catholic teaching. Issues of disagreement, confusion and/or actual dissent revolved specifically around communion for the divorced and remarried, blessings for same-sex marriages and accepting the use of contraceptives. One comment to that essay raised the question as to why are these Church leaders out of step with Sacred Scripture, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and magisterial teachings?

Fall out from differing interpretations and differing views

As a layman, I am not sufficiently schooled in the intricacies of canon law or theology to answer those questions from those perspectives. However, as an avid reader of Catholic news sources, it appears there are many professionals in those fields who have reasons for differing views. These reasons vary from misinterpretations of the encyclical and of doctrine and canon law, to dissent from Catholic doctrine in order to establish a “New Paradigm”.

An often-expressed concern is that these issues are just the tip of the iceberg reflective of serious problems within the Church. For example, Cardinal Sarah (prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) contends that attempts to change Christian morality reveal a serious doctrinal crisis within the Church. In trying to wrap my head around why Church leaders would advocate positions that oppose traditional teaching, I find three main reasons: 1) striving for an approach to evangelization, 2) accommodating mercy and 3) accommodating a secular/relativist culture.

“Bending the rules” to evangelize

Evangelization is not about just bringing new members to the faith but also about keeping the faithful in the Church. The decline of Catholic Church membership in Europe and North America is a major area of concern; the Church is struggling to find an approach to deal with this. Surveys indicate several reasons why many of the faithful, especially young adults, no longer say they are practicing Catholics. A recent survey indicated a main cause was a lack of belief due to a perceived conflict of Scripture with science.  Past surveys indicate other reasons: church teaching lacks relevance and is too rigid;  believers are intolerant; services are not entertaining.

Father Matthew Schneider  provided an interesting analysis, in which he outlined two views of the Church’s problems in the modern world, and which echo those survey results and relate to the current debates. The first is that of doctrinal confusion: the Church has not been clear enough on certain issues or has not pronounced dogma with enough “authority”. This view assumes that the Church has not adequately catechized its members and that a stronger emphasis needs to be given to traditional teaching and practices.

The second is that the Church has been too narrow and closed-minded in helping the faithful in problem situations. This latter view emphasizes that not all situations are the same: there may be unique circumstances where applying Church teachings is not realistic so that mercy suggests some “bending of the rules”. The view that one accepts determines one’s approach to evangelization.

“Bending the rules” in the name of mercy

That the Church is being too closed-minded is the interpretation causing the current controversy and debates. This view seems to express the notion that trying to live by the divine law is only an ideal and that many in serious problem situations cannot reach that goal. This seems especially the case for living up to the norms of sexual morality. Consequently, those who do not live up to such standards should be accommodated: mercy must be shown and the Church should not place too many demands on people to conform. In turn, the Church needs to “accompany” those in unique circumstances: not only to help them in their situation, but to also keep them in the faith that will support them. It is seen as a way for the Church to encounter people where “they are” – not where they “should be”.

In many respects, this approach seems similar to political populism whereby the people’s opinion determine political actions. The notion of comfort and mercy and a less demanding faith appears as a kind of spiritual populism. There is a mistaken notion that if the Church can make things more comfortable for people, then they will stay with the faith. Although seemingly noble in intent, the result of such an approach can lead to license for immoralityl. By accommodating we are not heading where we need to be spiritually.

While the notion of mercy is part of our faith, so is the notion of justice and personal responsibility for our actions.  One can argue that this approach could reduce our sense of sin because we are being told that morality may be relative to the circumstances, so everything is OK.

Accommodation to a relativistic culture

There appears to be more and more in our society little or no moral consensus; much of the expressed morality is opposed to Catholic teaching. In turn, the Church constantly comes under fire for “views and rules” on marriage, family, and sexuality. Consequently, an accommodation mentality can lead to Catholic doctrine and practice being redefined to be more “in tune” with the secular culture. Conforming to values widely held in society can be seen as introducintg “creeping secularism or modernism” into Church doctrine and practice. We should be confronting and offering an alternative worldview to the current culture, not trying to fit into it.

In looking at potential changes to any Church practices, one can focus on two opposite areas: first, view a given issue through the lens of the faith; second, view it through the lens of popular culture. Monsignor Nicola Bux (the former consulter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith) sees the result of emphasizing the latter over the former as an “abandonment of Catholic thought”. Progressive views, which suggest Church teaching and practice are outmoded and should change to a model of modernity, foretell a coming crisis in faith. Only time will tell whether his claims are prophetic or an overreaction. The problem is, that as Christians we are supposed to live in the world but not be part of it.

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.  1John 2:15-16

There are many possible ways by which we can accommodate to the prevailing culture. However, none of those we might choose should be at the expense of what our faith teaches and requires of us.

Staying the course

One of the things that drew me to the Catholic Church many years ago was its discipline and attitude about the journey of faith as one of obligations and of absolute (as opposed to relative) belief and actions. I have great respect for a Church that is not “namby pamby” about stating concrete beliefs and standing up for what it believes is the truth. Because of that, I am alarmed that the compromising approach being debated is opposed to that stance.

On the surface, it appears that much of the “New Paradigm” is an attempt to compromise Church teachings in order to be “comfortable” with individual or cultural standards. I did not come into the Church so I could feel comfortable. I came to the Church because it taught and practiced the truth. If there are exceptions to Church belief, consequences and practices then where can the line be drawn for accommodation – abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage? It can lead to a slippery slope.

The Church teaches us that following our faith may involve discomfort and the carrying of crosses. To deny that is to deny reality. Our faith is like a muscle. Muscles do not grow and become stronger by being “comfortable”. Muscles develop by imposing stress on them. From a faith perspective, our spiritual muscles will grow by living up to the ideal, repenting and changing our behaviors when we need to. We are charged to be holy and to stand up for the truth. As St. Paul tells us in Ephesians 6: 10-18 “we need to put on the armor of God”. By definition that is not always going to be a comfortable process.

I think that we as individuals and the Church must show mercy to those in difficult situations; how that mercy is shown can take many forms. However, I do not think true mercy excuses a given behavior violating Church doctrine and practice. I am reminded that two of the spiritual acts of mercy are to admonish the sinner as well as counsel the doubtful. By analogy, am I showing mercy to a chronically obese friend by excusing his eating and exercise habits because it is too uncomfortable for him follow the rules of good health? The approach needed is not by “dumbing down”our goals, especially in the spiritual domain.  As the opening quote from St. Paul (Romans 12:2) tells us, we are to be transformed to a higher level, not to stay where we are.