My view on the papacy of Pope Francis has evolved over the years. At first, I struggled. It took me his entire papacy and the benefit of hindsight to finally come to the view that, at least in his major teachings, he elicited surprising clarity about the church’s understanding of the place of mercy and pastoral discernment where there was hidden ambiguity —including within my own conscience.
I appreciate the earnest article by Dr Philippa Martyr who recently challenged my affirmation of the teaching of Pope Francis in Amoris laetitia (AL). It was helpful as a window into the minds of those who struggle with AL (and the papacy of Pope Francis in general). Here are some of my real-life encounters with those who, like me, struggled with AL:
- Some struggled to make a distinction between objective norms and subjective culpability. They believed that anyone who commits an intrinsically evil act is necessarily in mortal sin. Therefore, they struggled to consider the possibility that, in certain cases, such people’s subjective culpability can be so mitigated that they are not deprived of sanctifying grace, that is, not in mortal sin. (c.f. AL, 301)
- Others struggled to see how admitting to Communion those who contradict objective norms, even if they may not be deprived of sanctifying grace, does not necessarily undermine the norms themselves. Admission to Communion does not imply no sin, just no mortal sin. And after all, who among us is not in some way “living in sin?”
Our great pastoral struggle as priests and shepherds of people’s souls is knowing which approach at a point in time might best bring about their authentic spiritual development given the circumstances of their lives and capacity for grace.
This is why discernment matters so much in every case. When it comes to spiritual science, I agree with our good Jesuit pope who taught, “A small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties.” (Evangelii Gaudium, 44)
Life is a struggle, through which beauty and meaning emerge. So why do some Catholics insist on doctrinal clarity but only in relation to objective norms? What about doctrinal clarity in relation to the depth of the struggle and the power of mercy which revolutionises it? For it is only through the power of mercy that we can overcome our struggles and live out the Christian ideals. Pope Francis was fond of repeating, “[The Eucharist] is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.” (EG, 47)
I used to hold the view that admitting holy Communion to those in irregular marital situations could not ever be done because of the church’s teaching on marriage and the indissolubility of marriage. It took me at least two years after (impatiently) reading Amoris laetitia to finally understand why Pope Francis could teach that a priest might (not should) give Communion to such people in certain cases.
Dr Philippa wrote in her article: “The church’s teaching on pretty much everything is not mysterious and accessible only to the enlightened few with theology degrees.” But how can it be true that church teaching is not mysterious when, in reality, it points to an infinite mystery?
Doctrinal clarity is God’s gift to the church and therefore has the sacred character of divine revelation which commands our humility, patience and obedience (or listening).
There is ambiguity, hidden beneath the veneer of clarity, when we reduce the faith primarily to a set of norms. That’s because it makes it unclear for people where they stand in relation to God, and only makes it clear where they stand in relation to those rules. At that point it is no longer faith we are talking about, but an ideology.
I tend to define an ideology as that which is narrow and shallow, and therefore insufficient for communicating a mystery.
The seductive clarity of an ideology might be instantly graspable, without requiring us to venture out of our own comfort zone or echo chamber, and even be galvanising for a while, but cannot bear lasting fruit, as one who has tried following it will attest.
The worst ideology is that which externalises the faith to the point of bypassing our heart, whereupon the ambiguity becomes mortal. The church has been on a trajectory away from such darkness toward the gentle radiance of contemplative conscience. Our heartfelt assent, then, will “lead [us] to the complete truth.” (John 16:13)
Fr Peter Kwak is parish priest of Regina Coeli parish, Beverly Hills.