Responses to Cardinal Burke et al's Dubia

I figured I'd take a whack at responding to doubts proposed by Cardinal Burke and his three cardinal colleagues. This is how I imagine Pope Francis might answer, though I would not presume to actually speak for him or anyone but myself. My intent is to balance objective moral truth against the messy reality that is life, and I think that's really what Pope Francis is urging that pastors do. I think he's said as much on numerous occasions.

I will grant that I am no theologian or canon lawyer, and that my understanding of Catholic moral tradition is less than others'. Despite that, I think my answers are orthodox, even if not a wholly traditional Catholic approach. It's good to keep in mind that the discipline and application of definitive truth can change without necessarily doing damage to the truth. It tends to be a matter of personal judgment on whether a specific change incurs actual damage to the truth. They are not independent of each other, but they are not so bound up that it is impossible to change practice/discipline/law (as is manifestly evident from Church history).

Traditionalists/conservatives tend to err on the avoid changing things to be safe side of things; progressives/liberals tend to err on the side of being more concerned with contemporary adaptation in the hope of addressing new challenges (perceived or real). Where one falls on this tends to be a spectrum and not a binary, and I am certainly somewhere in between.

The proposers of these doubts suggest that they can be answered in a simple yes or no; however, they take pains to preface and then elaborate on each of them. While theoretically such questions can be answered yes or no, I do not think it is reasonable to expect a simple yes or no, nor have I bound myself to that stricture. In fact, I would say that simply answering yes or no, especially given the way the questions are asked, can easily lead to faulty interpretations and actions, based on such a simple answer. I suggest that expecting a simple yes or no puts the power in the hands of the question framers, and so it would not really be appropriate for the CDF or Pope Francis to answer with a simple yes or no.

If I had to guess why no answer has been given so far, it is because the Holy Father well knows that no matter what answer he gives, even with clarifications, it will only engender more debate, debate which I'm sure he feels has been given due space in the synods leading up to Amoris Laetitia. The contemporary Church is not given to expressions of anathema sit, and even/until an actual ecumenical council were called (and warranted) to address these concerns, no matter what the Pope teaches, there will be dissenters and differing interpretations and applications of laws. When Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were in office, we had plenty of "confusion" and dissent in the Church; those who pretend that Pope Francis is new in this way, only think so because it is now their positions which are challenged.  The Church always has had and will always have its share of dissenters and divergences of opinions and interpretations.

And as we have seen with even ecumenical councils, there remain dissenters even after those definitive gatherings. So the fantasy that a clarification by Pope Francis on these items would end differing opinions, create unified pastoral guidance, etc. is just that--a fantasy. Suggesting that his not doing so is somehow indicative of his intention to signal approval of heresy is simply outrageous and is bitterly ungenerous, presumptuous, and potentially sinful in itself.

I welcome thoughtful dialogue on the answers below. But if you start out by telling me I'm a heretic, or if you simply assert that my answers are heretical or unorthodox or not Catholic or anything along those lines, be prepared to be ignored. If, however, you want to argue for alternative positions or point me to some definitive teachings that seem to call my answers into question, I will gladly consider those. My desire is always to remain faithful to God and his Church.

Know that I do not consider canons or prior legislative texts or this or that Vatican congregation or this or that bishop, cardinal, or pope weighing in on something as de facto infallible or irreformable (again, in keeping with Catholic Tradition). Not even everything in our current Catechism is infallible or irreformable or not subject to further discussion and development. That is to say, if you use a text to support your position, be prepared to surround it with argumentation as to why you think it is authoritative in the context and how it supports your view. Proof texting, even from Scripture, is an impoverished practice in such dialogue.

Now onto the dubia...

DOUBT 1) It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

I ANSWER THAT given sure knowledge of the specific conditions enumerated here, particularly definite knowledge of the validity of a prior union and no intention of living in continence in the new union that is acknowledged to be adulterous, it would not be appropriate to absolve such a penitent. It is a given that Divine law requires a repentant heart for forgiveness.

It is possible to absolve, however, if the validity of prior unions is uncertain (or even doubtful). This is particularly true if the new union appears more likely to be valid than prior unions, even if if has yet to be adjudicated as such.

It may also be possible to absolve if the penitent clearly expresses a firm intention to amend his life, even if it seems unlikely he will be able to do so (and even if he has a history of not being able to do so), particularly in situations where, as Pope St. John Paul II wrote in Familiaris Consortio, 84, taking the objective actions necessary to prevent future sin would involve committing new injustices or would otherwise be impracticable. The pastor should be generous and supportive of the intention, whatever doubts he may have.

In certain cases, it may be that the penitent cannot honestly apprehend that his new situation is sinful, perhaps due to serious personal doubts of the validity of the prior union (even having tried to adjudicate nullity without success) or failure to apprehend the true nature of marriage even now (which should cast doubt on validity of either union). These could be a defect of knowledge and, consequently, of full consent. Pastors should endeavor to determine if such is willful ignorance or a defect in intellect or some other mitigating factor, always with a preference for generosity if the penitent displays honest intention to live a holy life and grow in sanctification, accompanying and guiding the penitent toward that life.

In all cases, the pastor should counsel according to the teaching of the Church to help the penitent correctly discern his situation, encourage and help the penitent to seek a decree of nullity if possible, and offer practical advice to help the penitent avoid sin.

DOUBT 2) After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

I ANSWER THAT, yes, there are indeed absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts (and as such objectively, intrinsically evil acts do definitely exist). Murder. Adultery. Blasphemy. Idolatry. And so on.

It is not, however, an objective fact that someone who has been married was definitely validly, sacramentally married. The fact of an ecclesiastical legal system and tribunals that adjudicate the validity (or nullity) of marriages is sufficient evidence of this, as is Church teaching on what is necessary for a valid marriage to occur in the first place.

Given this, it is possible for someone to objectively be in a second union without, by virtue of that objective fact, committing adultery. And given the known terrible state of catechesis today coupled with secular cultural norms that directly contradict a Catholic understanding of marriage and sexuality, not to mention a growing understanding of human physiology and psychology, it is reasonable to be more uncertain in contemporary times that all, or even most, marriages--even those celebrated in Catholic churches--are valid. In short, it is not a safe assumption that someone who is remarried is, by the simple fact of being remarried, committing adultery, and more than that, it is arguable that this is more doubtful today than at any point in Christian history.

On the other hand, there are still objective actions that can be assumed to be adultery, such as sleeping with someone who is married without being in any form of marriage with that person. The distinction here is between a married couple where one of the individuals is divorced and remarried, versus two people having sex outside of marriage, with one or both being in a marriage (confirmed to be valid or not). It is beyond a doubt in the latter case that such is extramarital sexual relations, without regard to determining the validity of the prior or current marriage. So cohabiting unmarried people who engage in sex, those having sexual affairs, keeping a mistress, etc. would fall under the objective adultery category.

DOUBT 3) After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?

I ANSWER THAT it is still possible to affirm this when the sin in question is public and indisputable, for example, in the case of a politician repeatedly, obstinately pursuing governmental policies that promote an intrinsic evil. However, in the case of adultery (and sex in general), which is by nature private, we cannot assume, even by the nature of a public commitment such as marriage, that adultery is habitually occurring by the simple fact of persons living together (married or not). This is as true for a minister of Communion discerning the application of Canon 915 as it is for any lay person observing another.

However, if adultery is determined publicly and an individual publicly manifests an intent to continue in that sin, a minister of Communion could infer an objective situation of grave habitual sin and act accordingly by applying Canon 915. This seems like it would be rare. Most people do not affirm adultery publicly. It is arguable that if a person, say, prominently were to keep a mistress, then Canon 915 could apply, even if the person did not explicitly affirm that adultery because the nature of keeping a mistress is that it is an actively sexual relationship, as would typically be an affair. In such cases, there are no other reasons for two unmarried people to be together.

On the other hand, a remarried (or even cohabiting) couple may have other practical reasons to to remain together, and assuming the relationship is adulterous is less of a reliable assumption than in these others. This is not to say that it is not reasonable to think that such a relationship is sexual, only that it should not be assumed that it is with regards to the application of Canon 915 or a general perception of an objectively adulterous situation. In short, unless they express in private to a minister or in public that they are living as man and wife, one should be willing to extend the benefit of the doubt.

What should be obvious is that pastoral discernment is still required even when one may suspect grave sin and that in general both clergy and laity should not presume sexual sin simply based on external circumstances alone. And the public act of refusing Communion should be based in a commensurately public grave sin. It is better, in most cases, to counsel such persons privately to discern whether or not to approach the sacrament, as is the clear intent of St. Paul in 1 Cor 11.

DOUBT 4) After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

I ANSWER THAT yes, one ought to regard that teaching as still valid. No matter the mitigations of personal circumstance that diminish culpability, an objectively evil act can never be transformed into a morally acceptable choice much less a good, considered in itself. It's worth noting that this does not mean that other goods cannot accidentally accompany or follow as a result of objectively immoral actions, but such goods do not change the nature of the evil act in itself.

Amoris Laetitia 302 does not seek to countermand this teaching. Rather, it calls to mind the well-established distinction in Church teaching between objective grave sin and subjective mortal sin.

DOUBT 5) After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

I ANSWER THAT it is not the role of conscience to make an act moral or immoral. It is the role of the conscience to discern the path of good from the path of evil. Amoris Laetitia 303 suggests that it further can discern the best that a specific person can do in a specific situation. This is no commentary on the objective nature of the acts in question. It is, rather, a recognition of the limitations of the person in question to choose the good, i.e., to maximize the good and avoid the evil in as much as a person can. It, in itself, does not determine whether or not such an action is actually good or evil; it can only determine what is in its best judgment the best path.

God's Mercy Drives Out Fear

The other morning during our team Friday brekky, it came up again that I and some others do not eat meat on Fridays during Lent. One of the fellas present was raised Catholic, and someone asked him why he still eats meat. He said something like, "I gave all that stuff up a long time ago." Then he said something like, "Ambrose, maybe you can cover me?" At which my raised-Catholic-turned-atheist colleague laughed and muttered some kind of agreement.

"Noo.. sorry, it doesn't work that way, guys," I said.

Then my nominally-Catholic friend said, "my plan is to just wait until the end and then take care of things." To which my atheist colleague added, "yeah, that doesn't really make much sense that you can just do whatever and then make it all okay by confessing at the end."

"But it does make sense--that's what God's mercy is all about." I replied, which somehow ended the conversation. I think everyone wasn't ready for any kind of involved discussion on it. It was just Friday brekky at work after all.

In any case, it got me thinking about it. You know, it can seem like hell is a convenient religious stick to beat people into submission, but the problem with that idea is that through Christ's triumph on the Cross, hell has lost its sting. We do not rely on our own goodness, our own merits, to save us but rather Christ's. This is Good News--it ain't called that for no reason.

As our Holy Father recently said--God never tires of forgiving; it is we who tire of asking. It is also we who get it in our heads sometimes that it is we who save us, but it is not we--it is God. It doesn't matter if we wait until the last moment, God is still merciful. It doesn't matter if we have committed the worst of crimes, God is still merciful. God offers his grace to us freely, regardless of our own merits, because it is the infinite merits of Christ that justifies us, not our own goodness.

People need to get a handle on this, because as long as they think they are the ones who save themselves, they can and should live in fear--because such justification is impossible, even for the goodliest person. But once we realize that we are wholly dependent upon God for our justification, due to his infinite love and mercy, we no longer need to live in fear. God's mercy drives out fear.

Should we then live profligately and wait until the end? Hell no! Not just because it is a gamble--because we could die in our sin without a chance to repent. It is also because sin has consequences here and now. It binds us and makes us slaves, slaves to our flesh, slaves to our habits, slaves to the opinions of others, slaves to our own opinions of ourselves. It also has a tendency to hurt others in very real and serious ways.

No, those who are baptized have died to sin and been born into newness of life. It is a freedom, a freedom through that grace to begin our journey to reform our fallen selves, reliant upon his sanctifying grace freely offered in the Sacraments, to develop the virtues, to offer joyful penance, and to develop authentic human freedom. There is no fear here. We are assured of God's mercy. All we have to do is acknowledge our sins and ask for his mercy, availing ourselves of the infinite merit of Christ.

An interesting corollary is that this illustrates how Christianity is decidedly not just an ethical system dressed up in religious robes (nor an ethical system used by a priestly caste to control people). Without an understanding of God's mercy and why his infinite merit satisfies justice, one can make no sense of how the Christian ethical system is just. In fact, without God's infinite merit offered on our behalves, it would be terribly unjust. It is the Cross, or it is nonsense.

The Church is Doing It Wrong

One of the things you learn in learning to design professionally is that often how you frame the problem is as important as trying to solve the problem. Case in point. And lest anyone think this is a strictly Catholic problem.

What am I saying? I'm saying that framing the problem as "how can we grow the Church?" is doing it wrong, that framing it as "what can we do to keep people from leaving" is doing it wrong, and that examining polls about what people think about the Church and using that to inform what we do is doing it wrong.

What do you get when you frame it this way? You get anxious wringing of hands. You get "programs" and "initiatives." You get more fish fries, carnivals, spaghetti dinners, and pancake breakfasts. You get a watering down of doctrine on both faith and morals, homilies that are nothing more than banal, earthy moralisms. You get artificial attempts at being hip and relevant that those who are hip find repulsive and irrelevant. In short, you get everything but the Gospel.

So how should we frame the problem? The answer is in the name of the popular term "new evangelization." No, it's not the "new" part ("renewed" would be more apropos in this context); it's the "evangelization" part. The way to frame the problem is "how can we best share the Good News?"

And the answer is the same today as it was for the Apostles. First, we must ourselves repent and believe. Second, avail ourselves of the sacraments. Third, go out into all the world. In other words, authentically follow Christ and show others how to do the same.

Parishes should be focusing on how they can best celebrate the sacraments. Parish priests should ask themselves, "How can I celebrate the Eucharist fully faithfully, authentically, in the richest way possible?" The answer is not to get creative or worry about incorporating pop music or other profane activities (I'm looking at you, Austria). On the contrary, work to restore a sense of the sacred, transcendent, otherness; treat it as if we were truly encountering God because, ya know, we are. Foster Eucharistic Adoration.

Ask, "How can I make confession more convenient for my parishioners?" Show them how important it is by making it a crucial, daily part of parish life, not a Saturday afterthought. If you're in the confessional and nobody comes--that's okay. Take that time to pray. It's a win either way, but people will come.

Ask, "How can I teach the faith more authentically in my homilies?" Preaching should challenge people to grow in the faith, not be complacent in it. It should equip parishioners to direct their own lives towards God and also to be able to explain it to others. It's okay if they don't get it all right away.

Ask, "How can I ensure parishioners are prepared for the other sacraments?" Marriage--be strict; be faithful. Don't smooth over the harder teachings; you're not doing anybody any favors by doing that. Baptism--teach what baptism really is all about; reinforce how important it is to do it ASAP, not when Aunt Bertha can make it in six months later. Ditch the feel-good 80s infomovies. First communion and confirmation: for the love of all that is holy, make religious education free. And on that subject, make sure your teachers are orthodox. Challenge the kids, too. Again, it's okay if they don't get it all right away--mystery is a good thing. Treat these things seriously, like they are real means of grace and not social events.

People--complacent, lukewarm people--are going to be bothered by this. "But Father..." will be heard a lot. People may even threaten to leave. And then do it. That's OK. They did that to Jesus as well. The Gospel is not a popularity contest. It is not a way to reassure everyone that they're okay and good being however they want to be. It is demanding. It is the narrow way.

So all these suggestions are related to steps one and two--getting the house in order. Out of this will grow, quite naturally and authentically, evangelism, that is, the apostolate of the laity. Educate the laity in their responsibility for evangelization; think about how to better equip them (e.g., apologetics courses, Bible studies, and evangelism practice) and support them in it.

I'm not saying that priests don't think about these things. I'm not pretending any of this is novel (quite the contrary). But there does seem to be a kind of forgetting, or maybe a thinking as if this is somehow not enough. And so the focus shifts off the essentials and onto all these other attempts at "keeping" people and "growing" the church, instead of keeping a firm hold on Christ and growing the faith.

I think most priests know they need to do this, but they're held back. Maybe they're afraid of offending their parishioners. Maybe they recognize what a sea change in parish culture this would be. Maybe they're just intimidated by the effort it implies. That's why those of us parishioners who understand this is the way things need to be should encourage and support our pastors in these efforts. But it needs doing regardless.

Ongoing Conversion

As part of my study assignment for ongoing formation as a lay Dominican, the question was posed: "Have you experienced conversion to the Lord Jesus? How? Was it gradual or sudden? Was it once only or is it ongoing?"  Here's my (slightly edited and extended) answer.


As a child, growing up as a non-denominational, evangelical Protestant, I had many conversions. They certainly have the idea of a main conversion moment, where you "accept Jesus into your heart," but there were other conversion moments most of us experienced. Our thinking was that if you “backslid,” then you needed to repent and “rededicate” your life to God. Sometimes there would be a question if our earlier conversion was real, especially for those who had more (unconscious) Calvinist leanings. I will say that I had some significant spiritual experiences during this time and have no doubt they have had an impact on my overall formation and sanctification.

I also had a longish conversion to Catholicism, starting in college. All told, it was about five years of fairly in-depth searching, learning, and praying. I had many difficulties to overcome from a doctrinal/understanding perspective. One that had a special conversion moment was when I first prayed to Mary—I asked her to pray for me, that if I should come to a Catholic understanding of her/her place in salvation history that it was up to her to bring me there by her prayers (something like that). It had a profound impact on me, and I felt an immediate closeness to her and thereafter struggled less with Marian doctrine.

Since becoming Catholic, I have regular conversions—turning away from sin and back towards God. This happens each time I make an act of contrition (almost daily) and especially in Confession, as I experienced again today. It is often prompted by going to mass, sometimes by the LOTH, and sometimes just by the Holy Spirit pricking my conscience.

So I guess you could say my conversion is gradual ongoing, much like St. Paul speaks of in his letter to the Philippians (chapter three):

More than that, I even consider everything as a loss because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have accepted the loss of all things and I consider them so much rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having any righteousness of my own based on the law but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God, depending on faith to know him and the power of his resurrection and sharing of his sufferings by being conformed to his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

It is not that I have already taken hold of it or have already attained perfect maturity, but I continue my pursuit in hope that I may possess it, since I have indeed been taken possession of by Christ Jesus.

Brothers, I for my part do not consider myself to have taken possession. Just one thing: forgetting what lies behind but straining forward to what lies ahead, I continue my pursuit toward the goal, the prize of God’s upward calling, in Christ Jesus.

Let us, then, who are “perfectly mature” adopt this attitude. And if you have a different attitude, this too God will reveal to you. Only, with regard to what we have attained, continue on the same course.

P.S. I couldn't help but notice what seems to be a slightly snarky comment towards the end there--basically, to all those who think they've already attained perfection, just wait, God will reveal to you that you're wrong. LOL. :)

A Good Confession

Thank God that I was able to receive the sacrament of reconciliation yesterday (a.k.a., confession). It's such an awesome channel of grace we have!

I tried something this time that worked out really well. In examining my conscience beforehand, I actually wrote down my sins, because I've often found that I forget all but the ones that pester my conscience most once I actually get in to confess.

I really think writing them down helped a lot. I mean, of course it helped me remember them, but I think in doing so, I was able to make a much fuller and complete confession than perhaps I ever have. It was great. Even though I know God is merciful and forgives even those sins we innocently forget, there's just something really.. fulfilling (?) about making such a full confession.

I was reading recently Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska's published Diary recently, and she recommends three things to those who want to benefit most from confession: complete sincerity and openness, humility, and obedience (Notebook I, 113). I think writing my sins down helps with both the first two. If I don't, I can easily fall into being overly generous and forgetful of my own faults, and that leads to pride. In writing them down, I see them staring me in the face, keep them in mind, and consequently will not be so easily led to pride but rather will maintain a more realistic view of myself (and work towards true humility).

I guess the adage of your mileage may vary applies, but it's probably worth trying. Also, if you have an iPhone, using the ShopShop (shopping list) app can be a good tool for this. :) Peace!

UPDATE (7 July 2009): I found on the Saint Cast site that there is an iConfess app for $0.99; it has stuff to help you examine your conscience, info about confession, some prayers, and a tagging capability that you could, I suppose, use to keep track of things to confess. I think I like the free form shopping list approach better, but it is a good start. Maybe v2 will expand.