In a recent private meeting with Jesuits and laity associated with Jesuit-run institutions in Colombia, Pope Francis took the opportunity to address many comments which have been made concerning the post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, which continues to be a document of continuing, if not increasing, controversy and debate.
The Holy Father made a number of very interesting comments.
He stated, “To those who maintain that the morality underlying the document is not “a Catholic morality” or a morality that can be certain or sure, “I want to repeat clearly that the morality of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ is Thomist,” that is, built on the moral philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas."
“St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure affirm that the general principle holds for all but — they say it explicitly — as one moves to the particular, the question becomes diversified and many nuances arise without changing the principle,” he had said. It is a method that was used for the Catechism of the Catholic Church and “Amoris Laetitia,” the Pope added.
Well, with due respect for the Petrine Office, I must confess that I am perplexed by the Holy Father’s suggestion that his interpretation of the basis of his Apostolic Exhortation is Thomistic.
I believe students of Aquinas and Bonaventure would agree with me.
It must be remembered that both Thomas and Bonaventure proceed from an
a-priori metaphysical assertion that morality is absolute, that is, the determination of the rightness or wrongness of an action is dependent upon the act's conformity to truths which are either Divinely Revealed or which are apparent from a studious consideration of the Laws of Nature.
Thus, certain actions are morally right or wrong in and of themselves and apply universally to all rational agents who act in freedom.
The is no question of nuance or diversity in the application of moral truths to human acts or behavior. For example, adultery is absolutely and objectively prohibited by both Divine and Natural Law. There is no situation or circumstance which would allow or justify such behavior. Those who engage in adulterous actions or relationships are engaged in actions which are morally reprehensible always and everywhere.
On the other hand, certain actions are morally neutral. Their moral rightness or wrongness is determined not by their relationship to Divine or Natural Law, but rather by the intention of those who carry them out. For example, the act of killing is in and of itself morally neutral. It can be justified and permitted in certain circumstances (self-defense). It can constitute a grave moral evil in other situations (murder).
For Thomas and Bonaventure, actions which are innately immoral always apply and they bind all equally and universally.
But whether a person incurs personal responsibility for his or her actions is wholly determined by any number of diverse factors: correct conscience, a full and free exercise of will, age, mental capacity as well as a host of circumstances which either eliminate or mitigate the consequences which flow from one’s actions or behavior.
For example, two persons engage in adultery.
One is fully and correctly formed in conscience that his or her adulterous actions constitute a grave moral evil and freely chooses to engage in these actions. Such a person is culpable for the actions and incurs the moral (and ecclesiastical) consequences of the act.
Another person who lacks sufficient mental capacity (an imbecile) engages in the same adulterous act, but his or her diminished mental capacity may either eliminate or mitigate personal responsibility and its attendant consequences.
So, for Thomas and Bonaventure, morality is absolute, culpability is situational or circumstantial.
Thomistic moral theology does not move from the general to the particular in a way which determines an action's goodness or evil. Rather, the movement from the general to the particular applies only when considering the ability of the agent to act with rational competence and freedom of will, thus determining culpability.
There is serious reason to question the Holy Father’s interpretation of Aquinas’ and Bonaventure’s metaphysical analysis of reality as well as their fundamental moral theologies.
And so, many Catholics of good will take exception to such an interpretation which serves as the basis for many of the pastoral initiatives which are encouraged in Amoris Laetitia. And for good reason.
I contend that the fundamental flaw of Amoris Laetitia is to be found in its lack of clarity regarding the objective and absolute nature of certain moral actions versus the determination of one’s personal responsibility for engaging in those actions.
Rightly understood, Amoris Laetitia is calling upon the Church to move away from the casuistic application of moral principles without sufficient consideration for the circumstances which may or may not eliminate or mitigate culpability. The Church has much too quickly and easily imputed responsibility without sufficient consideration or discernment of the circumstances in which people act.
A valid Sacramental Marriage is indissoluble. Anyone who engages in adulterous actions or behaviors engages in an objectively and absolute moral evil. This is universally true and applies to all spouses in every age and place.
Whether or not persons actually engaged in adulterous actions are personally culpable of sin and necessarily incur the moral and ecclesiastical penalties attached to such acts can only rightfully be determined by engaging in “a process of accompaniment and discernment” assisted by their Sacred Pastors.
Simply ascribing guilt and punishment on the basis of the action itself without consideration of the culpability of the agent is what Amoris Laetitia deplores and is seeking to correct.
And so, while I take issue with Pope Francis’ interpretation of Thomistic moral theology, I find that we arrive at the same place, saying basically the same thing.
For too long, the Church has been arrogant and insensitive to the real life situations of flesh and blood people who often know what is right but are so wounded or weakened that they may not be fully responsible for the situations in which they have placed themselves.
The Church needs to enrich its moral teaching with the virtues of charity and mercy. That requires not just an analytical examination of morality, but a blending of the scientific rigor of theology with a love for the Church and for a suffering humanity broken by sin.
As the Holy Father has rightfully observed:
“ There are certain points of morality on which only in prayer can one have sufficient light to continue reflecting theologically. And on this, allow me to repeat it, one must do ‘theology on one’s knees.’ You cannot do theology without prayer. This is a key point and it must be done this way.”
If only the Pope would be clearer and those hearing him would less defensive, perhaps the real truth of the Church’s moral theology could be proclaimed and the People of God be truly enlightened.
No comments:
Post a Comment