How can we implement Amoris Laetitia?

May 02, 2016

In a recent interview, Cardinal André Vingt-Trois of Paris explains to Frédéric Mounier how can we implement Amoris Laetitia.

How can we implement the calls to discernment and listening from Pope Francis?
Cardinal André Vingt-Trois: This call in Amoris Laetitia only comes at the end of a long biblical and theological argument which enables the Pope to embed his argument within the continuity of the Christian tradition.

He addresses the great challenges that confront families today in the light of the Word of God and the tradition of the Church, both of which provide signposts for understanding what is happening now, and what paths for God’s mercy may be opening up in human history.

Therefore, the first requirement for genuine discernment is to place oneself in an attitude of faith, of listening to the Word. Only through the eyes of faith are we able to face up to events. In the absence of this fundamental approach, we are left with a sociological or psychological analysis that offers no hope.

The second requirement is to carefully take note of the realities that call for the exercise of discernment. We need to endeavour to understand what people are experiencing and to scrutinize the signs of possible change before we start proposing solutions that may be effective albeit poorly recognized or poorly accepted.

Such a pastoral approach demands genuine work and takes time. It is not a matter of casting a quick glance or offering a distracted ear in order to come up with a quick and simple solution. The exhortation is not a “kit” of ready-made solutions.

Should each episcopal conference feel free to come up with its own views concerning various situations?
The Pope’s desire to implement genuine synodality in the Church necessarily implies prioritizing an analysis of the situation that is as close to reality as possible. That in no way implies that each episcopal conference should operate as if ecclesial communion did not exist. On the contrary, it means that the analysis of situations cannot be done by a central organization without genuine understanding of the concrete conditions in which people are involved.

Are priests currently trained in accompanying couples? What sort of efforts are needed in the fields of basic and ongoing formation or training?
Accompanying couples is not just a matter for priests. However, it is clear that they do have a central role to play in the act of discernment. This is too important an issue for us to pretend that we are always ready to take it on. Basic training certainly needs to incorporate elements of analysis concerning conjugal situations. However, it also needs to be constantly updated.

Isn’t there a risk that leaving freedom of discernment up to each bishop could lead to a great variety in the decisions taken? Could this lead to a form of “pastoral nomadism,” based on the reputation or the jurisprudence of one or another bishop?
Freedom of discernment is not an arbitrary freedom that means anyone can do anything. The work carried out by the various episcopal conferences rightly has the objective of enabling us to confront our respective points of view and to draw up certain common references. The life of the Church is not a competitive market where each one chooses his or her sacramental supermarket. It is a life of communion based on a heart of faith.

Moreover, it would amount to a very European conception of the Catholic Church to ignore the fact that it is rich in multiple traditions from around the world. This is true of the diversity of liturgies, as well as the diversity of sacramental practices. And this diversity is a richness of Catholicism. What brings the Church together in unity is precisely this capacity to integrate extremely diverse elements in the communion of faith.

Pope Francis has said that “not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium.” Do you see that as a reorientation of the role of the Magisterium within the Church?
It seems to me that this is a healthy reaction to an overly technocratic vision of the Church that implies that every aspect of practical life needs be decided by an act of the Magisterium. However, it is certainly one of the roles of the ecclesial Magisterium to define the areas in which the Pope and the bishops need to exercise their mission of communion.

Let’s take the concrete example of the liturgical celebration. It is not up to the choice of each person to decide fundamental requirements such as common readings, Eucharistic prayers, etc. However, it is left to the initiative of communities to decide certain aspects of implementation. So I cannot allow each priest to decide for himself the content of the Eucharistic prayers but I am not going to concern myself with deciding the prayers of intercession or the choice of songs. My job is to provide orientations, not obligations.

How do you respond to those faithful who may be astonished, or even shaken by the Pope’s desire for “inclusion”?
The choices of the Pope and the orientations that he regularly provides take us back to the primary mission of the Church, which is to announce the good news of salvation to all men and women.

The Church is not a conservatory of morals and practices that we are not even sure ourselves, whether we still wish to defend them. The Church is founded on Christ’s will to gather everyone in the Alliance movement desired by God, beginning with those who are the most distant. “I did not come to call the righteous but the sick, not for the just but for the sinners,” Scripture says.

We know that it was this desire of Jesus to bring himself close to sinners that caused him to be attacked, and ultimately, judged and condemned.

Moreover, if the Church did not have this mission of integrating sinners, would we ourselves have any chance of being part of the Church? The Church is not a people of the just but of the justified, not a people of saints but of sanctified sinners.

How should we understand the exhortation’s insistence on the need to “start processes” rather than “to dominate spaces”?
Here, the Pope simply reminds us that time is the determining factor in the evolution of people. “Spaces” are a way of locking people into a situation, a status that determines their place with no possible hope of change. This is a confinement. “Process”, however, emphasizes the importance of time.

Conversion, changing our way of living, supposes that we are able to exit pre-determined spaces in order to move forward towards other places. Time is a necessary condition for the dynamic of change in our situation. Evidently, time has no magic value on its own. However, it enables people to change, to move, to progress if we so desire. -- Global Pulse