Are Debates over Pope Francis’ “The Joy of Love” a Healthy or Harmful Sign?
Three months after its release, how to interpret and implement Amoris Laetitia remains one of the most contested issues in the Catholic church today. But this ongoing dialogue, and at times intense debate, could itself be very welcome news.
The Vatican recently defended Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation on the family through two of its affiliated publications, according to Crux.
Earlier this week, historian Rocco Buttiglione wrote a front page column in L’Osservatore Romano responding to the exhortation’s critics who claim it is not a magisterial document and that it diverges from tradition.
Elsewhere, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna gave an interview to La Civilta Cattolica in which he said Amoris Laetitia is not merely consistent with but evolves doctrine on family issues.
Critics have included Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna, and Cardinal Raymond Burke, who said the exhortation was a “personal” document from the pope. Several dozen Catholics wrote a letter to 218 church leaders asking for Pope Francis to “respond to the dangers to Catholic faith and morals” which they perceive in the document. Their names have finally been made public by the National Catholic Reporter.
Much of the debate has centered around whether divorced and civilly remarried Catholics should be admitted to Communion. The larger debates, however, are about establishing this document as part of the magisterium and, therefore, the assent that is due to it from Catholics. Additionally, the practical ways the document should impact pastoral care and church disciplines is also a major issue.
Theologian Massimo Faggioli said the present divide around Amoris Laetitia is between those Catholics whose “constrained view” leads them to focus on church law and discipline, and those Catholics who focus on a “renewed emphasis on conscience” as new theological and pastoral questions arise. Writing in Commonweal, Faggioli reflected on the differences in ecclesial reception between Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae, and Pope Francis’ exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. He noted, in particular, the way which bishops have responded to these two documents.
After Humanae Vitae, a document equally if not more controversial because it retained the magisterium’s ban on artificial contraception, bishops engaged with one another and high level officials, and even questioned it publicly. Collective responses were issued by episcopal conferences and theologians, and the debates have not yet ceased. In my opinion, this experience is largely what caused Pope John II and Pope Benedict XVI to suppress dialogue in the church and to tie episcopal appointments to matters of sexuality for thirty-some years.
After Amoris Laetitia, Faggioli wrote, the situation is quite different. Instead, there is an “episcopal, magisterial individualism” by which each bishop responds to the document almost in isolation and without collegial discourse among their regional and national peers. Faggioli concluded:
“It is clear by now that a culture of discussion and discernment must be rebuilt among the episcopal leadership of the Catholic Church, starting from the national and continental bishops’ conferences. The reception of The Joy of Love requires a true commitment to a collegial and synodal church, not just mere affect.”
Differences now being expressed about Amoris Laetitia may be the first fruits of a new period in the church, a return to episcopal debates publicly played out. Thomas Groome, a Boston College theology professor, made this point in his response to Amoris Laetitia, telling The Guardian:
” ‘The fact that he’s [Pope Francis] allowing us to talk about these things is a breakthrough. . .It was presumed it was already decided and anybody that was raising this was obviously contrary to the church.’ “
Catholic publications have repeatedly picked up on this theme of Pope Francis inviting dialogue and difference. The National Catholic Reporter‘s editors wrote:
“Francis offers the Catholic community two challenges: To live as a community with parrhesia, speaking and listening to one another with courage and humility, and then to translate the openness of papal actions and documents into pastoral discourse and compassionate action in the parishes.”
The Tablet editorial highlighted the shift to a dialogue in their headline: “Power of conscience puts laity at centre of change.” They further editorialized:
“It would be right to describe the publication of Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis as a minor earthquake, though one preceded by plenty of warning tremors. And while the Catholic Church’s foundations may have been shaken, the walls and roof are still standing. Francis was well aware when he was elected Pope that the basic weakness in the Church’s mission to evangelise was its reputation as a stern and unforgiving teacher in the field of sexual and marital ethics, something that touches people’s lives most intimately. Put simply, it did not sound like the gentle voice of a loving mother. Francis had to respect as far as possible the content of the teaching. But he could change the one thing that may matter more than content for ordinary Catholics – its tone.”
The editors of Commonweal responded:
“This is not a recommendation of laxity or relativism. It is a recognition of human complexity and an endorsement of subsidiarity, a principle not restricted to politics. Only (properly trained) local pastors can be familiar enough with the members of their flock to undertake the kind of ‘practical discernment’ necessary to apply the church’s rules without deepening the wounds caused by divorce or abandoning the already abandoned.”
Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, said the flourishing of open and honest discussions in the church is an “unintended, but very welcome” aspect of Francis’ papacy. She wrote in The Huffington Post:
“[Pope Francis’] acceptance, even encouragement, of the expression of divergent opinions represents a dramatic shift in tone from a pontiff. . .After nearly 30 years during which agreement with official Church teaching seemed monolithic among Catholic leadership, having these differences of opinion out in the open is a very hopeful sign. Now we can acknowledge that, just as there is diversity among lay Catholics in views of LGBTQ people, the same is true of those responsible for developing and implementing Church policy. While those willing to question current teaching and practice still represent a minority of Church leaders, their voices are being heard, and it is likely that others may join them in the months ahead. This could help shift the focus from the utterings of Pope Francis to a recognition that there is a community of leaders responsible for Catholic teaching and policy. And as more and more Catholics, grassroots and leadership alike, stand up for the civil and ecclesial rights of LGBTQ people and families, the cultural and political identity of Catholicism as firmly opposing gay and transgender rights will quickly crumble, further weakening efforts to maintain oppressive structures.”
While it is clear that the dialogue and debate are now happening, what is less clear is what the impact will be. Some bishops, like Vienna’s Cardinal Christoph Schönborn or Chicago’s Archbishop Blase Cupich, have welcomed the document wholeheartedly. Others, like the critics mentioned above or Philadelphia’s Archbishop Charles Chaput, will be obstructionist. For the rest of the faithful, this renewed dialogue and debate in the church is largely welcomed, but this path will require far more engagement from all Catholics to discern how Amoris Laetitia should impact the life of the church, especially when it comes to LGBT people and others marginalized in the church.
–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry
Francis called for the “messy church,” where all views are expressed and Catholics of conscience pray, reflect and act according to conscience. Those in the hierarchy who rely on authoritarian rule balk at the very idea of individual conscience that may vary from their scholarly, traditional, final word on things. The key for me is the concept of the gentle voice of the loving mother. What does a gentle, loving mother do for her child? Does she banish him/her from the family table? Does she freeze him/her out if rules are not followed to the letter? It has been my experience over my 60 years that most mothers offer open arms, gentle words, and undying support for their children, no matter what. In every single case where women have taken the letter of the law over their primal urge for compassion and loving embrace, there has been deep regret. My mother-in-law refused to attend her brother’s second wedding because he and his first wife divorced. At the end of her life, she said, “Why did I do that? It caused years of division and hard feelings.” Many mothers balk when their adult children “live in sin” before marriage. These kids are steeped in student loan debt and are trying to work on dual careers. They are committed, but are so much older than our generation when they marry. I know many mothers who turned their backs on their children until they comply and “make it official.” In most of these cases, one of the main things the mothers worry about is what others will think of them. The community opinion matters, especially to older Catholics. And community norms are important. As my son often quotes, how many strands can you pull out of a rope without weakening it? When is it no longer a rope? I get all this. Still, a mother’s urge to embrace, sit with, accompany children–this seems to be the right thing. Mary, in her anguish, never left Jesus. This is our model.
For me, the official stance of the church toward LGBTQ people is different from the other examples. This issue presents a moral imperative. The official stance of the church is that this group of people and their expression of intimate love is “intrinsically disordered,” and that the very expression of their deepest human connection with another is sinful. This is untenable, as it denies basic human rights and dignity to this group. Insisting on this as the official teaching is in complete opposition to every other tenet of faith. This must be changed. People of conscience must speak up, speak up, and never stop speaking up. People are not to be denied their dignity. LGBTQ people are made by God and they should be full participants in our faith and acknowledged as an integral part of the Body of Christ. Anything less is not OK. For some Catholics whose hearts have been informed by the Holy Spirit, there is no compromise on this point. Until the church changes (the sooner the better) we must all act as loving mothers, with arms outstretched. Loving acts are never wrong.
Wow! That’s one of the most truthful and elegant responsive postings I’ve ever seen at this site, and needless to say, I am 1000% in agreement — (no, that’s not a typo) — with everything you’ve just said. I think all of us here are attuned with Pope Francis’ intuitive wavelength — which prioritizes compassion, community and the warm embracing of ALL baptized Catholics who wish to remain engaged in the life and work of the Church. The main obstruction to his generous outreach comes from the “Letter Of The Law” latter-day Pharisees camped on the Church’s extreme far-right-wing — who would gladly excommunicate anyone and everyone who disagrees with their own private draconian judgments and pronouncements. The Pope himself clearly disagrees with their ideological extremism — but that fact doesn’t seem to deter them at all. In past centuries, this doctrinal impasse would have resulted in a major schism within the Church. As for the present impasse, “God Only Knows” what will happen next.