|
An interview with the
philosopher Rocco Buttiglione,
an expert on the teaching of St.
John Paul II: “The perspective
of Francis is perfectly
traditional. The novelty is in
applying the possible
mitigations provided for all
other sins, as they are quoted
in the Catechism of St. Pius X,
to the sin committed by the
divorced and remarried as well”
Rocco Buttiglione
Pubblicato il 30/05/2016
Ultima modifica il 30/05/2016
alle ore 16:08
ANDREA TORNIELLI
VATICAN CITY
Vatican insider 30/05/2016.
|
“Amoris laetitia involves
pastoral risks. Some may say it
is a pastoral decision that is
mistaken, but please let us do
away with the apocalyptic tones,
and stop saying that the
doctrine on indissolubility is
being put into question when we
are dealing with a pastoral
choice that relates to the
discipline of the sacraments and
which is grafted on a path whose
foundations were laid by Pope
John Paul II.” Professor Rocco
Buttiglione, a philosopher,
scholar and profound connoisseur
of the magisterium of Pope
Wojtyla, was struck by some of
the criticisms of the post-synodal
exhortation by Francis. Vatican
Insider interviewed him.
What do you think of the
exhortation Amoris laetitia as a
whole?
“It seems to me to be a great
effort to speak the word of
faith within the context of
today’s world. Which was also
the biggest concern of John Paul
II: the real man, the existing
man, the man of reality, not the
one described in the books or
the one we would wish him to
be.”
What relationship do you see
between this document by Francis
and the magisterium of Pope
Wojtyla?
“Once, the Church excommunicated
the divorced who had remarried.
It did so for the sake of a
valid concern: to avoid scandal
and to not put into question the
indissolubility of marriage. But
then we were living in a concise
Christianity. It was presumed
that everyone knew what marriage
was, a sacrament in which the
spouses become mutual guarantors
of the love of God and therefore
if one leaves, in some way it is
as if God has left too. John
Paul II said that the divorced
and remarried could not be
excommunicated, remembering that
in every sin there are objective
and subjective factors. There
are people who can do the wrong
thing, which remains an evil,
but without being totally
responsible. So Pope Wojtyla
opened up, inviting the divorced
and remarried to enter the
Church, receiving them,
baptizing their children,
reintegrating them into the
Christian community. But without
readmitting them to communion -
as in point 84 of Familiaris
Consortio - unless they came
back with the legitimate spouse,
or separated from the new
spouse, or lived in the second
marriage as brother and sister,
that is abstaining from sexual
relations.”
And now what does Amoris
laetitia propose?
“Francis is taking a further
step forward in this direction.
He does not say that the
divorced and remarried can
receive or expect communion,
hurrah! No! Divorce is awful and
there can be no sexual acts
outside of marriage. This moral
teaching has not changed. The
Pope says that now the divorced
and remarried can go to
confession, starting a path of
discernment with the priest. As
is done in every confession, for
every sin, the priest must
evaluate whether all the
conditions exist for a sin to be
considered mortal. To those of
my colleagues who uttered strong
words against Amoris laetitia I
should mention that St. Pius X -
not exactly a modernist Pope -
in his Catechism recalled that
mortal sin requires a grave
matter, but also full awareness
and deliberate consent, that is,
full freedom to assume total
responsibility for what I did.”
Why is this so important for the
case we are talking about?
“Because today, in many cases,
there is not full awareness.
There are huge masses of the
baptized who are not
evangelized. One might say, but
in these cases, there is the
process of matrimonial nullity.
Yes, this is true, although we
must remember that in many parts
of the world it is not as easy
to access the ecclesiastical
courts and it is not always so
easy to find out the truth. We
live in a world of wounded
families, of wounded people,
people who may find themselves
in situations which they are
unable to escape. You have to
evaluate everything and help
them get out of the situation of
sin, to begin a journey, but
without doing violence to
spouses who accompanied them in
a second marriage and who might
have been close to them in a
dramatic moment of their lives:
think of the case of a mother
with small children, abandoned
by her husband, who has joined a
man who took care of those
children. We are talking about
issues that require discernment,
sensitivity, great humanity,
compassion, guidance....”
With what as the final outcome,
Professor?
“The question is: at what point
of this process will the priest
give communion? When he
considers that the conditions
are there, with nothing
automatic and no shortcuts, but
also without slamming the door
in someone’s face before the
personal stories have been
seriously evaluated. This is the
idea of the Church as a field
hospital, which is so dear to
Pope Francis. If we were at
Bethesda Naval Hospital where
the President of the United
States is treated, the patient
would come out perfectly healed,
after all the necessary
interventions have been made. In
the field hospital, they begin
to staunch the wounds.”
What relationship does this
perspective have with the
tradition of the Church?
“This perspective is perfectly
traditional. Amoris laetitia
says: let us also evaluate the
subjective conditions for the
sin of those who have been
divorced and now live in a new
union. It is an eminently
pastoral question. I remember
Don Luigi Giussani when he said:
“You must judge the acts, and
never judge the person, because
that belongs only to God.” Only
to God, and also a little to the
confessor. I have read dramatic
and unacceptable commentaries on
the document, and in particular
on a footnote.”
With the apostolic exhortation
Amoris laetitia something has
changed, then?
“Of course something has
changed! But neither the
morality nor the doctrine on the
indissolubility of marriage have
changed. The pastoral discipline
of the Church is changing. Until
yesterday, for the sin committed
by the divorced and remarried,
there was a presumption of total
guilt. Now even for this sin the
subjective aspect will be
evaluated, as is the case for
murder, for not paying taxes,
for exploiting workers, for all
the other sins we commit. The
priest listens and also assesses
the mitigating circumstances. Do
these circumstances change the
nature of the situation? No, a
divorce and a new union remain
objectively evil. Do these
circumstances change the
responsibility of the person
involved? Maybe yes. You have to
discern.”
Does the emphasis on the
subjective aspect risk turning
into of form of subjectivism?
“It is not subjectivism. It is
the fair consideration of human
subjectivity. This is taught by
St. Thomas Aquinas: you did
something wrong but you cannot
always assume all of the
responsibility. Fundamentally
this moral doctrine began on
Calvary, when the crucified
Jesus says: ‘Father, forgive
them for they know not what they
do.’”
Some say that by readmitting the
Eucharist, only in certain cases
and after a path of discernment,
the people in this situation
would be changing the doctrine
of the Church. What do you
think?
“It is not a matter of doctrine.
The doctrine remains as it is
concerning the assessment of
what is evil and what is not.
Instead, we are talking about
subjective accountability and
any possible mitigating
circumstances. In announcing the
Gospel we have to ask ourselves
what should be said first and
what should be said later. Jesus
did not say to John and Andrew:
‘First keep the commandments,’
but ‘Come and see!’. When St.
Paul went to the Areopagus of
Athens, his heart boiled in
anger over all those altars to
various deities. But when he
took the floor, he said to the
Athenians: ‘I admire your
religion ...’ and then focused
on the altar to the unknown God,
proclaiming Jesus Christ. He
began there. The time would come
later to say that the other
altars should be removed. Pope
Francis declares that Jesus
loves every man and woman in any
situation in which they may find
themselves, and wants every man
and every woman to be saved by
meeting the embrace of his
mercy. Then there will be the
commandments, but we cannot
allow a mistake made in life to
exclude anyone from this
embrace.”
And yet Saint John Paul II
fought against situational
ethics, which is based on the
subjective aspect ...
“What I see in some opponents of
the Pope is the desire to remain
only on the side of objectivity.
It is true, as you recall, that
Pope Wojtyla fought against
situational ethics, according to
which there is no objectivity,
but only the subjective
intention. Obviously this is not
the case: there is the objective
nature of an act. But John Paul
II never thought, even remotely,
of negating subjectivity. There
are situations of sin from which
it is difficult to extricate
oneself. We live in a society of
pansexualism in which there is
less consciousness of certain
ethical evidence. Because
certain truths are assimilated
by all, it takes patience and it
takes the effort of going on a
journey. Are there risks? Sure!
Some might be inclined to think
that a divorce and a new union
are no longer an evil; someone
who has remained faithful, even
when separated from his
marriage, might think there has
been some mistake; someone else
might fear the risk that
consciences will weaken. There
are pastoral risks, without a
doubt. For this reason we must
guide and explain. But it is a
pastoral decision. Some may say
it is wrong but please let us do
away with the apocalyptic tones,
and stop saying that the
doctrine on indissolubility is
being put in to question when we
are faced with a choice that
relates to the discipline of the
sacraments and which is grafted
on a path whose foundations were
laid by Pope John Paul II.” |