Father Spadaro has been a busy man.
Between forcing Ross Douthat to issue a correction over his reporting of a Twitter spat and to insinuating that this publication is “one of the anti-papal American blogs that were the ‘echoes’ of false news” to appearing to accuse papal critics of being under the influence of the devil to his general portfolio of bizarre online behavior, the “pope’s mouthpiece” is beginning to talk almost as much as the pontiff he works for — and in no less troubling a fashion.
Dan Hitchens, deputy editor of the Catholic Herald (UK), expressed something we’re probably all feeling:
Until yesterday, I was beginning to suffer from Spadaro Controversy Fatigue, a condition afflicting those who spend too long reading Catholic news. Fr Antonio Spadaro, the editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, has recently been involved in several simultaneous quarrels. He is known to be close to the Pope and so, amid the heated discussion of the four cardinals’ dubia, Fr Spadaro’s statements are read with special attention.
Up until this point, I was nodding in agreement. Fr. Spadaro is a figure difficult to take seriously, and I doubt anyone would if it weren’t for his relationship with the pope. But then Hitchens says:
Sometimes the attention [on Spadaro] seems over-the-top. But yesterday he said something truly eye-opening.
It came in an interview with Crux, in which Fr Spadaro discussed some of the accusations that have been thrown at him. There was the dispute about whether he had set up an anonymous Twitter account. He had – but what was wrong with that, he asked. There was another about whether he had screenshotted an image from Lord of the Rings in order to call the four cardinals “witless”. He hadn’t, and the New York Times had to publish a surreal correction to apologise to him.
But after the interview covered the anonymous account and the screenshot, it moved onto serious matters. Fr Spadaro was asked whether he thought the divorced and remarried could receive Communion if still in a sexual relationship. Fr Spadaro’s answer was startling – partly because he seemed to think the answer was yes, and partly because of his reasoning.
He explained that sometimes the remarried could “be asked to take on the challenge of living in continence”. This is, of course, the only path to the Eucharist which Catholic doctrine allows. But Fr Spadaro asserted that “this option may not be practicable”. And he then said that someone might “believe they would fall into a worse error”. That is, not sleeping with one’s new partner would be worse than sleeping with them. Hence, it could be a moral obligation to sleep with them.
In short, a papal adviser has said that extramarital sex could be a moral duty. [emphasis added]
The conclusion Hitchens reaches here is the one any Catholic should:
The Church teaches that God always gives us enough grace to follow His will. She also teaches that some acts – extramarital sex among them – are never justified, whatever the situation.
I don’t see how Fr Spadaro’s words can be reconciled with these well-established truths.
He goes on to reproduce the full quote from the Spadaro interview (which I already addressed here):
When the concrete circumstances of a divorced and remarried couple make feasible a pathway of faith, they can be asked to take on the challenge of living in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulty of this option, and leaves open the possibility of admission to the Sacrament of Reconciliation when this option is lacking.
“In other, more complex circumstances, and when it has not been possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, this option may not be practicable. But it still may be possible to undertake a path of discernment under the guidance of a pastor, which results in a recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations which attenuate responsibility and guilt – particularly where a person believes they would fall into a worse error, and harm the children of the new union.
My question is: why would anyone be surprised to hear Spadaro say something like this? Yes, it contradicts bedrock Church teaching. But it’s nothing new. In fact, it’s so consistent with what we find in Amoris Laetitia, I’m beginning to think of it as “the hermeneutic of heterodoxy”. See this section of AL, paragraph 298:
The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”.329 [emphasis added]
Now, take a look at the referenced footnote, 329:
329 John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51).
It’s the same thing, said a slightly different way. In both cases, the assertion is that if couples already living in adulterous relationships don’t have (adulterous) sex, they may endanger the “faithfulness” of that second, illicit union, and go run off and commit more adultery with someone else.
The reasoning is a marvel to behold, isn’t it?
Of course, I already dissected AL 298 months ago. I explained there how it also takes Familiaris Consortio out of context, stripping it of the command for couples to live in continence if they want to receive sacraments.
And then the 45 theologians produced their list of theological censures against AL, and they really drove the point home (with lots and lots of footnotes):
14). AL 298: ‘The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins.’
If understood as meaning that persons who are civilly married to someone other than their true spouse can show Christian virtue by being sexually faithful to their civil partner:
i). Erronea in fide.
ii). Scandalosa.
1 Cor. 7:10-11: “To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband; and if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.” 11 See also: Gen. 2: 21; Mal. 2:15-16; Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18; Heb. 13:4; Letter Quam laudabiliter of Leo I, DH 283; Letter Regressus ad nos of Leo I, DH 311-14; Letter Gaudemus in Domino of Innocent III, DH 777-79; 2nd Council of Lyons, Profession of Faith of Emperor Michael Palaeologus (DH 860); Council of Trent, Session 24 canons 5, 7; Pius Vl, Rescript. ad Episc. Agriens., 11th July 1789; Arcanum, ASS 12 (1879-80): 388-94; Pius XI, Casti connubii, AAS 22 (1930): 546-50 (cf. Dz 3706-10); John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 19, 80-81, 84: AAS 74 (1982) 92-149; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1643-49.
What Father Spadaro said is clearly wrong, but it isn’t really news. I hope that Hitchens’ response means that the larger Catholic world is finally waking up to the explosive nature of Amoris Laetitia.
I want to smack him!
who doesn’t??? Grrrr
That’s too light a punishment.
We have just had ‘punch a heretic day,’ so yeah, these thoughts would be on many a mind. 🙂
So, for anyone who still is trying to maintain that Francis’s intentions with AL are not to permit what Spadaro et al are out there saying AL does, in fact, permit, does that fact that Francis has not publicly corrected and reprimanded these supposed “misinterpreters” not imply that, in fact, this has been his intention all along?
In reality, this seems to be the only argument that orthodox defenders of Francis seem to have left, namely, that these evil men are twisting Francis’s words to serve their own ends. But when the Pope himself permits these “misinterpretations” to fester and go uncorrected, logic tells us that this has to be what he intends. Either that, or Francis has absolutely no power whatsoever, in which case the pro-Francis crowd has an even bigger problem to deal with in their attempts to defend the indefensible.
For those in Catholic media; radio, internet and television, if you continue to justify, pretend, hide,
excuse the A.L. as a document that must be read in light of Church teaching, you shall be held accountable for misleading the faithful. A.L. is nothing but a diabolical seduction!!!
And that includes you CMTV! I am sorry, but I must say this. It is time for CMTV to put down its blind pride and childish piety and help those who desire the faith to know the enemy. And the enemy is this diabolical seduction of A.L. The pope has made a grave error and must correct or be corrected.
As with EWTN, there are many good things they promote, but when I heard they covered the Lund trip by Francis, I wondered…….what would Mother Angelica think? What does the viewing think and how are they interpreting this Catholic coverage for such a foolish and twisted reason as given by Francis.
Yes, of course logic commands a Catholic to use his or head God given intellect. As Catholics, have we not been reared to “think” and to study and use our common sense, always guided by Church teaching and her beautiful writings? And as Catholics, do we not know rear with great reverence the papacy, in spite of a fallen pope, who has been seduced himself. May God help him.
cs, I suppose Voris and CMTV will change their tune the same day they finally apologize for their week-long calumny against the SSPX last year. Which is to say, never.
Honestly, Francis could take a consecrated Host, douse It in gasoline, set it ablaze, then stomp on It and still these same supposedly-Catholic news outlets would make excuses for him (e.g., “The Host must have spontaneously combusted!”).
More likely, they will ferociously attack any bishops who defend or emulate said incineration and stomping, treating them as outrageous free agents obscuring all the good work the pope is doing.
Yes, as we learned from them with the mandatum rubrical rewrite, the washing of women’s feet was completely illicit and opposed to traditional practice . . . until Francis did it, in which case it was suddenly PERFECTLY FINE AND HOW DARE YOU QUESTION HIM, YOU JUDGMENTAL PHARISEE, YOU?!!!
It’s sad you know, for Mr. Voris and company have provided some very good articles on the faith. And some of the staff do seem sincere in defending the Church.
I, in fact, appreciated that they were the voice of the voiceless regarding poor bishops, catechesis, etc., that has gone on so long for decades.
But, now it is time to face reality, as hard as it is. But it must be faced and then spoken.
If one does not identify specifically evil, than evil will not be fought.
What is evil? A.L.!
And the bishops that Voris reports on, are having a field day with it and more of it will flourish in dioceses and into the priesthood, the seminary and into the pews.
I’ve been in a “discussion” about this very issue today in a Facebook group. People refusing to admit that Francis is indeed promoting the permission of adultery in certain cases… and I get accused of calumny against the Holy Father. I then provided evidence… we’ll see what happens.
It boggles the mind that people don’t get it!
I notice that AL apologists never mention children from the first union.
Of course not, they are an inconvenient Truth that burdens the conscience of those living in an illusion that has managed to detach itself from objective reality.
I think the implication is that, children from the first union are free to commit adultery when they’re old enough …
LOL, it really is that bad isn’t it.
God help us.
Exactly
Children are a rigid problem. (sarc.)
I cannot wait to see what the USCCB concocts out of this detritus. On the West Coast, Archbishop McElroy seems to be outright giddy at the possibilities. On the East Coast, Archbishop Chaput is antagonistically critical ( or politely skeptical). Then there is Cardinal Cupich (an early cheerleader of AL). There are more orthodox bishops like Jenky and Poprockii in Illinois. I have no idea what Cdls Dolan and O’Malley think.
How does one exactly find a middle ground between staying Faithful and committing adultery? Can one be partially continent? Or will the USCCB confect such a tortuously legalistic document themselves that it will result in individual bishops doing what they damn well please? And for those few orthodox bishops who refuse to budge an inch for AL? Will angry laity write to the Vatican and snitch? And where will it end? Homosexuals will have a point, saying that if the Church transformed the sacrament to such a degree why not allow “loving and stable” gay couples to marry?
Has that been the end game all along?
Here comes a schism!!!!
If this is an anti-papal American blog, perhaps, Steve, you’d like one of my “Neo-Pelagian, Rosary Counting Triumphalist on board” bumper stickers I’m having made for my family.
For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. (1 Cor 3:11)
There is an attempt to build a false ‘church’ and it comes from the top down.
I told you that footnote 329 was BAIT & SWITCH SCAM. This filthy document is from the EVIL ONE and not from God! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a7eeba008b320a96b9a5eaf6c97db14166547ea415e2a5d7623177788a63eff5.jpg
Yes this is what I call: “Moron shock” It happens when someone has somehow managed to miss the entire point of something for so long that when they finally get it they are “shocked” and everyone else is looking at them and wondering how it took them so long to figure out what has been obvious and demonstrated from the beginning.
I am glad of “Moron Shock” whenever it occurs, yet it is a troubling phenomena nonetheless, because it means that so many heads are still buried in the sand.
I think the term the psychologists use is “cognitive dissonance”. I am faced with a reality that conflicts with my own perception of reality, and I know my own reality is wrong but at the same time it can’t be, it just can’t.
Which sums up so many Catholic online sites.
Question: In my mind, this ” living together chastely” as brother and sister does not seem honest, in essence, is a lie, for are not their hearts and minds tied to another? Have they not left their spouse to find another?
And what about the children involved??? is it not better for the child to live with a single parent for life, than to live in a home where his parent has substituted his or her love to another, regardless?
This is hard for me to explain, and I know JPll has sanctioned this, but for some reason, I would say that it seems false, hypocritical…..it just dots the “I” and crosses the “t” enough not to be considered adulterous.
Were not vows taken to include in sickness and in health, for better or for worse?
God does not say you are only married because of your intimacy.
Something seems flawed here, and I wish I could narrow it done a bit better.
How is what Spadaro said in any way “eye-opening”? It’s there plain as day in AL, but for the truly blind, Francis helpfully shouted it from the rooftops in his letter to the Argentinian bishops.
How is there any mystery left about this at all?
This is why Burke and Co. can move directly from the unanswered dubia to issuing a formal correction of serious error. This isn’t about ambiguity. Ambiguity isn’t an error, and therefore cannot be corrected, only clarified. This is about giving Francis the opportunity to correct a serious error which is already manifest, first in AL, and then again in his letter to the Argentinian bishops.
The Truth has a crystalline quality that the untruth does not. Let’s just refer to this as the Francis Disadvantage.
With all that Spadaro has said and done, it is clear that the he is under the influence of that spirit which the possessed are exorcised of.
Perhaps what is needed is an exorcism of some members of the Vatian.
can’t even imagine what demons are there, I think an Exorcism of the entire Vatican City State, using the old Latin Roman Rite.
Legion?
“… if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers”
~ Adultery: Do it for the kids! :-
This logic reminds me of the “sexual emergency” legal defense that more than one “Syrian” “refugee” has used for raping children and the like.
Sexual emergency!!! What on earth?
I’m not making it up.
😛
These new ‘unions’ are not unions.
Interesting that something that isn’t news was found to be news because it was published as news.
A little humorous relief Steve?
I wish it was funny. I just wanted to make the connection for them — AGAIN — so that there’s nowhere left to hide from what’s happening.
Thanks Steve for everything you do. Yes, repetition is important.
I personally don’t think Spadaro was talking about a moral duty to have intimate relations with the “new companion”. Look, I’m not trying to defend Spadaro (his position is obviously wrong), but we need to give things the proper interpretation, we should not extract from arguments interpretations that are not due. If we do so we run the risk that the Francis allies will look to the ones who defend the “dubia” as people who are just trying to attack him and his allies at any cost (like, if the ones that support the “dubia” were just trying very hard to find points to criticise AL even if the interpretation given was not correct). So, if we give a wrong interpretation, saying that Spadaro, or Pope Francis, or any AL supporter said something when they actually didn’t say it (like, they didn’t mean it), the AL supporters will think that the “dubia” supporters are not actually looking for the true meaning of things, they will think that the “dubia” supporters only want to denigrate the image of those who support AL; so they will think all the debate (or at least great part of it) is only something personal (not about defending the truth, but about personal attacks, in order to see who will win and who will lose).
And I personally think that that’s exactly what happened, a few days after the mentioned Catholic Herald article Spadaro tweeted this: “Sono contento: alcuni blog ‘religiosi’ di informazione stanno facendo cadere la maschera rivelandosi macchine di propaganda ideologica!” (07/12/2016). So, we must look for the real meaning of what was said in order to defend the truth and not be cause for AL supporters to think that “dubia” supporters only want to attack the other side (with no interest in the truth).
I quote the most controversial part of Spadaro’s interview:
“In other, more complex circumstances, and when it has not been possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, this option may not be practicable. But it still may be possible to undertake a path of discernment under the guidance of a pastor, which results in a recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations which attenuate responsibility and guilt – particularly where a person believes they would fall into a worse error, and harm the children of the new union.”
The “Catholic Herald” article understood that the absence of intimate relations among the remarried could be considered a “worse error”. I personally think that this is not what Spadaro was trying to say. I think that the “worse error”, according to Spadaro, would be a situation where: a divorced and remarries person, in a new union, with kids from this new union, would think that leaving this new union (maybe to reconcile with the legitimate one) would be something worse than staying in this new union; but why would this person think like that? in the situation presented by Spadaro he says: “fall into a worse error, and harm the children of the new union”, so, this person would think that leaving this union would be a “worse error” because he could “harm the children of the new union”. So, I think that Spadaro wasn’t talking about a moral duty of intimate relations among the new companion, he was talking about a situation where the person (a remarried) thinks that he can’t leave the new union because it would cause harm for their children. And, in this situation, according to Spadaro, the remarried persons guilt would be decreased to the point that this person would be allowed to have “access to Reconciliation and to the Eucharist” (quote from what Spadaro said on the interview).
So, I think that this is the actual meaning of what Spadaro said.
I’m not a native english speaker, so please forgive for my possible mistakes.