The battle, begun during Vatican II, concerning the Church’s moral teachings continues to be waged in our day and age.
During the Council, German and Northern European Bishops introduced the revolutionary principle of “the evolution of dogma” and applied it to moral theology. At the heart of this effort was a morality which denied the existence of an absolute and immutable Natural Law.
In Europe, the leading advocate of this evolution in moral theology was Bernard Haring. In America, it was Charles Curran. Both of these men aggressively and very publicly attacked traditional Catholic moral teaching on matters such as abortion, contraception and homosexuality.
This novel approach to determining the morality of a particular action or behavior is based upon what is referred to as “discernment".
Pope Francis has stated repeated that it is an “important task” of the Society of Jesus that they “form seminarians and priests in the morality of ‘discernment.’”
It was using the method of “discernment” in response to the Zika virus scare earlier this year that Pope Francis appeared to condone the use of contraception for married couples living in affected areas as the “lesser of two evils.”
Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi confirmed the pope’s words the following day, stating: “The contraceptive or condom, in particular cases of emergency or gravity, could be the object of ‘discernment’ in a serious case of conscience. This is what the Pope said.”
Critics have charged that the Pope’s statements contradict previous Catholic teaching.
Pope Francis also spoke about the morality of “discernment” in his April exhortation Amoris Laetitia more than thirty times, using the term as a key to opening the door to Holy Communion for Catholics living in adulterous situations.
Immediately following the “smoking footnote” 351, in which critics say the pope allowed the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion, the Pope writes that “discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits.”
What is involved in the process of “discernment” and how it assists in the moral formation of the the individual conscience has yet to be fully explained.
But there is no question that this new moral doctrine of “discernment” has introduced serious confusion into traditional Catholic moral theology.
The Pope, in his ongoing dialogue with his brother-Jesuits, has noted that significant progress has been made in moral theology since the days of “you can, you cannot”, based upon a totally impersonal and rational construct known as the Natural Law.
“Obviously, in our day, moral theology has made much progress in its reflections and in its maturity,” Pope Francis has said.
Those, like myself and my contemporaries in the Priesthood, schooled and formed in a systematic moral theology based upon the Natural Law, find this new evolution in the Church’s moral teaching replete with contradictions and conundrums.
In our formation, the morality of an action or behavior was determined according to its adherence to or divergence from the principles of the Natural Law.
Actions and choices were morally right or moral wrong, good or evil, depending upon whether or not they conformed to the nature of the act itself, independent of intentions or circumstances. An act was objectively good or sinful depending upon its relationship to the Natural Law.
Circumstances or intentions affected, not the morality of the act itself, but whether or not the person performing the action was to be held morally accountable.
Now, in the twilight of our Priestly ministry, we are told that Catholic moral doctrine has moved beyond such a limited perspective.
We are likewise told (and often castigated by Pope Francis) that reluctance or hesitance on our part to accept and apply the theology of “discernment” reveals a pastoral immaturity and rigidity on our part.
What is particularly confounding to me is that, every time I was assigned to a different ministerial responsibility, the Church insisted that I take an Oath against Modernism, one of the fundamental tenets of which was the concept that there were no moral absolutes.
Now, after years of being faithful to those Oaths, I am told that I am morally immature and pastorally rigid.
What’s a Priest to do these days?
Having been relieved of my pastoral obligations for reasons of health, the question is pretty much esoteric. However, for the majority of my Priest-brothers still in pastoral service, the challenge is both immediate and direct indeed.
Many Priests, and Bishops with them, have chosen to seek safe haven in silence, choosing not to address these issues in their preaching and teaching.
That may do for the present.
But, as time passes, the People of God will demand clear and convincing moral teaching and doctrine from their leaders.
How will the Priests and Bishops respond to future generations of Catholics seeking moral enlightenment?
That time is coming soon.
I pray that the Holy Spirit will come to the Church’s rescue and provide the guidance it will require for the sake of the Gospel and the salvation of souls.
No comments:
Post a Comment