In February 2014, when Univision conducted a poll of more than 12,000 Catholics from five continents to gauge the level of support for controversial Catholic teachings, there were as you might expect, enormous differences across regions. But on the issue of contraception, there is a remarkable consensus. Overall, 78% of Catholics in Europe, Africa, Latin America, the U.S. and the Philippines opposed the teachings of the Catholic Church on this issue.

 Is that the “sense of the faithful” the sensus fidelium so central to our understanding of the Church coming out of Vatican II?

Commenting on the 6800 survey responses he received in answer to his diocesan survey taken in preparation for this synod, Bishop Robert Lynch of  St. Petersburg, Florida said,”  “On the matter of artificial contraception the responses might be characterized by the saying, ‘that train left the station long ago.’   Catholics have made up their minds and the sensus fidelium suggests the rejection of Church teaching on this subject.”

His comments echo what FutureChurch and seventeen Catholic reform organizations in the United States found as a result of their November 2013 survey where only 1% of 16, 582 respondents (52% self identified as mass goers) agreed that the teachings of Humanae Vitae were completely accepted. 

The bishops from Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Ireland and Japan all echoed similar reports.

Pope Paul VI ‘s decision to overturn the recommendation of his Pontifical Commission on Birth Control became a breakpoint, according to sociologist Fr. Andrew Greeley, for the disintegration of trust and respect for the authority of Church teaching on this issue and the subsequent mass exodus of parishioners.   

Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence that Catholics have not accepted the tenets of Humanae Vitae, there is far too little evidence that this synod will provide the participants who could engender new conversations on the topic.  The official yet minority position of the Church on this issue is vastly overrepresented in the current makeup of the invitees while those who could engender serious new discussions were left out.

Yet there is hope in those who express the position of the majority of faithful Catholics such as Cardinal Walter Kasper who recently said that birth control was “the responsibility of the parents” to decide and that the natural family planning promoted by the Church also has an “artificial” element (Telegraph, 19 Sept 2014). 

Further hope is connected to the man who called the synod in the first place.  Recently, in response to Cardinal Gerhard Mueller’s full out defense of the immutability of Church teaching, Pope Francis said,  “Faced with so many pastoral requirements, faced with the requests of men and women, we run the risk of becoming afraid and of turning in on ourselves in a fearful and defensive manner...This fear leads to the temptation to be self-satisfied and to clericalism, to codify the faith in rules and instructions just as was done by the Pharisees, the scribes and the doctors of law in Jesus’ time...(Irish Times, 20 Sept 2014).”

Indeed Catholics have experienced the weight of those in power who “tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them (Mt 23:4).”

At FutureChurch, our mission is rooted in the foundational notion that the faithful have fundamental rights and responsibilities in the life of the Church and for the good of the whole Church.  They have the right to petition, that is, to make known to pastors their needs and hopes (C 212.2) and the right to advise pastors regarding the good of the church, and to participate in public opinion and informing the faithful (C212.3). 

We believe it is imperative for the success of this synod and the life of the Church that the temptation to include only those who are loyal to current Church teaching in the working groups is avoided and that the voices of all the faithful are engaged in a meaningful way.  That could happen if synod officials choose to widen their circles to include a diversity of voices while taking seriously the chorus of voices already received in the form of survey responses.  Only by creating a structure where real dialogue can flourish will the Church find its way into a robust and meaningful future of shared faith and communal life. 

FutureChurch agrees with both the hope and concern Sr. Joan Chittister expressed when she said,   “From where I stand, it looks as if we have been given another opportunity to do it right this time. The only question is whether or not the bishops who were entrusted with gathering the answers of the laity to these questions will start at all. Let alone go all the way (NCR, 28 May 2014).” #####

References

• http://www.univision.com/interactivos/openpage/2014-02-06/la-voz-del-pueblo-portada-en
• http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html  The International Theological Commission recently released Sensus Fidei: In the Life of the Church which states “All of the baptized participate in the prophetic office of Jesus Christ ... The Holy Spirit anoints them and equips them ... conferring on them a very personal and intimate knowledge of the faith of the Church. ... As a result, the faithful have an instinct for the truth of the Gospel, which enables them to recognize and endorse Christian doctrine and practice, and to reject what is false."

 Deborah Rose-Milavec

[Italian]

English Translation by Anne Goodrich Heck

Separated, divorced, and remarried people are no longer a small minority in the church, but a vast multitude in Italy and around the world. They are asking only to be reconciled with themselves, with the Christian community, and with God, after the painful trauma of a failed marriage. Their requests cannot be ignored, nor circumvented with proclamations that are welcoming in tone but exclusionary in law and in practice. Nor should they be consigned to the convolutions of canon law, which represents the very antithesis of the Gospel message and poses grave dangers for church fellowship.

In an open letter to Pope Francis, recently published as Dear Papa Francesco: Letter from a divorced man (Oltre Edizioni, 2013), Oliviero Arzuffi seeks to address the problems that come with marginalizing people in Christian communities and excluding those who are divorced from the sacraments. This is based on a restrictive, if not arbitrary, interpretation of New Testament texts on this subject, disguised as infallible doctrine and the perennial Tradition of the Church.

At the synod on the family, therefore, I intend to ask for a revision of the current church law and discipline regarding the exclusion of the divorced and remarried from the sacraments. This revision would be based on: Matthew 19:9, “... except as a result of immoral behavior ...” (Mè epí porneia); 1 Cor. 7:15, “the Pauline privilege” regarding mixed marriages, “if the unbeliever wants to separate, let him do so ... God has called you to be at peace”; and Matthew16:19, the power given by Christ to the Church “to loose and to bind.”

The indissolubility of marriage was understood as a relative concept in the history of the church, at least until the Council of Trent. But the Catholic Church has turned it into a dogma instead of thinking of it as a horizon of values meant to assist people in developing their full humanity.

In fact, we should recall canon 8 of the first council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), which received into ecclesial fellowship “those who were married a second time (the digamoi).” We should also remember the whole Eastern tradition that flowed into the Orthodox Church, which holds the principle of indissolubility no less close to its heart than Catholics, and yet takes into account the reality of flesh-and-blood human beings living in particular emotional and socio-cultural contexts.

We are men and women of the third millennium, who live in marital situations considered "irregular" by current discipline, but we have no intention of abandoning our faith in the one Lord nor ending our participation at the table of brotherhood. In commiting ourselves to live in the fullness of life, we are convinced that there are other ways to bring together warranted justice and creative mercy.

Separati, divorziati e risposati

Separati, divorziati, risposati: non più esigua minoranza nella chiesa, ma moltitudine senza numero ormai in Italia e nel mondo, che chiedono solo la riconciliazione con sé stessi, con la comunità cristiana e con Dio, dopo il doloroso trauma di un fallimento matrimoniale. Una richiesta che non può più essere disattesa, né aggirata con proclami di accoglienza ma escludenti nel diritto e nei fatti, né consegnata alle contorsioni del diritto canonico, pena la negazione stessa del messaggio evangelico e gravi pericoli per la comunione ecclesiale.

Oliviero Arzuffi, ha  inteso porre, attraverso una lettera aperta a papa Francesco da poco pubblicata ( Caro Papa Francesco. Lettera di un divorziato. Oltre edizioni 2013), il problema dell’emarginazione concreta nelle comunità cristiane e dell’esclusione sacramentale dei divorziati a motivo di una restrittiva, quando non arbitraria, interpretazione dei testi del Nuovo Testamento sull’argomento, fatta passare per infallibile dottrina e perenne Tradizione della Chiesa.

Al sinodo sulla famiglia intendo perciò chiedere che venga rivista l’attuale disciplina giuridico- ecclesiastica sull’esclusione sacramentale per i divorziati risposati sulla base della clausola di Matteo (Mt. 19,9) “…eccetto a causa di comportamenti immorali…(Mè epì porneia)” ,della prassi paolina per i matrimoni misti  (1Cor. 7,15) “Ma se il  non credente vuol separarsi, si separi…Dio vi ha chiamati a stare in pace…, e del potere dato da Cristo alla Chiesa di “sciogliere e legare” (Mt.16,19).

La relatività del concetto di indissolubilità matrimoniale, che la Chiesa cattolica ha trasformato in dogma (monstrum) invece di concepirlo come un orizzonte valoriale in funzione della crescita dell’umanità nelle persone, appartiene invece alla storia della Chiesa almeno fino al concilio di Trento. Si ricordi infatti il canone 8 del primo concilio di Nicea  (a.d.325) che ammetteva  alla comunione ecclesiale anche “chi si è sposato una seconda volta (i digamoi)” e tutta la tradizione orientale confluita nella chiesa ortodossa, che non ha meno a cuore dei cattolici il principio dell’indissolubilità, ma che tiene conto della realtà degli uomini in carne ed ossa che vivono in determinati contesti affettivi e socioculturali.  

 Noi uomini e  donne del terzo millennio che viviamo situazioni matrimoniali considerate “irregolari” dall’attuale disciplina, ma che non intendiamo abbandonare la fede nell’unico Signore né la partecipazione alla mensa  fraterna, per continuare a vivere in pienezza di vita siamo convinti che esistono altre vie per coniugare doverosa giustizia e creativa misericordia.

Oliviero Arzuffi 

 
[Italian]

Natural Law: Some of the most significant and indeed controversial moral teachings currently advanced by church authorities are justified by reference to a moral order embodied in the natural world which is purported to be accessible to human reason. Such a Natural Law is said to prohibit, for instance, any means of artificial contraception, homosexual relationships, and in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Yet, as the Instrumentum laboris for the synod noted, ‘the concept of natural law today turns out to be, in different cultural contexts, highly problematic, if not completely incomprehensible’, while ‘Evolution, biology and neuroscience, when confronted with the traditional idea of the natural law, conclude that it is not “scientific”.’

The problem with the traditional understanding of natural law is that it tends to grant nature an intentionality of its own. Creation is conceived as displaying an immutable, fixed order that we are not to change but only to blindly follow. Such a view is in danger of ignoring what science tells us, namely that natural laws (physical, chemical, and biological) have a merely statistical basis. It also overlooks that humans are intelligent creatures possessing a unique freedom (and concomitant responsibility) to affect the statistical basis of those laws. In this connection, the Statement on Marriage and the Family by the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research, signed in November 2013 by 86 Catholic scholars, offers some pertinent clarifications as well as a set of suggestions concerning the official Catholic teaching on family issues.

Contraception: In this context of natural law, we would like the synod fathers to especially consider calling for a public re-examination of the scientific, philosophical and theological foundations of Humanae vitae so as to clarify and, if need be, amend its teaching.

In particular, we note that the argument in Humanae vitae behind its negative assessment of the morality of artificial contraception – namely that, in order to be moral, ‘each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life’ – was unknown to Vatican II, which argued instead that sexual union between partners in marriage serves more purposes than procreation alone, and commended responsible parenthood through appropriate family planning.

A good place to start for amending Humanae vitae is the 1966 final report of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control which concluded that contraception can be a morally responsible choice under certain circumstances.

In this connection, we also call for a clear statement that the traditional moral principle of the ‘lesser evil’ is applicable to the moral judgments concerning artificial contraception.

Cohabitation : Cohabitation after an official agreement to marry (or betrothal) was the accepted practice in the Catholic Church for many centuries up to the Council of Trent. We urge bishop to study the proposals by Catholic theologians for reintroducing a staged entry into marriage. For those who so wished a church ritual of betrothal could be established as the first step of the process, opening the way for a legitimate cohabitation. A subsequent wedding ceremony will then officially ratify the lifelong commitment already envisaged by the betrothal.

Divorce and Re-marriage: We urge the synod fathers to consider adopting the pastoral practice of most Orthodox Churches which allow for divorce and remarriage under certain circumstances, as well as accepting divorced and re-married people to Eucharistic communion.

Neither Jesus nor the apostle Paul forbade divorce absolutely. Of course, Christians are required not to break their marital bond. Yet, as the Orthodox practice suggests, if and when that covenant is for whatever reason irredeemably broken (and the adjective here is crucial), then neither the culpable nor the innocent party in a marital breakdown can be considered bound by it, or responsible for its (admittedly impossible) reinstatement. As the ancient legal maxim goes, ‘nobody is held to the impossible’. The consequences of this which the Orthodox Churches have drawn in terms of allowing divorce, re-marriage, and full Eucharistic communion are remarkably consistent and consideration should be given to introducing them in the Catholic Church.

La legge naturale vs primato della coscienza

Legge naturale: Molti dei più significativi e controversi insegnamenti attuali delle autorità ecclesiastiche vengono giustificati facendo riferimento ad un’ordine naturale che sarebbe accessibile alla ragione umana. Tale ‘legge naturale’ proibirebbe, ad esempio, qualsiasi metodo di contraccezione artificiale, qualsiasi relazione omosessuale, e la fecondazione in vitro.

Tuttavia, come l’Instrumentum laboris per il sinodo ha osservato, ‘il concetto di “legge naturale” risulta essere come tale, oggi nei diversi contesti culturali, assai problematico, se non addirittura incomprensibile’; di più, ‘L’evoluzione, la biologia e le neuroscienze, confrontandosi con l’idea tradizionale di legge naturale, giungono a concludere che essa non è da considerarsi “scientifica”.’

Il problema della concezione tradizionale della legge naturale è che essa tende a trattare la natura come se avesse un’intenzionalità propria. La creazione è vista come immutabile, un’ordine fisso che non dobbiamo provare a cambiare, ma piuttosto seguire ciecamente. Una tale visione rischia di ignorare ciò che le conoscenze scientifiche attuali mettono in evidenza, e cioè che le leggi fisiche, chimiche e biologiche che governano la natura hanno una base statistica. Un tale approccio sembra anche trascurare che gli esseri umani sono creature intelligenti che dimostrano di possedere la libertà (e relativa responsabilità) d’influenzare la base statistica di tali leggi naturali. A tale riguardo, la Dichiarazione sul Matrimonio e la Famiglia pubblicata dal Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research e firmata nel novembre 2013 da 86 accademici cattolici offre alcune chiarificazioni pertinenti riguardo all’insegnamento cattolico ufficiale sulla famiglia.

Contraccezione: In questo contesto della legge naturale incoraggiamo i padri sinodali a richiedere specificatamente un riesame dei fondamenti scientifici, filosofici, e teologici della Humanae vitae, in modo da poter chiarificare e, se necessario, modificare le sue argomentazioni e conclusioni.

In particolare, notiamo che l’argomento della Humanae vitae che sta dietro al suo giudizio negativo sulla moralità della contraccezione artificiale – e cioè che, per essere morale, ‘qualsiasi atto matrimoniale deve rimanere aperto alla trasmissione della vita’ – era sconosciuto al Concilio Vaticano Secondo. Quest’ultimo s’era limitato ad osservare che le relazioni coniugali servono più funzioni che la sola procreazione, e aveva accettato il principio generale della paternità responsabile attraverso un’appropriata regolazione delle nascite.

Un buon punto di partenza per una riconsiderazione della Humanae vitae è il rapporto finale della Commissione Pontificia per lo studio della Popolazione, della Famiglia e della Natalità, pubblicato nel 1966, che concluse che la contraccezione può essere una scelta morale in alcune circostanze.

A questo riguardo, si chiede anche una chiara affermazione che il principio morale tradizionale del ‘male minore’ sia applicabile ai giudizi morali riguardanti la contraccezione artificiale.

Miriam Duignan