• 21/12/2022
• By wizewebsite
• 367 Views

Liberal Legalism / Christnet.eu - News, Opinion, Theology, Culture<

Illustrative photo: Allegory of JusticeAuthor: Wikipedia.org /Mylius / Creative Commons

Marie Kolářová in her contribution "Doubts and certainties of conservatives" mentions that the Achilles heel of conservative thinking is "the difficulty of determining what is truly immutable", and that behind the claim that divorce and remarriage cannot approach St. communion, because "it is a timeless and immutable core of the Catholic faith", requires "above all a somewhat superficial knowledge of the Church's teaching on marriage".

It is not at all obvious how the author came to such a conclusion. The fact that the doctrine regarding marriage has become more precise over the centuries does not say anything about the fact that the impossibility of granting absolution to people who do not intend to renounce sexual relations with a person who is not their legal spouse does not belong to the "immutable core of the Catholic faith".

The author mentioned the difficulty for conservative thought to determine what is truly immutable, so one would expect them to present their own criteria for what is the "immutable core of the Catholic faith." Unfortunately, the author only limited herself to the presentation of a case study of a converted woman who had previously entered into a civil marriage with a man who was already bound by a sacramental marriage. According to the author, this casuistry represents a "pastorally hopeless situation". According to the author, "these people should be offered a regular solution without debate". According to the author, such a case "illustrates a situation where someone, completely through no fault of their own, got into a situation where they are denied the sacraments."

Such a view of the author is extremely simplistic, wrong.

Marriage is a fact of natural law. If even an unbelieving woman entered into marriage with a man whom she knew was divorced, then she herself chose not to respect natural law. Therefore, it cannot simply be said that a woman would get into such a situation completely without her own doing.

If such a woman subsequently converts, that is, sees the truth about her condition, then we can only congratulate her and help her to arrange herself according to this truth. By her conversion, the woman did not get into a situation where she is denied the sacraments - as the author believes - on the contrary, she got into a situation that shows her the way to achieve her sanctification, namely to stop committing internally bad deeds, to correct her objectively sinful situation (cf. . James 1:22-25; James 2:17; 1 John 3:18). Is it difficult? No one denies this (cf. Mt 19:22), therefore Pope Francis encourages pastors to look for ways that "can lead to a greater openness to the Gospel of marriage in its fullness" (AL 293), he encourages pastors to help people achieve " to the fullness of the plan that God has for them, which is always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit" (AL 297), not to the legalistic inventing of "exceptions" from God's law - "simple recipes" (cf. AL 298), after which - how it seems - even the author calls "without debate".

Legalism seems to be at the root of misinterpretations of the eighth chapter of the exhortation Amoris laetitia. What is the legalism that Pope Francis so aptly condemns? Legalism or legalism does not consist in the strict observance of the law - as one might mistakenly believe - but in not distinguishing between the various provisions of the law. Legalism can be seen in not distinguishing between God's and man's law, between revealed and natural law, between ecclesiastical and secular law, between prohibiting and commanding law. In other words, legalism consists in the rejection or ignorance of the mutual arrangement of various laws and thus in the rejection of the hierarchy of their originators. The Code clings to one law while ignoring another more important law and its originator. It can be said that the Code assigns equal importance to different things (cf. AL 105).

Specifically, this means that an interpretation which would claim, for example, that if the obligation to live modestly works for a couple in a so-called irregular situation of hardship, then this obligation is not binding for them, contradicts the first principle of natural law. In essence, such an interpretation says that one can do evil, sin. However, it is impossible to do evil, i.e. to sin.

Currently, therefore, it is necessary to be wary of scribes who try to give the impression that the right of the church to change church laws gives someone the right to change God's laws as well. Some even "hide behind the teachings of the Church" (cf. AL 305) by wanting to attribute this alleged right to Pope Francis by referring to his exhortation Amoris laetitia - whether out of ignorance or cunning - it is a question. But this is a dangerous mistake. Even Pope Francis cannot change the words of the Lord Jesus about adultery (cf. Mt 5:35; 19:9; Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18), which he excludes from the kingdom of heaven (cf. Mt 19:16-19; 1 Cor 6:9, 10, 18, 19; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15), or to change the truth about the fact that true repentance for a sin involves a resolution not to commit such a sinful act again.

Articles in the Areopagus section express the personal opinions of the author. The author is a consultant and lawyer at the Diocesan Church Court in Brno.