The Right Pace for Moral Teaching
The Synod on Synodality is over, and Bishops in Austria and elsewhere are asking how to implement the results of the Synod in their dioceses. What is it that we can discern together? In which way is the result of our discernment binding for the bishop, the regional bishops’ conferences, the Roman Dicasteries and the Pope when they prepare moral teaching for the church? In which way is a moral teaching established in such a way binding for all faithful? Can synodal processes help to cope with the non-simultaneity of moral development in the church? In a recent meeting with my Austrian colleagues, we discussed open questions with regard to non-simultaneity and synodality in Austria, which I would like to connect to a more global perspective of the question of how we can safeguard that the local and the universal church together find the right pace on their moral path.
Non-simultaneity within a local church
A case where we can observe non-simultaneity within the local church is Holy Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics. Since the promulgation of Amoris Laetitia, it is not possible to say any longer that no divorced and remarried person can be admitted to the Eucharist. This decision has been argued by referring to the insight from tradition that universal rules cannot be applied in specific situations without further discernment of their applicability. This includes examining the given circumstances and the condition of the person involved, as well as the purpose of the moral norm (epikeia). Divorced remarried persons are not in every case in the situation of grave sin and consequently, in some cases, admissible to the Eucharist.[1] Therefore, according to Amoris Laetitia it is the task of the priest to discern and decide in every individual case. Though this rule exists, there are some priests in Austria who will not give the Eucharist to any divorced remarried person without distinction and therefore refuse to engage with a person in such a situation and to discern individually. Others refuse to discern and send these people to the bishop for discernment. It is obvious that different priests act in different ways.
Non-simultaneity between continental regions and within continental regions
This situation is not unique, but can be observed on a continental and at the universal level of the church. A case where non-simultaneity has become obvious at the universal level was the reception of Fiducia supplicans (Dec 18, 2023), the text drafted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on blessings that defended spontaneous blessings of same sex couples (no. 31). The Symposium of Episcopal conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM) reacted by negotiating an “opt out” position[2] from the rule that the Congregation wanted to establish for the universal church. While the decision of the African Episcopal conferences explains that there are a couple of reasons why blessings for homosexual persons are not acceptable to a majority of the people of this region, this observation does, at the same time, contradict the pastoral awareness of this topic shown during the synod on synodality in the local reports. Obviously, spontaneous reactions of local churches have been very divergent from each other. These reactions stand for a majority in the region, but not for a unanimous position of all the faithful.
Dismissing the proof of contextual applicability of universal norms
The two examples are similar yet different. The example of different practices among Catholic priests in Austria raises questions of the relationship between church discipline and personal conscience, as well as of possible tension between the opinion of the members of the parish and the attitude of the priest. It has been clear that the priest has the task to discern and decide in every single case. It is equally evident that such a decision needs to take the moral feelings of the parishioners into account. In the tradition of the church, this concern has been addressed by referring to the danger of provoking a “scandal” among the faithful. In such a situation where the general attitude of a parish or the people of a diocese is not clear, a synodal exchange could help to discover sensitive aspects and to come to a prudent decision. Such a process can help the parish to come to a shared attitude. In the above mentioned case, the result might be that the parishioners would not perceive it as scandal if divorced remarried persons were admitted to the Eucharist by the priest. Such a result can serve as a framework for the application of the general norm in a specific case and also serve as mirror for the priest who refuses to make individual discernment.
Can synodal processes help to avoid non-simultaneity of moral insight?
Can synodal discernment processes prevent opting out-reactions in the Church? The synodal method of discerning moral questions together in the light of faith aims at providing exchange on difficult questions. It is important that this dialogue promotes acceptance of the fellow Catholics who hold a different opinion. Synodality promotes a deeper understanding of each other and broadens the personal horizon. One who feels accepted as a person can move from a defensive attitude to a sincere encounter that entails seeing the true points in the other’s argument. However, understanding the other does not necessarily result in sharing their position. Rather knowing the other better is a basis for finding the right balance between different positions, identifying common ground and defining where further development is needed in the future.
Dismissing the universality of ethical norms?
The second example is different in as much as it does not argue for exceptions from the rule, but shows the intention to establish a general rule. However, the practical conclusion drawn from the general elaboration of the meaning of blessings in the document is simply not shared by the African group of bishops’ conferences. The moral conclusion that spontaneous blessings of homosexual couples are in line with the argument and the traditional teaching of the church did not find acceptance. Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besugu, the president of SECAM, explained this position with reference to the “cultural ethos of African communities”[3]. This public act of non-reception probably relates not so much to the understanding of gender roles, but is rather driven by the cultural emphasis on promoting life[4], especially in the form of procreation, which makes it difficult to say that someone is blessed if his or her way of partnering is contrary to procreation. The argument from life seems to have more weight in the moral decision than the argument from God’s infinite love in no. 43 of Fiducia supplicans. However, this leads to a contradiction because such a promotion of life put the lives of human beings into danger, at least in some areas of Africa.
Education in moral principles and Christian anthropology
These observations can lead to two different insights: First, every universal rule calls for experts on the local level who know the local circumstances. In this sense, the text could have been formulated in a way which would allow some interpretation and local adaptation. Second, if the African bishops had used a synodal hearing of the faithful and especially those concerned before taking a decision, they might have heard also the voices that would agree with or come close to the dicastery’s text. This could have stimulated a discussion about a more nuanced conclusion. It seems that participation in the process of discernment of as many people as possible, and especially those personally concerned, is a prerequisite for establishing rules that are accepted at different levels, from local to universal.
However, such a claim for trying to find a solution for all can also raise concern: Should the leadership of the church always follow the path of avoiding resistance in moral decisions? Is it not sometimes necessary to go ahead and to define aims which should be followed to provide guidance for the faithful and promote development in the church? Papal disapproval of the death penalty was such a step which Pope Francis made unilaterally, without waiting until all bishops agreed; yet he knew that a majority would support this step. It seems that there are more cases where “the inviolability and dignity of the person” (CCC, no. 2267)[5] could be claimed and defended with similar strength. However, such steps need some preparation. To teach and discuss the ethical implications of human dignity at a world-wide level can pave the way for timely moral teaching, — a teaching that comes neither too early nor too late, namely just at the right pace.
—
[1] Cindy Wooden, Pope’s letter to Argentine bishops on ‘Amoris Laetitia’ part of official record (Dec 5, 2017), https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/popes-letter-argentine-bishops-amoris-laetitia-part-official-record
[2] SECAM, “No blessing for homosexual couples in all churches in Africa” (Jan 11, 2024), https://secam.org/5924/
[3] Carol Glatz, African bishops, with Pope Francis’ agreement, declare *No blessing for homosexual couples’ (Jan 11, 2024), https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2024/01/11/african-bishops-same-sex-blessings-fiducia-supplicans-246900
[4] See Jude Thaddaeus Buyondo, Holistic Bioethics (Wipf & Stock 2024), 201.
[5] Press Office, New revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty – Rescriptum “ex Audientia SS.mi” (Aug 2, 2018) https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html