Does the Kasper Proposal make Pope Francis a heretic? Invalid marriages and mortal sin

By Dr. Jeff Mirus ( bio - articles - email ) | Oct 28, 2014

I have been, from the first, among those who have opposed the Kasper Proposal. My first commentary on the subject suggested that Cardinal Kasper’s emphasis on moral principles as mere ideals seemed to presuppose a world without grace (see Does the Kasper proposal undermine the New Covenant?). Later, however, I thought it appropriate to point out that those who thought the Kasper Proposal was intrinsically contrary to the Faith—and so altogether unworthy of discussion—had made a category mistake (see Do not confuse sacramental discipline and Catholic doctrine).

Many of our most vocal readers greeted this second essay with something very close to outrage. They could see no basis in the case of marriage for the distinction I made between sacramental discipline and Catholic doctrine. To them, the counter-argument seems completely obvious. Indeed, the argument against my position is so straightforward that it may be presented as a syllogism:

Premise 1: It is a matter of apostolic Catholic teaching that those in mortal sin, for their own good, must not receive Communion.

Premise 2: Divorced and invalidly remarried couples are committing adultery and so are living in a state of mortal sin.

Conclusion: Therefore any effort by the Church to approve Communion for those in invalid marriages is a contradiction of Catholic teaching, not merely a change in sacramental discipline.

I confess I am astonished that any reader could suppose I was unaware of so obvious an argument. But never mind me. More important—far more important—is the even more astonishing assumption that Pope Francis, who clearly wanted the Kasper Proposal to be carefully considered, could have been unaware.

A far more sensible approach is to examine this obvious argument more closely, to see if something has been overlooked.

The Weak Premise

I think we must admit that the Conclusion is perfectly sound if both premises are true. Moreover, I do not see how Premise 1 can be attacked, especially given St. Paul’s discussion of this problem (1 Cor 11). But what about Premise 2?

What I think some have missed in evaluating the Kasper Proposal is the weakness of Premise 2 because of its ambivalence concerning mortal sin. In Catholic teaching, sins may be called “mortal” in two different senses. The first sense means, objectively speaking, that the sin involves grave matter: the substance of the transgression is not just evil but seriously evil. In the present case, for example, we are not dealing with the proverbial kiss lasting longer than three seconds, but with adultery itself.

But the second use of the term “mortal” refers to the elimination of sanctifying grace from the soul of the sinner, and this requires more than grave matter. The sinner must also (a) be aware of the gravity of the sin, and (b) commit the sin with full consent of the will. I think it is fair to say that Premise 2 is necessarily correct only in its objective reference to grave matter. But unless it is correct also for the subjective elements—awareness of the gravity of the sin and full consent of the will—it cannot lead to the Conclusion as stated.

Using an Example

The Kasper Proposal was really a question: Would it be possible for the Church to extend Communion to divorced and remarried couples in certain circumstances, perhaps after a period of penance? But what circumstances? Since I typically oppose Cardinal Kasper’s ideas with such vehemence, I am almost sorry that I can think of circumstances which might fit the bill. These may be illustrated by an example.

The man in our example (call him Fred) marries in the Church but with only the bare minimum of spiritual focus required for validity. In a separate wedding, the woman in our example (call her JoAnn) also marries in the Church with the same minimal focus. Not long after these two weddings, things fall apart for both couples. There are no children, and both Fred and JoAnn divorce their respective spouses. A little while later, Fred and JoAnn meet, fall in love, and marry each other, without the requisite annulments, and therefore invalidly, outside the Church.

Here we must raise the question of the first of the two subjective elements necessary for a sin to be mortal: Can we conceive that Fred and JoAnn (especially as a modern Catholic couple) could have married each other outside the Church without comprehending the gravity of the evil of this putative marriage?

If this is conceivable, then we can continue with our example. Over the course of time, Fred and JoAnn have several children. As is common when people who have children, Fred and JoAnn gradually experience a spiritual awakening. Eventually they begin to realize that their irregular marital situation has created a serious spiritual problem. They grow at length to the point of wanting to solve this problem.

But now they cannot see a way out. It would not be right for them to abandon their children and revert to their valid marriages, even if this were possible. This, presumably, is one of those cases the Synod Fathers had in mind when they spoke in their message to families about situations to which there is really no solution.

We would suppose, I think, that living as brother and sister would be the best solution, but even this does not answer the problem posed by their abandonment of their previous spouses. Also, it seems fair to suppose that, while Fred and JoAnn have some willingness to consider the brother-sister solution, they currently lack either the light or the strength to commit to it.

In other words, Fred and JoAnn now feel spiritually trapped. They don’t see how they can escape the problem they have created for themselves.

This gives rise to a question about the second subjective element required for mortal sin: Can we conceive that Fred and JoAnn, in continuing their irregular marital situation, no longer give full consent of the will to the sin it involves?

If this is conceivable, then what we have is a couple in an irregular marital situation, objectively gravely sinful, but without necessarily being in personal mortal sin.

The Key Point of Discussion

On its best possible interpretation, the Kasper Proposal raises the question of whether it is possible in these circumstances for the Church to strengthen Fred and JoAnn through a penitential ministry followed by the reception of Holy Communion. Again on its best possible interpretation, this would be done in the hope of fostering the spiritual growth necessary for them to live in the best possible way in a situation which has no perfect solution.

Now if it is ultimately inconceivable that Fred and JoAnn can be in this situation without continuing personal mortal sin, then the Kasper Proposal self-evidently has no legs. I am not arguing that the example I have presented should be accepted as somehow definitive. What I am arguing—and the only thing I am arguing—is that raising the question is not absurd on its face; it is not a question which in and of itself contradicts Catholic teaching. In fact, I believe we must presume that it is not absurd if we are to avoid ascribing either marked stupidity or seriously evil motives to Pope Francis, who so clearly has wanted it to be explored, and to the many bishops who were willing to explore it.

Conclusion

Again, what I have explained here is why I do not regard the Kasper Proposal to be unworthy of discussion, and especially why there is no reason to presume that only a heretical pope or heretical bishops could wish to discuss it. I certainly admit the possibility of error in my scenario. Please let me emphasize one more time: My only point is to suggest that the question is considerably more complex than it may appear to critics, and easily complex enough to merit careful examination.

However this may be, the Church understands marriage to be an essentially public institution, under ecclesiastical jurisdiction, conferring attendant rights and duties. Therefore, to attempt to base sacramental discipline as it relates to marriage purely on the subjective elements of mortal sin is to distance this sacramental discipline from the very reality it is supposed to nourish and protect. This necessarily entails grave dangers, particularly the danger of further undermining the indissolubility of marriage in the minds of the faithful.

Most bishops concluded, on careful consideration, that this cure would only worsen the disease. For my part, I continue to believe that they were right.