Vatican Notification on Jacques Dupuis Book
Author:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone
Description:
"Notification" published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Jesuit Father Jacques Dupuis' book Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism.
Vatican, February 26, 2001
NOTIFICATION
on the book
Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism
(Orbis Books: Maryknoll, New York 1997)
by Father Jacques Dupuis, S.J.
Preface
After a preliminary study of the book Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism by Father Jacques Dupuis, S.J., the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided to proceed to a comprehensive examination of the text by means of its ordinary procedure, in accordance with Chapter 3 of the Regulations for Doctrinal Examination.
It must be emphasized that this text is an introductory reflection on a Christian theology of religious pluralism. It is not simply a theology of religions, but a theology of religious pluralism, which seeks to investigate, in the light of Christian faith, the significance of the plurality of religious traditions in God’s plan for humanity. Aware of the potential problems in this approach, the author does not conceal the possibility that his hypothesis may raise as many questions as it seeks to answer.
Following the doctrinal examination of the book and the outcome of the dialogue with the author, the Bishop and Cardinal Members of the Congregation, in the Ordinary Session of June 30, 1999, evaluated the analysis and the opinions of the Congregation’s Consultors regarding the author’s Responses. The Members of the Congregation recognized the author’s attempt to remain within the limits of orthodoxy in his study of questions hitherto largely unexplored. At the same time, while noting the author’s willingness to provide the necessary clarifications, as evident in his Responses, as well as his desire to remain faithful to the doctrine of the Church and the teaching of the Magisterium, they found that his book contained notable ambiguities and difficulties on important doctrinal points, which could lead a reader to erroneous or harmful opinions. These points concerned the interpretation of the sole and universal salvific mediation of Christ, the unicity and completeness of Christ’s revelation, the universal salvific action of the Holy Spirit, the orientation of all people to the Church, and the value and significance of the salvific function of other religions.
At the conclusion of the ordinary procedure of examination, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided to draft a Notification,[1] intended to safeguard the doctrine of the Catholic faith from errors, ambiguities or harmful interpretations. This Notification, approved by the Holy Father in the Audience of November 24, 2000, was presented to Father Jacques Dupuis and was accepted by him. By signing the text, the author committed himself to assent to the stated theses and, in his future theological activity and publications, to hold the doctrinal contents indicated in the Notification, the text of which must be included in any reprinting or further editions of his book, as well as in all translations.
The present Notification is not meant as a judgment on the author’s subjective thought, but rather as a statement of the Church’s teaching on certain aspects of the above-mentioned doctrinal truths, and as a refutation of erroneous or harmful opinions, which, prescinding from the author’s intentions, could be derived from reading the ambiguous statements and insufficient explanations found in certain sections of the text. In this way, Catholic readers will be given solid criteria for judgment, consistent with the doctrine of the Church, in order to avoid the serious confusion and misunderstanding which could result from reading this book.
I. On the sole and universal salvific mediation of Jesus Christ
1. It must be firmly believed that Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, crucified and risen, is the sole and universal mediator of salvation for all humanity.[2]
2. It must also be firmly believed that Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Mary and only Saviour of the world, is the Son and Word of the Father.[3] For the unity of the divine plan of salvation centred in Jesus Christ, it must also be held that the salvific action of the Word is accomplished in and through Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of the Father, as mediator of salvation for all humanity.[4] It is therefore contrary to the Catholic faith not only to posit a separation between the Word and Jesus, or between the Word’s salvific activity and that of Jesus, but also to maintain that there is a salvific activity of the Word as such in his divinity, independent of the humanity of the Incarnate Word.[5]
II. On the unicity and completeness of revelation of Jesus Christ
3. It must be firmly believed that Jesus Christ is the mediator, the fulfilment and the completeness of revelation.[6] It is therefore contrary to the Catholic faith to maintain that revelation in Jesus Christ (or the revelation of Jesus Christ) is limited, incomplete or imperfect. Moreover, although full knowledge of divine revelation will be had only on the day of the Lord’s coming in glory, the historical revelation of Jesus Christ offers everything necessary for man’s salvation and has no need of completion by other religions.[7]
4. It is consistent with Catholic doctrine to hold that the seeds of truth and goodness that exist in other religions are a certain participation in truths contained in the revelation of or in Jesus Christ.[8] However, it is erroneous to hold that such elements of truth and goodness, or some of them, do not derive ultimately from the source-mediation of Jesus Christ.[9]
III. On the universal salvific action of the Holy Spirit
5. The Church’s faith teaches that the Holy Spirit, working after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, is always the Spirit of Christ sent by the Father, who works in a salvific way in Christians as well as non-Christians.[10] It is therefore contrary to the Catholic faith to hold that the salvific action of the Holy Spirit extends beyond the one universal salvific economy of the Incarnate Word.[11]
IV. On the orientation of all human beings to the Church
6. It must be firmly believed that the Church is sign and instrument of salvation for all people.[12] It is contrary to the Catholic faith to consider the different religions of the world as ways of salvation complementary to the Church.[13]
7. According to Catholic doctrine, the followers of other religions are oriented to the Church and are all called to become part of her.[14]
V. On the value and salvific function of the religious traditions
8. In accordance with Catholic doctrine, it must be held that «whatever the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures and religions, serves as a preparation for the Gospel (cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 16)».[15] It is therefore legitimate to maintain that the Holy Spirit accomplishes salvation in non-Christians also through those elements of truth and goodness present in the various religions; however, to hold that these religions, considered as such, are ways of salvation, has no foundation in Catholic theology, also because they contain omissions, insufficiencies and errors[16] regarding fundamental truths about God, man and the world.
Furthermore, the fact that the elements of truth and goodness present in the various world religions may prepare peoples and cultures to receive the salvific event of Jesus Christ does not imply that the sacred texts of these religions can be considered as complementary to the Old Testament, which is the immediate preparation for the Christ event.[17]
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of January 19, 2001, in the light of the further developments, confirmed the present Notification, which had been adopted in Ordinary Session of the Congregation, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, January 24, 2001, the Memorial of Saint Francis de Sales.
+ JOSEPH Card. RATZINGER
Prefect
+ Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B.
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary
Endnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Because of tendencies in some circles, which have become increasingly evident in the thinking of the Christian faithful, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published the Declaration “Dominus Iesus” on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church (AAS 92 [2000], 742-765) in order to protect essential truths of the Catholic faith. The Notification draws from the principles expressed in Dominus Iesus in its evaluation of Father Dupuis’ book.
[2] Cf. Council of Trent, Decree De peccato originali: DS 1513; Decree De iustificatione: DS 1522, 1523, 1529, 1530; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 10; Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8, 14, 28,49,60; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 5: AAS 83 (1991), 249-340; Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Asia, 14: AAS 92 (2000), 449-528; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 13-15.
[3] Cf. First Council of Nicaea: DS 125; Council of Chacledon: DS 301.
[4] Cf. Council of Trent, Decree De iustificatione: DS 1529, 1530; Second Vatican Council, Constitution on the Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, 5; Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 22.
[5] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 6; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 10.
[6] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei verbum, 2, 4; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et ratio, 14-15, 92: AAS 91 (1999), 5-88; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 5.
[7] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 6; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 65-66.
[8] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 17; Decree Ad gentes, 11; Declaration Nostra aetate, 2.
[9] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 16; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 10.
[10] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 22; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 28-29.
[11] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 5; Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Asia, 15-16; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 12.
[12] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 9, 14, 17, 48; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 11; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 16.
[13] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 36; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 21-22.
[14] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 13, 16; Decree Ad gentes, 7; Declaration Dignitatis humanae, 1; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 10; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 20-22; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 845.
[15] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 29.
[16] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 16; Declaration Nostra aetate, 2; Decree Ad gentes, 9; Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi, 53: AAS 68 (1976), 5-76; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 55; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 8.
[17] Cf. Council of Trent, Decree De libris sacris et de traditionibus recipiendis: DS 1501; First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, 2: DS 3006; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 8.
Vatican Notifications
Author:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's "notification" pointing to "errors and ambiguities" in the work of a Spanish theologian, Father Marciano Vidal.
Vatican, May 23, 2001
Notification Regarding Certain Writings of Fr. Marciano Vidal, C.Ss.R.
Preface
One of the responsibilities of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to watch over and protect the doctrine of the faith, so that the People of God may remain faithful to the teaching which has been received. At times, the Congregation must proceed to a doctrinal examination and point out, even by means of a public notification, the ambiguities and errors contained in widely-distributed works that may be harmful to the faith of the People of God, in order to make the necessary corrections. On some occasions, such a notification is necessary even when the author is disposed to correct his writings or when the corrections have already been made.
An initial study of certain works by Father Marciano Vidal, C.Ss.R., namely, Diccionario de Ètica Teológica, La Propuesta moral de Juan Pablo II: Comentario Teológico-Moral de la Encíclica "Veritatis Splendor" and the volumes of Moral de Actitudes (in both the Spanish original and the most recent Italian edition), revealed errors and ambiguities. For this reason, and because of the wide circulation of these books and their influence above all in theological formation, the Congregation decided to proceed to an examination of the texts by means of its Ordinary Procedure, according to the norms established by the Regulations for Doctrinal Examination.
On December 13, 1997, the Congregation sent the text of the official Contestatio to the author, through Father Joseph William Tobin, Superior General of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. It was composed of an introduction, which dealt with the christological foundation of theological ethics, and two parts, the first on epistemological questions (the relationship of Scripture – Tradition – Magisterium, and theologians – Magisterium), and the second on particular errors (person – sexuality – bioethics; social morality; eschatology – utopia).
On June 4, 1998, Father Vidal provided his Response, which had been prepared with the assistance of an advisor chosen by him, and was accompanied by a letter from his Superior General. The Response was examined according to the procedures of the Congregation, which, finding it to be unsatisfactory, decided to offer Father Vidal another opportunity to clarify his position on the points at issue. A new set of questions was submitted for the approval of the Ordinary Session of the Congregation on January 20, 1999, which also decided to grant Father Vidal an additional three month period in which to make his response, as indicated by the Regulations. This manner of proceeding and the text of the above-mentioned questions were approved by the Holy Father in the Audience granted to the Cardinal Prefect on February 5, 1999.
The new documentation with an accompanying letter were presented to his Superior General in the course of a meeting at the Congregation on June 7, 1999. The results of the examination of Father Vidal’s first Response and the decision of the Congregation, by way of exception, to reformulate its questions in order to obtain more exact and precise answers, were communicated to Father Tobin at this meeting. In addition, while manifesting the sincere hope that Father Vidal would understand the offer of this new opportunity as an invitation to a deeper reflection, for his sake and that of the Church in whose name he carries out his service of teaching theology, it was decided that his responses should be prepared personally, in an unambiguous and succinct form, and should arrive at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before September 30, 1999.
Informed of this decision, Father Vidal gave assurances through his Superior General that he would comply with the requests made by the Congregation. On September 28, 1999, the Superior General personally delivered to the Cardinal Prefect the text of the Respuesta a las “Preguntas dirigidas al Rev. P. Marciano Vidal, C.Ss.R.”, together with his own personal opinion. This second Response was then submitted to the judgment of the Congregation, in accordance with the Regulations for Doctrinal Examination.
On November 10, 1999, the Ordinary Session of the Congregation, on the basis of all the phases of the examination and the entire documentation, concluded the exceptional procedure. The Congregation noted with satisfaction that the author had shown himself willing to correct the ambiguities in his writings on heterologous artificial procreation, therapeutic and eugenic abortion, and abortion legislation, and that he had stated his adherence to the teaching of the Magisterium on the doctrinal points at issue, though without substantial or concrete modification of the other doctrinal points mentioned in the Contestatio. In light of this situation, the Congregation judged it necessary to prepare a Notification, which would be presented to Father Vidal in a meeting aimed at obtaining explicit recognition of the errors and ambiguities found, and at verifying, in keeping with the principles recognized by the author, his commitment to revise his books in the manner decided by the Congregation. Moreover, the text of the Notification, incorporating the results of the meeting and approved in Ordinary Session by the Congregation, would subsequently be published. These decisions were confirmed by the Holy Father at the Audience granted to the Secretary of the Congregation on November 12, 1999.
The above-mentioned meeting with the author took place on June 2, 2000. Those participating were the Cardinal Prefect and Archbishop Secretary of the Congregation, the Most Reverend Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Archbishop of Granada and Member of the Congregation, who represented the Spanish Episcopal Conference, various Delegates named by this Dicastery, and Father Vidal, who was accompanied by Father Joseph William Tobin and Father Joseph Pfab, C.Ss.R., former Superior General, who was the Advisor chosen for the occasion. After the formal presentation of the Notification, and a cordial and productive conversation regarding the doctrinal questions and the procedural aspects of the case, Father Vidal accepted the doctrinal judgment formulated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as well as the formal obligation to revise his writings according to the instructions given.
Informed of the positive outcome of the meeting, the Cardinal and Bishop Members of the Congregation in the Ordinary Sessions of June 14, 2000, and February 7, 2001, noted with satisfaction Father Vidal’s assent and confirmed the agreed-upon procedure, that is, the publication of the present Notification. They also decided that the editions of Moral de Actitudes (including the volume on social morality), the Diccionario de Ètica Teológica, and La propuesta moral de Juan Pablo II, as well as any translations of these published prior to the Notification, cannot be used for theological formation. Furthermore, they decided that Father Vidal would revise Moral de Actitudes, under the supervision of the Doctrinal Commission of the Spanish Episcopal Conference. The text of the present Notification, including these conditions, was sent through the Superior General to Father Vidal, who manifested his acceptance by affixing his signature.
This resolution is not meant as a judgment on the person of the author, on his intentions, on the totality of his work, or on his ministry as a theologian, but solely on the works examined. It is intended for the good of the Christian faithful, especially pastors of souls, teachers of moral theology, and those who have received their formation according to the author’s theological perspective or who themselves share such views, in order that they may dissociate themselves from these errors and deficiencies, and avoid their practical consequences in pastoral ministry.
Doctrinal Note
1.General Evaluation
Moral de Actitudes is composed of three volumes. The first is devoted to fundamental moral theology.1 The second is divided into two parts, the first on the morality of the person and bioethics,2 and the second on the morality of love and sexuality.3 The third volume treats social morality.4 The Diccionario de ética teológica 5 offers a more concise, but still sufficiently detailed study of the principal concepts and themes of Christian morality.
Moral de Actitudes makes reference to the pastoral concern for dialogue with “autonomous, secular and contemporary man”.6 This dialogue is pursued with magnanimity and understanding, attentive to the gradual and progressive nature of life and of moral education. It also seeks to moderate positions considered to be extreme through a consideration of the data supplied by the human sciences and by contemporary philosophical currents. However, this praiseworthy concern often does not achieve its goal, because it is undertaken at the expense of essential aspects constitutive of an integral presentation of the Church’s moral teaching; in particular, correct theological methodology, proper definition of the moral object of an act, precision of language, and integrity of argumentation.
The author states that his text is based on the “option for the paradigm of ‘theonomic autonomy’ reinterpreted through an ‘ethic of liberation’”.7 His objective is a personal revision of this paradigm, but he is unable to avoid some of the errors associated with his chosen model, errors which substantially correspond to those indicated in the Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor.8 Indeed, insufficient consideration is given to the fact that faith and reason, while distinct, have a common source and end, and therefore do not relate to each other simply to delineate their respective areas of responsibility in an exclusive and excluding manner, or to expand these areas at the expense of the other, with a view towards emancipation. He does not conceive of “‘ratio’ normativa”9 as a link between man and God, which unites them,10 but rather as a partition which comes between man and God. Therefore, it is no longer possible to see “Divine Wisdom” as the ontological (and therefore objective) foundation of the moral competence which every person unquestionably possesses,11 and there is a consequent failure to recognize that moral reasoning can be “enlightened by divine revelation and by faith”.12
The author expresses more than once the determinative approach of Moral de actitudes: “The characteristic and specific quality of the Christian ethos is not to be found on the level of the concrete contents of the moral commitment”, but rather “on the level of the kind of world-view which accompanies” those contents.13 Only against the background of statements such as these can one understand the meaning of “the reference to Jesus of Nazareth as horizon or new sphere of understanding and of lived experience of reality”,14 or in what sense it can be maintained that faith offers an “influence”, a “context”, an “orientation”,15 a “new frame of reference” and a “dimension”.16 Although the author occasionally states that “Christ is the decisive norm of Christian ethics” and that “there is no other norm for the Christian than the event of Jesus of Nazareth”,17 nevertheless, his attempt at a christological foundation does not succeed at giving concrete ethical normativity to the revelation of God in Christ.18 The christological foundation of ethics is acknowledged insofar as it “re-contextualizes the secular imperatives of a personalism of political alterity”.19
The Christian ethic that results from this is “an ethic influenced by faith”,20 but the influence is weak, because it is juxtaposed in fact to a secularized rationality laid out completely on a horizontal plane. Therefore, Moral de Actitudes does not stress sufficiently the ascending vertical dimension of Christian moral life. And the great Christian themes, such as redemption, the Cross, grace, the theological virtues, prayer, the beatitudes, the resurrection, judgment, and eternal life, are hardly mentioned and exert almost no influence on his presentation of moral teachings.
As a result of the moral paradigm employed, an insufficient role is given to Tradition and the Magisterium’s moral teaching, which are filtered through the author’s frequent “options” and “preferences”.21 In particular, his commentary on the Encyclical Veritatis splendor manifests a deficient notion of the competence of the Magisterium in matters of morality.22 The author, while informing his readers about the teaching of the Church, critically distances himself from that teaching in the solutions given to various special moral problems, as will be seen below.
Consideration must be given, finally, to the tendency to make use of a methodology of the conflict of values or of goods in the study of various ethical problems, as well as to the role played by references to the ontic or pre-moral level.23 This leads to a reductionistic treatment of some theoretical and practical problems, such as the relationship between freedom and truth, conscience and law, fundamental option and concrete choices, which are incapable of positive resolution due to the inconsistencies in the position taken by the author. On a practical level, he does not accept the traditional doctrine on intrinsically evil actions and on the absolute value of the norms that prohibit such actions.
2. Specific Questions
The author maintains that contraceptive methods which intervene after fertilization and before implantation, are not abortifacient. He maintains that, generally speaking, they cannot be considered morally licit means of birth control;24 however, they are morally acceptable “in situations of particular gravity, when it is impossible to have recourse to other means”.25 The author applies this same standard of judgment to sterilization, stating that in some situations it does not pose a moral problem, “given that the intention is to achieve a human good in a responsible way”.26 Both these positions are contrary to the teaching of the Church.27
The author holds that the doctrine of the Church on homosexuality possesses a certain coherence, but does not enjoy an adequate biblical foundation 28 and suffers from significant conditioning 29 and ambiguities.30 It reflects the defects present “in the entire historical construct of Christian sexual ethics”.31 In the moral evaluation of homosexuality, the author adds, one must “adopt a provisional attitude”, formulated “from the perspective of inquiry and openness”.32 For the person who is irreversibly homosexual, a coherent Christian commitment “does not necessarily lead to the rigid morality of either becoming heterosexual or total abstinence”.33 These positions are incompatible with Catholic doctrine, according to which there is a precise and well-founded evaluation of the objective morality of sexual relations between persons of the same sex.34 The degree of subjective moral culpability in individual cases is not the issue here.
The author asserts that the “gravity ex toto genere suo of masturbation” has not been established. 35 In fact, personal conditions are objective elements of this behaviour and therefore “it is not correct to create an ‘objective abstraction’ from personal conditioning and make an evaluation that is universally valid from an objective point of view”.36 “Not every act of masturbation is ‘objectively grave matter’”.37 In this view, the judgment of Catholic moral teaching, according to which acts of autoeroticism are objectively intrinsically evil, would not be correct.38
With regard to responsible parenthood, the author states that none of the present methods of birth control is good in every respect. “It is inconsistent and dangerous to make an overall moral evaluation based on one particular method”.39 While it is the responsibility of the Magisterium to give positive and negative guidance on the use of the various methods,40 if conflicts of conscience arise, “the fundamental principle of the inviolability of the moral conscience would continue to be valid”.41 But even prescinding from conflict situations, “the moral use of strictly contraceptive methods must be the object of the responsible discernment of the married couple”.42 Among the various criteria presented by the author to guide this discernment,43 there is no reference to the objective and binding character of the moral norm contained in the Encyclical Humanae vitae44 and in other documents of the papal Magisterium before45 and after.46
On homologous in vitro fertilization, the author distances himself from the teaching of the Church. “With regard to fertilization limited to a husband and wife (‘the simple case’), we hold that it cannot be rejected...”.47 If the likelihood of risk to the unborn child is removed as far as possible, and there is a reasonable proportion between the failures and the well-founded hope for success, and the human condition of the embryo is always respected, then “homologous artificial fertilization cannot be declared immoral in principle”.48
Moral de Actitudes also contains ambiguous judgments on other specific moral problems, for example, on married couples having recourse to artificial insemination with the sperm of a donor,49 on heterologous in vitro fertilization50, and on abortion. The author rightly affirms the overall immorality of abortion; however, his position on therapeutic abortion is ambiguous.51 In his discussion of the possibility of medical intervention in some very difficult cases, it is not clear whether he is referring to what has traditionally been called “indirect abortion”, or if he admits the lawfulness of procedures which do not come under this category. His statements on eugenic abortion are similarly ambiguous.52 On abortion legislation, the author correctly asserts that abortion cannot be considered an individual right;53 nevertheless, he goes on to state that “not all liberalization of laws [on abortion] is directly contrary to ethics”.54 The author seems to be referring to laws that depenalize abortion.55 There are, however, different types of depenalization; some in practice constitute the legalization of abortion and the others are not acceptable according to Catholic teaching.56 Since the context of the author’s statement is not sufficiently clear, it is not possible for the reader to determine what form of abortion depenalization is not considered “directly contrary to ethics”.
The Congregation notes with satisfaction the steps already taken by the author and his willingness to follow the documents of the Magisterium, and trusts that his collaboration with the Doctrinal Commission of the Spanish Episcopal Conference will result in a text suitable for the formation of students in moral theology.
With this Notification, the Congregation also wishes to encourage moral theologians to pursue the task of renewing moral theology, in particular through deeper study of fundamental moral theology and through precise use of the theological-moral methodology, in keeping with the teaching of the Encyclical Veritatis splendor and with a true sense of their responsibility to the Church.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect on February 9, 2001, in light of the further developments, confirmed his approval of the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, February 22, 2001, the Feast of the Chair of Peter, Apostle.
+ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect
+ Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary
Endnotes
(1) Moral de Actitudes, I. Moral fundamental (Madrid: Editorial PS, 1990), 8th edition (enlarged and completely revised), 902 pp. [Italian trans. Manuale di etica teologica, I. Morale fondamentale (Assisi: Cittadella Editrice, 1994), 958 pp.]. In the following notes, Moral de Actitudes will be cited according to the form MA, with the volume number and page number; the corresponding text in the Italian translation will be cited also, indicated by =.
(2) Moral de Actitudes, II/1: Moral de la persona y bioética teológica (Madrid: Editorial PS, 1991), 8th edition, 797 pp. [Italian trans. Manuale di etica teologica, II-1a: Morale della persona e bioetica teologica (Assisi: Cittadella Editrice, 1995), 896 pp.].
(3) Moral de Actitudes, II/2: Moral del amor y de la sexualidad (Madrid: Editorial PS, 1991), 8th edition, 662 pp. [Italian trans. Manuale di etica teologica, II-2a: Morale dell’amore e della sessualità (Assisi: Cittadella Editrice, 1996), 748 pp.].
(4) Moral de Actitudes, III: Moral social (Madrid: Editorial PS, 1995), 8th edition, 1015 pp. [Italian trans. Manuale di etica teologica, III: Morale sociale (Assisi: Cittadella Editrice, 1997), 1123 pp.].
(5) Diccionario de Ètica Teológica, (Estella [Navarra]: Editorial Verbo Divino, 1991), 649 pp. (henceforth cited as Det).
(6) MA I, 266 = 283; cf. MA I, 139, 211-215 = 147-148, 222-226.
(7) MA I, 260 = 276; cf. MA I, 260-284 = 276-301.
(icon_cool.gif Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor (August 6, 1993), especially 36-37: AAS 85 (1993), 1162-1163.
(9) MA I, 213=224.
(10) St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 100, a. 2, c.
(11) Cf. Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, nn. 36, 42-45: AAS 85 (1993), 1162-1163, 1166-1169.
(12) Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 44: AAS 85 (1993), 1168-1169.
(13) MA I, 203 = 214; the same statement is found in MA II/1, 131= 140 and 139 = 148; MA III, 99-100 = 107-108 and in MA I, 99 = 103 in reference to Sacred Scripture; all this is in contrast with the Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, 37: AAS 85 (1993), 1163: “This then has led to an actual denial that there exists, in divine revelation, a specific and determined moral context, universally valid and permanent. The word of God would be limited to proposing an exhortation, a generic paraenesis, which the autonomous reason alone would then have the task of completing with normative directives which are truly ‘objective,’ that is, adapted to the concrete historical situation”.
(14) MA I, 203-204 =214.
(15) MA I, 192-193 = 202-203.
(16) MA I, 274 = 291.
(17) MA I, 452 = 476.
(1icon_cool.gif Cf. MA I, 268-270 = 285-287.
(19) MA I, 275 =291.
(20) MA I, 192 = 202-203.
(21) Cf. for example, MA I, 260, 789-790, 816, 848 =276, 837-839, 872, 904; MA II/1, 400-403, 497, 597= 434-437, 550-551, 660-661; MA II/2, 189, 191, 263, 264, 495 = 202, 204, 311, 312, 553.
(22) Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 25; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (May 24, 1990), 16: AAS 82 (1990), 1557. In this regard, see: La propuesta moral de Juan Pablo II. Comentario teológico-moral de la encíclica Veritatis splendor (Madrid: PPC, 1994) especially 24-26, 29, 54, 76-78, 82, 89-90, 94-95, 98, 102, 116, 120, 130-131, 136, 167. See also MA I, 80, 145= 82-83, 154; Det, 362-365; in addition, see the Italian version of MA I, Manuale di etica teologica I: Morale fondamentale (Assisi: Cittadella Editrice, 1994), 142-145: these pages on the Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor were added after the Spanish edition was published and so appear only in the Italian edition.
(23) Cf. for example MA I, 468 = 492.
(24) MA II/2, 574 = 651.
(25) MA II/2, 574 = 651.
(26) MA II/1, 641 = 714; cf. MA II/2, 575 = 652, which considers sterilization as an “adequate solution” in some cases, and Det, 225, where it is stated that in some situations sterilization is “the only method recommended”.
(27) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration De abortu procurato (November 18, 1974), nn. 12-13: AAS 66 (1974), 737-739; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), n. 58: AAS 87 (1995), 466-467. On direct sterilization, see Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae (July 25, 1968), n. 14: AAS 60 (1968), 490-491 and the sources cited therein; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Response Circa sterilizationem in nosocomiis catholicis (March 13, 1974), AAS 68 (1976), 738-740; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2399.
(2icon_cool.gif Cf. MA II/2, 266-267 = 314-315.
(29) Cf. MA II/2, 267 = 315.
(30) Cf. MA II/2, 268 = 316; also Det, 294-295.
(31) MA II/2, 268 = 316; cf. 268-270 = 316-318.
(32) MA II/2, 281-282 = 330.
(33) MA II/2, 283 = 332.
(34) Cf. Rom 1: 24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tm 1:10; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), n. 8: AAS 68 (1976), 84-85; Letter Homosexualitatis pro-blema (October 1, 1987), 3-8: AAS 79 (1987), 544-548; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357-2359, 2396.
(35) MA II/2, 324 = 374.
(36) MA II/2, 330 = 381; cf. Det, 45.
(37) MA II/2, 332 = 382.
(3icon_cool.gif Cf. Declaration Persona humana, 9: AAS 68 (1976), 85-87; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2352; >small 1Leo IX, Letter Ad splendidum nitentis (1054): DS 687-688.
(39) MA II/2, 576 = 653.
(40) Cf. MA II/2, 576 = 653.
(41) MA II/2, 576 = 653.
(42) MA II/2, 576 = 653.
(43) Cf. MA II/2, 576-577 = 653-654.
(44) Cf. Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae, nn. 11-14: AAS 60 (1968), 488-491.
(45) Cf. the sources given in the Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae, n. 14: AAS 60 (1968), 490-491.
(46) Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio (November 22, 1981), 32: AAS 74 (1982), 118-120; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370, 2399. See also MA II/2, 571-573 = 648-650.
(47) MA II/1, 597 = 660.
(4icon_cool.gif MA II/1, 597 = 661.
(49) Cf. MA II/1, 586 = 649 and DET, 315.
(50) Cf. MA II/1, 597 = 660.
(51) Cf. MA II/1, 403 = 437.
(52) Cf. MA II/1, 403 = 437-438.
(53) Cf. MA II/1, 412 = 454.
(54) MA II/1, 412 = 454.
(55) MA II/1, 408 = 442 (and 444).
(56) Cf. Declaration De abortu procurato, nn. 19-23: AAS 66 (1974), 742-744; Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, 71-74: AAS 87 (1995), 483-488.
© L'Osservatore Romano, Editorial and Management Offices, Via del Pellegrino, 00120, Vatican City, Europe, Telephone 39/6/698.99.390.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's "notification" pointing to "errors and ambiguities" in the work of a Spanish theologian, Father Marciano Vidal.
Vatican, May 23, 2001
Notification Regarding Certain Writings of Fr. Marciano Vidal, C.Ss.R.
Preface
One of the responsibilities of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to watch over and protect the doctrine of the faith, so that the People of God may remain faithful to the teaching which has been received. At times, the Congregation must proceed to a doctrinal examination and point out, even by means of a public notification, the ambiguities and errors contained in widely-distributed works that may be harmful to the faith of the People of God, in order to make the necessary corrections. On some occasions, such a notification is necessary even when the author is disposed to correct his writings or when the corrections have already been made.
An initial study of certain works by Father Marciano Vidal, C.Ss.R., namely, Diccionario de Ètica Teológica, La Propuesta moral de Juan Pablo II: Comentario Teológico-Moral de la Encíclica "Veritatis Splendor" and the volumes of Moral de Actitudes (in both the Spanish original and the most recent Italian edition), revealed errors and ambiguities. For this reason, and because of the wide circulation of these books and their influence above all in theological formation, the Congregation decided to proceed to an examination of the texts by means of its Ordinary Procedure, according to the norms established by the Regulations for Doctrinal Examination.
On December 13, 1997, the Congregation sent the text of the official Contestatio to the author, through Father Joseph William Tobin, Superior General of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. It was composed of an introduction, which dealt with the christological foundation of theological ethics, and two parts, the first on epistemological questions (the relationship of Scripture – Tradition – Magisterium, and theologians – Magisterium), and the second on particular errors (person – sexuality – bioethics; social morality; eschatology – utopia).
On June 4, 1998, Father Vidal provided his Response, which had been prepared with the assistance of an advisor chosen by him, and was accompanied by a letter from his Superior General. The Response was examined according to the procedures of the Congregation, which, finding it to be unsatisfactory, decided to offer Father Vidal another opportunity to clarify his position on the points at issue. A new set of questions was submitted for the approval of the Ordinary Session of the Congregation on January 20, 1999, which also decided to grant Father Vidal an additional three month period in which to make his response, as indicated by the Regulations. This manner of proceeding and the text of the above-mentioned questions were approved by the Holy Father in the Audience granted to the Cardinal Prefect on February 5, 1999.
The new documentation with an accompanying letter were presented to his Superior General in the course of a meeting at the Congregation on June 7, 1999. The results of the examination of Father Vidal’s first Response and the decision of the Congregation, by way of exception, to reformulate its questions in order to obtain more exact and precise answers, were communicated to Father Tobin at this meeting. In addition, while manifesting the sincere hope that Father Vidal would understand the offer of this new opportunity as an invitation to a deeper reflection, for his sake and that of the Church in whose name he carries out his service of teaching theology, it was decided that his responses should be prepared personally, in an unambiguous and succinct form, and should arrive at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before September 30, 1999.
Informed of this decision, Father Vidal gave assurances through his Superior General that he would comply with the requests made by the Congregation. On September 28, 1999, the Superior General personally delivered to the Cardinal Prefect the text of the Respuesta a las “Preguntas dirigidas al Rev. P. Marciano Vidal, C.Ss.R.”, together with his own personal opinion. This second Response was then submitted to the judgment of the Congregation, in accordance with the Regulations for Doctrinal Examination.
On November 10, 1999, the Ordinary Session of the Congregation, on the basis of all the phases of the examination and the entire documentation, concluded the exceptional procedure. The Congregation noted with satisfaction that the author had shown himself willing to correct the ambiguities in his writings on heterologous artificial procreation, therapeutic and eugenic abortion, and abortion legislation, and that he had stated his adherence to the teaching of the Magisterium on the doctrinal points at issue, though without substantial or concrete modification of the other doctrinal points mentioned in the Contestatio. In light of this situation, the Congregation judged it necessary to prepare a Notification, which would be presented to Father Vidal in a meeting aimed at obtaining explicit recognition of the errors and ambiguities found, and at verifying, in keeping with the principles recognized by the author, his commitment to revise his books in the manner decided by the Congregation. Moreover, the text of the Notification, incorporating the results of the meeting and approved in Ordinary Session by the Congregation, would subsequently be published. These decisions were confirmed by the Holy Father at the Audience granted to the Secretary of the Congregation on November 12, 1999.
The above-mentioned meeting with the author took place on June 2, 2000. Those participating were the Cardinal Prefect and Archbishop Secretary of the Congregation, the Most Reverend Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Archbishop of Granada and Member of the Congregation, who represented the Spanish Episcopal Conference, various Delegates named by this Dicastery, and Father Vidal, who was accompanied by Father Joseph William Tobin and Father Joseph Pfab, C.Ss.R., former Superior General, who was the Advisor chosen for the occasion. After the formal presentation of the Notification, and a cordial and productive conversation regarding the doctrinal questions and the procedural aspects of the case, Father Vidal accepted the doctrinal judgment formulated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as well as the formal obligation to revise his writings according to the instructions given.
Informed of the positive outcome of the meeting, the Cardinal and Bishop Members of the Congregation in the Ordinary Sessions of June 14, 2000, and February 7, 2001, noted with satisfaction Father Vidal’s assent and confirmed the agreed-upon procedure, that is, the publication of the present Notification. They also decided that the editions of Moral de Actitudes (including the volume on social morality), the Diccionario de Ètica Teológica, and La propuesta moral de Juan Pablo II, as well as any translations of these published prior to the Notification, cannot be used for theological formation. Furthermore, they decided that Father Vidal would revise Moral de Actitudes, under the supervision of the Doctrinal Commission of the Spanish Episcopal Conference. The text of the present Notification, including these conditions, was sent through the Superior General to Father Vidal, who manifested his acceptance by affixing his signature.
This resolution is not meant as a judgment on the person of the author, on his intentions, on the totality of his work, or on his ministry as a theologian, but solely on the works examined. It is intended for the good of the Christian faithful, especially pastors of souls, teachers of moral theology, and those who have received their formation according to the author’s theological perspective or who themselves share such views, in order that they may dissociate themselves from these errors and deficiencies, and avoid their practical consequences in pastoral ministry.
Doctrinal Note
1.General Evaluation
Moral de Actitudes is composed of three volumes. The first is devoted to fundamental moral theology.1 The second is divided into two parts, the first on the morality of the person and bioethics,2 and the second on the morality of love and sexuality.3 The third volume treats social morality.4 The Diccionario de ética teológica 5 offers a more concise, but still sufficiently detailed study of the principal concepts and themes of Christian morality.
Moral de Actitudes makes reference to the pastoral concern for dialogue with “autonomous, secular and contemporary man”.6 This dialogue is pursued with magnanimity and understanding, attentive to the gradual and progressive nature of life and of moral education. It also seeks to moderate positions considered to be extreme through a consideration of the data supplied by the human sciences and by contemporary philosophical currents. However, this praiseworthy concern often does not achieve its goal, because it is undertaken at the expense of essential aspects constitutive of an integral presentation of the Church’s moral teaching; in particular, correct theological methodology, proper definition of the moral object of an act, precision of language, and integrity of argumentation.
The author states that his text is based on the “option for the paradigm of ‘theonomic autonomy’ reinterpreted through an ‘ethic of liberation’”.7 His objective is a personal revision of this paradigm, but he is unable to avoid some of the errors associated with his chosen model, errors which substantially correspond to those indicated in the Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor.8 Indeed, insufficient consideration is given to the fact that faith and reason, while distinct, have a common source and end, and therefore do not relate to each other simply to delineate their respective areas of responsibility in an exclusive and excluding manner, or to expand these areas at the expense of the other, with a view towards emancipation. He does not conceive of “‘ratio’ normativa”9 as a link between man and God, which unites them,10 but rather as a partition which comes between man and God. Therefore, it is no longer possible to see “Divine Wisdom” as the ontological (and therefore objective) foundation of the moral competence which every person unquestionably possesses,11 and there is a consequent failure to recognize that moral reasoning can be “enlightened by divine revelation and by faith”.12
The author expresses more than once the determinative approach of Moral de actitudes: “The characteristic and specific quality of the Christian ethos is not to be found on the level of the concrete contents of the moral commitment”, but rather “on the level of the kind of world-view which accompanies” those contents.13 Only against the background of statements such as these can one understand the meaning of “the reference to Jesus of Nazareth as horizon or new sphere of understanding and of lived experience of reality”,14 or in what sense it can be maintained that faith offers an “influence”, a “context”, an “orientation”,15 a “new frame of reference” and a “dimension”.16 Although the author occasionally states that “Christ is the decisive norm of Christian ethics” and that “there is no other norm for the Christian than the event of Jesus of Nazareth”,17 nevertheless, his attempt at a christological foundation does not succeed at giving concrete ethical normativity to the revelation of God in Christ.18 The christological foundation of ethics is acknowledged insofar as it “re-contextualizes the secular imperatives of a personalism of political alterity”.19
The Christian ethic that results from this is “an ethic influenced by faith”,20 but the influence is weak, because it is juxtaposed in fact to a secularized rationality laid out completely on a horizontal plane. Therefore, Moral de Actitudes does not stress sufficiently the ascending vertical dimension of Christian moral life. And the great Christian themes, such as redemption, the Cross, grace, the theological virtues, prayer, the beatitudes, the resurrection, judgment, and eternal life, are hardly mentioned and exert almost no influence on his presentation of moral teachings.
As a result of the moral paradigm employed, an insufficient role is given to Tradition and the Magisterium’s moral teaching, which are filtered through the author’s frequent “options” and “preferences”.21 In particular, his commentary on the Encyclical Veritatis splendor manifests a deficient notion of the competence of the Magisterium in matters of morality.22 The author, while informing his readers about the teaching of the Church, critically distances himself from that teaching in the solutions given to various special moral problems, as will be seen below.
Consideration must be given, finally, to the tendency to make use of a methodology of the conflict of values or of goods in the study of various ethical problems, as well as to the role played by references to the ontic or pre-moral level.23 This leads to a reductionistic treatment of some theoretical and practical problems, such as the relationship between freedom and truth, conscience and law, fundamental option and concrete choices, which are incapable of positive resolution due to the inconsistencies in the position taken by the author. On a practical level, he does not accept the traditional doctrine on intrinsically evil actions and on the absolute value of the norms that prohibit such actions.
2. Specific Questions
The author maintains that contraceptive methods which intervene after fertilization and before implantation, are not abortifacient. He maintains that, generally speaking, they cannot be considered morally licit means of birth control;24 however, they are morally acceptable “in situations of particular gravity, when it is impossible to have recourse to other means”.25 The author applies this same standard of judgment to sterilization, stating that in some situations it does not pose a moral problem, “given that the intention is to achieve a human good in a responsible way”.26 Both these positions are contrary to the teaching of the Church.27
The author holds that the doctrine of the Church on homosexuality possesses a certain coherence, but does not enjoy an adequate biblical foundation 28 and suffers from significant conditioning 29 and ambiguities.30 It reflects the defects present “in the entire historical construct of Christian sexual ethics”.31 In the moral evaluation of homosexuality, the author adds, one must “adopt a provisional attitude”, formulated “from the perspective of inquiry and openness”.32 For the person who is irreversibly homosexual, a coherent Christian commitment “does not necessarily lead to the rigid morality of either becoming heterosexual or total abstinence”.33 These positions are incompatible with Catholic doctrine, according to which there is a precise and well-founded evaluation of the objective morality of sexual relations between persons of the same sex.34 The degree of subjective moral culpability in individual cases is not the issue here.
The author asserts that the “gravity ex toto genere suo of masturbation” has not been established. 35 In fact, personal conditions are objective elements of this behaviour and therefore “it is not correct to create an ‘objective abstraction’ from personal conditioning and make an evaluation that is universally valid from an objective point of view”.36 “Not every act of masturbation is ‘objectively grave matter’”.37 In this view, the judgment of Catholic moral teaching, according to which acts of autoeroticism are objectively intrinsically evil, would not be correct.38
With regard to responsible parenthood, the author states that none of the present methods of birth control is good in every respect. “It is inconsistent and dangerous to make an overall moral evaluation based on one particular method”.39 While it is the responsibility of the Magisterium to give positive and negative guidance on the use of the various methods,40 if conflicts of conscience arise, “the fundamental principle of the inviolability of the moral conscience would continue to be valid”.41 But even prescinding from conflict situations, “the moral use of strictly contraceptive methods must be the object of the responsible discernment of the married couple”.42 Among the various criteria presented by the author to guide this discernment,43 there is no reference to the objective and binding character of the moral norm contained in the Encyclical Humanae vitae44 and in other documents of the papal Magisterium before45 and after.46
On homologous in vitro fertilization, the author distances himself from the teaching of the Church. “With regard to fertilization limited to a husband and wife (‘the simple case’), we hold that it cannot be rejected...”.47 If the likelihood of risk to the unborn child is removed as far as possible, and there is a reasonable proportion between the failures and the well-founded hope for success, and the human condition of the embryo is always respected, then “homologous artificial fertilization cannot be declared immoral in principle”.48
Moral de Actitudes also contains ambiguous judgments on other specific moral problems, for example, on married couples having recourse to artificial insemination with the sperm of a donor,49 on heterologous in vitro fertilization50, and on abortion. The author rightly affirms the overall immorality of abortion; however, his position on therapeutic abortion is ambiguous.51 In his discussion of the possibility of medical intervention in some very difficult cases, it is not clear whether he is referring to what has traditionally been called “indirect abortion”, or if he admits the lawfulness of procedures which do not come under this category. His statements on eugenic abortion are similarly ambiguous.52 On abortion legislation, the author correctly asserts that abortion cannot be considered an individual right;53 nevertheless, he goes on to state that “not all liberalization of laws [on abortion] is directly contrary to ethics”.54 The author seems to be referring to laws that depenalize abortion.55 There are, however, different types of depenalization; some in practice constitute the legalization of abortion and the others are not acceptable according to Catholic teaching.56 Since the context of the author’s statement is not sufficiently clear, it is not possible for the reader to determine what form of abortion depenalization is not considered “directly contrary to ethics”.
The Congregation notes with satisfaction the steps already taken by the author and his willingness to follow the documents of the Magisterium, and trusts that his collaboration with the Doctrinal Commission of the Spanish Episcopal Conference will result in a text suitable for the formation of students in moral theology.
With this Notification, the Congregation also wishes to encourage moral theologians to pursue the task of renewing moral theology, in particular through deeper study of fundamental moral theology and through precise use of the theological-moral methodology, in keeping with the teaching of the Encyclical Veritatis splendor and with a true sense of their responsibility to the Church.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect on February 9, 2001, in light of the further developments, confirmed his approval of the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, February 22, 2001, the Feast of the Chair of Peter, Apostle.
+ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect
+ Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary
Endnotes
(1) Moral de Actitudes, I. Moral fundamental (Madrid: Editorial PS, 1990), 8th edition (enlarged and completely revised), 902 pp. [Italian trans. Manuale di etica teologica, I. Morale fondamentale (Assisi: Cittadella Editrice, 1994), 958 pp.]. In the following notes, Moral de Actitudes will be cited according to the form MA, with the volume number and page number; the corresponding text in the Italian translation will be cited also, indicated by =.
(2) Moral de Actitudes, II/1: Moral de la persona y bioética teológica (Madrid: Editorial PS, 1991), 8th edition, 797 pp. [Italian trans. Manuale di etica teologica, II-1a: Morale della persona e bioetica teologica (Assisi: Cittadella Editrice, 1995), 896 pp.].
(3) Moral de Actitudes, II/2: Moral del amor y de la sexualidad (Madrid: Editorial PS, 1991), 8th edition, 662 pp. [Italian trans. Manuale di etica teologica, II-2a: Morale dell’amore e della sessualità (Assisi: Cittadella Editrice, 1996), 748 pp.].
(4) Moral de Actitudes, III: Moral social (Madrid: Editorial PS, 1995), 8th edition, 1015 pp. [Italian trans. Manuale di etica teologica, III: Morale sociale (Assisi: Cittadella Editrice, 1997), 1123 pp.].
(5) Diccionario de Ètica Teológica, (Estella [Navarra]: Editorial Verbo Divino, 1991), 649 pp. (henceforth cited as Det).
(6) MA I, 266 = 283; cf. MA I, 139, 211-215 = 147-148, 222-226.
(7) MA I, 260 = 276; cf. MA I, 260-284 = 276-301.
(icon_cool.gif Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor (August 6, 1993), especially 36-37: AAS 85 (1993), 1162-1163.
(9) MA I, 213=224.
(10) St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 100, a. 2, c.
(11) Cf. Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, nn. 36, 42-45: AAS 85 (1993), 1162-1163, 1166-1169.
(12) Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 44: AAS 85 (1993), 1168-1169.
(13) MA I, 203 = 214; the same statement is found in MA II/1, 131= 140 and 139 = 148; MA III, 99-100 = 107-108 and in MA I, 99 = 103 in reference to Sacred Scripture; all this is in contrast with the Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, 37: AAS 85 (1993), 1163: “This then has led to an actual denial that there exists, in divine revelation, a specific and determined moral context, universally valid and permanent. The word of God would be limited to proposing an exhortation, a generic paraenesis, which the autonomous reason alone would then have the task of completing with normative directives which are truly ‘objective,’ that is, adapted to the concrete historical situation”.
(14) MA I, 203-204 =214.
(15) MA I, 192-193 = 202-203.
(16) MA I, 274 = 291.
(17) MA I, 452 = 476.
(1icon_cool.gif Cf. MA I, 268-270 = 285-287.
(19) MA I, 275 =291.
(20) MA I, 192 = 202-203.
(21) Cf. for example, MA I, 260, 789-790, 816, 848 =276, 837-839, 872, 904; MA II/1, 400-403, 497, 597= 434-437, 550-551, 660-661; MA II/2, 189, 191, 263, 264, 495 = 202, 204, 311, 312, 553.
(22) Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 25; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis (May 24, 1990), 16: AAS 82 (1990), 1557. In this regard, see: La propuesta moral de Juan Pablo II. Comentario teológico-moral de la encíclica Veritatis splendor (Madrid: PPC, 1994) especially 24-26, 29, 54, 76-78, 82, 89-90, 94-95, 98, 102, 116, 120, 130-131, 136, 167. See also MA I, 80, 145= 82-83, 154; Det, 362-365; in addition, see the Italian version of MA I, Manuale di etica teologica I: Morale fondamentale (Assisi: Cittadella Editrice, 1994), 142-145: these pages on the Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor were added after the Spanish edition was published and so appear only in the Italian edition.
(23) Cf. for example MA I, 468 = 492.
(24) MA II/2, 574 = 651.
(25) MA II/2, 574 = 651.
(26) MA II/1, 641 = 714; cf. MA II/2, 575 = 652, which considers sterilization as an “adequate solution” in some cases, and Det, 225, where it is stated that in some situations sterilization is “the only method recommended”.
(27) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration De abortu procurato (November 18, 1974), nn. 12-13: AAS 66 (1974), 737-739; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), n. 58: AAS 87 (1995), 466-467. On direct sterilization, see Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae (July 25, 1968), n. 14: AAS 60 (1968), 490-491 and the sources cited therein; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Response Circa sterilizationem in nosocomiis catholicis (March 13, 1974), AAS 68 (1976), 738-740; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2399.
(2icon_cool.gif Cf. MA II/2, 266-267 = 314-315.
(29) Cf. MA II/2, 267 = 315.
(30) Cf. MA II/2, 268 = 316; also Det, 294-295.
(31) MA II/2, 268 = 316; cf. 268-270 = 316-318.
(32) MA II/2, 281-282 = 330.
(33) MA II/2, 283 = 332.
(34) Cf. Rom 1: 24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tm 1:10; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), n. 8: AAS 68 (1976), 84-85; Letter Homosexualitatis pro-blema (October 1, 1987), 3-8: AAS 79 (1987), 544-548; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357-2359, 2396.
(35) MA II/2, 324 = 374.
(36) MA II/2, 330 = 381; cf. Det, 45.
(37) MA II/2, 332 = 382.
(3icon_cool.gif Cf. Declaration Persona humana, 9: AAS 68 (1976), 85-87; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2352; >small 1Leo IX, Letter Ad splendidum nitentis (1054): DS 687-688.
(39) MA II/2, 576 = 653.
(40) Cf. MA II/2, 576 = 653.
(41) MA II/2, 576 = 653.
(42) MA II/2, 576 = 653.
(43) Cf. MA II/2, 576-577 = 653-654.
(44) Cf. Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae, nn. 11-14: AAS 60 (1968), 488-491.
(45) Cf. the sources given in the Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae, n. 14: AAS 60 (1968), 490-491.
(46) Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio (November 22, 1981), 32: AAS 74 (1982), 118-120; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370, 2399. See also MA II/2, 571-573 = 648-650.
(47) MA II/1, 597 = 660.
(4icon_cool.gif MA II/1, 597 = 661.
(49) Cf. MA II/1, 586 = 649 and DET, 315.
(50) Cf. MA II/1, 597 = 660.
(51) Cf. MA II/1, 403 = 437.
(52) Cf. MA II/1, 403 = 437-438.
(53) Cf. MA II/1, 412 = 454.
(54) MA II/1, 412 = 454.
(55) MA II/1, 408 = 442 (and 444).
(56) Cf. Declaration De abortu procurato, nn. 19-23: AAS 66 (1974), 742-744; Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, 71-74: AAS 87 (1995), 483-488.
© L'Osservatore Romano, Editorial and Management Offices, Via del Pellegrino, 00120, Vatican City, Europe, Telephone 39/6/698.99.390.
Author:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Vatican, January 8, 1997
Notification concerning the text 'Mary and Human Liberation' by Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, O.M.I.
Introduction
On 5 June 1994, the Bishops' Conference of Sri Lanka publicly declared that the publication entitled Mary and Human Liberation1 by Fr Tissa Balasuriya, O.M.I. contained statements incompatible with the faith of the Church regarding the doctrine of revelation and its transmission, Christology, soteriology and Mariology. The Bishops concluded by admonishing the faithful to refrain from reading the book. The author, on his part, reacted negatively, contending that his text had been interpreted erroneously and demanding that the truth of the accusations be demonstrated to him.
In spite of the declaration by the Bishops' Conference of Sri Lanka, the erroneous ideas continued to be disseminated among the faithful, even beyond the borders of Sri Lanka; it was for this reason that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in keeping with its responsibility for safeguarding the faith throughout the Catholic world, decided to intervene. At the end of July 1994, the dicastery sent the Superior General of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate some observations on the text, confirming that it contained statements manifestly incompatible with the faith of the Church. In addition, the Superior General was invited to take the measures appropriate in such a case, including a request for a public retraction.
In his response of 14 March 1995, Fr Balasuriya once again stated his positions and maintained that the observations of the Congregation had misunderstood and falsified his doctrinal positions.
To assist the author to demonstrate his full and unconditioned adherence to the Magisterium, in November 1995, the Congregation forwarded the text of a profession of faith to the Superior General of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, centred on magisterial definitions relative to those truths of the faith which the author had denied or had interpreted erroneously. Moreover, it was stated that if Fr Balasuriya would agree to sign the profession, it would then be decided how most adequately to repair the harm done to the faithful; should he not agree, in addition to the disciplinary measures which would follow (can. 1364), the possibility of a public Notification would be taken into consideration by the Congregation.
In May 1996, Fr Balasuriya responded by sending a different text, the "Solemn Profession of Paul VI" which had been signed by him with the addition of the following clause: "I Fr Tissa Balasuriya O.M.I. make and sign this Profession of Faith of Pope Paul VI in the context of theological development and Church practice since Vatican II and the freedom and responsibility of Christians and theological searchers, under Canon Law." Prescinding from the fact that the author had responded with a text different from the one requested, the addition of such a clause rendered the declaration defective, since it diminished the universal and permanent value of the definitions of the Magisterium.
In June 1996, the Congregation again asked the Superior General of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate to invite Fr Balasuriya to sign the text of the profession of faith already given to him, within a period of three weeks and without any conditioning clause.
In the meantime, the Secretary of the Bishops' Conference of Sri Lanka had communicated that Fr Balasuriya had made recourse to the State Mediation Board against the Episcopal Conference, as well as against the Archbishop of Colombo and the editors and manager of the Colombo Catholic Press, in response to the declaration regarding Mary and Human Liberation and its subsequent publication in Catholic newspapers.
On 16 July 1996, the Procurator General of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate transmitted the response of Fr. Balasuriya, dated 1 July 1996, in which he stated that he had suspended the civil proceedings against the Bishops, giving as the reason for this decision his hope that there would be a re-examination of his case within the Church. He was, in all probability, referring to his appeal against the Bishops of Sri Lanka, dated 13 June 1996, to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, in which he maintained that the procedures that led to the declaration regarding his text had been marred by serious irregularities. The Tribunal responded, however, that the question did not fall within its competence. In a similar way, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, having received an appeal by Fr Balasuriya dated 17 July 1996, recognized its lack of competence in this case and forwarded the author's letter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Fr Balasuriya also asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to allow him some time to reflect further on its request that he sign the profession of faith without any conditioning clause, and promised a response before the end of September; such a response, however, never arrived.
Given the clear refusal of Fr Balasuriya to publicly and unequivocally profess his adherence to the faith of the Church, on 22 July 1996, the Congregation, at a meeting with the Superior General and Procurator General of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, communicated that such a situation could not be allowed to continue and that, therefore, a Notification would be published in his regard.
Fr Balasuriya was offered a further opportunity to demonstrate his unconditioned adherence to the faith of the Church when, on 7 December 1996, he was called, together with his Provincial Superior, to the Apostolic Nunciature in Sri Lanka. At that time, the Apostolic Nuncio read to Fr Balasuriya the text of a proposed Notification which would be published should he not sign the profession of faith mentioned above. Fr Balasuriya once again refused and appealed to the Holy Father, asking that a letter he had prepared be delivered directly to the Pope. In this letter, Fr Balasuriya continued to maintain that everything he had written in his text Mary and Human Liberation was within the limits of orthodoxy.
On 27 December 1996, in the name of the Holy Father, His Eminence Angelo Cardinal Sodano, Secretary of State, responded with a letter to Fr Balasuriya, assuring him that the Pope had personally followed the various phases of the procedure used by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its examination of his writing, and that the Holy Father had expressly approved the Notification of the Congregation.
Therefore, given the failure of this latest attempt to obtain from Fr Balasuriya an expression of adherence to the faith of the Church, the Congregation is compelled, for the good of the faithful, to publish the present Notification, in which the essential elements of the above-mentioned observations are made public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of the text Mary and Human Liberation
The aim of Fr Balasuriya's publication is, in his own words, "the critique and evaluation of theological propositions and presuppositions. (p. iv) of the Church's Mariological teaching. In pursuing this intention, the author arrives at the formulation of principles and theological explanations which contain a series of grave errors and which, to different degrees, are distortions of the truths of dogma and are, therefore, incompatible with the faith.
Fr Balasuriya does not recognize the supernatural, unique and irrepeatable character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, by placing its presuppositions on the same level as those of other religions (cf. pp. 31-63). In particular, he maintains that certain "presuppositions" connected to myths were uncritically assumed to be revealed historical facts and, interpreted ideologically by the clerical "power holders" in the Church, eventually became the teaching of the Magisterium (cf. pp. 41-49).
Fr Balasuriya assumes, moreover, a discontinuity in the economy of revelation. In fact, he distinguishes "between the faith due in Christianity to what Jesus teaches and to what the Churches have subsequently developed as interpretations of his teaching" (p. 37).2 From this, it follows that the content expressed by various dogmas is considered to be on the same level as theological interpretations offered "by the Churches, which are the fruit of their cultural and political interests (cf. pp. 42-45, 7677). This position involves, in fact, the denial of the nature of Catholic dogma and, as a consequence, the relativizing of the revealed truths contained in them.
In the first place, the author relativizes Christological dogma: Jesus is presented simply as "a supreme teacher," "one showing a path to deliverance from sin and union with God" (p. 37), "one of the greatest spiritual leaders of humanity" (p. 149), a person who communicates to us his "primordial spiritual experience. (p. 37), but whose divine sonship is never explicitly recognized (cf. pp. 47, 104-105, 153) and whose salvific function is only doubtfully acknowledged (cf. p. 81).
The ecclesiological errors of the text follow from this vision. In not recognizing that "Jesus Christ wanted a Church -say the Catholic Church-to be the mediator of that salvation" (p. 81), Fr Balasuriya reduces salvation to a "direct relationship between God and the human person" (p. 81) and so denies the necessity of Baptism (cf. 6icon_cool.gif.
A fundamental aspect of the thought of Fr Balasuriya is the denial of the dogma of original sin, held by him to be simply a product of the theological thought of the West (cf. pp. 66-7icon_cool.gif. This contradicts the nature of this dogma and its intrinsic connection to revealed truth." The author, in fact, does not hold4 that the meaning of dogmatic formulas remains always true and unchangeable, though capable of being expressed more clearly and better understood.5
On the basis of these positions, the author arrives at the point of denying in particular, the Marian dogmas. Mary's divine motherhood, her Immaculate Conception and virginity, as well as her bodily Assumption into heaven,6 are not recognized as truths belonging to the Word of God (cf. pp. 47, 106 139, 152, 191). Wanting to present a vision of Mary free from "theological elaborations, which are derived from a particular interpretation of one sentence or other of the scriptures" (p. 150) Fr Balasuriya, in fact, deprives the dogmatic doctrine concerning the Blessed Virgin of every revealed character, thus denying the authority of tradition as a mediation of revealed truth.7
Finally it must be noted that Fr Balasuriya, denying and relativizing some statements of both the extraordinary Magisterium and the ordinary universal Magisterium, reveals that he does not recognize the existence of an infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and of the college of Bishops water et sub Petro. Reducing the primacy of the Successor of Peter to a question of power (cf. pp. 42, 84, 170), he denies the special character of this ministry.8
In publishing this Notification, the Congregation is obliged also to declare that Fr Balasuriya has deviated from the integrity of the truth of the Catholic faith and, therefore, cannot be considered a Catholic theologian; moreover, he has incurred excommunication latae sententiae (can. 1364, §1).
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Notification, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2 January 1997, memorial of St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory Nazianzen, Bishops and Doctors of the Church.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Prefect
Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli Secretary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
1 The text was published in the journal Logos 29, 1-2; March/July 1990 (Colombo, Sri Lanka).
2 The same concept is found also in the Response of 14 March 1995, pp. 89.
3 Cf. Concilium Tridentinum, Decretum de peccato originali, DS 1511-1512; Paulus VI, Sollemnis professio fidei, AAS 60 (1968), 434445.
4 Cf. Response, p. 11: "Are not the definitions of dogma made by Councils also particular expressions concerning an ineffable, inexpressible, ultimate divine, and that according to the needs of those who do so, their particular philosophical terms and according to the culture of a given time? To absolutize them could result in a narrowness which the Vatican Council II wanted to avoid".
5 Cf. S. Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Mysterium Ecclesiae, n. 5: AAS 65 (1973), 403-404.
6 Cf. Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. dogm. Lumen gentium, n. 14; Symbolum Apostolicum, DS 10; Symbolum Toletanum, DS 189; Concilium Constantinopolitanum II, DS 422, Concilium Lateranense IV, DS 801; Concilium Ephesinum, DS 252; Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, DS 2803 ; Pius XII , Munificentissimus Deus, DS 3903.
7 Cf. Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. dogm. Dei Verbum, nn. 8-9.
8 Cf. Concilium Vaticanum I, Const. dogm. Pastor aeternus, DS 3074, Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. dogm. Lumen gentium, nn. 18, 22, 25.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Vatican, January 8, 1997
Notification concerning the text 'Mary and Human Liberation' by Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, O.M.I.
Introduction
On 5 June 1994, the Bishops' Conference of Sri Lanka publicly declared that the publication entitled Mary and Human Liberation1 by Fr Tissa Balasuriya, O.M.I. contained statements incompatible with the faith of the Church regarding the doctrine of revelation and its transmission, Christology, soteriology and Mariology. The Bishops concluded by admonishing the faithful to refrain from reading the book. The author, on his part, reacted negatively, contending that his text had been interpreted erroneously and demanding that the truth of the accusations be demonstrated to him.
In spite of the declaration by the Bishops' Conference of Sri Lanka, the erroneous ideas continued to be disseminated among the faithful, even beyond the borders of Sri Lanka; it was for this reason that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in keeping with its responsibility for safeguarding the faith throughout the Catholic world, decided to intervene. At the end of July 1994, the dicastery sent the Superior General of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate some observations on the text, confirming that it contained statements manifestly incompatible with the faith of the Church. In addition, the Superior General was invited to take the measures appropriate in such a case, including a request for a public retraction.
In his response of 14 March 1995, Fr Balasuriya once again stated his positions and maintained that the observations of the Congregation had misunderstood and falsified his doctrinal positions.
To assist the author to demonstrate his full and unconditioned adherence to the Magisterium, in November 1995, the Congregation forwarded the text of a profession of faith to the Superior General of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, centred on magisterial definitions relative to those truths of the faith which the author had denied or had interpreted erroneously. Moreover, it was stated that if Fr Balasuriya would agree to sign the profession, it would then be decided how most adequately to repair the harm done to the faithful; should he not agree, in addition to the disciplinary measures which would follow (can. 1364), the possibility of a public Notification would be taken into consideration by the Congregation.
In May 1996, Fr Balasuriya responded by sending a different text, the "Solemn Profession of Paul VI" which had been signed by him with the addition of the following clause: "I Fr Tissa Balasuriya O.M.I. make and sign this Profession of Faith of Pope Paul VI in the context of theological development and Church practice since Vatican II and the freedom and responsibility of Christians and theological searchers, under Canon Law." Prescinding from the fact that the author had responded with a text different from the one requested, the addition of such a clause rendered the declaration defective, since it diminished the universal and permanent value of the definitions of the Magisterium.
In June 1996, the Congregation again asked the Superior General of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate to invite Fr Balasuriya to sign the text of the profession of faith already given to him, within a period of three weeks and without any conditioning clause.
In the meantime, the Secretary of the Bishops' Conference of Sri Lanka had communicated that Fr Balasuriya had made recourse to the State Mediation Board against the Episcopal Conference, as well as against the Archbishop of Colombo and the editors and manager of the Colombo Catholic Press, in response to the declaration regarding Mary and Human Liberation and its subsequent publication in Catholic newspapers.
On 16 July 1996, the Procurator General of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate transmitted the response of Fr. Balasuriya, dated 1 July 1996, in which he stated that he had suspended the civil proceedings against the Bishops, giving as the reason for this decision his hope that there would be a re-examination of his case within the Church. He was, in all probability, referring to his appeal against the Bishops of Sri Lanka, dated 13 June 1996, to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, in which he maintained that the procedures that led to the declaration regarding his text had been marred by serious irregularities. The Tribunal responded, however, that the question did not fall within its competence. In a similar way, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, having received an appeal by Fr Balasuriya dated 17 July 1996, recognized its lack of competence in this case and forwarded the author's letter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Fr Balasuriya also asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to allow him some time to reflect further on its request that he sign the profession of faith without any conditioning clause, and promised a response before the end of September; such a response, however, never arrived.
Given the clear refusal of Fr Balasuriya to publicly and unequivocally profess his adherence to the faith of the Church, on 22 July 1996, the Congregation, at a meeting with the Superior General and Procurator General of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, communicated that such a situation could not be allowed to continue and that, therefore, a Notification would be published in his regard.
Fr Balasuriya was offered a further opportunity to demonstrate his unconditioned adherence to the faith of the Church when, on 7 December 1996, he was called, together with his Provincial Superior, to the Apostolic Nunciature in Sri Lanka. At that time, the Apostolic Nuncio read to Fr Balasuriya the text of a proposed Notification which would be published should he not sign the profession of faith mentioned above. Fr Balasuriya once again refused and appealed to the Holy Father, asking that a letter he had prepared be delivered directly to the Pope. In this letter, Fr Balasuriya continued to maintain that everything he had written in his text Mary and Human Liberation was within the limits of orthodoxy.
On 27 December 1996, in the name of the Holy Father, His Eminence Angelo Cardinal Sodano, Secretary of State, responded with a letter to Fr Balasuriya, assuring him that the Pope had personally followed the various phases of the procedure used by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its examination of his writing, and that the Holy Father had expressly approved the Notification of the Congregation.
Therefore, given the failure of this latest attempt to obtain from Fr Balasuriya an expression of adherence to the faith of the Church, the Congregation is compelled, for the good of the faithful, to publish the present Notification, in which the essential elements of the above-mentioned observations are made public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of the text Mary and Human Liberation
The aim of Fr Balasuriya's publication is, in his own words, "the critique and evaluation of theological propositions and presuppositions. (p. iv) of the Church's Mariological teaching. In pursuing this intention, the author arrives at the formulation of principles and theological explanations which contain a series of grave errors and which, to different degrees, are distortions of the truths of dogma and are, therefore, incompatible with the faith.
Fr Balasuriya does not recognize the supernatural, unique and irrepeatable character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, by placing its presuppositions on the same level as those of other religions (cf. pp. 31-63). In particular, he maintains that certain "presuppositions" connected to myths were uncritically assumed to be revealed historical facts and, interpreted ideologically by the clerical "power holders" in the Church, eventually became the teaching of the Magisterium (cf. pp. 41-49).
Fr Balasuriya assumes, moreover, a discontinuity in the economy of revelation. In fact, he distinguishes "between the faith due in Christianity to what Jesus teaches and to what the Churches have subsequently developed as interpretations of his teaching" (p. 37).2 From this, it follows that the content expressed by various dogmas is considered to be on the same level as theological interpretations offered "by the Churches, which are the fruit of their cultural and political interests (cf. pp. 42-45, 7677). This position involves, in fact, the denial of the nature of Catholic dogma and, as a consequence, the relativizing of the revealed truths contained in them.
In the first place, the author relativizes Christological dogma: Jesus is presented simply as "a supreme teacher," "one showing a path to deliverance from sin and union with God" (p. 37), "one of the greatest spiritual leaders of humanity" (p. 149), a person who communicates to us his "primordial spiritual experience. (p. 37), but whose divine sonship is never explicitly recognized (cf. pp. 47, 104-105, 153) and whose salvific function is only doubtfully acknowledged (cf. p. 81).
The ecclesiological errors of the text follow from this vision. In not recognizing that "Jesus Christ wanted a Church -say the Catholic Church-to be the mediator of that salvation" (p. 81), Fr Balasuriya reduces salvation to a "direct relationship between God and the human person" (p. 81) and so denies the necessity of Baptism (cf. 6icon_cool.gif.
A fundamental aspect of the thought of Fr Balasuriya is the denial of the dogma of original sin, held by him to be simply a product of the theological thought of the West (cf. pp. 66-7icon_cool.gif. This contradicts the nature of this dogma and its intrinsic connection to revealed truth." The author, in fact, does not hold4 that the meaning of dogmatic formulas remains always true and unchangeable, though capable of being expressed more clearly and better understood.5
On the basis of these positions, the author arrives at the point of denying in particular, the Marian dogmas. Mary's divine motherhood, her Immaculate Conception and virginity, as well as her bodily Assumption into heaven,6 are not recognized as truths belonging to the Word of God (cf. pp. 47, 106 139, 152, 191). Wanting to present a vision of Mary free from "theological elaborations, which are derived from a particular interpretation of one sentence or other of the scriptures" (p. 150) Fr Balasuriya, in fact, deprives the dogmatic doctrine concerning the Blessed Virgin of every revealed character, thus denying the authority of tradition as a mediation of revealed truth.7
Finally it must be noted that Fr Balasuriya, denying and relativizing some statements of both the extraordinary Magisterium and the ordinary universal Magisterium, reveals that he does not recognize the existence of an infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and of the college of Bishops water et sub Petro. Reducing the primacy of the Successor of Peter to a question of power (cf. pp. 42, 84, 170), he denies the special character of this ministry.8
In publishing this Notification, the Congregation is obliged also to declare that Fr Balasuriya has deviated from the integrity of the truth of the Catholic faith and, therefore, cannot be considered a Catholic theologian; moreover, he has incurred excommunication latae sententiae (can. 1364, §1).
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Notification, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2 January 1997, memorial of St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory Nazianzen, Bishops and Doctors of the Church.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Prefect
Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli Secretary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
1 The text was published in the journal Logos 29, 1-2; March/July 1990 (Colombo, Sri Lanka).
2 The same concept is found also in the Response of 14 March 1995, pp. 89.
3 Cf. Concilium Tridentinum, Decretum de peccato originali, DS 1511-1512; Paulus VI, Sollemnis professio fidei, AAS 60 (1968), 434445.
4 Cf. Response, p. 11: "Are not the definitions of dogma made by Councils also particular expressions concerning an ineffable, inexpressible, ultimate divine, and that according to the needs of those who do so, their particular philosophical terms and according to the culture of a given time? To absolutize them could result in a narrowness which the Vatican Council II wanted to avoid".
5 Cf. S. Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Mysterium Ecclesiae, n. 5: AAS 65 (1973), 403-404.
6 Cf. Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. dogm. Lumen gentium, n. 14; Symbolum Apostolicum, DS 10; Symbolum Toletanum, DS 189; Concilium Constantinopolitanum II, DS 422, Concilium Lateranense IV, DS 801; Concilium Ephesinum, DS 252; Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, DS 2803 ; Pius XII , Munificentissimus Deus, DS 3903.
7 Cf. Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. dogm. Dei Verbum, nn. 8-9.
8 Cf. Concilium Vaticanum I, Const. dogm. Pastor aeternus, DS 3074, Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. dogm. Lumen gentium, nn. 18, 22, 25.
Author:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
ZENIT News Agency, August 23, 1998
Notification Concerning the Writings of Father Anthony De Mello, SJ
The Indian Jesuit priest, Father Anthony de Mello (1931-1987) is well known due to his numerous publications which, translated into various languages, have been widely circulated in many countries of the world, though not all of these texts were authorized by him for publication. His works, which almost always take the form of brief stories, contain some valid elements of oriental wisdom. These can be helpful in achieving self-mastery, in breaking the bonds and feelings that keep us from being free, and in approaching with serenity the various vicissitudes of life. Especially in his early writings, Father de Mello, while revealing the influence of Buddhist and Taoist spiritual currents, remained within the lines of Christian spirituality. In these books, he treats the different kinds of prayer: petition, intercession and praise, as well as contemplation of the mysteries of the life of Christ, etc.
But already in certain passages in these early works and to a greater degree in his later publications, one notices a progressive distancing from the essential contents of the Christian faith. In place of the revelation which has come in the person of Jesus Christ, he substitutes an intuition of God without form or image, to the point of speaking of God as a pure void. To see God it is enough to look directly at the world. Nothing can be said about God; the only knowing is unknowing. To pose the question of his existence is already nonsense. This radical apophaticism leads even to a denial that the Bible contains valid statements about God. The words of Scripture are indications which serve only to lead a person to silence. In other passages, the judgment on sacred religious texts, not excluding the Bible, becomes even more severe: they are said to prevent people from following their own common sense and cause them to become obtuse and cruel. Religions, including Christianity, are one of the major obstacles to the discovery of truth. This truth, however, is never defined by the author in its precise contents. For him, to think that the God of one's own religion is the only one is simply fanaticism. "God" is considered as a cosmic reality, vague and omnipresent; the personal nature of God is ignored and in practice denied.
Father de Mello demonstrates an appreciation for Jesus, of whom he declares himself to be a "disciple." But he considers Jesus as a master alongside others. The only difference from other men is that Jesus is "awake" and fully free, while others are not. Jesus is not recognized as the Son of God, but simply as the one who teaches us that all people are children of God. In addition, the author's statements on the final destiny of man give rise to perplexity. At one point, he speaks of a "dissolving" into the impersonal God, as salt dissolves in water. On various occasions, the question of destiny after death is declared to be irrelevant; only the present life should be of interest. With respect to this life, since evil is simply ignorance, there are no objective rules of morality. Good and evil are simply mental evaluations imposed upon reality.
Consistent with what has been presented, one can understand how, according to the author, any belief or profession of faith whether in God or in Christ cannot but impede one's personal access to truth. The Church, making the word of God in Holy Scripture into an idol, has ended up banishing God from the temple. She has consequently lost the authority to teach in the name of Christ.
With the present Notification, in order to protect the good of the Christian faithful, this Congregation declares that the above-mentioned positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave harm.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 24, 1998, the Solemnity of the Birth of John the Baptist.
+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect
+ Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The writings of the Indian Jesuit priest, Father Anthony de Mello (1931-1987) have circulated extensively in many countries of the world and among people of widely different backgrounds.1 In these works, which often take the form of short anecdotes presented in an accessible and easy-to-read style, Father de Mello collected elements of eastern wisdom which can be helpful in achieving self-control, in breaking the attachments and affections that keep us from being truly free, in avoiding selfishness, in facing life's difficulties with serenity without letting ourselves be affected by the world around us, while at the same time being aware of its riches. It is important to indicate these positive features which can be found in many of Father de Mello's writings. Particularly in the works dating from his early years as a retreat director, while revealing the influence of Buddhist and Taoist spiritual currents, Father de Mello remained in many respects within the boundaries of Christian spirituality. He speaks of waiting in silence and prayer for the coming of the Spirit, pure gift of the Father (Contact With God: Retreat Conferences, 3-7). He gives a very good presentation of the prayer of Jesus and of the prayer that Jesus teaches us, taking the Our Father as his basis (ibid., 42-44). He also speaks of faith, repentance and contemplation of the mysteries of Christ's life according to the method of Saint Ignatius. In his work Sadhana: A Way to God, published for the first time in 1978, Jesus occupies a central place, particularly in the last part ("Devotion," 99-134). He speaks of the prayer of petition and intercession as taught by Jesus in the Gospel, of the prayer of praise and of invocation of the name of Jesus. His book is dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, a model of contemplation (ibid., 4-5).
But already in this work he develops his theory of contemplation as awareness, which seems to be not lacking in ambiguity. Already at the beginning of the book, the concept of Christian revelation is equated with that of Lao-tse, with a certain preference for the latter: "'Silence is the great revelation,' said Lao-tse. We are accustomed to think of Scripture as the revelation of God. And so it is. I want you now to discover the revelation that silence brings" (9; cf. ibid., 11). In exercising an awareness of our bodily sensations, we are already communicating with God, a communication explained in these terms: "Many mystics tell us that, in addition to the mind and heart with which we ordinarily communicate with God we are, all of us, endowed with a mystical mind and mystical heart, a faculty which makes it possible for us to know God directly, to grasp and intuit him in his very being, though in a dark manner..." (ibid., 25). But this intuition, without images or form, is that of a void: "But what do I gaze into when I gaze silently at God? An imageless, formless reality. A blank!" (ibid., 26). To communicate with the Infinite it is necessary "to gaze at a blank." And thus one arrives at "the seemingly disconcerting conclusion that concentration on your breathing or your body sensations is very good contemplation in the strict sense of the word" (ibid., 29-30).2 In his later works, he speaks of "awakening," interior enlightenment or knowledge: "How to wake up? How are we going to know we're asleep? The mystics, when they see what surrounds them, discover an extra joy flowing in the heart of things. With one voice they speak about this joy and love flowing everywhere... How attain that? Through understanding. By being liberated from illusions and wrong ideas" (Walking on Water, 77-78; cf. Call To Love, 97). Interior enlightenment is the true revelation, far more important than the one which comes to us through Scripture: "A Guru promised a scholar a revelation of greater consequence than anything contained in the scriptures... When you have knowledge you use a torch to show the way. When you are enlightened you become a torch" (The Prayer of the Frog I, 86-87).
Holiness is not an achievement, it is a Grace. A Grace called
Awareness, a grace called Looking, observing, understanding.
If you would only switch on the light of awareness and observe
yourself and
everything around you throughout the day, if you would see yourself
reflected in the mirror of awareness the way you see your face
reflected in a looking glass... and if you observed this reflection
without any judgment or condemnation, you would experience all sorts
of marvellous changes coming about in you (Call To Love, 96).
In these later writings, Father de Mello had gradually arrived at concepts of God, revelation, Christ, the final destiny of the human person, etc., which cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of the Church. Since many of his books do not take the form of discursive teaching, but are collections of short tales which are often quite clever, the underlying ideas can easily pass unnoticed. This makes it necessary to call attention to certain aspects of his thought which, in different forms, appear in his work taken as a whole. We will use the author's own texts which, with their particular features, clearly demonstrate the underlying thinking.
On various occasions, Father de Mello makes statements about God which ignore his personal nature, if not explicitly denying it, and reduce God to a vague and omnipresent cosmic reality. According to the author, no one can help us find God just as no one can help a fish in the sea find the ocean (cf. One Minute Wisdom, 67; Awareness, 103). Similarly, God and each of us are neither one nor two, just as the sun and its light, the ocean and the wave, are neither one nor two (cf. One Minute Wisdom, 34). With even greater clarity the problem of a personal Deity is presented in these terms: "Dag Hammarskjöld, the former UN Secretary-General, put it so beautifully: 'God does not die on the day we cease to believe in a personal deity...'" (Awareness, 126; the same idea is found in "La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 60). "If God is love, then the distance between God and you is the exact distance between you and the awareness of yourself?" (One Minute Nonsense, 266).
Following from a unilateral and exaggerated apophaticism which is the consequence of the above-mentioned concept of God, criticism and frequent irony are directed toward any attempt at language of God. The relationship between God and creation is frequently expressed with the Hindu image of the dancer and dance:
I see Jesus Christ and Judas, I see victims and persecutors, the
killers and the crucified: one melody in the contrasting notes...one
dance moving through different steps... Finally, I stand before the
Lord. I see him as the Dancer and all of this maddening, senseless,
exhilarating, agonizing, splendorous thing that we call life as his
dance...(Wellsprings: A Book of Spiritual Exercises, 200-201; The Song of the Bird, 16).
Who or what is God and what are men in this 'dance'? And again: "If you wish to see God, look attentively at creation. Don't reject it; don't reflect on it. Just look at it" (The Song of the Bird, 27). It is not at all clear how Christ's mediation for knowledge of the Father enters into such a description. "Realizing that God has nothing to do with the idea I form of God... There is only one way of knowing him: by unknowing!" (Walking on Water, 12; cf. ibid., 13-14; Awareness, 123; The Prayer of the Frog I, 268). Concerning God, therefore, one cannot say anything: "The atheist makes the mistake of denying that of which nothing may be said... And the theist makes the mistake of affirming it" (One Minute Nonsense, 21; cf. ibid., 336).
Nor do sacred scriptures, the Bible included, enable us to know God; they are simply like road-signs which tell me nothing about the city to which I am going: "...I come to a sign that says 'Bombay.' ... That sign isn't Bombay! Actually it doesn't even look like Bombay. It's not a picture of Bombay. It's a sign. That is what the scriptures are, a sign" (Walking on Water, 13). Continuing this metaphor, one could say that a road-sign becomes useless when I have reached my destination; this is what Father de Mello seems to be saying: "The scripture is the excellent portion, the finger pointed toward the Light. We use its words to go beyond conceptions and reach silence" (Walking on Water, 16). Paradoxically God's revelation is not expressed in his words, but in silence (cf. also One Minute Wisdom, 118, 157, 191, etc. Awareness, 101). "In the Bible only the path is indicated to us, as in the Muslim, Buddhist scriptures, etc." ("La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 64).
Thus, what is proclaimed is an impersonal God who stands above all the religions, while objections are raised to the Christian proclamation of the God of love, held to be incompatible with the notion of the necessity of the Church for salvation:
My friend and I went to the fair. THE WORLD FAIR OF RELIGIONS... At the Jewish Stall we were given hand-outs that said that God was All-Compassionate and the Jews were his Chosen People. The Jews. No other people were as Chosen as the Jewish People. At the Moslem Stall we learnt that God was All-Merciful and Mohammed is his only Prophet. Salvation comes from listening to God's only Prophet. At the Christian Stall we discovered that God is Love and there is no salvation outside the Church. Join the Church or risk eternal damnation. On the way out I asked my friend, 'What do you think of God?' He replied, 'He is bigoted, fanatical and cruel.' Back home, I said to God, 'How do you put up with this sort of thing, Lord? Don't you see they have been giving you a bad name for centuries?' God said, 'I didn't organize the Fair. I'd be too ashamed to even visit it' ("The World Fair of Religions" in The Song of the Bird, 186-187; cf. ibid., 189-190, 195).
The teaching of the Church on God's universal salvific will and on the salvation of non-Christians is not presented correctly, nor is the Christian message of God as Love: "'God is love. And He loves and rewards us forever if we observe His commandments.' 'IF?' said the Master, 'Then the news isn't all that good, is it?'" (One Minute Nonsense, 198; cf. ibid., 206). Every concrete religion is an obstacle to arriving at the truth. Furthermore, what is said about the Scriptures is said also about religion in general: "All fanatics wanted to catch hold of their God and make him the only one" ("La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 65; cf. ibid., 28, 30). What matters is the truth, whether it comes from Buddha or from Mohammed, since "the important thing is to discover the truth where all truths come together, because truth is one" (ibid., 65). "Most people, alas, have enough religion to hate but not enough to love" (The Prayer of the Frog I, 104; cf. ibid., 33, 94). When the obstacles that prevent one from seeing reality are listed, religion comes first: "First your beliefs. If you experience life as a communist or a capitalist, as a Moslem or a Jew, you are experiencing life in a prejudiced, slanted way; there is a barrier, a layer of fat between Reality and you because you no longer see and touch it directly" (Call to Love, 30-31). "If all human beings were fitted with such hearts people would no longer think of themselves as Communists or Capitalists, as Christians or Muslims or Buddhists. The very clarity of their thinking would show them that all thinking, all concepts, all beliefs are lamps full of darkness, signs of their ignorance" (ibid., 94; cf. also One Minute Wisdom, 159, 217, on the dangers of religion). What is asserted about religion, is also said concretely about the Scriptures (cf. The Song of the Bird, 186ff; One Minute Nonsense, 19).
The divine sonship of Jesus is diluted into the notion of the divine sonship of all men: "To which God replied, 'A feast day is holy because it shows that all the days of the year are holy. And a sanctuary is holy because it shows that all places are sanctified. So Christ was born to show that all men are sons of God'" (The Song of the Bird, 189). Father de Mello certainly manifests a personal adherence to Christ, of whom he declares himself a disciple (Wellsprings, 122), in whom he has faith (ibid., 113) and who he personally encounters (ibid., 115ff, 124ff). His presence is transfiguring (cf. ibid., 92ff). But other statements are disconcerting. Jesus is mentioned as one teacher among many: "Lao Tzu and Socrates, Buddha and Jesus, Zarathustra and Mohammed (One Minute Wisdom, 2). Jesus on the cross appears as the one who has freed himself perfectly of everything:
I see the Crucified as stripped of everything: Stripped of his dignity...Stripped of his reputation...Stripped of support...Stripped of his God...As I gaze at that lifeless body I slowly understand that I am looking at the symbol of supreme and total liberation. In being fastened to the cross Jesus becomes alive and free...So now I contemplate the majesty of the man who has freed himself from all that makes us slaves, destroys our happiness... (Wellsprings, 95-97).
Jesus on the cross is the man free of all ties; thus he becomes the symbol of interior liberation from everything to which we were attached. But isn't Jesus something more than a man who is free? Is Jesus my saviour or does he simply direct me toward a mysterious reality which has saved him? "'Will I ever get in touch, Lord, with the source from which your words and wisdom flow?... Will I ever find the wellsprings of your courage?'" (Wellsprings, 123). "'The lovely thing about Jesus was that he was so at home with sinners, because he understood that he wasn't one bit better than they were'...The only difference between Jesus and those others was that he was awake and they weren't" (Awareness, 30-31); cf. also "La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 30, 62). Christ's presence in the Eucharist is but a symbol that refers to a deeper reality: his presence in creation. "The whole of creation is the body of Christ, and you believe that it is only in the Eucharist. The Eucharist indicates this creation. The Body of Christ is everywhere and yet you only notice its symbol which indicates to you what is essential, namely life" ("La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 61).
Man's being seems destined to dissolve, like salt in water: "Before that last bit dissolved, the [salt] doll exclaimed in wonder, 'Now I know who I am!'" (The Song of the Bird, 125). At other times, the question of life after death is declared to be unimportant: "'But is there life after death or is there not?' persisted a disciple. 'Is there life before death? -- that is the question!' said the Master enigmatically" (One Minute Wisdom, 83; cf. ibid., 26). "One sign that you're awakened is that you don't give a damn about what's going to happen in the next life. You're not bothered about it; you don't care. You are not interested, period" (Awareness, 42-43, 150). Perhaps with even greater clarity: "Why bother about tomorrow? Is there a life after death? Will I survive after death? Why bother about tomorrow? Get into today" (Awareness, 114). "The idea that people have of eternity is stupid. They think that it will last forever because it is outside of time. Eternal life is now; it's here" ("La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 42).
At various points in his books institutions of the Church are criticized indiscriminately: "My religious life has been completely taken over by professionals" (The Song of the Bird, 63ff). The function of the Creed or the Profession of the Faith is judged negatively, as that which prevents personal access to truth and enlightenment (thus with different nuances, The Song of the Bird, 36, 46-47, 50ff, 215). "When you no longer need to hold on to the words of the Bible, it is then that it will become something very beautiful for you, revealing life and its message. The sad thing is that the official Church has dedicated itself to framing the idol, enclosing it, defending it, reifying it without being able to look at what it really means" ("La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 66). Similar ideas are presented in The Prayer of the Frog I, 7, 94, 95, 98-99: "A public sinner was excommunicated and forbidden entry to the church. He took his woes to God. 'They won't let me in, Lord, because I am sinner.' 'What are you complaining about?' said God. 'They won't let me in either!'" (ibid., 105).
Evil is nothing but ignorance, the lack of enlightenment: "When Jesus looks at evil he calls it by its name and condemns it unambiguously. Only, where I see malice, he sees ignorance... 'Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing'" [Lk 23:34] (Wellsprings, 215). Certainly, this text does not reflect the entire teaching of Jesus on the evil of the world and on sin; Jesus welcomed sinners with profound mercy, but he did not deny their sin; rather he invited them to conversion. In other passages we find even more radical statements: "Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so" (One Minute Wisdom, 104). "Actually there is no good or evil in persons or in nature. There is only a mental judgment imposed upon this or that reality" (Walking on Water, 99). There is no reason to repent for sins, since the only thing that matters is to be awakened to an awareness of reality: "Don't weep for your sins. Why weep for sins that you committed when you were asleep?" (Awareness, 26; cf. ibid., 43, 150). The cause of evil is ignorance (One Minute Nonsense, 239). Sin exists, but it is an act of insanity ("La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 63). Repentance therefore means returning to reality (cf. ibid., 4icon_cool.gif. "Repentance is a change of mind: a radically different vision of reality" (One Minute Nonsense, 241).
Clearly, there is an internal connection between these different positions: if one questions the existence of a personal God, it does not make sense that God would address himself to us with his word. Sacred Scripture, therefore, does not have definitive value. Jesus is a teacher like others; only in the author's early books does he appear as the Son of God, an affirmation which would have little meaning in the context of such an understanding of God. As a consequence one cannot attribute value to the Church's teaching. Our personal survival after death is problematic if God is not personal. Thus it becomes clear that such conceptions of God, Christ and man are not compatible with the Christian faith.
For this reason, those responsible for safeguarding the doctrine of the faith have been obliged to illustrate the dangers in the texts written by Father Anthony de Mello or attributed to him, and to warn the faithful about them.
Endnotes
1 Not all the works of Father de Mello were authorized for publication by the author himself. Some were published after his death based on his writings, or on notes or recordings of his conferences. In this Explanatory Note, the following editions of his writings are cited: Sadhana: A Way to God (St. Louis, USA: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1978); The Song of the Bird (Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1982); Wellsprings: A Book of Spiritual Exercises (Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1984); One Minute Wisdom (Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1985); "La iluminación es la espiritualidad: Curso completo de autoliberación interior" in Vida Nueva (1987) pp. 27/1583 - 66/1622; The Prayer of the Frog, 2 vols. (Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1989); Awareness (London: Fount Paperbacks, 1990); Contact with God: Retreat Conferences (Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1990); Call to Love: Meditations (Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1991); Caminhar sobre as águas: Quebre o ídolo (São Paulo, Brazil: Edições Loyola, 1992), engl. trans. Walking on Water (New York: Crossroad, 1998); One Minute Nonsense (Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1992).
2 The Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on some aspects of Christianmeditation Orationis formas (15 October 1989) seems to make reference to such ideas: "Still others do not hesitate to place that absolute without image or concepts, which is proper to Buddhist theory, on the same level as the majesty of God revealed in Christ, which towers above finite reality" (n. 12: AAS 82 [1990], 369). In this regard, it is also appropriate to recall the teachings on inculturation and interreligious dialogue in the Encyclical Letter of John Paul II Redemptoris missio (cf. nn. 52-57: AAS 83 [1991], 299-305)
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
ZENIT News Agency, August 23, 1998
Notification Concerning the Writings of Father Anthony De Mello, SJ
The Indian Jesuit priest, Father Anthony de Mello (1931-1987) is well known due to his numerous publications which, translated into various languages, have been widely circulated in many countries of the world, though not all of these texts were authorized by him for publication. His works, which almost always take the form of brief stories, contain some valid elements of oriental wisdom. These can be helpful in achieving self-mastery, in breaking the bonds and feelings that keep us from being free, and in approaching with serenity the various vicissitudes of life. Especially in his early writings, Father de Mello, while revealing the influence of Buddhist and Taoist spiritual currents, remained within the lines of Christian spirituality. In these books, he treats the different kinds of prayer: petition, intercession and praise, as well as contemplation of the mysteries of the life of Christ, etc.
But already in certain passages in these early works and to a greater degree in his later publications, one notices a progressive distancing from the essential contents of the Christian faith. In place of the revelation which has come in the person of Jesus Christ, he substitutes an intuition of God without form or image, to the point of speaking of God as a pure void. To see God it is enough to look directly at the world. Nothing can be said about God; the only knowing is unknowing. To pose the question of his existence is already nonsense. This radical apophaticism leads even to a denial that the Bible contains valid statements about God. The words of Scripture are indications which serve only to lead a person to silence. In other passages, the judgment on sacred religious texts, not excluding the Bible, becomes even more severe: they are said to prevent people from following their own common sense and cause them to become obtuse and cruel. Religions, including Christianity, are one of the major obstacles to the discovery of truth. This truth, however, is never defined by the author in its precise contents. For him, to think that the God of one's own religion is the only one is simply fanaticism. "God" is considered as a cosmic reality, vague and omnipresent; the personal nature of God is ignored and in practice denied.
Father de Mello demonstrates an appreciation for Jesus, of whom he declares himself to be a "disciple." But he considers Jesus as a master alongside others. The only difference from other men is that Jesus is "awake" and fully free, while others are not. Jesus is not recognized as the Son of God, but simply as the one who teaches us that all people are children of God. In addition, the author's statements on the final destiny of man give rise to perplexity. At one point, he speaks of a "dissolving" into the impersonal God, as salt dissolves in water. On various occasions, the question of destiny after death is declared to be irrelevant; only the present life should be of interest. With respect to this life, since evil is simply ignorance, there are no objective rules of morality. Good and evil are simply mental evaluations imposed upon reality.
Consistent with what has been presented, one can understand how, according to the author, any belief or profession of faith whether in God or in Christ cannot but impede one's personal access to truth. The Church, making the word of God in Holy Scripture into an idol, has ended up banishing God from the temple. She has consequently lost the authority to teach in the name of Christ.
With the present Notification, in order to protect the good of the Christian faithful, this Congregation declares that the above-mentioned positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave harm.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 24, 1998, the Solemnity of the Birth of John the Baptist.
+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect
+ Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The writings of the Indian Jesuit priest, Father Anthony de Mello (1931-1987) have circulated extensively in many countries of the world and among people of widely different backgrounds.1 In these works, which often take the form of short anecdotes presented in an accessible and easy-to-read style, Father de Mello collected elements of eastern wisdom which can be helpful in achieving self-control, in breaking the attachments and affections that keep us from being truly free, in avoiding selfishness, in facing life's difficulties with serenity without letting ourselves be affected by the world around us, while at the same time being aware of its riches. It is important to indicate these positive features which can be found in many of Father de Mello's writings. Particularly in the works dating from his early years as a retreat director, while revealing the influence of Buddhist and Taoist spiritual currents, Father de Mello remained in many respects within the boundaries of Christian spirituality. He speaks of waiting in silence and prayer for the coming of the Spirit, pure gift of the Father (Contact With God: Retreat Conferences, 3-7). He gives a very good presentation of the prayer of Jesus and of the prayer that Jesus teaches us, taking the Our Father as his basis (ibid., 42-44). He also speaks of faith, repentance and contemplation of the mysteries of Christ's life according to the method of Saint Ignatius. In his work Sadhana: A Way to God, published for the first time in 1978, Jesus occupies a central place, particularly in the last part ("Devotion," 99-134). He speaks of the prayer of petition and intercession as taught by Jesus in the Gospel, of the prayer of praise and of invocation of the name of Jesus. His book is dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, a model of contemplation (ibid., 4-5).
But already in this work he develops his theory of contemplation as awareness, which seems to be not lacking in ambiguity. Already at the beginning of the book, the concept of Christian revelation is equated with that of Lao-tse, with a certain preference for the latter: "'Silence is the great revelation,' said Lao-tse. We are accustomed to think of Scripture as the revelation of God. And so it is. I want you now to discover the revelation that silence brings" (9; cf. ibid., 11). In exercising an awareness of our bodily sensations, we are already communicating with God, a communication explained in these terms: "Many mystics tell us that, in addition to the mind and heart with which we ordinarily communicate with God we are, all of us, endowed with a mystical mind and mystical heart, a faculty which makes it possible for us to know God directly, to grasp and intuit him in his very being, though in a dark manner..." (ibid., 25). But this intuition, without images or form, is that of a void: "But what do I gaze into when I gaze silently at God? An imageless, formless reality. A blank!" (ibid., 26). To communicate with the Infinite it is necessary "to gaze at a blank." And thus one arrives at "the seemingly disconcerting conclusion that concentration on your breathing or your body sensations is very good contemplation in the strict sense of the word" (ibid., 29-30).2 In his later works, he speaks of "awakening," interior enlightenment or knowledge: "How to wake up? How are we going to know we're asleep? The mystics, when they see what surrounds them, discover an extra joy flowing in the heart of things. With one voice they speak about this joy and love flowing everywhere... How attain that? Through understanding. By being liberated from illusions and wrong ideas" (Walking on Water, 77-78; cf. Call To Love, 97). Interior enlightenment is the true revelation, far more important than the one which comes to us through Scripture: "A Guru promised a scholar a revelation of greater consequence than anything contained in the scriptures... When you have knowledge you use a torch to show the way. When you are enlightened you become a torch" (The Prayer of the Frog I, 86-87).
Holiness is not an achievement, it is a Grace. A Grace called
Awareness, a grace called Looking, observing, understanding.
If you would only switch on the light of awareness and observe
yourself and
everything around you throughout the day, if you would see yourself
reflected in the mirror of awareness the way you see your face
reflected in a looking glass... and if you observed this reflection
without any judgment or condemnation, you would experience all sorts
of marvellous changes coming about in you (Call To Love, 96).
In these later writings, Father de Mello had gradually arrived at concepts of God, revelation, Christ, the final destiny of the human person, etc., which cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of the Church. Since many of his books do not take the form of discursive teaching, but are collections of short tales which are often quite clever, the underlying ideas can easily pass unnoticed. This makes it necessary to call attention to certain aspects of his thought which, in different forms, appear in his work taken as a whole. We will use the author's own texts which, with their particular features, clearly demonstrate the underlying thinking.
On various occasions, Father de Mello makes statements about God which ignore his personal nature, if not explicitly denying it, and reduce God to a vague and omnipresent cosmic reality. According to the author, no one can help us find God just as no one can help a fish in the sea find the ocean (cf. One Minute Wisdom, 67; Awareness, 103). Similarly, God and each of us are neither one nor two, just as the sun and its light, the ocean and the wave, are neither one nor two (cf. One Minute Wisdom, 34). With even greater clarity the problem of a personal Deity is presented in these terms: "Dag Hammarskjöld, the former UN Secretary-General, put it so beautifully: 'God does not die on the day we cease to believe in a personal deity...'" (Awareness, 126; the same idea is found in "La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 60). "If God is love, then the distance between God and you is the exact distance between you and the awareness of yourself?" (One Minute Nonsense, 266).
Following from a unilateral and exaggerated apophaticism which is the consequence of the above-mentioned concept of God, criticism and frequent irony are directed toward any attempt at language of God. The relationship between God and creation is frequently expressed with the Hindu image of the dancer and dance:
I see Jesus Christ and Judas, I see victims and persecutors, the
killers and the crucified: one melody in the contrasting notes...one
dance moving through different steps... Finally, I stand before the
Lord. I see him as the Dancer and all of this maddening, senseless,
exhilarating, agonizing, splendorous thing that we call life as his
dance...(Wellsprings: A Book of Spiritual Exercises, 200-201; The Song of the Bird, 16).
Who or what is God and what are men in this 'dance'? And again: "If you wish to see God, look attentively at creation. Don't reject it; don't reflect on it. Just look at it" (The Song of the Bird, 27). It is not at all clear how Christ's mediation for knowledge of the Father enters into such a description. "Realizing that God has nothing to do with the idea I form of God... There is only one way of knowing him: by unknowing!" (Walking on Water, 12; cf. ibid., 13-14; Awareness, 123; The Prayer of the Frog I, 268). Concerning God, therefore, one cannot say anything: "The atheist makes the mistake of denying that of which nothing may be said... And the theist makes the mistake of affirming it" (One Minute Nonsense, 21; cf. ibid., 336).
Nor do sacred scriptures, the Bible included, enable us to know God; they are simply like road-signs which tell me nothing about the city to which I am going: "...I come to a sign that says 'Bombay.' ... That sign isn't Bombay! Actually it doesn't even look like Bombay. It's not a picture of Bombay. It's a sign. That is what the scriptures are, a sign" (Walking on Water, 13). Continuing this metaphor, one could say that a road-sign becomes useless when I have reached my destination; this is what Father de Mello seems to be saying: "The scripture is the excellent portion, the finger pointed toward the Light. We use its words to go beyond conceptions and reach silence" (Walking on Water, 16). Paradoxically God's revelation is not expressed in his words, but in silence (cf. also One Minute Wisdom, 118, 157, 191, etc. Awareness, 101). "In the Bible only the path is indicated to us, as in the Muslim, Buddhist scriptures, etc." ("La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 64).
Thus, what is proclaimed is an impersonal God who stands above all the religions, while objections are raised to the Christian proclamation of the God of love, held to be incompatible with the notion of the necessity of the Church for salvation:
My friend and I went to the fair. THE WORLD FAIR OF RELIGIONS... At the Jewish Stall we were given hand-outs that said that God was All-Compassionate and the Jews were his Chosen People. The Jews. No other people were as Chosen as the Jewish People. At the Moslem Stall we learnt that God was All-Merciful and Mohammed is his only Prophet. Salvation comes from listening to God's only Prophet. At the Christian Stall we discovered that God is Love and there is no salvation outside the Church. Join the Church or risk eternal damnation. On the way out I asked my friend, 'What do you think of God?' He replied, 'He is bigoted, fanatical and cruel.' Back home, I said to God, 'How do you put up with this sort of thing, Lord? Don't you see they have been giving you a bad name for centuries?' God said, 'I didn't organize the Fair. I'd be too ashamed to even visit it' ("The World Fair of Religions" in The Song of the Bird, 186-187; cf. ibid., 189-190, 195).
The teaching of the Church on God's universal salvific will and on the salvation of non-Christians is not presented correctly, nor is the Christian message of God as Love: "'God is love. And He loves and rewards us forever if we observe His commandments.' 'IF?' said the Master, 'Then the news isn't all that good, is it?'" (One Minute Nonsense, 198; cf. ibid., 206). Every concrete religion is an obstacle to arriving at the truth. Furthermore, what is said about the Scriptures is said also about religion in general: "All fanatics wanted to catch hold of their God and make him the only one" ("La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 65; cf. ibid., 28, 30). What matters is the truth, whether it comes from Buddha or from Mohammed, since "the important thing is to discover the truth where all truths come together, because truth is one" (ibid., 65). "Most people, alas, have enough religion to hate but not enough to love" (The Prayer of the Frog I, 104; cf. ibid., 33, 94). When the obstacles that prevent one from seeing reality are listed, religion comes first: "First your beliefs. If you experience life as a communist or a capitalist, as a Moslem or a Jew, you are experiencing life in a prejudiced, slanted way; there is a barrier, a layer of fat between Reality and you because you no longer see and touch it directly" (Call to Love, 30-31). "If all human beings were fitted with such hearts people would no longer think of themselves as Communists or Capitalists, as Christians or Muslims or Buddhists. The very clarity of their thinking would show them that all thinking, all concepts, all beliefs are lamps full of darkness, signs of their ignorance" (ibid., 94; cf. also One Minute Wisdom, 159, 217, on the dangers of religion). What is asserted about religion, is also said concretely about the Scriptures (cf. The Song of the Bird, 186ff; One Minute Nonsense, 19).
The divine sonship of Jesus is diluted into the notion of the divine sonship of all men: "To which God replied, 'A feast day is holy because it shows that all the days of the year are holy. And a sanctuary is holy because it shows that all places are sanctified. So Christ was born to show that all men are sons of God'" (The Song of the Bird, 189). Father de Mello certainly manifests a personal adherence to Christ, of whom he declares himself a disciple (Wellsprings, 122), in whom he has faith (ibid., 113) and who he personally encounters (ibid., 115ff, 124ff). His presence is transfiguring (cf. ibid., 92ff). But other statements are disconcerting. Jesus is mentioned as one teacher among many: "Lao Tzu and Socrates, Buddha and Jesus, Zarathustra and Mohammed (One Minute Wisdom, 2). Jesus on the cross appears as the one who has freed himself perfectly of everything:
I see the Crucified as stripped of everything: Stripped of his dignity...Stripped of his reputation...Stripped of support...Stripped of his God...As I gaze at that lifeless body I slowly understand that I am looking at the symbol of supreme and total liberation. In being fastened to the cross Jesus becomes alive and free...So now I contemplate the majesty of the man who has freed himself from all that makes us slaves, destroys our happiness... (Wellsprings, 95-97).
Jesus on the cross is the man free of all ties; thus he becomes the symbol of interior liberation from everything to which we were attached. But isn't Jesus something more than a man who is free? Is Jesus my saviour or does he simply direct me toward a mysterious reality which has saved him? "'Will I ever get in touch, Lord, with the source from which your words and wisdom flow?... Will I ever find the wellsprings of your courage?'" (Wellsprings, 123). "'The lovely thing about Jesus was that he was so at home with sinners, because he understood that he wasn't one bit better than they were'...The only difference between Jesus and those others was that he was awake and they weren't" (Awareness, 30-31); cf. also "La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 30, 62). Christ's presence in the Eucharist is but a symbol that refers to a deeper reality: his presence in creation. "The whole of creation is the body of Christ, and you believe that it is only in the Eucharist. The Eucharist indicates this creation. The Body of Christ is everywhere and yet you only notice its symbol which indicates to you what is essential, namely life" ("La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 61).
Man's being seems destined to dissolve, like salt in water: "Before that last bit dissolved, the [salt] doll exclaimed in wonder, 'Now I know who I am!'" (The Song of the Bird, 125). At other times, the question of life after death is declared to be unimportant: "'But is there life after death or is there not?' persisted a disciple. 'Is there life before death? -- that is the question!' said the Master enigmatically" (One Minute Wisdom, 83; cf. ibid., 26). "One sign that you're awakened is that you don't give a damn about what's going to happen in the next life. You're not bothered about it; you don't care. You are not interested, period" (Awareness, 42-43, 150). Perhaps with even greater clarity: "Why bother about tomorrow? Is there a life after death? Will I survive after death? Why bother about tomorrow? Get into today" (Awareness, 114). "The idea that people have of eternity is stupid. They think that it will last forever because it is outside of time. Eternal life is now; it's here" ("La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 42).
At various points in his books institutions of the Church are criticized indiscriminately: "My religious life has been completely taken over by professionals" (The Song of the Bird, 63ff). The function of the Creed or the Profession of the Faith is judged negatively, as that which prevents personal access to truth and enlightenment (thus with different nuances, The Song of the Bird, 36, 46-47, 50ff, 215). "When you no longer need to hold on to the words of the Bible, it is then that it will become something very beautiful for you, revealing life and its message. The sad thing is that the official Church has dedicated itself to framing the idol, enclosing it, defending it, reifying it without being able to look at what it really means" ("La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 66). Similar ideas are presented in The Prayer of the Frog I, 7, 94, 95, 98-99: "A public sinner was excommunicated and forbidden entry to the church. He took his woes to God. 'They won't let me in, Lord, because I am sinner.' 'What are you complaining about?' said God. 'They won't let me in either!'" (ibid., 105).
Evil is nothing but ignorance, the lack of enlightenment: "When Jesus looks at evil he calls it by its name and condemns it unambiguously. Only, where I see malice, he sees ignorance... 'Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing'" [Lk 23:34] (Wellsprings, 215). Certainly, this text does not reflect the entire teaching of Jesus on the evil of the world and on sin; Jesus welcomed sinners with profound mercy, but he did not deny their sin; rather he invited them to conversion. In other passages we find even more radical statements: "Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so" (One Minute Wisdom, 104). "Actually there is no good or evil in persons or in nature. There is only a mental judgment imposed upon this or that reality" (Walking on Water, 99). There is no reason to repent for sins, since the only thing that matters is to be awakened to an awareness of reality: "Don't weep for your sins. Why weep for sins that you committed when you were asleep?" (Awareness, 26; cf. ibid., 43, 150). The cause of evil is ignorance (One Minute Nonsense, 239). Sin exists, but it is an act of insanity ("La iluminación es la espiritualidad," 63). Repentance therefore means returning to reality (cf. ibid., 4icon_cool.gif. "Repentance is a change of mind: a radically different vision of reality" (One Minute Nonsense, 241).
Clearly, there is an internal connection between these different positions: if one questions the existence of a personal God, it does not make sense that God would address himself to us with his word. Sacred Scripture, therefore, does not have definitive value. Jesus is a teacher like others; only in the author's early books does he appear as the Son of God, an affirmation which would have little meaning in the context of such an understanding of God. As a consequence one cannot attribute value to the Church's teaching. Our personal survival after death is problematic if God is not personal. Thus it becomes clear that such conceptions of God, Christ and man are not compatible with the Christian faith.
For this reason, those responsible for safeguarding the doctrine of the faith have been obliged to illustrate the dangers in the texts written by Father Anthony de Mello or attributed to him, and to warn the faithful about them.
Endnotes
1 Not all the works of Father de Mello were authorized for publication by the author himself. Some were published after his death based on his writings, or on notes or recordings of his conferences. In this Explanatory Note, the following editions of his writings are cited: Sadhana: A Way to God (St. Louis, USA: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1978); The Song of the Bird (Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1982); Wellsprings: A Book of Spiritual Exercises (Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1984); One Minute Wisdom (Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1985); "La iluminación es la espiritualidad: Curso completo de autoliberación interior" in Vida Nueva (1987) pp. 27/1583 - 66/1622; The Prayer of the Frog, 2 vols. (Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1989); Awareness (London: Fount Paperbacks, 1990); Contact with God: Retreat Conferences (Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1990); Call to Love: Meditations (Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1991); Caminhar sobre as águas: Quebre o ídolo (São Paulo, Brazil: Edições Loyola, 1992), engl. trans. Walking on Water (New York: Crossroad, 1998); One Minute Nonsense (Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1992).
2 The Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on some aspects of Christianmeditation Orationis formas (15 October 1989) seems to make reference to such ideas: "Still others do not hesitate to place that absolute without image or concepts, which is proper to Buddhist theory, on the same level as the majesty of God revealed in Christ, which towers above finite reality" (n. 12: AAS 82 [1990], 369). In this regard, it is also appropriate to recall the teachings on inculturation and interreligious dialogue in the Encyclical Letter of John Paul II Redemptoris missio (cf. nn. 52-57: AAS 83 [1991], 299-305)
Author:
Holy Office
Vatican, June 30, 1962
Warning Regarding the Writings of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin
On June 30, 1962, the Holy Office issued a monitum (warning) regarding the writings of Father Teilhard de Chardin. In 1981 the Holy See reiterated this warning against rumors that it no longer applied. Following is the text of both the monitum and the 1981 statement:
Admonition
"Several works of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, some of which were posthumously published, are being edited and are gaining a good deal of success.
"Prescinding from a judgement about those points that concern the positive sciences, it is sufficiently clear that the above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine.
"For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.
"Given at Rome, from the palace of the Holy Office, on the thirtieth day of June, 1962.
Sebastianus Masala, Notarius"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communiqué of the Press Office of the Holy See (appearing in the English edition of L'Osservatore Romano, July 20, 1981) "The letter sent by the Cardinal Secretary of State to His Excellency Mons. Poupard on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin has been interpreted in a certain section of the press as a revision of previous stands taken by the Holy See in regard to this author, and in particular of the Monitum of the Holy Office of 30 June 1962, which pointed out that the work of the author contained ambiguities and grave doctrinal errors.
"The question has been asked whether such an interpretation is well founded.
"After having consulted the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which, by order of the Holy Father, had been duly consulted beforehand, about the letter in question, we are in a position to reply in the negative. Far from being a revision of the previous stands of the Holy See, Cardinal Casaroli's letter expresses reservation in various passages—and these reservations have been passed over in silence by certain newspapers—reservations which refer precisely to the judgement given in the Monitum of June 1962, even though this document is not explicitly mentioned."
Holy Office
Vatican, June 30, 1962
Warning Regarding the Writings of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin
On June 30, 1962, the Holy Office issued a monitum (warning) regarding the writings of Father Teilhard de Chardin. In 1981 the Holy See reiterated this warning against rumors that it no longer applied. Following is the text of both the monitum and the 1981 statement:
Admonition
"Several works of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, some of which were posthumously published, are being edited and are gaining a good deal of success.
"Prescinding from a judgement about those points that concern the positive sciences, it is sufficiently clear that the above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine.
"For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.
"Given at Rome, from the palace of the Holy Office, on the thirtieth day of June, 1962.
Sebastianus Masala, Notarius"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communiqué of the Press Office of the Holy See (appearing in the English edition of L'Osservatore Romano, July 20, 1981) "The letter sent by the Cardinal Secretary of State to His Excellency Mons. Poupard on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin has been interpreted in a certain section of the press as a revision of previous stands taken by the Holy See in regard to this author, and in particular of the Monitum of the Holy Office of 30 June 1962, which pointed out that the work of the author contained ambiguities and grave doctrinal errors.
"The question has been asked whether such an interpretation is well founded.
"After having consulted the Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which, by order of the Holy Father, had been duly consulted beforehand, about the letter in question, we are in a position to reply in the negative. Far from being a revision of the previous stands of the Holy See, Cardinal Casaroli's letter expresses reservation in various passages—and these reservations have been passed over in silence by certain newspapers—reservations which refer precisely to the judgement given in the Monitum of June 1962, even though this document is not explicitly mentioned."
Author:
Holy Office
January 28, 1954
Warning of the Holy Office concerning the "Promises of St. Bridget"
In some places, a little work has been disseminated called the "Secret of Happiness: 15 prayers revealed by the Lord to St. Bridget in the Church of St. Paul at Rome", published at Nice and elsewhere in several languages.
Since it is asserted in this pamphlet that God made to St. Bridget certain promises, whose supernatural origin is uncertain, let local ordinaries take care not to grant permission for publishing or reprinting pamphlets or other writings which contain these promises.
Given at Rome, from the offices of the Holy Office, 28 January 1954.
Marius Crovini, Notary of the Supreme Holy Congregation of the Holy Office
Holy Office
January 28, 1954
Warning of the Holy Office concerning the "Promises of St. Bridget"
In some places, a little work has been disseminated called the "Secret of Happiness: 15 prayers revealed by the Lord to St. Bridget in the Church of St. Paul at Rome", published at Nice and elsewhere in several languages.
Since it is asserted in this pamphlet that God made to St. Bridget certain promises, whose supernatural origin is uncertain, let local ordinaries take care not to grant permission for publishing or reprinting pamphlets or other writings which contain these promises.
Given at Rome, from the offices of the Holy Office, 28 January 1954.
Marius Crovini, Notary of the Supreme Holy Congregation of the Holy Office
Author:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Vatican, 25 July 2001
Note On The Force Of The Doctrinal Decrees
Concerning The Thought And Work Of Fr Antonio Rosmini Serbati
1. The Magisterium of the Church, which has the responsibility to promote and safeguard the doctrine of the faith and preserve it from the repeated dangers arising from certain currents of thought and certain kinds of practice, was concerned during the 19th century with the results of the thought of Fr Antonio Rosmini Serbati (1797-1855). It put two of his works on the Index [of prohibited books] in 1849, then in 1854 it removed all his works from examination, with the doctrinal Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Index Dimittantur. Later with the doctrinal Decree Post obitum the Congregation of the Holy Office condemned in 1887 "40 Propositions" taken primarily from posthumous works and from other works edited during his lifetime (Denz 3201-3241).
2. A hasty and superficial reading of these different interventions might make one think that they give rise to an intrinsic and objective contradiction on the part of the Magisterium in its way of interpreting the content of Rosmini's thought and in the way it evaluates it for the People of God. However, an attentive reading not just of the Congregation's texts, but of their context and of the situation in which they were promulgated, which also allows for historical development, helps one to appreciate the watchful and coherent work of reflection that always kept in mind the safeguarding of the Catholic faith and the determination not to allow deviant or reductive interpretations of the faith. The present Notice on the doctrinal value of the earlier decrees fits into this train of thought.
3. The Decree of 1854, with which the works of Rosmini were removed from examination, recognizes the orthodoxy of his thought and of his declared intentions. In 1849, he wrote to Bl. Pius DC, in response to the placing of two of his works on the Index, "In everything, I want to base myself on the authority of the Church, and I want the whole world to know that I adhere to this authority alone" (A. Rosmini, Lettera al Papa Pio XI, in: Epistolario completo, Casale Monferrato, tip Panc 1892, vol. X, 541, lett. 6341). The Decree, however, did not intend to state that the Magisterium adopted Rosmini's system of thought as a possible instrument of philosophical-theological mediation for Christian doctrine nor did it intend to express an opinion about the speculative and theoretical plausibility of the author's positions.
4. The events following Rosmini's death required a certain distancing of the Church from his system of thought and, in particular, from some of its propositions. It is necessary to consider the principal historical-cultural factors that influenced this distancing which culminated in the condemnation of the "40 Propositions" of the Decree Post obitum of 1887.
The first factor is the renewal of ecclesiastical studies promoted by the Encyclical Aeterni Patris (1879) of Leo XI-II, in the development of fidelity to the thought of St Thomas Aquinas. The Papal Magisterium saw the need to foster Thomism as a philosophical and theoretical instrument, aimed at offering a unifying synthesis of ecclesiastical studies, above all in the formation of priests in seminaries and theological faculties, in order to oppose the risk of an eclectic philosophical approach. The adoption of Thomism created the premises for a negative judgement of a philosophical and speculative position, like that of Rosmini, because it differed in its language and conceptual framework from the philosophical and theological elaboration of St Thomas Aquinas.
A second factor to keep in mind is the fact that the condemned propositions were mostly extracted from posthumous works of the author. These works were published without a critical apparatus capable of defining the precise meaning of the expressions and concepts used. This favoured a heterodox interpretation of Rosminian thought, as did the objective difficulty of interpreting Rosmini's categories, especially, when they were read in a neo-Thomistic perspective.
5. In addition to the historical-cultural and ecclesial factors of the time, however, one must admit that one finds in Rosmini's system concepts and expressions that are at times ambiguous and equivocal. They require a careful interpretation and they can only be clarified in the light of the overall context of the author's work. The ambiguity, the misunderstanding and the difficulty of understanding some expressions and categories, present in the condemned propositions, explain how certain interpretations of an idealist, ontologist and subjectivist stamp might be attributed to Rosmini by non-Catholic thinkers; it was to warn against them in an objective way that the Decree Post obitum was drawn up. Respect for historical truth also requires underlining the important role played by the Decree of condemnation of the "40 Propositions" because it not only expressed the real concerns of the Magisterium against erroneous and deviant interpretations of Rosminian thought that were in contrast to the Catholic faith, but also foresaw what actually would happen with the reception of Rosmini's thought in intellectual sectors of secular philosophical culture, which were shaped by transcendental idealism or by logical and ontological idealism. The inner consistency of the judgement of the Magisterium in its interventions on this subject appears from the fact that the doctrinal Decree Post obitum does not make any judgement that the author formally denied any truth of faith, but rather presents the fact that the philosophical-theological system of Rosmini was considered insufficient and inadequate to safeguard and explain certain truths of Catholic doctrine, which were recognized and confessed by the author himself.
6. On the other hand, it has to be recognized that widespread, serious and rigorous scientific literature on the thought of Anthony Rosmini, written by theologians and philosophers belonging to various schools of thought in the Catholic world, has shown that the interpretations contrary to Catholic doctrine and faith do not really correspond to the authentic position of Rosmini.
7. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, following an in-depth examination of the two doctrinal Decrees, promulgated in the 19th century, and taking into account the results emerging from historiography and from the scientific and theoretical research of the last ten years has reached the following conclusion:
The motives for doctrinal and prudential concern and difficulty that determined the promulgation of the Decree Post obitum with the condemnation of the "40 Propositions" taken from the works of Anthony Rosmini can now be considered superseded. This is so because the meaning of the propositions, as understood and condemned by the Decree, does not belong to the authentic position of Rosmini, but to conclusions that may possibly have been drawn from the reading of his works. The questions of the plausibility of the Rosminian system, of its speculative consistency and of the philosophical and theological theories and hypotheses expressed in it remain entrusted to the theoretical debate.
At the same time the objective validity of the Decree Post obitum referring to the previously condemned propositions, remains for whoever reads them, outside of the Rosminian system, in an idealist, ontologist point of view and with a meaning contrary to Catholic faith and doctrine.
8. In fact, the Encyclical Letter of John Paul II Fides et Ratio, named Rosmini among the recent thinkers who achieved a fruitful exchange between philosophy and the Word of God. At the same time it adds that the fact of naming persons does not intend "to endorse every aspect of their thought, but simply to offer significant examples of a process of philosophical enquiry which was enriched by engaging the data of faith" (Fides et ratio, n. 74).
9. It must also be affirmed that the speculative and intellectual enterprise of Antonio Rosmini, characterized by great courage and daring, which at times bordered on a risky rashness, especially in some of his formulations, where he was trying to offer new possibilities to Catholic doctrine in the face of the challenges of modern thought, was undertaken in a spiritual and apostolic horizon that was honoured even by his staunch enemies, and found expression in the kind of works that led to the founding of the Institute of Charity and the Sisters of Divine Providence.
The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, confirmed this Note on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees concerning the thought and works of Fr Antonio Rosmini Serbati, adopted in the Sessione Ordinaria of this Congregation and ordered it published.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1 July 2001.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary
© L'Osservatore Romano, Editorial and Management Offices, Via del Pellegrino, 00120, Vatican City, Europe, Telephone 39/6/698.99.390.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Vatican, 25 July 2001
Note On The Force Of The Doctrinal Decrees
Concerning The Thought And Work Of Fr Antonio Rosmini Serbati
1. The Magisterium of the Church, which has the responsibility to promote and safeguard the doctrine of the faith and preserve it from the repeated dangers arising from certain currents of thought and certain kinds of practice, was concerned during the 19th century with the results of the thought of Fr Antonio Rosmini Serbati (1797-1855). It put two of his works on the Index [of prohibited books] in 1849, then in 1854 it removed all his works from examination, with the doctrinal Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Index Dimittantur. Later with the doctrinal Decree Post obitum the Congregation of the Holy Office condemned in 1887 "40 Propositions" taken primarily from posthumous works and from other works edited during his lifetime (Denz 3201-3241).
2. A hasty and superficial reading of these different interventions might make one think that they give rise to an intrinsic and objective contradiction on the part of the Magisterium in its way of interpreting the content of Rosmini's thought and in the way it evaluates it for the People of God. However, an attentive reading not just of the Congregation's texts, but of their context and of the situation in which they were promulgated, which also allows for historical development, helps one to appreciate the watchful and coherent work of reflection that always kept in mind the safeguarding of the Catholic faith and the determination not to allow deviant or reductive interpretations of the faith. The present Notice on the doctrinal value of the earlier decrees fits into this train of thought.
3. The Decree of 1854, with which the works of Rosmini were removed from examination, recognizes the orthodoxy of his thought and of his declared intentions. In 1849, he wrote to Bl. Pius DC, in response to the placing of two of his works on the Index, "In everything, I want to base myself on the authority of the Church, and I want the whole world to know that I adhere to this authority alone" (A. Rosmini, Lettera al Papa Pio XI, in: Epistolario completo, Casale Monferrato, tip Panc 1892, vol. X, 541, lett. 6341). The Decree, however, did not intend to state that the Magisterium adopted Rosmini's system of thought as a possible instrument of philosophical-theological mediation for Christian doctrine nor did it intend to express an opinion about the speculative and theoretical plausibility of the author's positions.
4. The events following Rosmini's death required a certain distancing of the Church from his system of thought and, in particular, from some of its propositions. It is necessary to consider the principal historical-cultural factors that influenced this distancing which culminated in the condemnation of the "40 Propositions" of the Decree Post obitum of 1887.
The first factor is the renewal of ecclesiastical studies promoted by the Encyclical Aeterni Patris (1879) of Leo XI-II, in the development of fidelity to the thought of St Thomas Aquinas. The Papal Magisterium saw the need to foster Thomism as a philosophical and theoretical instrument, aimed at offering a unifying synthesis of ecclesiastical studies, above all in the formation of priests in seminaries and theological faculties, in order to oppose the risk of an eclectic philosophical approach. The adoption of Thomism created the premises for a negative judgement of a philosophical and speculative position, like that of Rosmini, because it differed in its language and conceptual framework from the philosophical and theological elaboration of St Thomas Aquinas.
A second factor to keep in mind is the fact that the condemned propositions were mostly extracted from posthumous works of the author. These works were published without a critical apparatus capable of defining the precise meaning of the expressions and concepts used. This favoured a heterodox interpretation of Rosminian thought, as did the objective difficulty of interpreting Rosmini's categories, especially, when they were read in a neo-Thomistic perspective.
5. In addition to the historical-cultural and ecclesial factors of the time, however, one must admit that one finds in Rosmini's system concepts and expressions that are at times ambiguous and equivocal. They require a careful interpretation and they can only be clarified in the light of the overall context of the author's work. The ambiguity, the misunderstanding and the difficulty of understanding some expressions and categories, present in the condemned propositions, explain how certain interpretations of an idealist, ontologist and subjectivist stamp might be attributed to Rosmini by non-Catholic thinkers; it was to warn against them in an objective way that the Decree Post obitum was drawn up. Respect for historical truth also requires underlining the important role played by the Decree of condemnation of the "40 Propositions" because it not only expressed the real concerns of the Magisterium against erroneous and deviant interpretations of Rosminian thought that were in contrast to the Catholic faith, but also foresaw what actually would happen with the reception of Rosmini's thought in intellectual sectors of secular philosophical culture, which were shaped by transcendental idealism or by logical and ontological idealism. The inner consistency of the judgement of the Magisterium in its interventions on this subject appears from the fact that the doctrinal Decree Post obitum does not make any judgement that the author formally denied any truth of faith, but rather presents the fact that the philosophical-theological system of Rosmini was considered insufficient and inadequate to safeguard and explain certain truths of Catholic doctrine, which were recognized and confessed by the author himself.
6. On the other hand, it has to be recognized that widespread, serious and rigorous scientific literature on the thought of Anthony Rosmini, written by theologians and philosophers belonging to various schools of thought in the Catholic world, has shown that the interpretations contrary to Catholic doctrine and faith do not really correspond to the authentic position of Rosmini.
7. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, following an in-depth examination of the two doctrinal Decrees, promulgated in the 19th century, and taking into account the results emerging from historiography and from the scientific and theoretical research of the last ten years has reached the following conclusion:
The motives for doctrinal and prudential concern and difficulty that determined the promulgation of the Decree Post obitum with the condemnation of the "40 Propositions" taken from the works of Anthony Rosmini can now be considered superseded. This is so because the meaning of the propositions, as understood and condemned by the Decree, does not belong to the authentic position of Rosmini, but to conclusions that may possibly have been drawn from the reading of his works. The questions of the plausibility of the Rosminian system, of its speculative consistency and of the philosophical and theological theories and hypotheses expressed in it remain entrusted to the theoretical debate.
At the same time the objective validity of the Decree Post obitum referring to the previously condemned propositions, remains for whoever reads them, outside of the Rosminian system, in an idealist, ontologist point of view and with a meaning contrary to Catholic faith and doctrine.
8. In fact, the Encyclical Letter of John Paul II Fides et Ratio, named Rosmini among the recent thinkers who achieved a fruitful exchange between philosophy and the Word of God. At the same time it adds that the fact of naming persons does not intend "to endorse every aspect of their thought, but simply to offer significant examples of a process of philosophical enquiry which was enriched by engaging the data of faith" (Fides et ratio, n. 74).
9. It must also be affirmed that the speculative and intellectual enterprise of Antonio Rosmini, characterized by great courage and daring, which at times bordered on a risky rashness, especially in some of his formulations, where he was trying to offer new possibilities to Catholic doctrine in the face of the challenges of modern thought, was undertaken in a spiritual and apostolic horizon that was honoured even by his staunch enemies, and found expression in the kind of works that led to the founding of the Institute of Charity and the Sisters of Divine Providence.
The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, confirmed this Note on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees concerning the thought and works of Fr Antonio Rosmini Serbati, adopted in the Sessione Ordinaria of this Congregation and ordered it published.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1 July 2001.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary
© L'Osservatore Romano, Editorial and Management Offices, Via del Pellegrino, 00120, Vatican City, Europe, Telephone 39/6/698.99.390.
Author:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
ZENIT News Agency, July 13, 1999
Notification Concerning Sr. Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Fr. Robert Nugent, SDS
NOTIFICATION OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Concerning Sr. Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Fr. Robert Nugent, SDS
Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Father Robert Nugent, SDS, have been engaged in pastoral activities directed toward homosexual persons for more than twenty years. In 1977, they founded the organisation New Ways Ministry within territory of the Archdiocese of Washington in order to promote "justice and reconciliation between lesbian and gay Catholics and the wider Catholic community". They are the authors of the book Building Bridges: Gay and Lesbian Reality and the Catholic Church (Mystic: Twenty-Third Publications, 1992) and editors of the volume Voices of Hope: A Collection of Positive Catholic Writings on Gay and Lesbian Issues (New York: Center for Homophobia Education, 1995).
From the beginning, in presenting the Church's teaching on homosexuality, Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have continually called central elements of that teaching into question. For this reason, in 1984, James Cardinal Hickey, the Archbishop of Washington, following the failure of a number of attempts at clarification, informed them that they could no longer undertake their activities in that Archdiocese. At the same time, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and for Societies of Apostolic Life ordered them to separate themselves totally and completely from New Ways Ministry, adding that they were not to exercise any apostolate without faithfully presenting the Church's teaching regarding the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts.
Despite this action by the Holy See, Father Nugent and Sister Gramick continued their involvement in activities organised by New Ways Ministry, though removing themselves from leadership positions. They also continued to maintain and promote ambiguous positions on homosexuality and explicitly criticised documents of the Church's Magisterium on this issue. Because of their statements and activities, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and for Societies of Apostolic Life received numerous complaints and urgent requests for clarification from Bishops and others in the United States of America. It was clear that the activities of Sister Gramick and Father Nugent were causing difficulties in not a few Dioceses and that they were continuing to present the teaching of the Church as one possible option among others and as open to fundamental change.
In 1988, the Holy See established a Commission under the Presidency of Adam Cardinal Maida to study and evaluate their public statements and activities and to determine whether these were faithful to Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
After the publication of Building Bridges, the investigation of the Commission focused primarily on this book, which summarised their activities and thinking. In 1994, the Commission issued its findings, which were communicated to the two authors. When their responses to these findings were received, the Commission formulated its final Recommendations and forwarded them to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and for Societies of Apostolic Life. While not overlooking the presence of some positive aspects in the apostolate of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick, the Commission found serious deficiencies in their writings and pastoral activities, which were incompatible with the fullness of Christian morality. The Commission, therefore, recommended disciplinary measures, including the publication of some form of Notification, in order to counteract and repair the harmful confusion caused by the errors and ambiguities in their publications and activities.
As the problems presented by the two authors were primarily of a doctrinal nature, in 1995, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and for Societies of Apostolic Life transferred the entire case to the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. At this point, with the hope that Father Nugent and Sister Gramick would be willing to express their assent to Catholic teaching on homosexuality and to correct the errors in their writings, the Congregation undertook another attempt at resolution by inviting them to respond unequivocally to certain questions regarding their position on the morality of homosexual acts and on the homosexual inclination.
Their responses, dated February 22, 1996, were not sufficiently clear to dispel the serious ambiguities of their position. In these, Sister Gramick and Father Nugent demonstrated a clear conceptual understanding of the Church's teaching on homosexuality, but refrained from professing any adherence to that teaching. Furthermore, the publication, in 1995, of their book Voices of Hope: A Collection of Positive Catholic Writings on Gay and Lesbian Issues had made it clear that there was no change in their opposition to fundamental elements of the Church's teaching.
Given the fact that certain of the statements of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick were clearly incompatible with the teaching of the Church and that the wide dissemination of these errors through their publications and pastoral activities was becoming an increasing source of concern for Bishops in the United States of America, the Congregation decided that the case should be resolved according to the procedure outlined in its Regulations for Doctrinal Examination (chapter 4).
In the Ordinary Session of October 8, 1997, the Cardinals and Bishops who make up the Congregation judged that the statements of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick, which had been identified through the above-mentioned procedure of the Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, were in fact erroneous and dangerous. After the Holy Father had approved the formal contestatio of the authors, the above-mentioned erroneous statements were presented to them through their respective Superiors General. Each was asked to respond to the contestatio personally and independently from the other, to allow them the greatest freedom in expressing their individual positions.
In February 1998, the two Superiors General forwarded the responses to the Congregation. In the Ordinary Sessions of May 6 and May 20, 1998, the Members of the Congregation carefully evaluated the responses, after having received the opinions of members of the Episcopate of the United States and of experts in the field of moral theology. The Members of the Congregation were unanimous in their decision that the responses of the two, while containing certain positive elements, were unacceptable. In each case, Father Nugent and Sister Gramick had sought to justify the publication of their books and neither had expressed personal adherence to the Church's teaching on homosexuality in sufficiently unequivocal terms. Thus, it was decided that they should be asked to formulate a public declaration, which would be submitted to the judgement of the Congregation. In this declaration they were asked to express their interior assent to the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality and to acknowledge that the two above-mentioned books contained errors.
The two declarations which arrived in August 1998 were examined by the Congregation in the Ordinary Session of October 21, 1998. Once again, they were not sufficient to resolve the problems associated with their writings and pastoral activities. Sister Gramick, while expressing her love for the Church, simply refused to express any assent whatsoever to the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. Father Nugent was more responsive, but not unequivocal in his statement of interior assent to the teaching of the Church. It was decided by the Members of the Congregation, therefore, that Father Nugent should be given yet another opportunity to express unequivocal assent. For this reason, the Congregation formulated a declaration of assent and, with its letter of December 15, 1998, forwarded it to Father Nugent, through his Superior General, for his acceptance.
His response, dated January 25, 1999, showed that this attempt had not met with success. Father Nugent would not sign the declaration he had received and responded by formulating an alternative text which modified the Congregation's declaration on certain important points. In particular, he would not state that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and he added a section which calls into question the definitive and unchangeable nature of Catholic doctrine in this area.
Given the failure of the repeated attempts of the Church's legitimate authorities to resolve the problems presented by the writings and pastoral activities of the two authors, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to declare for the good of the Catholic faithful that the positions advanced by Sister Jeannine Gramick and Father Robert Nugent regarding the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts and the objective disorder of the homosexual inclination are doctrinally unacceptable because they do not faithfully convey the clear and constant teaching of the Catholic Church in this area. Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have often stated that they seek, in keeping with the Church's teaching, to treat homosexual persons "with respect, compassion and sensitivity". However, the promotion of errors and ambiguities is not consistent with a Christian attitude of true respect and compassion: persons who are struggling with homosexuality no less than any others have the right to receive the authentic teaching of the Church from those who minister to them. The ambiguities and errors of the approach of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have caused confusion among the Catholic people and have harmed the community of the Church. For these reasons, Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Father Robert Nugent, SDS, are permanently prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons and are ineligible, for an undetermined period, for any office in their respective religious institutes.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of May 14, 1999, granted to the undersigned Secretary, approved the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 31, 1999.
+ Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect
+ Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
Voices of Hope: A Collection of Positive Catholic Writings on Gay and Lesbian Issues (New York: Center for Homophobia Education, 1995) ix.
Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Agendi ratio in Doctrinarum examine, art. 23-27: AAS 89 (1997), 834
Cf. Gn 19 1-11; Lv 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor 6:9; Rom 1:18-32; 1 Tim 1:10; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357-2359, 2396; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana 8: AAS 68 (1976), 84-85; Letter Homosexualitatis problema: AAS 79 (1987), 543-554.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
ZENIT News Agency, July 13, 1999
Notification Concerning Sr. Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Fr. Robert Nugent, SDS
NOTIFICATION OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Concerning Sr. Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Fr. Robert Nugent, SDS
Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Father Robert Nugent, SDS, have been engaged in pastoral activities directed toward homosexual persons for more than twenty years. In 1977, they founded the organisation New Ways Ministry within territory of the Archdiocese of Washington in order to promote "justice and reconciliation between lesbian and gay Catholics and the wider Catholic community". They are the authors of the book Building Bridges: Gay and Lesbian Reality and the Catholic Church (Mystic: Twenty-Third Publications, 1992) and editors of the volume Voices of Hope: A Collection of Positive Catholic Writings on Gay and Lesbian Issues (New York: Center for Homophobia Education, 1995).
From the beginning, in presenting the Church's teaching on homosexuality, Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have continually called central elements of that teaching into question. For this reason, in 1984, James Cardinal Hickey, the Archbishop of Washington, following the failure of a number of attempts at clarification, informed them that they could no longer undertake their activities in that Archdiocese. At the same time, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and for Societies of Apostolic Life ordered them to separate themselves totally and completely from New Ways Ministry, adding that they were not to exercise any apostolate without faithfully presenting the Church's teaching regarding the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts.
Despite this action by the Holy See, Father Nugent and Sister Gramick continued their involvement in activities organised by New Ways Ministry, though removing themselves from leadership positions. They also continued to maintain and promote ambiguous positions on homosexuality and explicitly criticised documents of the Church's Magisterium on this issue. Because of their statements and activities, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and for Societies of Apostolic Life received numerous complaints and urgent requests for clarification from Bishops and others in the United States of America. It was clear that the activities of Sister Gramick and Father Nugent were causing difficulties in not a few Dioceses and that they were continuing to present the teaching of the Church as one possible option among others and as open to fundamental change.
In 1988, the Holy See established a Commission under the Presidency of Adam Cardinal Maida to study and evaluate their public statements and activities and to determine whether these were faithful to Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
After the publication of Building Bridges, the investigation of the Commission focused primarily on this book, which summarised their activities and thinking. In 1994, the Commission issued its findings, which were communicated to the two authors. When their responses to these findings were received, the Commission formulated its final Recommendations and forwarded them to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and for Societies of Apostolic Life. While not overlooking the presence of some positive aspects in the apostolate of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick, the Commission found serious deficiencies in their writings and pastoral activities, which were incompatible with the fullness of Christian morality. The Commission, therefore, recommended disciplinary measures, including the publication of some form of Notification, in order to counteract and repair the harmful confusion caused by the errors and ambiguities in their publications and activities.
As the problems presented by the two authors were primarily of a doctrinal nature, in 1995, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and for Societies of Apostolic Life transferred the entire case to the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. At this point, with the hope that Father Nugent and Sister Gramick would be willing to express their assent to Catholic teaching on homosexuality and to correct the errors in their writings, the Congregation undertook another attempt at resolution by inviting them to respond unequivocally to certain questions regarding their position on the morality of homosexual acts and on the homosexual inclination.
Their responses, dated February 22, 1996, were not sufficiently clear to dispel the serious ambiguities of their position. In these, Sister Gramick and Father Nugent demonstrated a clear conceptual understanding of the Church's teaching on homosexuality, but refrained from professing any adherence to that teaching. Furthermore, the publication, in 1995, of their book Voices of Hope: A Collection of Positive Catholic Writings on Gay and Lesbian Issues had made it clear that there was no change in their opposition to fundamental elements of the Church's teaching.
Given the fact that certain of the statements of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick were clearly incompatible with the teaching of the Church and that the wide dissemination of these errors through their publications and pastoral activities was becoming an increasing source of concern for Bishops in the United States of America, the Congregation decided that the case should be resolved according to the procedure outlined in its Regulations for Doctrinal Examination (chapter 4).
In the Ordinary Session of October 8, 1997, the Cardinals and Bishops who make up the Congregation judged that the statements of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick, which had been identified through the above-mentioned procedure of the Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, were in fact erroneous and dangerous. After the Holy Father had approved the formal contestatio of the authors, the above-mentioned erroneous statements were presented to them through their respective Superiors General. Each was asked to respond to the contestatio personally and independently from the other, to allow them the greatest freedom in expressing their individual positions.
In February 1998, the two Superiors General forwarded the responses to the Congregation. In the Ordinary Sessions of May 6 and May 20, 1998, the Members of the Congregation carefully evaluated the responses, after having received the opinions of members of the Episcopate of the United States and of experts in the field of moral theology. The Members of the Congregation were unanimous in their decision that the responses of the two, while containing certain positive elements, were unacceptable. In each case, Father Nugent and Sister Gramick had sought to justify the publication of their books and neither had expressed personal adherence to the Church's teaching on homosexuality in sufficiently unequivocal terms. Thus, it was decided that they should be asked to formulate a public declaration, which would be submitted to the judgement of the Congregation. In this declaration they were asked to express their interior assent to the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality and to acknowledge that the two above-mentioned books contained errors.
The two declarations which arrived in August 1998 were examined by the Congregation in the Ordinary Session of October 21, 1998. Once again, they were not sufficient to resolve the problems associated with their writings and pastoral activities. Sister Gramick, while expressing her love for the Church, simply refused to express any assent whatsoever to the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. Father Nugent was more responsive, but not unequivocal in his statement of interior assent to the teaching of the Church. It was decided by the Members of the Congregation, therefore, that Father Nugent should be given yet another opportunity to express unequivocal assent. For this reason, the Congregation formulated a declaration of assent and, with its letter of December 15, 1998, forwarded it to Father Nugent, through his Superior General, for his acceptance.
His response, dated January 25, 1999, showed that this attempt had not met with success. Father Nugent would not sign the declaration he had received and responded by formulating an alternative text which modified the Congregation's declaration on certain important points. In particular, he would not state that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and he added a section which calls into question the definitive and unchangeable nature of Catholic doctrine in this area.
Given the failure of the repeated attempts of the Church's legitimate authorities to resolve the problems presented by the writings and pastoral activities of the two authors, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to declare for the good of the Catholic faithful that the positions advanced by Sister Jeannine Gramick and Father Robert Nugent regarding the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts and the objective disorder of the homosexual inclination are doctrinally unacceptable because they do not faithfully convey the clear and constant teaching of the Catholic Church in this area. Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have often stated that they seek, in keeping with the Church's teaching, to treat homosexual persons "with respect, compassion and sensitivity". However, the promotion of errors and ambiguities is not consistent with a Christian attitude of true respect and compassion: persons who are struggling with homosexuality no less than any others have the right to receive the authentic teaching of the Church from those who minister to them. The ambiguities and errors of the approach of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have caused confusion among the Catholic people and have harmed the community of the Church. For these reasons, Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Father Robert Nugent, SDS, are permanently prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons and are ineligible, for an undetermined period, for any office in their respective religious institutes.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of May 14, 1999, granted to the undersigned Secretary, approved the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 31, 1999.
+ Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect
+ Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
Voices of Hope: A Collection of Positive Catholic Writings on Gay and Lesbian Issues (New York: Center for Homophobia Education, 1995) ix.
Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Agendi ratio in Doctrinarum examine, art. 23-27: AAS 89 (1997), 834
Cf. Gn 19 1-11; Lv 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor 6:9; Rom 1:18-32; 1 Tim 1:10; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357-2359, 2396; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana 8: AAS 68 (1976), 84-85; Letter Homosexualitatis problema: AAS 79 (1987), 543-554.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358.
Author:
Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts
Vatican, August 24, 1996
The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre
NOTE: On the excommunication for schism which the adherents to the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre incur.
1 . From the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia dei" of 2nd July 1988 and from the Decree "Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre" of the Congregation for Bishops, of 1st July 1988, it appears above all that the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre was declared in immediate reaction to the episcopal ordinations conferred on 30th June 1988 without pontifical mandate (cf CIC, Can. 1382). All the same it also appears clear from the aforementioned documents that such a most grave act of disobedience formed the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic character.
2. In effect no. 4. of the Motu Proprio explains the nature of the "doctrinal root of this schismatic act," and no. 5. c) warns that a "formal adherence to the schism" (by which one must understand "the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre") would bring with it the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364 para.1). Also the decree of the Congregation for Bishops makes explicit reference to the "schismatic nature" of the aforesaid episcopal ordinations and mentions the most grave penalty of excommunication which adherence "to the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre" would bring with it.
3. Unfortunately, the schismatic act which gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree did no more than draw to a conclusion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner — with a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff — a process of distancing from hierarchical communion. As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.
4. One cannot furnish any judgement on the argumentation of Murray's thesis (see below) because it is not known, and the two articles which refer to it appear confused. However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances. (cf CIC, can. 1323) As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of "serving" the church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.
5. As the Motu Proprio declares in no. 5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who "adhere formally" to the said schismatic movement. Even if the question of the exact import of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this pontifical Council that such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements:
a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church),
b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit).
6. In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements mentioned above (n.5) are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence.
7. On the other hand, in the case of the rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the Lefebvrian movement, done without making one's own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice the result can be that it is more difficult to judge their situation. One must take account above all of the person's intentions, and the putting into practice of this internal disposition. For this reason the various situations are going to be judged case by case, in the competent forums both internal and external.
8. All the same, it will always be necessary to distinguish between the moral question on the existence or not of the sin of schism and the juridical-penal question on the existence of the delict of schism, and its consequent sanction. In this latter case the dispositions of Book V1 of the Code of Canon Law (including Cann.1323-1324) will be applied.
9. It does not seem advisable to make more precise the requirements for the delict of schism (but one would need to ask the competent Dicastery, cf. Ap. Const. "Pastor Bonus", art 52). One might risk creating more problems by means of rigid norms of a penal kind which would not cover every case, leaving uncovered cases of substantial schism, or having regard to external behaviour which is not always subjectively schismatic.
10. Always from the pastoral point of view it would also seem opportune to recommend once again to sacred pastors all the norms of the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" with which the solicitude of the Vicar of Christ encouraged to dialogue and has provided the supernatural and human means necessary to facilitate the return of the Lefebvrians to full ecclesial communion.
Vatican City, 24th August 1996.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment — Although dated August 1996, presumably its publication early in 1998 was in view, at least in part, of the forthcoming tenth anniversary of the Consecrations and the issuing of the Motu Proprio and Decree.
While initiatives taken under their auspices have had a positive impact, with a number of new religious institutes, and flourishing vocations, now in full communion with the Holy See, and increasingly welcomed by diocesan bishops in some parts of the world, it is also true that there are many places where little attention has been given to its implementation.
Moreover while the Lefebvrist movement has had some set backs, the number of adherents has not diminished significantly. A recent book to mark twenty five years of the Society of St Pius X in Britain (R.Warwick, The Living Flame, London 1997) indicates that there are some twenty Lefebvrist church buildings in Great Britain at present, with some 2000 regular worshippers. In the United States the situation is more extensive and much more varied, with many independent priests and chapels, as well as more extremely sedevacantist groups such as the Society of St Pius X (sic - Ed. note) and the Mount St Michael Community.
The question of apostolic succession has also become more complex. The fissiparous nature of such groups means that not all their orders are derived from Archbishop Lefebvre. Some, having departed from the Society of St Pius X, have obtained orders or episcopal consecration from Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, or his successors, Bishop Alfred Mendez (formerly of Arecibo), or from Old Catholic and similar sources. For details of the American scene one should consult M. Cuneo. The Smoke of Satan, New York 1997, a book which is informative if irritatingly discursive.
Supporters of the Society of St Pius X frequently distribute leaflets containing highly selective or tendentious quotations. One, for example, claims that the Society is neither schismatic nor excommunicated. Generally the line of argument is that since Archbishop Lefebvre was not schismatic, he was not excommunicated, and a fortiori neither were any of his followers.
The leaflet quotes Cardinal Castillo Lara to the effect that consecrating a bishop without the Pope's permission is not in itself a schismatic act. It continues that merely to consecrate bishops, without intending to set up an alternative hierarchy in the jurisdictional sense is not an act of schism. Several canonists are quoted as endorsing these views, Count Neri Capponi, an advocate accredited to the Signatura, Professor Geringer of Munich University, Fr. Patrick Valdini, Professor of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris, and Fr. Gerald Murray who presented his thesis on the subject at the Gregorian University.
Reference is also made to the decision of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, dated 28th June 1993, that the excommunication imposed on followers of Archbishop Lefebvre on 1st May 1991 by Bishop Ferraio of Hawaii was invalid since there had been no schismatic acts in the strict sense. One cannot be certain as to the accuracy of such quotations, at least in terms of completeness. For example the decree mentioned added a rider that there were other grounds on which the Bishop could take action.
I am not aware whether Fr.Murray's thesis has been published, but it would appear that the Council had been sent not the thesis but two articles published in the Fall issue of "Latin Mass" magazine. The first was an interview with Fr .Murray conducted by Roger McCaffrey (pp.50-55). The second was a summary of the thesis prepared by Steven Terenzio (pp.55-61).
Murray's first line of argument appears to be that the lay followers of Society of St Pius X do not incur the excommunication, because only an external violation of a law or precept can be subject to a canonical penalty (art.cit. p.56), and there must be grave imputability. The warnings contained in the Motu Proprio give no specific indications as to what constitutes "adherence," making liability to penalty at least open to doubt.
A second line of argument is that the Archbishop denied schism, and that simple disobedience does not constitute schism, only systematic and habitual refusal of dependence.
A third line of argument is that an erroneous view that necessity justified his action would have made his action culpable, but removed canonical malice and therefore liability to excommunication (canon 1323 7o). His argument in effect is that the provisions of the 1983 Code are so exigent for imputability to be proved >and a penalty incurred, that the Archbishop and his followers escape by virtue of the very postconciliar legislation they so oppose.
"On the other hand, Canon 209 prescribes: 'Para. 1. Christ's faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions. Para.2 They are to carry out with great diligence their responsibilities towards both the universal Church and the particular Church to which by law they belong.' It is obvious that a lay person who exclusively frequents chapels directed by suspended priests of the Society of St Pius X, which operate without the permission of either the local or the universal Church, is not, in fact, at the very least, living in external communion with the Church. Thus we have the anomalous situation of a group of faithful who are in fact in some real way living apart from real communion with the Church, but who are almost certainly not subject to the canonical penalties intended to discourage and punish such behaviour." (cited from Terenzio, art. cit. p.61).
The Note was clearly prepared as a reply to the arguments of this kind (cf. n.4). The suggestion that there might be any doubt cast upon the excommunication declared by the Congregation for Bishops in the case of the Archbishop and those he consecrated is given short shrift.
It might be worth remembering that the penalty was raised to excommunication because of the creation of the Patriotic Catholic Association in China, and consecration of Bishops without a mandate. The 1917 Code (canon 2370) had provided only for suspension.
Historically the situation had arisen in Latin America when difficult travel conditions had delayed the arrival of the mandate, and a planned consecration had gone ahead without it, but with no schismatic intent. Here the situation was quite different, and although the intention might not have been to set up an alternative jurisdiction, only to provide for the sacraments, de facto that is what was already happening. Moreover since the protocol originally signed by Archbishop Lefebvre actually provided for the consecration of one Bishop, necessity could hardly be argued.
The Note then turns to those whose excommunication has not been declared; the clergy and faithful associated with the Society of St Pius X. The Council prescind from any decision that might be made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but sets out two general legal criteria that would be required for "formal adherence."
The first is an internal criterion, one of intention. An external violation of a law cannot incur a penalty where there is inculpable ignorance, inadvertence or error with regard to violating the law (can. 1323 2°). Equally the penalty must be reduced where the person was unaware of the penalty, through no fault of their own, or lacked full imputability (can. 1324 9° & 10°). There is a requirement of schismatic intention, that is freely and consciously accepting the substance of the schism, that is putting one's personal choice above obedience to the Pope. Generally, this will be characterised by an habitual stance contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.
The second criterion is external, the external effect given to this choice. The most obvious sign of this is to attend solely and exclusively those celebrations conducted by followers of Archbishop Lefebvre, and eschewing those of the mainstream Church, not only local Bishop and clergy, but, for example, those legitimately using the 1962 liturgical books, such as the Fraternity of St Peter.
To a degree the Council is accepting the argumentation presented by Fr.Murray in that an external violation of the law is required not simply a supposed internal attitude of mind, and that more is required subjectively than attendance even habitually at Lefebvrist centres or celebrations. The latter is compatible with an internal disposition which still accepts the authority of the Pope. However, it parts company with him in that it argues that the disobedience involved in aligning oneself with the Lefebvrists itself implies a schismatic intention, even though one might not formally reject the authority of the Pope or local Bishop. Such a position is logically inconsistent, and one must ask what is the prevalent intention in a particular case.
The Note points out that one must distinguish between the moral question of the sin of schism, and the legal question of a delict and its imputability. Once there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed until it appears otherwise (can. 1321 para 3). The onus is on the person to establish elements removing or reducing imputability. In the internal forum there is no such presumption. This means that in the case of lay people, their position will often be difficult to discern. In this situation one must have a mind to the liberty guaranteed by canon 18. In the case of clergy, their external involvement in the ministry in the ambit of the schismatic movement is itself sufficient evidence that both internal and external criteria for formal adherence have been fulfilled. However, such a censure is undeclared and therefore subject to the limits mentioned in canons 1331 and 1335.
While the document speaks of Lefebvrists, it does not refer by name to the Society of St Pius X, and so the criteria should be applied also to other similar groups that are associated with the Archbishop's followers, religious communities, the dissident clergy of the Diocese of Campos in Brazil, but also others, such as those mentioned above, who hold similar positions, even though their hierarchs may not have been declared excommunicated.
It does not apply to those who belong to groups whose position has been regularised by the Commission Ecclesia Dei, or established by the authority of the local Bishop of Scranton on 24th May 1998.
The position of 'freelance' clerics, retired or otherwise released from their Diocese, but not subject to any other penalty, who are operating chapels without reference to the local Bishop, or in defiance of his known wishes would have to be judged on their individual merits. In some cases it may be the Bishop rather than the cleric who is not open to dialogue about regularising their situation in accordance with the provisions of the Motu Proprio. The same may be true for groups of lay people seeking spiritual provision in the form of chaplaincy, and who have availed of the services of a priest or bishop whose situation is irregular.
While there might be a direct approach to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the latter is reluctant to force Bishops' hands and prefers to work by persuasion.
15th July 1998
Rev. Gordon F.Read
Fr. Michael Brown, Assistant Judicial Vicar, Hexham & Newcastle Diocesan Tribunal
(Fr. Michael Brown was not one of the authors of the British Commentary on the text, rather he was the one who put it into e-text and sent it out to the other Traditional canonists on the net.)
Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts
Vatican, August 24, 1996
The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre
NOTE: On the excommunication for schism which the adherents to the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre incur.
1 . From the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia dei" of 2nd July 1988 and from the Decree "Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre" of the Congregation for Bishops, of 1st July 1988, it appears above all that the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre was declared in immediate reaction to the episcopal ordinations conferred on 30th June 1988 without pontifical mandate (cf CIC, Can. 1382). All the same it also appears clear from the aforementioned documents that such a most grave act of disobedience formed the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic character.
2. In effect no. 4. of the Motu Proprio explains the nature of the "doctrinal root of this schismatic act," and no. 5. c) warns that a "formal adherence to the schism" (by which one must understand "the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre") would bring with it the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364 para.1). Also the decree of the Congregation for Bishops makes explicit reference to the "schismatic nature" of the aforesaid episcopal ordinations and mentions the most grave penalty of excommunication which adherence "to the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre" would bring with it.
3. Unfortunately, the schismatic act which gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree did no more than draw to a conclusion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner — with a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff — a process of distancing from hierarchical communion. As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.
4. One cannot furnish any judgement on the argumentation of Murray's thesis (see below) because it is not known, and the two articles which refer to it appear confused. However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances. (cf CIC, can. 1323) As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of "serving" the church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.
5. As the Motu Proprio declares in no. 5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who "adhere formally" to the said schismatic movement. Even if the question of the exact import of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this pontifical Council that such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements:
a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church),
b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit).
6. In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements mentioned above (n.5) are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence.
7. On the other hand, in the case of the rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the Lefebvrian movement, done without making one's own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice the result can be that it is more difficult to judge their situation. One must take account above all of the person's intentions, and the putting into practice of this internal disposition. For this reason the various situations are going to be judged case by case, in the competent forums both internal and external.
8. All the same, it will always be necessary to distinguish between the moral question on the existence or not of the sin of schism and the juridical-penal question on the existence of the delict of schism, and its consequent sanction. In this latter case the dispositions of Book V1 of the Code of Canon Law (including Cann.1323-1324) will be applied.
9. It does not seem advisable to make more precise the requirements for the delict of schism (but one would need to ask the competent Dicastery, cf. Ap. Const. "Pastor Bonus", art 52). One might risk creating more problems by means of rigid norms of a penal kind which would not cover every case, leaving uncovered cases of substantial schism, or having regard to external behaviour which is not always subjectively schismatic.
10. Always from the pastoral point of view it would also seem opportune to recommend once again to sacred pastors all the norms of the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" with which the solicitude of the Vicar of Christ encouraged to dialogue and has provided the supernatural and human means necessary to facilitate the return of the Lefebvrians to full ecclesial communion.
Vatican City, 24th August 1996.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment — Although dated August 1996, presumably its publication early in 1998 was in view, at least in part, of the forthcoming tenth anniversary of the Consecrations and the issuing of the Motu Proprio and Decree.
While initiatives taken under their auspices have had a positive impact, with a number of new religious institutes, and flourishing vocations, now in full communion with the Holy See, and increasingly welcomed by diocesan bishops in some parts of the world, it is also true that there are many places where little attention has been given to its implementation.
Moreover while the Lefebvrist movement has had some set backs, the number of adherents has not diminished significantly. A recent book to mark twenty five years of the Society of St Pius X in Britain (R.Warwick, The Living Flame, London 1997) indicates that there are some twenty Lefebvrist church buildings in Great Britain at present, with some 2000 regular worshippers. In the United States the situation is more extensive and much more varied, with many independent priests and chapels, as well as more extremely sedevacantist groups such as the Society of St Pius X (sic - Ed. note) and the Mount St Michael Community.
The question of apostolic succession has also become more complex. The fissiparous nature of such groups means that not all their orders are derived from Archbishop Lefebvre. Some, having departed from the Society of St Pius X, have obtained orders or episcopal consecration from Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, or his successors, Bishop Alfred Mendez (formerly of Arecibo), or from Old Catholic and similar sources. For details of the American scene one should consult M. Cuneo. The Smoke of Satan, New York 1997, a book which is informative if irritatingly discursive.
Supporters of the Society of St Pius X frequently distribute leaflets containing highly selective or tendentious quotations. One, for example, claims that the Society is neither schismatic nor excommunicated. Generally the line of argument is that since Archbishop Lefebvre was not schismatic, he was not excommunicated, and a fortiori neither were any of his followers.
The leaflet quotes Cardinal Castillo Lara to the effect that consecrating a bishop without the Pope's permission is not in itself a schismatic act. It continues that merely to consecrate bishops, without intending to set up an alternative hierarchy in the jurisdictional sense is not an act of schism. Several canonists are quoted as endorsing these views, Count Neri Capponi, an advocate accredited to the Signatura, Professor Geringer of Munich University, Fr. Patrick Valdini, Professor of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris, and Fr. Gerald Murray who presented his thesis on the subject at the Gregorian University.
Reference is also made to the decision of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, dated 28th June 1993, that the excommunication imposed on followers of Archbishop Lefebvre on 1st May 1991 by Bishop Ferraio of Hawaii was invalid since there had been no schismatic acts in the strict sense. One cannot be certain as to the accuracy of such quotations, at least in terms of completeness. For example the decree mentioned added a rider that there were other grounds on which the Bishop could take action.
I am not aware whether Fr.Murray's thesis has been published, but it would appear that the Council had been sent not the thesis but two articles published in the Fall issue of "Latin Mass" magazine. The first was an interview with Fr .Murray conducted by Roger McCaffrey (pp.50-55). The second was a summary of the thesis prepared by Steven Terenzio (pp.55-61).
Murray's first line of argument appears to be that the lay followers of Society of St Pius X do not incur the excommunication, because only an external violation of a law or precept can be subject to a canonical penalty (art.cit. p.56), and there must be grave imputability. The warnings contained in the Motu Proprio give no specific indications as to what constitutes "adherence," making liability to penalty at least open to doubt.
A second line of argument is that the Archbishop denied schism, and that simple disobedience does not constitute schism, only systematic and habitual refusal of dependence.
A third line of argument is that an erroneous view that necessity justified his action would have made his action culpable, but removed canonical malice and therefore liability to excommunication (canon 1323 7o). His argument in effect is that the provisions of the 1983 Code are so exigent for imputability to be proved >and a penalty incurred, that the Archbishop and his followers escape by virtue of the very postconciliar legislation they so oppose.
"On the other hand, Canon 209 prescribes: 'Para. 1. Christ's faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions. Para.2 They are to carry out with great diligence their responsibilities towards both the universal Church and the particular Church to which by law they belong.' It is obvious that a lay person who exclusively frequents chapels directed by suspended priests of the Society of St Pius X, which operate without the permission of either the local or the universal Church, is not, in fact, at the very least, living in external communion with the Church. Thus we have the anomalous situation of a group of faithful who are in fact in some real way living apart from real communion with the Church, but who are almost certainly not subject to the canonical penalties intended to discourage and punish such behaviour." (cited from Terenzio, art. cit. p.61).
The Note was clearly prepared as a reply to the arguments of this kind (cf. n.4). The suggestion that there might be any doubt cast upon the excommunication declared by the Congregation for Bishops in the case of the Archbishop and those he consecrated is given short shrift.
It might be worth remembering that the penalty was raised to excommunication because of the creation of the Patriotic Catholic Association in China, and consecration of Bishops without a mandate. The 1917 Code (canon 2370) had provided only for suspension.
Historically the situation had arisen in Latin America when difficult travel conditions had delayed the arrival of the mandate, and a planned consecration had gone ahead without it, but with no schismatic intent. Here the situation was quite different, and although the intention might not have been to set up an alternative jurisdiction, only to provide for the sacraments, de facto that is what was already happening. Moreover since the protocol originally signed by Archbishop Lefebvre actually provided for the consecration of one Bishop, necessity could hardly be argued.
The Note then turns to those whose excommunication has not been declared; the clergy and faithful associated with the Society of St Pius X. The Council prescind from any decision that might be made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but sets out two general legal criteria that would be required for "formal adherence."
The first is an internal criterion, one of intention. An external violation of a law cannot incur a penalty where there is inculpable ignorance, inadvertence or error with regard to violating the law (can. 1323 2°). Equally the penalty must be reduced where the person was unaware of the penalty, through no fault of their own, or lacked full imputability (can. 1324 9° & 10°). There is a requirement of schismatic intention, that is freely and consciously accepting the substance of the schism, that is putting one's personal choice above obedience to the Pope. Generally, this will be characterised by an habitual stance contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.
The second criterion is external, the external effect given to this choice. The most obvious sign of this is to attend solely and exclusively those celebrations conducted by followers of Archbishop Lefebvre, and eschewing those of the mainstream Church, not only local Bishop and clergy, but, for example, those legitimately using the 1962 liturgical books, such as the Fraternity of St Peter.
To a degree the Council is accepting the argumentation presented by Fr.Murray in that an external violation of the law is required not simply a supposed internal attitude of mind, and that more is required subjectively than attendance even habitually at Lefebvrist centres or celebrations. The latter is compatible with an internal disposition which still accepts the authority of the Pope. However, it parts company with him in that it argues that the disobedience involved in aligning oneself with the Lefebvrists itself implies a schismatic intention, even though one might not formally reject the authority of the Pope or local Bishop. Such a position is logically inconsistent, and one must ask what is the prevalent intention in a particular case.
The Note points out that one must distinguish between the moral question of the sin of schism, and the legal question of a delict and its imputability. Once there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed until it appears otherwise (can. 1321 para 3). The onus is on the person to establish elements removing or reducing imputability. In the internal forum there is no such presumption. This means that in the case of lay people, their position will often be difficult to discern. In this situation one must have a mind to the liberty guaranteed by canon 18. In the case of clergy, their external involvement in the ministry in the ambit of the schismatic movement is itself sufficient evidence that both internal and external criteria for formal adherence have been fulfilled. However, such a censure is undeclared and therefore subject to the limits mentioned in canons 1331 and 1335.
While the document speaks of Lefebvrists, it does not refer by name to the Society of St Pius X, and so the criteria should be applied also to other similar groups that are associated with the Archbishop's followers, religious communities, the dissident clergy of the Diocese of Campos in Brazil, but also others, such as those mentioned above, who hold similar positions, even though their hierarchs may not have been declared excommunicated.
It does not apply to those who belong to groups whose position has been regularised by the Commission Ecclesia Dei, or established by the authority of the local Bishop of Scranton on 24th May 1998.
The position of 'freelance' clerics, retired or otherwise released from their Diocese, but not subject to any other penalty, who are operating chapels without reference to the local Bishop, or in defiance of his known wishes would have to be judged on their individual merits. In some cases it may be the Bishop rather than the cleric who is not open to dialogue about regularising their situation in accordance with the provisions of the Motu Proprio. The same may be true for groups of lay people seeking spiritual provision in the form of chaplaincy, and who have availed of the services of a priest or bishop whose situation is irregular.
While there might be a direct approach to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the latter is reluctant to force Bishops' hands and prefers to work by persuasion.
15th July 1998
Rev. Gordon F.Read
Fr. Michael Brown, Assistant Judicial Vicar, Hexham & Newcastle Diocesan Tribunal
(Fr. Michael Brown was not one of the authors of the British Commentary on the text, rather he was the one who put it into e-text and sent it out to the other Traditional canonists on the net.)
Author:
Congregation for the Clergy
October 4, 1992
L'Osservatore Romano
Statement on Father Nicholas Gruner
The Congregation for the Clergy declares that the International Meeting on the topic, Peace in the World and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, scheduled for 8-12 October in Fatima, Portugal, and organized by Fr. Nicholas Gruner, has not been approved by the competent ecclesiastical authorities.
The Congregation also declares that the same Fr. Nicholas Gruner does not have faculties from the Diocese of Leiria-Fatima to perform ministerial acts.
Cardinal Jose T. Sanchez, prefect + Archbishop Crescenzio See, secretary
Vatican Reminder on Fr. Nicholas Gruner
Catholic World News, September 12, 2001
Vatican Reminder on Suspended Priest
VATICAN, Sep 12, 01 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican Congregation for the Clergy has published a reminder that Father Nicholas Gruner, the self-styled leader of the International Fatima Rosary Crusade, has been suspended from priestly ministry and does not have ecclesiastical approval of his activities.
The notification from the Vatican comes in response to reports that Father Gruner is planning an international conference, to be held in Rome in October, on the message of the Virgin Mary at Fatima.
The Canadian priest has organized such conferences in the past, often attracting priests and bishops who have apparently been unaware of the conflicts between the International Fatima Rosary Crusade and other Marian groups. In 1992 these conflicts came to a head when Father Gruner was physically assaulted at the Fatima shrine itself during a conference he had planned there in defiance of the shrine's custodians.
Father Gruner has been in conflict with Church authorities for over 20 years because of his insistence that the Fatima message has gone unheeded. He has rejected the assurances of both Pope John Paul II and Sister Lucia, the surviving Fatima seer, that the directive of the Virgin Mary has been fulfilled, and Russia has been consecrated to her Immaculate Heart.
In 1996 the renegade cleric was suspended from his priestly functions by the Bishop of Avellino, Italy-- the diocese in which he had been ordained. Although he appealed the suspension, the appeal was unsuccessful. The Congregation for the Clergy, in its September 12 message, recalls that Father Gruner's suspension was "confirmed by a definitive sentence of the supreme tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura."
Author:
Colin B. Donovan, STL
Fr. Gruner and His Media Apostolates
Fr. Nicholas Gruner started out in the 1970s promoting the message of Fatima through a magazine called Fatima Crusader. He and his magazine have always taken a negative tone on the compliance of the Popes with the message of Fatima, specifically vis-a -vis the request for the Consecration of Russia, and has become more strident over the years. It has gone so far as charging a conspiracy between Pope John XXIII and the Soviet government not to attack communism in exchange for the participation of Russian Orthodox observers at the Second Vatican Council. This approach pervades the magazine, and always has, especially in its attitude toward the Roman Curia, BUT, not excepting the Popes themselves, including the present pontiff.
This magazine also attacks anyone who disagrees with Fr. Gruner's opinions on Fatima, showing contempt for all other Fatima apostles. This includes holy priests like Fr. Robert Fox, whose Fatima Family Apostolate has propagated the Fatima message to far greater audiences than Fr. Gruner could ever hope to do, taken tens of thousands of young people to Fatima, led them to consecrating themselves to the Immaculate Heart, led them to holy vocations to the priesthood, religious life and matrimony. It has also not failed to attack even Sr. Lucia, the surviving seer of Fatima, by charging that under obedience she is kept from speaking the truth. On the contrary, Sr. Lucia has positively contradicted Fr. Gruner's assertions in letters to others and statements to those who have visited her, including bishops. If these were lies, upholding the "Vatican line" as Gruner sees it, then Sister has lied, certain mortal sin in such a grave matter. This is, of course, preposterous! The current charges about the Vatican conspiracy over the Third Secret are simply a continuation of the same old thing.
In recent years Fr. Gruner has also aligned himself increasingly with ultra-traditionalists in the Church who, forgetting the doctrine of papal primacy clearly enunciated at Vatican I, oppose the acts and decrees of Vatican II and the recent pontiffs in a number of matters, taking to themselves the judgment of the sufficiency of papal acts and the interpretation of Sacred Tradition and the Papal Magisterium, contrary to both canon law and Catholic theology. This practice of private interpretation has led them to a public campaign of resistance to the Holy Father spelled out in another Gruner journal The Catholic (sic) Family News, under the title "We resist you to your face." The "you" is Pope John Paul II. All Catholics should resist this impious campaign to its face! [Note: This campaign is also a formal part of the editorial policy of another ultra-traditionalist newspaper The Remnant.]
Thus it is that today Fr. Gruner, who previously simply pushed his opinion on Fatima as he was free to do, is now engaged in a schismatic campaign of resistance to the Pope. Catholics who follow his lead of material disobedience to the Pope could find themselves in formal schism from the Church and excommunicated. This is because in the human will it is not very far from whining and complaining about what you don't like about the Church and this pontificate to formally (that is, with full moral culpability) breaking communion with Peter, especially when you have taken the first step of material resistance to papal authority.
Congregation for the Clergy
October 4, 1992
L'Osservatore Romano
Statement on Father Nicholas Gruner
The Congregation for the Clergy declares that the International Meeting on the topic, Peace in the World and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, scheduled for 8-12 October in Fatima, Portugal, and organized by Fr. Nicholas Gruner, has not been approved by the competent ecclesiastical authorities.
The Congregation also declares that the same Fr. Nicholas Gruner does not have faculties from the Diocese of Leiria-Fatima to perform ministerial acts.
Cardinal Jose T. Sanchez, prefect + Archbishop Crescenzio See, secretary
Vatican Reminder on Fr. Nicholas Gruner
Catholic World News, September 12, 2001
Vatican Reminder on Suspended Priest
VATICAN, Sep 12, 01 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican Congregation for the Clergy has published a reminder that Father Nicholas Gruner, the self-styled leader of the International Fatima Rosary Crusade, has been suspended from priestly ministry and does not have ecclesiastical approval of his activities.
The notification from the Vatican comes in response to reports that Father Gruner is planning an international conference, to be held in Rome in October, on the message of the Virgin Mary at Fatima.
The Canadian priest has organized such conferences in the past, often attracting priests and bishops who have apparently been unaware of the conflicts between the International Fatima Rosary Crusade and other Marian groups. In 1992 these conflicts came to a head when Father Gruner was physically assaulted at the Fatima shrine itself during a conference he had planned there in defiance of the shrine's custodians.
Father Gruner has been in conflict with Church authorities for over 20 years because of his insistence that the Fatima message has gone unheeded. He has rejected the assurances of both Pope John Paul II and Sister Lucia, the surviving Fatima seer, that the directive of the Virgin Mary has been fulfilled, and Russia has been consecrated to her Immaculate Heart.
In 1996 the renegade cleric was suspended from his priestly functions by the Bishop of Avellino, Italy-- the diocese in which he had been ordained. Although he appealed the suspension, the appeal was unsuccessful. The Congregation for the Clergy, in its September 12 message, recalls that Father Gruner's suspension was "confirmed by a definitive sentence of the supreme tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura."
Author:
Colin B. Donovan, STL
Fr. Gruner and His Media Apostolates
Fr. Nicholas Gruner started out in the 1970s promoting the message of Fatima through a magazine called Fatima Crusader. He and his magazine have always taken a negative tone on the compliance of the Popes with the message of Fatima, specifically vis-a -vis the request for the Consecration of Russia, and has become more strident over the years. It has gone so far as charging a conspiracy between Pope John XXIII and the Soviet government not to attack communism in exchange for the participation of Russian Orthodox observers at the Second Vatican Council. This approach pervades the magazine, and always has, especially in its attitude toward the Roman Curia, BUT, not excepting the Popes themselves, including the present pontiff.
This magazine also attacks anyone who disagrees with Fr. Gruner's opinions on Fatima, showing contempt for all other Fatima apostles. This includes holy priests like Fr. Robert Fox, whose Fatima Family Apostolate has propagated the Fatima message to far greater audiences than Fr. Gruner could ever hope to do, taken tens of thousands of young people to Fatima, led them to consecrating themselves to the Immaculate Heart, led them to holy vocations to the priesthood, religious life and matrimony. It has also not failed to attack even Sr. Lucia, the surviving seer of Fatima, by charging that under obedience she is kept from speaking the truth. On the contrary, Sr. Lucia has positively contradicted Fr. Gruner's assertions in letters to others and statements to those who have visited her, including bishops. If these were lies, upholding the "Vatican line" as Gruner sees it, then Sister has lied, certain mortal sin in such a grave matter. This is, of course, preposterous! The current charges about the Vatican conspiracy over the Third Secret are simply a continuation of the same old thing.
In recent years Fr. Gruner has also aligned himself increasingly with ultra-traditionalists in the Church who, forgetting the doctrine of papal primacy clearly enunciated at Vatican I, oppose the acts and decrees of Vatican II and the recent pontiffs in a number of matters, taking to themselves the judgment of the sufficiency of papal acts and the interpretation of Sacred Tradition and the Papal Magisterium, contrary to both canon law and Catholic theology. This practice of private interpretation has led them to a public campaign of resistance to the Holy Father spelled out in another Gruner journal The Catholic (sic) Family News, under the title "We resist you to your face." The "you" is Pope John Paul II. All Catholics should resist this impious campaign to its face! [Note: This campaign is also a formal part of the editorial policy of another ultra-traditionalist newspaper The Remnant.]
Thus it is that today Fr. Gruner, who previously simply pushed his opinion on Fatima as he was free to do, is now engaged in a schismatic campaign of resistance to the Pope. Catholics who follow his lead of material disobedience to the Pope could find themselves in formal schism from the Church and excommunicated. This is because in the human will it is not very far from whining and complaining about what you don't like about the Church and this pontificate to formally (that is, with full moral culpability) breaking communion with Peter, especially when you have taken the first step of material resistance to papal authority.
Decree from the Bishop of Wollongong.
Most Rev Peter William Ingham DD
Bishop of Wollongong
DECREE
PWl:pac/1t 141
Given at Wollongong
16 June 2002
Mr William Kamm also known as The Little Pebble
Whereas on 27 September 1999, following many warnings by himself and his predecessor, Most Rev William Murray aver a period of more than 15 years (with particular reference to the pastoral letter by Bishop William Murray dated 2 December 1984 and entitled On True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) Most Rev Philip Wilson then Bishop of Wollongong. issued a Decree against Mr William Kamm and his so-called Order of St Charbel requesting him to:
1. Refrain from making public statements that your organisation has been recognised by ecclesiastical authority,
2. Inform the members of your organisation of this fact, and of the invalidity of their vows
3. Instruct those members who have supposedly taken vows in your institution not to wear any semblance of a religious habit in public or to claim they belong to an approved Catholic institute of consecrated life
4. Stop this work, to give up all association with Bartholomew Schneider and to close the so-called Order of St Charbel for the good of souls
and
whereas William Kamm took recourse against this decree to the Bishop of Wollongong on 30 September 1999, to the Archbishop of Sydney on 2 November 1999 and to the Holy Father on 8 December 1999, wrongly claiming that his recourse automatically suspended the execution of Bishop Philip Wilson’s decree; and
whereas on 5 May 2000, Most Rev Philip Wilson, then Bishop of Wollongong, established a Commission, consisting of two theologians and two Canon lawyers, to investigate the writings and works of William Kamm; and
whereas acceding to William Kamm's request to be interviewed, Fr Kevin Matthews, one of the Commissioners interviewed hint on 21 October 2000, during which the matter of recourse was raised as an objection; and
whereas when the acts of the interview were sent to William Kamm to be signed, Mr Kamm produced a document, dated 17 November 2000 in which he gave his own version of the interview with additional material- and
whereas on 12 January 2001 Most Rev Philip Wilson, by then Archbishop-elect of Adelaide and Diocesan Administrator of Wollongong, received from the Diocesan Commission its Report of the Wollongong Diocesan Commission Investigating the Writings and Works of William Kamm Known as the "Little Pebble" with the recommendation that:
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith should be approached as the proper recipient of our Response and
whereas on 24 January 2001 Archbishop-elect Philip Wilson wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in support of his action taken against William Kamm and the so-called Order of St Charbel and in respect of Mr Kamm’s subsequent recourse, presenting the Diocese’s case subsequent to its investigation and as outlined in the Commission’s report; and
whereas on 3 February 2001 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated in a letter to Archbishop-elect Philip Wilson that:
It is quite clear that his so-called Order of St Charbel has never had any legal existence in the Catholic Church Mr Kamm himself admits that its recognition was done by a schismatic Prelate. Hence your Decree of September 27, 1999. is perfectly valid and binding.
In relation to the diocesan investigation, it is clear that the multiple absurdities contained in the two books published by Mr Kamm and the information collected by the commission offer sufficient grounds for a decision in relation to the clearly non supernatural origin (the classical equivalent is: constat de non-supernaturalitate) of the “apparitions” and “messages” promoted by Mr Kamm. I suggest your diocesan investigation come to a speedy close and the commission present to you a signed written report of their conclusions on this subject. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would be pleased to receive and support your decision on this issue. and
whereas on 27 February 2001 Very Rev Bryan Jones, Diocesan Administrator of Wollongong, sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a signed copy of the Commission’s report with its recommendation that the Congregation, as the proper authority, issue a statement against the teachings and actions of Mr Kamm; and
whereas on 19 February 2002 I wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith seeking a response to the Diocese’s report; and
whereas on 22 March 2002 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the signature of its Secretary. Most Rev Tarcisio Bertone, in its letter to me, stated the following: -
The Congregation has followed with apprehension the serious developments taking place and has given full support to both Bishop Murray and Bishop Wilson in their dealings with the man. Both Bishops set up diocesan commissions and investigated the matter but Mr Kamm hasrefusedd to accept their results and continues to disregard and disobey the legitimate authority of the Church.
On March 27, 2001 this Dicastery wrote to the Apostolic Nuncio expressing the desire that the new Bishop of Wollongong would issue a decree — in accordance with the Bishops Conference — repudiating categorically the activities of Mr Kamm, his absurd pretensions and his association with schismatic elements clearly not in communion with, the. Catholic Church. This decree should contain a pressing invitation to all the faithful to disassociate themselves for the good of their souls from Mr Kamm and his activities. I am asking Your Excellency to undertake this task in the knowledge that you have the full and clear support of the Holy See. and
having considered the findings of the legitimate canonical investigation initiated by the Diocese of Wollongong; and
having sought and subsequently received the full and clear support of the Holy See and in obedience to the specific and direct instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and
having received the endorsement of the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference; and
in following the consistent and long-standing position of my predecessors, Most Rev William Murray and Most Rev Philip Wilson;
I hereby state the following concerning the alleged visions, teachings and practices of Mr William Kamm and those who have chosen to associate themselves with his activities and organizations:
* The Holy See has declared that there is nothing supernatural about the alleged visions of Mr William Kamm.
* Mr William Kamm has chosen to spread false teachings, to make false claims to authority, and to establish himself and his activities in clear contradiction to the teachings, discipline and authority of the Catholic church.
* Mr William Kamm’s assertions, teachings and actions are dangerous and harmful to Christ’s faithful.
With the authority granted to me by the Holy See and as the Chief Pastor of the Particular Church of Wollongong, I hereby decree that:
1. Mr William Kamm, through his alleged visions and in his various writings, communications and personal actions, is spreading teachings contrary to the divinely revealed teachings of the Catholic Church, in both faith and morals.
2. Mr William Kamm, personally and through his associates and activities, is acting in contradiction to the divinely established authority and discipline of the Catholic Church
I therefore order that:
1. Mr William Kamm immediately cease all his activities contrary to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church and disband his various movements and associations;
2. Fr Malcolm Broussard, a priest who does not possess the faculties of this or any other Catholic Diocese, and who has freely and consciously associated himself with Mr William Kamm over a period of many years, disassociate himself from Mr Kamm and his teachings, and from all activities contrary to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church
3. The so-called Order of St Charbel, in all its various communities in Australia (including the communities of Gethsemane, Cambewarra, New South Wales; the Sacred Heart, Tyaak, Victoria the Most Precious Blood, Meredith, Victoria; the Holy Ghost, Ormeau, Queensland; and the Most Pure Heart of St Joseph, Reeves, South Australia) and in all its communities established in other countries, immediately disband and cease all activities that are contrary to the teachings, authority-and discipline of the Catholic Church
4. All others associated in any way with Mr William Kamm, either as individuals or as members of associations, groups, movements, or the like, disassociate themselves from him and cease all activities that are contrary to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church
This decree will remain in force until such time as Mr William Kamm and his associates, for the sake of their eternal salvation, renounce all their manifestly false claims to legitimacy within the Catholic Church and until Mr Kamm and his associates permanently cease all activities contrary to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church.
For the good of their souls, with deep p concern and as Chief Pastor of the Particular Church of Wollongong, I exhort Mr William Kamm, his associates and all those, who have followed him or his various movements and associations to disassociate themselves from all that is contradictory to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church, to seek God’s forgiveness, and to re-establish their communion with the Catholic Church.
Most Rev Peter William Ingham DD
Bishop of Wollongong
DECREE
PWl:pac/1t 141
Given at Wollongong
16 June 2002
Mr William Kamm also known as The Little Pebble
Whereas on 27 September 1999, following many warnings by himself and his predecessor, Most Rev William Murray aver a period of more than 15 years (with particular reference to the pastoral letter by Bishop William Murray dated 2 December 1984 and entitled On True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) Most Rev Philip Wilson then Bishop of Wollongong. issued a Decree against Mr William Kamm and his so-called Order of St Charbel requesting him to:
1. Refrain from making public statements that your organisation has been recognised by ecclesiastical authority,
2. Inform the members of your organisation of this fact, and of the invalidity of their vows
3. Instruct those members who have supposedly taken vows in your institution not to wear any semblance of a religious habit in public or to claim they belong to an approved Catholic institute of consecrated life
4. Stop this work, to give up all association with Bartholomew Schneider and to close the so-called Order of St Charbel for the good of souls
and
whereas William Kamm took recourse against this decree to the Bishop of Wollongong on 30 September 1999, to the Archbishop of Sydney on 2 November 1999 and to the Holy Father on 8 December 1999, wrongly claiming that his recourse automatically suspended the execution of Bishop Philip Wilson’s decree; and
whereas on 5 May 2000, Most Rev Philip Wilson, then Bishop of Wollongong, established a Commission, consisting of two theologians and two Canon lawyers, to investigate the writings and works of William Kamm; and
whereas acceding to William Kamm's request to be interviewed, Fr Kevin Matthews, one of the Commissioners interviewed hint on 21 October 2000, during which the matter of recourse was raised as an objection; and
whereas when the acts of the interview were sent to William Kamm to be signed, Mr Kamm produced a document, dated 17 November 2000 in which he gave his own version of the interview with additional material- and
whereas on 12 January 2001 Most Rev Philip Wilson, by then Archbishop-elect of Adelaide and Diocesan Administrator of Wollongong, received from the Diocesan Commission its Report of the Wollongong Diocesan Commission Investigating the Writings and Works of William Kamm Known as the "Little Pebble" with the recommendation that:
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith should be approached as the proper recipient of our Response and
whereas on 24 January 2001 Archbishop-elect Philip Wilson wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in support of his action taken against William Kamm and the so-called Order of St Charbel and in respect of Mr Kamm’s subsequent recourse, presenting the Diocese’s case subsequent to its investigation and as outlined in the Commission’s report; and
whereas on 3 February 2001 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated in a letter to Archbishop-elect Philip Wilson that:
It is quite clear that his so-called Order of St Charbel has never had any legal existence in the Catholic Church Mr Kamm himself admits that its recognition was done by a schismatic Prelate. Hence your Decree of September 27, 1999. is perfectly valid and binding.
In relation to the diocesan investigation, it is clear that the multiple absurdities contained in the two books published by Mr Kamm and the information collected by the commission offer sufficient grounds for a decision in relation to the clearly non supernatural origin (the classical equivalent is: constat de non-supernaturalitate) of the “apparitions” and “messages” promoted by Mr Kamm. I suggest your diocesan investigation come to a speedy close and the commission present to you a signed written report of their conclusions on this subject. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would be pleased to receive and support your decision on this issue. and
whereas on 27 February 2001 Very Rev Bryan Jones, Diocesan Administrator of Wollongong, sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a signed copy of the Commission’s report with its recommendation that the Congregation, as the proper authority, issue a statement against the teachings and actions of Mr Kamm; and
whereas on 19 February 2002 I wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith seeking a response to the Diocese’s report; and
whereas on 22 March 2002 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the signature of its Secretary. Most Rev Tarcisio Bertone, in its letter to me, stated the following: -
The Congregation has followed with apprehension the serious developments taking place and has given full support to both Bishop Murray and Bishop Wilson in their dealings with the man. Both Bishops set up diocesan commissions and investigated the matter but Mr Kamm hasrefusedd to accept their results and continues to disregard and disobey the legitimate authority of the Church.
On March 27, 2001 this Dicastery wrote to the Apostolic Nuncio expressing the desire that the new Bishop of Wollongong would issue a decree — in accordance with the Bishops Conference — repudiating categorically the activities of Mr Kamm, his absurd pretensions and his association with schismatic elements clearly not in communion with, the. Catholic Church. This decree should contain a pressing invitation to all the faithful to disassociate themselves for the good of their souls from Mr Kamm and his activities. I am asking Your Excellency to undertake this task in the knowledge that you have the full and clear support of the Holy See. and
having considered the findings of the legitimate canonical investigation initiated by the Diocese of Wollongong; and
having sought and subsequently received the full and clear support of the Holy See and in obedience to the specific and direct instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and
having received the endorsement of the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference; and
in following the consistent and long-standing position of my predecessors, Most Rev William Murray and Most Rev Philip Wilson;
I hereby state the following concerning the alleged visions, teachings and practices of Mr William Kamm and those who have chosen to associate themselves with his activities and organizations:
* The Holy See has declared that there is nothing supernatural about the alleged visions of Mr William Kamm.
* Mr William Kamm has chosen to spread false teachings, to make false claims to authority, and to establish himself and his activities in clear contradiction to the teachings, discipline and authority of the Catholic church.
* Mr William Kamm’s assertions, teachings and actions are dangerous and harmful to Christ’s faithful.
With the authority granted to me by the Holy See and as the Chief Pastor of the Particular Church of Wollongong, I hereby decree that:
1. Mr William Kamm, through his alleged visions and in his various writings, communications and personal actions, is spreading teachings contrary to the divinely revealed teachings of the Catholic Church, in both faith and morals.
2. Mr William Kamm, personally and through his associates and activities, is acting in contradiction to the divinely established authority and discipline of the Catholic Church
I therefore order that:
1. Mr William Kamm immediately cease all his activities contrary to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church and disband his various movements and associations;
2. Fr Malcolm Broussard, a priest who does not possess the faculties of this or any other Catholic Diocese, and who has freely and consciously associated himself with Mr William Kamm over a period of many years, disassociate himself from Mr Kamm and his teachings, and from all activities contrary to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church
3. The so-called Order of St Charbel, in all its various communities in Australia (including the communities of Gethsemane, Cambewarra, New South Wales; the Sacred Heart, Tyaak, Victoria the Most Precious Blood, Meredith, Victoria; the Holy Ghost, Ormeau, Queensland; and the Most Pure Heart of St Joseph, Reeves, South Australia) and in all its communities established in other countries, immediately disband and cease all activities that are contrary to the teachings, authority-and discipline of the Catholic Church
4. All others associated in any way with Mr William Kamm, either as individuals or as members of associations, groups, movements, or the like, disassociate themselves from him and cease all activities that are contrary to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church
This decree will remain in force until such time as Mr William Kamm and his associates, for the sake of their eternal salvation, renounce all their manifestly false claims to legitimacy within the Catholic Church and until Mr Kamm and his associates permanently cease all activities contrary to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church.
For the good of their souls, with deep p concern and as Chief Pastor of the Particular Church of Wollongong, I exhort Mr William Kamm, his associates and all those, who have followed him or his various movements and associations to disassociate themselves from all that is contradictory to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church, to seek God’s forgiveness, and to re-establish their communion with the Catholic Church.
Notification on the Book, 'Jesus Symbol of God'
Publisher & Date:
Vatican, February 9, 2005
Introduction
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, after careful study, has judged that the book Jesus Symbol of God (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1999), by Father Roger Haight, S.J., contains serious doctrinal errors regarding certain fundamental truths of faith. It was therefore decided to publish this Notification in its regard, which concludes the relevant procedure for doctrinal examination.
After an initial evaluation by experts, it was decided to entrust the matter directly to the Author's Ordinary. On 14 February 2000, a series of Observations was sent to Father Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, General Superior of the Society of Jesus, with the request that he bring the errors in the book to the Author's attention, asking him to submit the necessary clarifications and corrections to the judgment of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (cf. Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, Ch. II).
The response of Father Roger Haight, S.J., submitted on 28 June 2000, failed to either clarify or correct the errors brought to his attention. For this reason, and in light of the book's considerable circulation, it was decided to proceed with a doctrinal examination (cf. Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, Ch. III), with particular attention given to the Author's theological method.
After an examination by the theological Consultors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Ordinary Session of 13 February 2002 confirmed that Jesus Symbol of God contains erroneous assertions, the dissemination of which is of grave harm to the faithful. It was decided, therefore, to follow the procedure for an "examination in cases of urgency" (cf. Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, Ch. IV).
In this regard, in accordance with Art. 26 of the Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, on 22 July 2002 the General Superior of the Society of Jesus was sent a list of the book's erroneous positions and a general evaluation of its hermeneutical approach, asking him to request that Father Roger Haight, S.J., submit, within two canonical months, a clarification of his methodological approach and a correction, faithful to the teachings of the Church, of the errors contained in his book.
The Author's reply, submitted on 31 March 2003, was examined by the Ordinary Session of the Congregation on 8 October 2003. The literary form of this reply was such as to raise doubts about its authenticity, that is, if it was truly the personal response of Father Roger Haight, S.J.; he was therefore asked to submit a signed response.
A signed response was submitted on 7 January 2004. The Ordinary Session of the Congregation, on 5 May 2004, examined this response and reaffirmed the fact that the book Jesus Symbol of God contains statements contrary to truths of divine and Catholic faith that pertain to the first paragraph of the Professio fidei, concerning the pre-existence of the Word, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, the salvific value of the death of Jesus, the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus and of the Church, and the Resurrection of Jesus. The negative critique included also the use of an inappropriate theological method. It was therefore deemed necessary to publish a Notification on the matter.
I. Theological method
In the Preface of his book Jesus Symbol of God, the Author explains that today theology must be done in dialogue with the postmodern world, but it also "must remain faithful to its originating revelation and consistent tradition" (p. xii), in the sense that the data of the faith constitute the norm and criteria for a theological hermeneutic. He also asserts that it is necessary to establish a "critical correlation" (cf. pp. 40-47) between these data and the modes and qualities of postmodern thought, characterized in part by a radical historical and pluralistic consciousness (cf. pp. 24, 330-334): "The tradition must be critically received into the present situation" (p. 46).
This "critical correlation", however, results, in fact, in a subordination of the content of faith to its plausibility and intelligibility in postmodern culture (cf. pp. 49-50, 127, 195, 241, 273-274, 278-282, 330-334). It is stated, for example, that because of the contemporary pluralistic consciousness, "one can no longer claim [...] Christianity as the superior religion, or Christ as the absolute center to which all other historical mediations are relative. [...] It is impossible in postmodern culture to think [...] that one religion can claim to inhabit the center into which all others are to be drawn" (p. 333).
With particular regard to the validity of dogmatic, especially Christological formulations in a postmodern cultural and linguistic context, which is different from the one in which they were composed, the Author states that these formulations should not be ignored, but neither should they be uncritically repeated, "because they do not have the same meaning in our culture as they did when they were formulated [...]. Therefore, one has no choice but to engage the classical councils and to explicitly interpret them for our own period" (p. 16). This interpretation, however, does not in fact result in doctrinal proposals that convey the immutable meaning of the dogmas as understood by the faith of the Church, nor does it clarify their meaning, enhancing understanding. The Author's interpretation results instead in a reading that is not only different from but also contrary to the true meaning of the dogmas.
With specific reference to Christology, the Author states that, in order to transcend a "naive revelational positivism" (p. 173, n. 65), it should be set within the context of a "general theory of religion in terms of religious epistemology" (p. 188). A fundamental element of this theory is the symbol as a concrete historical medium: a created reality (for example, a person, an object or an event) that makes known and present another reality, such as the transcendent reality of God, which is at the same time part of and distinct from the medium itself, and to which the medium points (cf. pp. 196-198). Symbolic language, which is structurally poetic, imaginative and figurative (cf. pp. 177, 256), expresses and produces a certain experience of God (cf. p. 11), but does not provide objective information about God himself (cf. pp. 9, 210, 282, 471).
These methodological positions lead to a seriously reductive and misleading interpretation of the doctrines of the faith, resulting in erroneous propositions. In particular, the epistemological choice of the theory of symbol, as it is understood by the Author, undermines the basis of Christological dogma, which from the New Testament onwards proclaims that Jesus of Nazareth is the Person of the divine Son/Word who became man.'
II. The pre-existence of the Word
In accord with his hermeneutical approach, the Author does not accept that there is a basis for the doctrine of the pre-existence of the Word in the New Testament, not even in the prologue of the Gospel of St John (cf. pp. 155-178), where, he asserts, the Logos is to be understood in a purely metaphorical sense (cf. p. 177). Moreover, he regards the pronouncements of the Council of Nicaea as intending only to assert that "no less than God was and is present and at work in Jesus” (p. 284; cf. p. 438), maintaining that recourse to the symbol "Logos" is to be understood simply as taken for granted,' and therefore not the object of the definition, nor plausible in a postmodern culture (cf. pp. 281, 485). The Council of Nicaea, states the Author, "employs scripture in a way that is not acceptable today", that is, as providing "a source of directly representative information, like facts or objective data, about transcendent reality" (p. 279). The dogma of Nicaea does not teach, therefore, that the eternally pre-existent Son or Logos is consubstantial with and eternally begotten of the Father. The Author proposes "an incarnational christology in which the created human being or person Jesus of Nazareth is the concrete symbol expressing the presence in history of God as Logos" (p. 439).
This interpretation is not in accord with the dogma of Nicaea, which intentionally affirms, even contrary to the cultural vision of the time, the true pre-existence of the Son/Logos of the Father, who became man, in time, for the salvation of humanity.3
III. The divinity of Jesus
The Author's erroneous position on the pre-existence of the Son/Logos of God is consistent with his likewise erroneous understanding of the doctrine on the divinity of Jesus. It is true that he uses expressions such as "Jesus must be considered divine" (p. 283) and "Jesus Christ [...] must be true God" (p. 284). These statements must be understood, however, in light of his assertions regarding Jesus as a symbolic medium: Jesus is "a finite person" (p. 205), "a human person" (p. 296), "a human being like us" (p. 205; cf. p. 428). The formula "true man and true God" is therefore reinterpreted by the Author in the sense that "true man" means that Jesus is "a human being like all others" (p. 295), "a finite human being and creature" (p. 262); whereas "true God" means that the man Jesus, as a concrete symbol, is or mediates the saving presence of God in history (cf. pp. 262, 295): only in this sense is Jesus to be considered as "truly divine or consubstantial with the God" (p. 295). The "postmodern situation in christology", says the Author, "entails a change of viewpoint that leaves the Chalcedonian problematic behind" (p. 290), precisely in the sense that the hypostatic union, or "enhypostatic" union, would be understood as "the union of no less than God as Word with the human person Jesus" (p. 442).
This interpretation of the divinity of Jesus is contrary to the faith of the Church that believes in Jesus Christ, eternal Son of God, who became man, as has been proclaimed repeatedly in various ecumenical councils and in the constant preaching of the Church.4
IV. The Holy Trinity
Coherent with his interpretation of the identity of Jesus Christ, the Author develops an erroneous Trinitarian doctrine. In his judgment the "later doctrines of an immanent Trinity [should] not be allowed to be read into New Testament teaching" (p. 474). These are to be considered as the outcome of a subsequent inculturation, which led to the hypostatization of the symbols "Logos" and "Spirit", that is to say, to considering them as "real entities" in God (cf. p. 481). As "religious symbols", "Logos" and "Spirit" represent two different historical, salvific mediations of the one God: one external, historical, in and through the symbol Jesus; the other internal, dynamic, accomplished by God's communication of self as Spirit (cf. p. 484). Such a view, which corresponds to the general theory of religious experience, leads the Author to abandon a correct understanding of the Trinity itself "that construes it as a description of a differentiated inner life of God” (p. 484). Consequently, he asserts that "notions of God as a community, ideas of hypostatizing the differentiations within God and calling them persons in such a way that they are in dialogical intercommunication with each other, militate against the first point of the doctrine itself" (p. 483), that is, "that God is single and one" (p. 482).
This interpretation of Trinitarian doctrine is erroneous and contrary to the faith regarding the oneness of God in the Trinity of Persons that the Church has proclaimed and confirmed in numerous and authoritative documents.'
V. The salvific value of the death of Jesus
In the book Jesus Symbol of God the Author asserts that "the prophetic interpretation" explains best the death of Jesus (cf. p. 86, n. 105). He also states that it is not necessary "that Jesus thought of himself as universal savior" (p. 211), and that the idea of the death of Jesus as "a sacrificial death, an atoning death, a redeeming death" is merely the result of a gradual interpretation by his followers in light of the Old Testament (cf. p. 85). It is also asserted that the traditional ecclesiastical language "of Jesus suffering for us, of being a sacrifice to God, of absorbing punishment for sin in our place, of being required to die to render satisfaction to God, hardly communicates meaningfully to our age" (p. 241). Such language is to be abandoned because "the images associated with this talk offend and even repulse postmodern sensibility and thereby form a barrier to a salutary appreciation of Jesus Christ" (p. 241).
The Author's position is in reality contrary to the doctrine of the Church, which has always held that Jesus intended his death to be for the sake of universal redemption. The Church sees in the New Testament references to salvation, in particular the words of the institution of the Eucharist, a norm of faith regarding the universal salvific value of the sacrifice of the Cross.6
VI. The unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus and of the Church
With regard to the universality of the salvific mission of Jesus, the Author states that Jesus is "normative" for Christians, but "non-constitutive" for other religious mediations (cf. p. 403). Moreover, he asserts that "God alone effects salvation and Jesus' universal mediation is not necessary" (p. 405); indeed, "God acts in the lives of human beings in a plurality of ways outside of Jesus and the Christian sphere" (p. 412). The Author insists on the necessity of moving beyond Christocentrism to theocentrism, which "cuts the necessity of binding God's salvation to Jesus of Nazareth alone" (p. 417). With regard to the universal mission of the Church, he maintains that is necessary to have "the ability to recognize other religions as mediators of God's salvation on a par with Christianity" (p. 415). Moreover, for the Author it "is impossible in post-modern culture to think that [...] one religion can claim to inhabit the center into which all others are to be drawn. These myths or metanarratives are simply gone" (p. 333).
This theological position fundamentally denies the universal salvific mission of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 4:12; I Tm 2:4-6; Jn 14:6) and, as a consequence, the mission of the Church to announce and communicate the gift of Christ the Savior to all humanity (cf. Mt 28:19; Mk 16:15; Eph 3:8-11), both of which are given clear witness in the New Testament and have always been proclaimed as the faith of the Church, even in recent Documents.'
VII. The Resurrection of Jesus
The Author's presentation of the Resurrection of Jesus is guided by his understanding of theological and biblical language as "symbolic of experience that is historically mediated" (p. 131), as well as by the principle that "one should ordinarily not expect to have happened in the past what is presumed or proven impossible today" (p. 127). Understood in this way, the Resurrection is described as the affirmation that "Jesus is ontologically alive as an individual within the sphere of God [...], God's declaration that Jesus' life is a true revelation of God and an authentic human existence" (p. 151; cf. p. 124); it is a "transcendent reality that can only be appreciated by faith-hope" (p. 126). The disciples, after the death of Jesus, remembered and reflected upon his life and message, in particular his revelation of God as good, loving, concerned about human existence and saving. This remembering that "what God begins in love, because of the complete boundlessness of that love, continues to exist in that love, thus overcoming the power and finality of death" (p. 147) coupled with an initiative of God as Spirit, gradually gave birth to this new belief in the Resurrection, that is, that Jesus was alive and exalted within God's saving power (cf. p. 146). Moreover, according to the Author's interpretation, "the historicity of the empty tomb and appearance narratives is not essential to resurrection faith-hope" (p. 147, n. 54; cf. pp. 124, 134). Rather, these stories "are ways of expressing and teaching the content of a faith already formed" (p. 145).
The Author's interpretation leads to a position which is incompatible with the Church's doctrine. It is advanced on the basis of erroneous assumptions, and not on the witness of the New Testament, according to which the appearances of the Risen Lord and the empty tomb are the foundation of the faith of the disciples in the Resurrection of Christ, and not vice versa.
Conclusion
In publishing this Notification, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to declare that the above-mentioned assertions contained in the book Jesus Symbol of God by Father Roger Haight, S.J., are judged to be serious doctrinal errors contrary to the divine and catholic faith of the Church. As a consequence, until such, time as his positions are corrected to be, in complete conformity with the doctrine of the Church, the Author may not teach Catholic theology.
The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the under-signed Cardinal Prefect, approved this Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 13 December 2004, the Memorial of Saint Lucy, Virgin and Martyr.
JOSEPH Card. RATZINGER
Prefect
ANGELO AMATO, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
1 Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125; Concilium Chalcedonense, Professio fidei: DH 301, 302; Concilium Constantinopolitanum II, Canones: DH 424, 426.
2 The Author speaks of the "hypostatization" and of the "hypostasis" of the Logos and of the Spirit, which he understands as referring to how, in the language of the Hellenistic Church, these two biblical metaphors had subsequently become real entities (cf. p. 475).
3 Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125. The Nicene confession, confirmed at other ecumenical councils (cf. Concilium Constantinopolitanum I, Professio fidei: DH 150; Concilium Chalcedonense, Professio fidei: DH 301, 302), constitutes the foundation of the professions of faith of all the different Christian denominations.
4 Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125; Concilium Constantinopolitanum I, Professio fidei: DH 150; Concilium Chalcedonense, Professio fidei: DH 301, 302.
5 Cf. Concilium Constantinopolitanum I, Professio fidei: DH 150; Quicumque: DH 75; Synodus Toletana XI, Professio fidei: DH 525-532; Synodus Toletana XVI, Professio fidei: DH 568-573; Concilium Lateranense IV, Professio fidei: DH 803-805; Concilium Florentinum, Decretum pro lacobitis: DH 1330-1331; Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. Dogm. Lumen Gentium, nn. 2-4.
6 Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125; Concilium Tridentinurn, Decretum de lustificatione: DH 1522, 1523; De Poenitentia: DH 1690; De Sacrificio Missae: DH 1740; Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. Dogm. Lumen Gentium, rm. 3, 5, 9; Const. Pastor. Gaudium et Spes, n. 22; Ioannes Paulus II, Litt. Encycl. Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 12.
7 Cf. Innocentius XI, Const. water Occasione, n. 5: DH 2005; Sanctum Officium, Decr. Errores Iansenistaruni, n. 4: DH 2304; Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. Dogm. Lumen Gentium, n. 8; Const. Pastor. Gaudium et Spes, n. 22; Decr. Ad Gentes, n. 3; Ioannes Paulus II, Litt. Encycl. Redemptoris Missio, nn. 4-6; Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei; Decl. Dominus Jesus, rm. 13-15. With regard to the universality of the mission of the Church, cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 13, 17; Ad Gentes, n. 7; Redemptoris Missio, no. 9-11; Dominus Jesus, nn. 20-22.
Publisher & Date:
Vatican, February 9, 2005
Introduction
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, after careful study, has judged that the book Jesus Symbol of God (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1999), by Father Roger Haight, S.J., contains serious doctrinal errors regarding certain fundamental truths of faith. It was therefore decided to publish this Notification in its regard, which concludes the relevant procedure for doctrinal examination.
After an initial evaluation by experts, it was decided to entrust the matter directly to the Author's Ordinary. On 14 February 2000, a series of Observations was sent to Father Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, General Superior of the Society of Jesus, with the request that he bring the errors in the book to the Author's attention, asking him to submit the necessary clarifications and corrections to the judgment of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (cf. Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, Ch. II).
The response of Father Roger Haight, S.J., submitted on 28 June 2000, failed to either clarify or correct the errors brought to his attention. For this reason, and in light of the book's considerable circulation, it was decided to proceed with a doctrinal examination (cf. Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, Ch. III), with particular attention given to the Author's theological method.
After an examination by the theological Consultors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Ordinary Session of 13 February 2002 confirmed that Jesus Symbol of God contains erroneous assertions, the dissemination of which is of grave harm to the faithful. It was decided, therefore, to follow the procedure for an "examination in cases of urgency" (cf. Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, Ch. IV).
In this regard, in accordance with Art. 26 of the Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, on 22 July 2002 the General Superior of the Society of Jesus was sent a list of the book's erroneous positions and a general evaluation of its hermeneutical approach, asking him to request that Father Roger Haight, S.J., submit, within two canonical months, a clarification of his methodological approach and a correction, faithful to the teachings of the Church, of the errors contained in his book.
The Author's reply, submitted on 31 March 2003, was examined by the Ordinary Session of the Congregation on 8 October 2003. The literary form of this reply was such as to raise doubts about its authenticity, that is, if it was truly the personal response of Father Roger Haight, S.J.; he was therefore asked to submit a signed response.
A signed response was submitted on 7 January 2004. The Ordinary Session of the Congregation, on 5 May 2004, examined this response and reaffirmed the fact that the book Jesus Symbol of God contains statements contrary to truths of divine and Catholic faith that pertain to the first paragraph of the Professio fidei, concerning the pre-existence of the Word, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, the salvific value of the death of Jesus, the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus and of the Church, and the Resurrection of Jesus. The negative critique included also the use of an inappropriate theological method. It was therefore deemed necessary to publish a Notification on the matter.
I. Theological method
In the Preface of his book Jesus Symbol of God, the Author explains that today theology must be done in dialogue with the postmodern world, but it also "must remain faithful to its originating revelation and consistent tradition" (p. xii), in the sense that the data of the faith constitute the norm and criteria for a theological hermeneutic. He also asserts that it is necessary to establish a "critical correlation" (cf. pp. 40-47) between these data and the modes and qualities of postmodern thought, characterized in part by a radical historical and pluralistic consciousness (cf. pp. 24, 330-334): "The tradition must be critically received into the present situation" (p. 46).
This "critical correlation", however, results, in fact, in a subordination of the content of faith to its plausibility and intelligibility in postmodern culture (cf. pp. 49-50, 127, 195, 241, 273-274, 278-282, 330-334). It is stated, for example, that because of the contemporary pluralistic consciousness, "one can no longer claim [...] Christianity as the superior religion, or Christ as the absolute center to which all other historical mediations are relative. [...] It is impossible in postmodern culture to think [...] that one religion can claim to inhabit the center into which all others are to be drawn" (p. 333).
With particular regard to the validity of dogmatic, especially Christological formulations in a postmodern cultural and linguistic context, which is different from the one in which they were composed, the Author states that these formulations should not be ignored, but neither should they be uncritically repeated, "because they do not have the same meaning in our culture as they did when they were formulated [...]. Therefore, one has no choice but to engage the classical councils and to explicitly interpret them for our own period" (p. 16). This interpretation, however, does not in fact result in doctrinal proposals that convey the immutable meaning of the dogmas as understood by the faith of the Church, nor does it clarify their meaning, enhancing understanding. The Author's interpretation results instead in a reading that is not only different from but also contrary to the true meaning of the dogmas.
With specific reference to Christology, the Author states that, in order to transcend a "naive revelational positivism" (p. 173, n. 65), it should be set within the context of a "general theory of religion in terms of religious epistemology" (p. 188). A fundamental element of this theory is the symbol as a concrete historical medium: a created reality (for example, a person, an object or an event) that makes known and present another reality, such as the transcendent reality of God, which is at the same time part of and distinct from the medium itself, and to which the medium points (cf. pp. 196-198). Symbolic language, which is structurally poetic, imaginative and figurative (cf. pp. 177, 256), expresses and produces a certain experience of God (cf. p. 11), but does not provide objective information about God himself (cf. pp. 9, 210, 282, 471).
These methodological positions lead to a seriously reductive and misleading interpretation of the doctrines of the faith, resulting in erroneous propositions. In particular, the epistemological choice of the theory of symbol, as it is understood by the Author, undermines the basis of Christological dogma, which from the New Testament onwards proclaims that Jesus of Nazareth is the Person of the divine Son/Word who became man.'
II. The pre-existence of the Word
In accord with his hermeneutical approach, the Author does not accept that there is a basis for the doctrine of the pre-existence of the Word in the New Testament, not even in the prologue of the Gospel of St John (cf. pp. 155-178), where, he asserts, the Logos is to be understood in a purely metaphorical sense (cf. p. 177). Moreover, he regards the pronouncements of the Council of Nicaea as intending only to assert that "no less than God was and is present and at work in Jesus” (p. 284; cf. p. 438), maintaining that recourse to the symbol "Logos" is to be understood simply as taken for granted,' and therefore not the object of the definition, nor plausible in a postmodern culture (cf. pp. 281, 485). The Council of Nicaea, states the Author, "employs scripture in a way that is not acceptable today", that is, as providing "a source of directly representative information, like facts or objective data, about transcendent reality" (p. 279). The dogma of Nicaea does not teach, therefore, that the eternally pre-existent Son or Logos is consubstantial with and eternally begotten of the Father. The Author proposes "an incarnational christology in which the created human being or person Jesus of Nazareth is the concrete symbol expressing the presence in history of God as Logos" (p. 439).
This interpretation is not in accord with the dogma of Nicaea, which intentionally affirms, even contrary to the cultural vision of the time, the true pre-existence of the Son/Logos of the Father, who became man, in time, for the salvation of humanity.3
III. The divinity of Jesus
The Author's erroneous position on the pre-existence of the Son/Logos of God is consistent with his likewise erroneous understanding of the doctrine on the divinity of Jesus. It is true that he uses expressions such as "Jesus must be considered divine" (p. 283) and "Jesus Christ [...] must be true God" (p. 284). These statements must be understood, however, in light of his assertions regarding Jesus as a symbolic medium: Jesus is "a finite person" (p. 205), "a human person" (p. 296), "a human being like us" (p. 205; cf. p. 428). The formula "true man and true God" is therefore reinterpreted by the Author in the sense that "true man" means that Jesus is "a human being like all others" (p. 295), "a finite human being and creature" (p. 262); whereas "true God" means that the man Jesus, as a concrete symbol, is or mediates the saving presence of God in history (cf. pp. 262, 295): only in this sense is Jesus to be considered as "truly divine or consubstantial with the God" (p. 295). The "postmodern situation in christology", says the Author, "entails a change of viewpoint that leaves the Chalcedonian problematic behind" (p. 290), precisely in the sense that the hypostatic union, or "enhypostatic" union, would be understood as "the union of no less than God as Word with the human person Jesus" (p. 442).
This interpretation of the divinity of Jesus is contrary to the faith of the Church that believes in Jesus Christ, eternal Son of God, who became man, as has been proclaimed repeatedly in various ecumenical councils and in the constant preaching of the Church.4
IV. The Holy Trinity
Coherent with his interpretation of the identity of Jesus Christ, the Author develops an erroneous Trinitarian doctrine. In his judgment the "later doctrines of an immanent Trinity [should] not be allowed to be read into New Testament teaching" (p. 474). These are to be considered as the outcome of a subsequent inculturation, which led to the hypostatization of the symbols "Logos" and "Spirit", that is to say, to considering them as "real entities" in God (cf. p. 481). As "religious symbols", "Logos" and "Spirit" represent two different historical, salvific mediations of the one God: one external, historical, in and through the symbol Jesus; the other internal, dynamic, accomplished by God's communication of self as Spirit (cf. p. 484). Such a view, which corresponds to the general theory of religious experience, leads the Author to abandon a correct understanding of the Trinity itself "that construes it as a description of a differentiated inner life of God” (p. 484). Consequently, he asserts that "notions of God as a community, ideas of hypostatizing the differentiations within God and calling them persons in such a way that they are in dialogical intercommunication with each other, militate against the first point of the doctrine itself" (p. 483), that is, "that God is single and one" (p. 482).
This interpretation of Trinitarian doctrine is erroneous and contrary to the faith regarding the oneness of God in the Trinity of Persons that the Church has proclaimed and confirmed in numerous and authoritative documents.'
V. The salvific value of the death of Jesus
In the book Jesus Symbol of God the Author asserts that "the prophetic interpretation" explains best the death of Jesus (cf. p. 86, n. 105). He also states that it is not necessary "that Jesus thought of himself as universal savior" (p. 211), and that the idea of the death of Jesus as "a sacrificial death, an atoning death, a redeeming death" is merely the result of a gradual interpretation by his followers in light of the Old Testament (cf. p. 85). It is also asserted that the traditional ecclesiastical language "of Jesus suffering for us, of being a sacrifice to God, of absorbing punishment for sin in our place, of being required to die to render satisfaction to God, hardly communicates meaningfully to our age" (p. 241). Such language is to be abandoned because "the images associated with this talk offend and even repulse postmodern sensibility and thereby form a barrier to a salutary appreciation of Jesus Christ" (p. 241).
The Author's position is in reality contrary to the doctrine of the Church, which has always held that Jesus intended his death to be for the sake of universal redemption. The Church sees in the New Testament references to salvation, in particular the words of the institution of the Eucharist, a norm of faith regarding the universal salvific value of the sacrifice of the Cross.6
VI. The unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus and of the Church
With regard to the universality of the salvific mission of Jesus, the Author states that Jesus is "normative" for Christians, but "non-constitutive" for other religious mediations (cf. p. 403). Moreover, he asserts that "God alone effects salvation and Jesus' universal mediation is not necessary" (p. 405); indeed, "God acts in the lives of human beings in a plurality of ways outside of Jesus and the Christian sphere" (p. 412). The Author insists on the necessity of moving beyond Christocentrism to theocentrism, which "cuts the necessity of binding God's salvation to Jesus of Nazareth alone" (p. 417). With regard to the universal mission of the Church, he maintains that is necessary to have "the ability to recognize other religions as mediators of God's salvation on a par with Christianity" (p. 415). Moreover, for the Author it "is impossible in post-modern culture to think that [...] one religion can claim to inhabit the center into which all others are to be drawn. These myths or metanarratives are simply gone" (p. 333).
This theological position fundamentally denies the universal salvific mission of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 4:12; I Tm 2:4-6; Jn 14:6) and, as a consequence, the mission of the Church to announce and communicate the gift of Christ the Savior to all humanity (cf. Mt 28:19; Mk 16:15; Eph 3:8-11), both of which are given clear witness in the New Testament and have always been proclaimed as the faith of the Church, even in recent Documents.'
VII. The Resurrection of Jesus
The Author's presentation of the Resurrection of Jesus is guided by his understanding of theological and biblical language as "symbolic of experience that is historically mediated" (p. 131), as well as by the principle that "one should ordinarily not expect to have happened in the past what is presumed or proven impossible today" (p. 127). Understood in this way, the Resurrection is described as the affirmation that "Jesus is ontologically alive as an individual within the sphere of God [...], God's declaration that Jesus' life is a true revelation of God and an authentic human existence" (p. 151; cf. p. 124); it is a "transcendent reality that can only be appreciated by faith-hope" (p. 126). The disciples, after the death of Jesus, remembered and reflected upon his life and message, in particular his revelation of God as good, loving, concerned about human existence and saving. This remembering that "what God begins in love, because of the complete boundlessness of that love, continues to exist in that love, thus overcoming the power and finality of death" (p. 147) coupled with an initiative of God as Spirit, gradually gave birth to this new belief in the Resurrection, that is, that Jesus was alive and exalted within God's saving power (cf. p. 146). Moreover, according to the Author's interpretation, "the historicity of the empty tomb and appearance narratives is not essential to resurrection faith-hope" (p. 147, n. 54; cf. pp. 124, 134). Rather, these stories "are ways of expressing and teaching the content of a faith already formed" (p. 145).
The Author's interpretation leads to a position which is incompatible with the Church's doctrine. It is advanced on the basis of erroneous assumptions, and not on the witness of the New Testament, according to which the appearances of the Risen Lord and the empty tomb are the foundation of the faith of the disciples in the Resurrection of Christ, and not vice versa.
Conclusion
In publishing this Notification, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to declare that the above-mentioned assertions contained in the book Jesus Symbol of God by Father Roger Haight, S.J., are judged to be serious doctrinal errors contrary to the divine and catholic faith of the Church. As a consequence, until such, time as his positions are corrected to be, in complete conformity with the doctrine of the Church, the Author may not teach Catholic theology.
The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the under-signed Cardinal Prefect, approved this Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 13 December 2004, the Memorial of Saint Lucy, Virgin and Martyr.
JOSEPH Card. RATZINGER
Prefect
ANGELO AMATO, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
1 Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125; Concilium Chalcedonense, Professio fidei: DH 301, 302; Concilium Constantinopolitanum II, Canones: DH 424, 426.
2 The Author speaks of the "hypostatization" and of the "hypostasis" of the Logos and of the Spirit, which he understands as referring to how, in the language of the Hellenistic Church, these two biblical metaphors had subsequently become real entities (cf. p. 475).
3 Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125. The Nicene confession, confirmed at other ecumenical councils (cf. Concilium Constantinopolitanum I, Professio fidei: DH 150; Concilium Chalcedonense, Professio fidei: DH 301, 302), constitutes the foundation of the professions of faith of all the different Christian denominations.
4 Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125; Concilium Constantinopolitanum I, Professio fidei: DH 150; Concilium Chalcedonense, Professio fidei: DH 301, 302.
5 Cf. Concilium Constantinopolitanum I, Professio fidei: DH 150; Quicumque: DH 75; Synodus Toletana XI, Professio fidei: DH 525-532; Synodus Toletana XVI, Professio fidei: DH 568-573; Concilium Lateranense IV, Professio fidei: DH 803-805; Concilium Florentinum, Decretum pro lacobitis: DH 1330-1331; Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. Dogm. Lumen Gentium, nn. 2-4.
6 Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125; Concilium Tridentinurn, Decretum de lustificatione: DH 1522, 1523; De Poenitentia: DH 1690; De Sacrificio Missae: DH 1740; Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. Dogm. Lumen Gentium, rm. 3, 5, 9; Const. Pastor. Gaudium et Spes, n. 22; Ioannes Paulus II, Litt. Encycl. Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 12.
7 Cf. Innocentius XI, Const. water Occasione, n. 5: DH 2005; Sanctum Officium, Decr. Errores Iansenistaruni, n. 4: DH 2304; Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. Dogm. Lumen Gentium, n. 8; Const. Pastor. Gaudium et Spes, n. 22; Decr. Ad Gentes, n. 3; Ioannes Paulus II, Litt. Encycl. Redemptoris Missio, nn. 4-6; Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei; Decl. Dominus Jesus, rm. 13-15. With regard to the universality of the mission of the Church, cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 13, 17; Ad Gentes, n. 7; Redemptoris Missio, no. 9-11; Dominus Jesus, nn. 20-22.
NOTIFICATION CONCERNING THE WORKS OF FR. JON SOBRINO
VATICAN CITY, MAR 14, 2007 (VIS) - This morning, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a Notification concerning certain works of Fr. Jon Sobrino S.J. According to the note, which has been made public in various languages including English, these works "contain propositions which are either erroneous or dangerous and may cause harm to the faithful."
The Notification continues: "Fr. Sobrino manifests a preoccupation for the poor and oppressed, particularly in Latin America. This preoccupation certainly is shared by the whole Church.
"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction on Christian liberty and liberation 'Libertatis conscientia,' indicated that 'human misery drew the compassion of Christ the Savior to take it upon Himself and to be identified with the least of His brethren,' and that 'the preferential option for the poor, far from being a sign of particularism or sectarianism, manifests the universality of the Church's being and mission. This option excludes no one. This is the reason why the Church cannot express this option by means of reductive sociological and ideological categories which would make this preference a partisan choice and a source of conflict.'
"Previously, this same Congregation in its Instruction on some aspects of liberation theology, 'Libertatis nuntius,' observed that the warnings about this theological trend contained in that document were not able to be interpreted as a reproach to those who wish to be faithful to a 'preferential option for the poor,' nor could they be an excuse for those who remain indifferent to the grave problems of human misery and injustice.
"The citations clearly show the position of the Church with regard to this complex problem: 'The evil inequities and oppression of every kind which afflict millions of men and women today openly contradict Christ's Gospel and cannot leave the conscience of any Christian indifferent.
"'The Church, in her docility to the Spirit, goes forward faithfully along the paths to authentic liberation. Her members are aware of their failings and their delays in this quest. But a vast number of Christians, from the time of the Apostles onwards, have committed their powers and their lives to liberation from every form of oppression and to the promotion of human dignity. The experience of the saints and the example of so many works of service to one's neighbor are an incentive and a beacon for the liberating undertakings that are needed today'."
The Notification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith then goes on to affirm that "after a preliminary examination of the books 'Jesucristo liberador. Lectura histórico-teológica de Jesús de Nazaret' (Jesus the Liberator) and 'La fe en Jesucristo. Ensayo desde las víctimas' (Christ the Liberator) by Fr. Jon Sobrino, S.J., the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, because of certain imprecisions and errors found in them, decided to proceed to a more thorough study of these works in October 2001. Given the wide distribution of these writings and their use in seminaries and other centers of study, particularly in Latin America, it was decided to employ the 'urgent examination' as regulated by articles 23-27 of 'Agendi Ratio in Doctrinarum Examine.'
"As a result of this examination, in July 2004 a list of erroneous or dangerous propositions found in the above-mentioned books was sent to the author through Fr. Peter Hans Kolvenbach, S.J., Superior General of the Society of Jesus.
"In March of 2005, Fr. Jon Sobrino sent a 'Response to the text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith' to the Congregation. This response was studied in the Ordinary Session of the Congregation on November 23, 2005. It was determined that, although the author had modified his thought somewhat on several points, the response did not prove satisfactory since, in substance, the errors already cited in the list of erroneous propositions still remained in this text."
"For this reason, it was decided to publish this Notification, in order to offer the faithful a secure criterion, founded upon the doctrine of the Church, by which to judge the affirmations contained in these books or in other publications of the author."
"The Congregation does not intend to judge the subjective intentions of the author, but rather has the duty to call attention to certain propositions which are not in conformity with the doctrine of the Church. These propositions regard: (1) the methodological presuppositions on which the author bases his theological reflection, (2) the Divinity of Jesus Christ, (3) the Incarnation of the Son of God, (4) the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God, (5) the Self-consciousness of Jesus, and (6) the salvific value of His Death.
"The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the audience granted to the ... Cardinal Prefect on October 13, 2006, approved this Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published."
CDF/NOTIFICATION/FR. SOBRINO VIS 070314 (820)
VATICAN CITY, MAR 14, 2007 (VIS) - This morning, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a Notification concerning certain works of Fr. Jon Sobrino S.J. According to the note, which has been made public in various languages including English, these works "contain propositions which are either erroneous or dangerous and may cause harm to the faithful."
The Notification continues: "Fr. Sobrino manifests a preoccupation for the poor and oppressed, particularly in Latin America. This preoccupation certainly is shared by the whole Church.
"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction on Christian liberty and liberation 'Libertatis conscientia,' indicated that 'human misery drew the compassion of Christ the Savior to take it upon Himself and to be identified with the least of His brethren,' and that 'the preferential option for the poor, far from being a sign of particularism or sectarianism, manifests the universality of the Church's being and mission. This option excludes no one. This is the reason why the Church cannot express this option by means of reductive sociological and ideological categories which would make this preference a partisan choice and a source of conflict.'
"Previously, this same Congregation in its Instruction on some aspects of liberation theology, 'Libertatis nuntius,' observed that the warnings about this theological trend contained in that document were not able to be interpreted as a reproach to those who wish to be faithful to a 'preferential option for the poor,' nor could they be an excuse for those who remain indifferent to the grave problems of human misery and injustice.
"The citations clearly show the position of the Church with regard to this complex problem: 'The evil inequities and oppression of every kind which afflict millions of men and women today openly contradict Christ's Gospel and cannot leave the conscience of any Christian indifferent.
"'The Church, in her docility to the Spirit, goes forward faithfully along the paths to authentic liberation. Her members are aware of their failings and their delays in this quest. But a vast number of Christians, from the time of the Apostles onwards, have committed their powers and their lives to liberation from every form of oppression and to the promotion of human dignity. The experience of the saints and the example of so many works of service to one's neighbor are an incentive and a beacon for the liberating undertakings that are needed today'."
The Notification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith then goes on to affirm that "after a preliminary examination of the books 'Jesucristo liberador. Lectura histórico-teológica de Jesús de Nazaret' (Jesus the Liberator) and 'La fe en Jesucristo. Ensayo desde las víctimas' (Christ the Liberator) by Fr. Jon Sobrino, S.J., the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, because of certain imprecisions and errors found in them, decided to proceed to a more thorough study of these works in October 2001. Given the wide distribution of these writings and their use in seminaries and other centers of study, particularly in Latin America, it was decided to employ the 'urgent examination' as regulated by articles 23-27 of 'Agendi Ratio in Doctrinarum Examine.'
"As a result of this examination, in July 2004 a list of erroneous or dangerous propositions found in the above-mentioned books was sent to the author through Fr. Peter Hans Kolvenbach, S.J., Superior General of the Society of Jesus.
"In March of 2005, Fr. Jon Sobrino sent a 'Response to the text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith' to the Congregation. This response was studied in the Ordinary Session of the Congregation on November 23, 2005. It was determined that, although the author had modified his thought somewhat on several points, the response did not prove satisfactory since, in substance, the errors already cited in the list of erroneous propositions still remained in this text."
"For this reason, it was decided to publish this Notification, in order to offer the faithful a secure criterion, founded upon the doctrine of the Church, by which to judge the affirmations contained in these books or in other publications of the author."
"The Congregation does not intend to judge the subjective intentions of the author, but rather has the duty to call attention to certain propositions which are not in conformity with the doctrine of the Church. These propositions regard: (1) the methodological presuppositions on which the author bases his theological reflection, (2) the Divinity of Jesus Christ, (3) the Incarnation of the Son of God, (4) the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God, (5) the Self-consciousness of Jesus, and (6) the salvific value of His Death.
"The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the audience granted to the ... Cardinal Prefect on October 13, 2006, approved this Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published."
CDF/NOTIFICATION/FR. SOBRINO VIS 070314 (820)
Devotion to the souls in Purgatory contains in itself all the works of mercy, which supernaturalized by a spirit of faith, should merit us Heaven. de Sales
Notification on the Book Just Love:A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics by Sr. Margaret Farley
by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Fr. Luis Ladaria, S.J., Cardinal William J. Levada
Introduction
Having completed an initial examination of the book Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics (New York: Continuum, 2006) by Sr. Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M., the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote to the author on March 29, 2010, through the good offices of Sr. Mary Waskowiak – the then President of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas – enclosing a preliminary evaluation of the book and indicating the doctrinal problems present in the text. The response of Sr. Farley, dated October 28, 2010, did not clarify these problems in a satisfactory manner. Because the matter concerned doctrinal errors present in a book whose publication has been a cause of confusion among the faithful, the Congregation decided to undertake an examination following the procedure for "Examination in cases of urgency" contained in the Congregation’s Regulations for Doctrinal Examinations (cf. Chap. IV, art. 23-27).
Following an evaluation by a Commission of experts (cf. art. 24), the Ordinary Session of the Congregation confirmed on June 8, 2011, that the above-mentioned book contained erroneous propositions, the dissemination of which risks grave harm to the faithful. On July 5, 2011, a letter was sent to Sr. Waskowiak containing a list of these erroneous propositions and asking her to invite Sr. Farley to correct the unacceptable theses contained in her book (cf. art. 25-26).
On October 3, 2011, Sr. Patricia McDermott, who in the meantime had succeeded Sr. Mary Waskowiak as President of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, forwarded to the Congregation – in accordance with art. 27 of the above cited Regulations – the response of Sr. Farley, together with her own opinion and that of Sr. Waskowiak. This response, having been examined by the Commission of experts, was submitted to the Ordinary Session for judgement on December 14, 2011. On this occasion, the Members of the Congregation, considering that Sr. Farley’s response did not adequately clarify the grave problems contained in her book, decided to proceed with the publication of this Notification.
1. General problems
The author does not present a correct understanding of the role of the Church’s Magisterium as the teaching authority of the Bishops united with the Successor of Peter, which guides the Church’s ever deeper understanding of the Word of God as found in Holy Scripture and handed on faithfully in the Church’s living tradition. In addressing various moral issues, Sr. Farley either ignores the constant teaching of the Magisterium or, where it is occasionally mentioned, treats it as one opinion among others. Such an attitude is in no way justified, even within the ecumenical perspective that she wishes to promote. Sr. Farley also manifests a defective understanding of the objective nature of the natural moral law, choosing instead to argue on the basis of conclusions selected from certain philosophical currents or from her own understanding of "contemporary experience". This approach is not consistent with authentic Catholic theology.
2. Specific problems
Among the many errors and ambiguities of this book are its positions on masturbation, homosexual acts, homosexual unions, the indissolubility of marriage and the problem of divorce and remarriage.
Masturbation
Sr. Farley writes: "Masturbation… usually does not raise any moral questions at all. … It is surely the case that many women… have found great good in self-pleasuring – perhaps especially in the discovery of their own possibilities for pleasure – something many had not experienced or even known about in their ordinary sexual relations with husbands or lovers. In this way, it could be said that masturbation actually serves relationships rather than hindering them. My final observation is, then, that the norms of justice as I have presented them would seem to apply to the choice of sexual self-pleasuring only insofar as this activity may help or harm, only insofar as it supports or limits, well-being and liberty of spirit. This remains largely an empirical question, not a moral one" (p. 236).
This statement does not conform to Catholic teaching: "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose. For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved. To form an equitable judgment about the subject’s moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability"1.
Homosexual acts
Sr. Farley writes: "My own view… is that same-sex relationships and activities can be justified according to the same sexual ethic as heterosexual relationships and activities. Therefore, same-sex oriented persons as well as their activities can and should be respected whether or not they have a choice to be otherwise" (p. 295).
This opinion is not acceptable. The Catholic Church, in fact, distinguishes between persons with homosexual tendencies and homosexual acts. Concerning persons with homosexual tendencies, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that "they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided"2. Concerning homosexual acts, however, the Catechism affirms: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved"3.
Homosexual unions
Sr. Farley writes: "Legislation for nondiscrimination against homosexuals, but also for domestic partnerships, civil unions, and gay marriage, can also be important in transforming the hatred, rejection, and stigmatization of gays and lesbians that is still being reinforced by teachings of ‘unnatural’ sex, disordered desire, and dangerous love. … Presently one of the most urgent issues before the U.S. public is marriage for same-sex partners – that is, the granting of social recognition and legal standing to unions between lesbians and gays comparable to unions between heterosexuals" (p. 293).
This position is opposed to the teaching of the Magisterium: "The Church teaches that the respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself"4. "The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it"5.
Indissolubility of marriage
Sr. Farley writes: "My own position is that a marriage commitment is subject to release on the same ultimate grounds that any extremely serious, nearly unconditional, permanent commitment may cease to bind. This implies that there can indeed be situations in which too much has changed – one or both partners have changed, the relationship has changed, the original reason for commitment seems altogether gone. The point of a permanent commitment, of course, is to bind those who make it in spite of any changes that may come. But can it always hold? Can it hold absolutely, in the face of radical and unexpected change? My answer: sometimes it cannot. Sometimes the obligation must be released, and the commitment can be justifiably changed" (pp. 304-305).
This opinion is in contradiction to Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage: "By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement ‘until further notice’. The intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them. The deepest reason is found in the fidelity of God to his covenant, in that of Christ to his Church. Through the sacrament of Matrimony the spouses are enabled to represent this fidelity and witness to it. Through the sacrament, the indissolubility of marriage receives a new and deeper meaning. The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law. Between the baptized, a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death"6.
Divorce and remarriage
Sr. Farley writes: "If the marriage resulted in children, former spouses will be held together for years, perhaps a lifetime, in the ongoing project of parenting. In any case, the lives of two persons once married to one another are forever qualified by the experience of that marriage. The depth of what remains admits of degrees, but something remains. But does what remains disallow a second marriage? My own view is that it does not. Whatever ongoing obligation a residual bond entails, it need not include a prohibition of remarriage – any more than the ongoing union between spouses after one of them has died prohibits a second marriage on the part of the one who still lives" (p. 310).
This view contradicts Catholic teaching that excludes the possibility of remarriage after divorce: "Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery’ (Mk 10:11-12) –, the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence"7.
Conclusion
With this Notification, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expresses profound regret that a member of an Institute of Consecrated Life, Sr. Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M., affirms positions that are in direct contradiction with Catholic teaching in the field of sexual morality. The Congregation warns the faithful that her book Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics is not in conformity with the teaching of the Church. Consequently it cannot be used as a valid expression of Catholic teaching, either in counseling and formation, or in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue. Furthermore the Congregation wishes to encourage theologians to pursue the task of studying and teaching moral theology in full concord with the principles of Catholic doctrine.
The Sovereign Pontiff Benedict XVI, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect on March 16, 2012, approved the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation on March 14, 2012, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, March 30, 2012.
William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
+ Luis F. Ladaria, S.I.
Titular Archbishop of Thibica
Secretary
[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2352; cf; CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration Persona humana on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics (December 29, 1975), n. 9: AAS 68 (1976), 85-87.
[2] Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2358.
[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2357; cf. Gn 19:1-29; Rm 1:24-27; I Cor 6:10; 1 Tm 1:10; CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration Persona humana, n. 8: AAS 68 (1976), 84-85; ID., Letter Homosexualitatis problema on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (October 1, 1986): AAS 70 (1987), 543-554.
[4] CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons (June 3, 2003), n. 11: AAS 96 (2004), 48.
[5] Ibid., n. 8: AAS 96 (2004), 46-47.
[6] Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 1646-1647, 2382; cf. Mt 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk 10:9; Lk 16:18; I Cor 7:10-11; SECOND ECUMENICAL VATICAN COUNCIL, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes on the Church in the Modern World, nn. 48-49; Code of Canon Law, can. 1141; JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio on the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World (November 22, 1981), n. 13: AAS 74 (1982), 93-96.
[7] Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1650; cf. JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, n. 84: AAS 74 (1982), 184-186; CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter Annus Internationalis Familiae Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful (September 14, 1994): AAS 86 (1994), 974-979.
© Libreria Editrice Vaticana 2012
by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Fr. Luis Ladaria, S.J., Cardinal William J. Levada
Introduction
Having completed an initial examination of the book Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics (New York: Continuum, 2006) by Sr. Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M., the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote to the author on March 29, 2010, through the good offices of Sr. Mary Waskowiak – the then President of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas – enclosing a preliminary evaluation of the book and indicating the doctrinal problems present in the text. The response of Sr. Farley, dated October 28, 2010, did not clarify these problems in a satisfactory manner. Because the matter concerned doctrinal errors present in a book whose publication has been a cause of confusion among the faithful, the Congregation decided to undertake an examination following the procedure for "Examination in cases of urgency" contained in the Congregation’s Regulations for Doctrinal Examinations (cf. Chap. IV, art. 23-27).
Following an evaluation by a Commission of experts (cf. art. 24), the Ordinary Session of the Congregation confirmed on June 8, 2011, that the above-mentioned book contained erroneous propositions, the dissemination of which risks grave harm to the faithful. On July 5, 2011, a letter was sent to Sr. Waskowiak containing a list of these erroneous propositions and asking her to invite Sr. Farley to correct the unacceptable theses contained in her book (cf. art. 25-26).
On October 3, 2011, Sr. Patricia McDermott, who in the meantime had succeeded Sr. Mary Waskowiak as President of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, forwarded to the Congregation – in accordance with art. 27 of the above cited Regulations – the response of Sr. Farley, together with her own opinion and that of Sr. Waskowiak. This response, having been examined by the Commission of experts, was submitted to the Ordinary Session for judgement on December 14, 2011. On this occasion, the Members of the Congregation, considering that Sr. Farley’s response did not adequately clarify the grave problems contained in her book, decided to proceed with the publication of this Notification.
1. General problems
The author does not present a correct understanding of the role of the Church’s Magisterium as the teaching authority of the Bishops united with the Successor of Peter, which guides the Church’s ever deeper understanding of the Word of God as found in Holy Scripture and handed on faithfully in the Church’s living tradition. In addressing various moral issues, Sr. Farley either ignores the constant teaching of the Magisterium or, where it is occasionally mentioned, treats it as one opinion among others. Such an attitude is in no way justified, even within the ecumenical perspective that she wishes to promote. Sr. Farley also manifests a defective understanding of the objective nature of the natural moral law, choosing instead to argue on the basis of conclusions selected from certain philosophical currents or from her own understanding of "contemporary experience". This approach is not consistent with authentic Catholic theology.
2. Specific problems
Among the many errors and ambiguities of this book are its positions on masturbation, homosexual acts, homosexual unions, the indissolubility of marriage and the problem of divorce and remarriage.
Masturbation
Sr. Farley writes: "Masturbation… usually does not raise any moral questions at all. … It is surely the case that many women… have found great good in self-pleasuring – perhaps especially in the discovery of their own possibilities for pleasure – something many had not experienced or even known about in their ordinary sexual relations with husbands or lovers. In this way, it could be said that masturbation actually serves relationships rather than hindering them. My final observation is, then, that the norms of justice as I have presented them would seem to apply to the choice of sexual self-pleasuring only insofar as this activity may help or harm, only insofar as it supports or limits, well-being and liberty of spirit. This remains largely an empirical question, not a moral one" (p. 236).
This statement does not conform to Catholic teaching: "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose. For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved. To form an equitable judgment about the subject’s moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability"1.
Homosexual acts
Sr. Farley writes: "My own view… is that same-sex relationships and activities can be justified according to the same sexual ethic as heterosexual relationships and activities. Therefore, same-sex oriented persons as well as their activities can and should be respected whether or not they have a choice to be otherwise" (p. 295).
This opinion is not acceptable. The Catholic Church, in fact, distinguishes between persons with homosexual tendencies and homosexual acts. Concerning persons with homosexual tendencies, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that "they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided"2. Concerning homosexual acts, however, the Catechism affirms: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved"3.
Homosexual unions
Sr. Farley writes: "Legislation for nondiscrimination against homosexuals, but also for domestic partnerships, civil unions, and gay marriage, can also be important in transforming the hatred, rejection, and stigmatization of gays and lesbians that is still being reinforced by teachings of ‘unnatural’ sex, disordered desire, and dangerous love. … Presently one of the most urgent issues before the U.S. public is marriage for same-sex partners – that is, the granting of social recognition and legal standing to unions between lesbians and gays comparable to unions between heterosexuals" (p. 293).
This position is opposed to the teaching of the Magisterium: "The Church teaches that the respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself"4. "The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it"5.
Indissolubility of marriage
Sr. Farley writes: "My own position is that a marriage commitment is subject to release on the same ultimate grounds that any extremely serious, nearly unconditional, permanent commitment may cease to bind. This implies that there can indeed be situations in which too much has changed – one or both partners have changed, the relationship has changed, the original reason for commitment seems altogether gone. The point of a permanent commitment, of course, is to bind those who make it in spite of any changes that may come. But can it always hold? Can it hold absolutely, in the face of radical and unexpected change? My answer: sometimes it cannot. Sometimes the obligation must be released, and the commitment can be justifiably changed" (pp. 304-305).
This opinion is in contradiction to Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage: "By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement ‘until further notice’. The intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them. The deepest reason is found in the fidelity of God to his covenant, in that of Christ to his Church. Through the sacrament of Matrimony the spouses are enabled to represent this fidelity and witness to it. Through the sacrament, the indissolubility of marriage receives a new and deeper meaning. The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law. Between the baptized, a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death"6.
Divorce and remarriage
Sr. Farley writes: "If the marriage resulted in children, former spouses will be held together for years, perhaps a lifetime, in the ongoing project of parenting. In any case, the lives of two persons once married to one another are forever qualified by the experience of that marriage. The depth of what remains admits of degrees, but something remains. But does what remains disallow a second marriage? My own view is that it does not. Whatever ongoing obligation a residual bond entails, it need not include a prohibition of remarriage – any more than the ongoing union between spouses after one of them has died prohibits a second marriage on the part of the one who still lives" (p. 310).
This view contradicts Catholic teaching that excludes the possibility of remarriage after divorce: "Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery’ (Mk 10:11-12) –, the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence"7.
Conclusion
With this Notification, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expresses profound regret that a member of an Institute of Consecrated Life, Sr. Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M., affirms positions that are in direct contradiction with Catholic teaching in the field of sexual morality. The Congregation warns the faithful that her book Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics is not in conformity with the teaching of the Church. Consequently it cannot be used as a valid expression of Catholic teaching, either in counseling and formation, or in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue. Furthermore the Congregation wishes to encourage theologians to pursue the task of studying and teaching moral theology in full concord with the principles of Catholic doctrine.
The Sovereign Pontiff Benedict XVI, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect on March 16, 2012, approved the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation on March 14, 2012, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, March 30, 2012.
William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
+ Luis F. Ladaria, S.I.
Titular Archbishop of Thibica
Secretary
[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2352; cf; CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration Persona humana on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics (December 29, 1975), n. 9: AAS 68 (1976), 85-87.
[2] Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2358.
[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2357; cf. Gn 19:1-29; Rm 1:24-27; I Cor 6:10; 1 Tm 1:10; CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration Persona humana, n. 8: AAS 68 (1976), 84-85; ID., Letter Homosexualitatis problema on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (October 1, 1986): AAS 70 (1987), 543-554.
[4] CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons (June 3, 2003), n. 11: AAS 96 (2004), 48.
[5] Ibid., n. 8: AAS 96 (2004), 46-47.
[6] Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 1646-1647, 2382; cf. Mt 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk 10:9; Lk 16:18; I Cor 7:10-11; SECOND ECUMENICAL VATICAN COUNCIL, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes on the Church in the Modern World, nn. 48-49; Code of Canon Law, can. 1141; JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio on the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World (November 22, 1981), n. 13: AAS 74 (1982), 93-96.
[7] Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1650; cf. JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, n. 84: AAS 74 (1982), 184-186; CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter Annus Internationalis Familiae Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful (September 14, 1994): AAS 86 (1994), 974-979.
© Libreria Editrice Vaticana 2012
Devotion to the souls in Purgatory contains in itself all the works of mercy, which supernaturalized by a spirit of faith, should merit us Heaven. de Sales