Dear friends of Istituto Acton,
More than a few Church leaders and intellectuals here in Rome have been scratching their heads, trying to make sense of Pope Francis’s post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The primary question most are asking is if the pope intended to allow divorced-and-civilly-remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion, and no one seems to know for sure. Journalist Sandro Magister has been very comprehensive in covering the various reactions and controversies.
With so many theological and canonical experts weighing in, I have nothing to contribute to the substance of the argument. It is quite clear that, unlike his two most recent predecessors, Pope Francis prefers the use of studied ambiguity when answering difficult doctrinal questions. Perhaps such evasiveness is merely Jesuitical or the sincere result of a more pastoral approach to bring in the Church’s many lost sheep. Either way, as a Catholic, I owe him the love and respect due to the Holy Father and so offer a sort of excuse for the palpable confusion - or “mess” – caused by this pontificate.
The so-called “Francis effect” is the consequence of the widespread secularization of what was once known as the Christian West. The post-Christian era in which we live is characterized not only by a decline in traditional belief and practice, which could probably be remedied by an increased emphasis on catechetical formation and discipline (much of it was addressed, in fact, by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI). More problematic is how basic understandings of human nature and society that had been commonly held by those inside as well as outside the Church can no longer be taken from granted.
We can start, of course, with the concept of gender. One need not be a fundamentalist to believe that the words of Genesis 1:27, “male and female he created them”, teach us something fundamental about human nature. Male and female have always represented two types of our nature that complement each other, that together make us whole. We moved from patriarchy to the gender-neutral society in order to emancipate women from oppression. Full equality remains elusive, however. The Catholic Church is the only institution that maintains gender differences in principle, which is why so many feminists clamor for women’s ordination to the priesthood.
The Sexual Revolution and the wide availability of contraception helped overcome the most significant natural difference between the sexes (pregnancy) and created the conditions for the homosexual movement. If male-female differences are no longer important, why not sex between two men or two women? If sex differences are not fixed by nature, why not change them according to our desires? We are now to believe that nature makes mistakes or may not even exist; what we are, or better, who we become is completely up to us and not dependent on our being created. (Never mind that no one has ever “willed” himself into existence!)
Once divorced from the concept of being or creation, our identity becomes “fluid.” Freedom is no longer limited by nature or the Creator, and the only fulfillment becomes a matter of achieving what one wants. What one wants changes over time and from place to place, so there is no longer any standard from which to judge a better or worse use of freedom. “Who am I to judge?” indeed.
If something as fundamental as one’s sexual identity is merely a matter of personal choice, the same goes for the political and religious affiliations that used to constitute the most important aspects of human society. Pope Francis’s appeal to European nations to accept Muslim refugees is a perfect manifestation of the humanitarian sentiment that regards politics and religion as ultimately irrelevant to living a decent, i.e. compassionate, life. The concept of a people was once worthy of respect and serious consideration by philosophers and statesmen; it is now considered something only bigots and xenophobes hide behind in order to exclude others. Not even the pope can be seen as favoring Christian refugees over Muslim ones anymore, which is not surprising for one who apparently doen't want to proselytize either.
This revolt against nature, politics and religion has been in the making for several centuries and may even be a part of nature itself. The great achievements of Christian Europe can still be seen, but mainly as relics of its once glorious past. The glory, however, usually came at a very high price, such as the wars resulting from the perhaps inevitable failure to maintain the theological and political unity of Christendom. Peace and security are what Europeans desire, and these require the diminution of anything that may lead to a renewal of conflict between nations or religions – no more “just wars!”
Will nature get its revenge? That may be too troubling a thought for inhabitants (citizens is far too strong a word) of a post-Christian society who would much prefer to focus on God’s mercy at the expense of His justice. Tolerance extends to all except the intolerant and, of course, capitalists. And in this matter as well, Pope Francis may be less a prophet than a sign of the times.
Kishore Jayabalan
Director
