AMORIS LAETITIA'S TONE AND STYLE

THE TONE AND STYLE OF THE POPE'S NEW APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION IS AS SIGNIFICANT AS ITS CONTENT

08 April 2016 | by Brendan Walsh Catholic teaching might not change, but there are certainly some mighty lurches of style and register

The way papal encyclicals are written is sometimes as telling as the content. Pope Benedict’s encyclicals combined limpid beauty and elegance with the occasional longueurs of the academic monograph.  We tend to think of Pope John Paul II as a great restoration figure, the man who put the brakes on the runaway church. But he was the first Pope for a hundred years not to have suffered the mind-numbing experience of a neo-scholastic training, and his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, pulled off the remarkable trick of presenting Catholic teaching of pristine purity in a strikingly original philosophical framework. The confident language and theological boldness of that encyclical announced: Watch out! This is going to be a very different sort of papacy.

I’ve been reading Amoris Laetitia, “The Joy of Love”, Pope Francis’ new apostolic exhortation on the family. Despite the refreshing tone of voice, Vatican documents still come with the same stuffy titles.

The theology, I think it’s not unfair to say, is admirably uninventive and traditional, but the psychology is astute, shrewd and salty. Lengthy passages of the 256-page document are cheerfully lifted from the encyclicals of previous popes and the recent Synod documents.

But when the quote marks and footnotes fall away, Pope Francis finds his own voice. It’s a voice that is refreshingly immediate, savvy and down to earth, and quite unlike that of any of his predecessors.  

It’s impossible to read Amoris Laetitia and not think, here is someone who has been a guest at many a boisterous family dinner, who understands the rough and tumble of relationships and family life. Francis is every inch the “family man”.

There are of course folksy platitudes and agony-aunt nostrums in Amoris Laetitia, but the chapters in which he talks directly to couples about how to build and sustain relationships and families have the smack of realism and experience.

“A patronising tone only serves to hurt, ridicule, accuse and offend others. Many disagreements between couples are not about important things. Mostly they are about trivial matters. What alters the mood, however, is the way things are said or the attitude with which they are said.”

There are canny and perceptive observations about in-laws, the importance of seminarians spending time with families and the vital need for good marriage preparation. Francis writes of fathers who are too controlling, and asks families to embrace “even those who have made shipwrecks of their lives”.

He talks of depression and exhaustion as well as of joy and delight. As well as praying together, he encourages couples to also “find time for prayer alone with God, since each has his or her secret crosses to bear”.  

“Much hurt and many problems result when we stop looking at each other,” he writes. He name checks Babette’s Feast. He talks of the “dogged heroism” of love, and he concludes, with seasoned, wry wisdom, that love “is a kind of craftsmanship”.  

And when it comes to teaching the faith, too, Francis shows himself an astute reader of situations.

“The ability to say what one is thinking without offending the other person is important,” he writes. “Words should be carefully chosen so as not to offend, especially when discussing difficult issues”.

This is in one of the many passages where Francis is giving shrewd practical advice to couples. But he could just as well be describing his approach to dealing with the bishops who don’t share his determination to look again at the issue of the admission of divorced and remarried Catholics to communion.

In Amoris Laetitia he emphasises, over and over again, how precious is the unchanging teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage. And he - just about - leaves room for those who would prefer to leave present disciplines and protocols undisturbed; to screw up their eyes and see the document as confirming their position.

Francis is sometimes seen by his critics as garrulous, even rambling. But there’s no muddle or murkiness in his treatment of the issue here.

Catholic couples in the badlands on the wrong side of canon law and in awkward circumstances have for many years (for centuries, I suspect) been able to find priests and bishops willing to look with discernment and mercy on their “irregular” situation and help them find an honourable way to return to taking communion.

In the John Paul II papacy there were efforts to close down these delicate conversations, but with only fitful success. Gently and subtly but firmly and clearly (look, for example, at the velvety smooth footnote 351), Pope Francis is saying to these priests (many of whom have of course quietly continued to counsel couples in a difficult fix to practise their faith fully according to their conscience): be mindful of the Church’s unchanging teaching on marriage, be humble, be cautious, be tactful - and carry on.  

Comment by: ELIZABETH STRONG

Posted: 11/06/2016 04:33:31

Hi friends getting your ex back now and saving your marriage from a divorce or breakup! am ELIZABETH STRONG i want to share a live testimony on how Dr Ewan was able to bring my husband back to me, myself and my husband were on a serious breakup, even before then we were always quarreling fighting and doing different ungodly My husband packed his things out of the house and we had to live in different area, despite all this i was looking for a way to re_unite with my husband, not until i met Dr Ewan the great spell caster who was able to bring my husband back home, and he assured me that my husband will come back to me within 48hours hours after he has finish the preparation of the love am very glade today to tell the world that Doctor Ewan is truly a man of his word because my husband came back to me and we settled differences my family is back again and we are happy living fine and healthy, with Dr Ewan all my dream came through in re_uniting my marriage, friends in case you need the help of Dr Ewan kindly mail him on( covenantsolutiontemple@gmail.com) or call him on+2347052958531, Sir i will forever recommend you!!!

Comment by: Louise

Posted: 22/04/2016 18:44:13

Response to adeleison: 
'.. the rigorist position has been upheld by the Church for a very long time. It is not born out of any desire to be judgmental – on the contrary it derives from a desire to be merciful and protective of any person finding themselves in such situation.' 

I'm wondering how merciful it is to make a judgement in advance about someone who is not the perpetrator of divorce but a victim. This person, out of shame and embarrassment at having 'failed', does not think of the going to the priest to be told what they already know, that they are barred from the Eucharist, because they are civilly divorced and and in mortal sin if re-married civilly. We might not know the full reason why they did this but according to rigorists, these victims of divorce did not follow the rules and are barred no matter their circumstances. Only living like brother and sister can mitigate this state according to familiaris consortio. 

And then we wonder why it is that many cease going to Church with their children and indeed drop out completely. When I look round my Church these days there are more elderly and Eastern Europeans in the pews than young or middle aged British couples with teenage children. That tells its own story. 

We have to meet people where they are in the realities of their lives. It is not a matter of changing doctrine changing our tone and our attitudes towards and care of many people who are invariably, very hurt even damaged.

Comment by: adeleison

Posted: 15/04/2016 12:19:01

(piece 4 in reversed order): 
• Is Eucharistic sacrilege committed when someone who’s soul is stained by mortal sin consumes the Eucharist? 
• For someone whose objective actions lead a priest to subjectively determine they carry the stain of mortal sin is it more merciful/charitable to allow them to eat and drink of the Eucharist or is it more merciful/charitable to try and prevent/dissuade them from consuming the Eucharist? 
For the rigorist to entertain, let alone ask these questions does not feel like hypocrisy or self-righteousness. Indeed it feels more like betrayal and cowardice. Cowardice pursing the easy route of not trying to protect those who may eat and drink condemnation, betrayal of past generations of saints and acclaimed good shepherds, betrayal even of our Lord Himself. “But the one who disowns me in the presence of human beings, I will disown in the presence of my Father in heaven.” Matt 10:33. 

Comment by: adeleison

Posted: 15/04/2016 12:17:07

Taking the above at face value, perhaps we can at least explore the possibility that the apparently contradictory positions may well be sincere and intended to be right oriented. 

Now here is the rub, the rigorist position has been upheld by the Church for a very long time. It is not born out of any desire to be judgmental – on the contrary it derives from a desire to be merciful and protective of any person finding themselves in such situation. On the other hand criticising the rigorist approach today because of contemporary norms and realities is objectively judgmental of past generations of sincere prelates. Moreover it risk affronting Christ’s asserted role of the Holy Spirit “the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you” (Jn 14:26). Was the Paraclete unable to ensure that the Church was able to do things right these past 1500 or 2000 years. 

Forgive me for stating the obvious, winding back the above is a tall order, but seems necessary if the reformist proposal is to be supported. Where to start? Should we start? Well out of charity I think we have to try and with much in trepidation perhaps a place to start is with the Eucharist. 
• Is sacrilege a man-made construct or is it evidently an affront to God? 
• Is it possible to commit sacrilege against the Eucharist? 
• Is Eucharistic sacrilege committed when someone who’s soul is stained by mortal sin consumes the Eucharis

Comment by: adeleison

Posted: 15/04/2016 12:16:38

• It seems disingenuous to rigorists to argue that the biblical record of Christ’s own words are anything but clear –Mk 10:1-12. If you divorce and remarry you are committing adultery. The same discourse is covered in Mat 19:3-12, but here it is rounded out with a ponderous discussion about eunuchs (i.e those unable to engage in coitus) and an assertion that some make themselves this way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The rigorist position is that, with hindsight, this is no accident and the purpose is plain for those who have ears to hear or eyes to see. 
• 1 Cor 7:10-16 makes it clear that the church’s potion on divorce and remarriage has held since the very earliest days of Christianity. Moreover the crucial role each spouse may have in the other’s salvation is stated clearly, giving all the more weight to the injunction not to try and remarry. 
• Navigating the above in any specific situation where a marriage is claimed to have broken down needs to be handled with utmost delicacy and the rigorist position would hold that it cannot possibly be addressed adequately or safely between only one spouse and their prelate. The annulment process is hard because the stakes are so high. 
[Again, others may be able to constructively expand the above , or even dismiss some of the observations]. 

Comment by: adeleison

Posted: 15/04/2016 12:14:27

Perhaps we should be giving a little more thought as to whether there is common ground between the ‘Rigoristi’ and ‘Reformisti’ positions. My own aspiration is to be orthodox, which I think makes me more a rigoristi. 

Looking at some merits of each position: 
Refomisti: 
• The intention of the reformist proposal can be seen as trying to meet Jesus’ example of “eating with tax collectors and sinners” (Matt 9:11). As well as responding to Jesus insight “It is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick” (Lk 5:31). 
• The mercy dialogue is clearly more attractive to those who from a rigorist perspective are sinning. Hence the stance opens doors to engagement/interaction that appear otherwise to be closed, too quickly confrontational and often non constructive. 
• All of us recognise a personal tendency to self-justify, our own particular weaknesses – perhaps all the more vigorously the more entrenched we are in a particular behaviour. 
• It is truth to observe that Mothers will excuse the failings of their child – the reformist proposal seems to be that Mother Church emulates this behaviour (whilst still chastising the child when the right circumstances prevail). 
[Other may be able to constructively expand the above, or even dismiss some of the observations]. 
Rigoristi: (here I feel more comfortable) 
• At the heart of the rigorist position is the sincere concern to ensure that in partaking of the Eucharist one is not “eating and drinking their own condemnation” (1 Cor 11:29)