Ur-Diogenes is back from vacation. Today he posts on a dustup regarding the happy subject of divorced Catholics and Communion.

Fr. Alberto Bonandi, Ur-Diogenes summarizes, "has proposed that divorced and remarried Catholics can be admitted to Communion even if they are not 'living as brother and sister.'" Sandro Magister reported much more of this here; Villanova assistant professor of law Robert T. Miller, who's working on a PhD in moral philosophy at Columbia University, takes umbrage at Bonandi's moral theology here.

Ur-Diogenes approvingly quotes in full the response by Donald Keefe, SJ--yes, a Jesuit of whom he approves--and it's certainly worth reading, not only for his energetic argument with Bonandi, but also for the dramatic turn he takes at its conclusion:

Bonandi's position is a direct assault uponsacramental realism. It cannot survive serious scrutiny. There was atime when the editors of theological journals provided that scrutiny,by which exercise of responsibility such fluff as Bonandi producesrarely found its way into print. However, the politicization oftheology, not least by the priority given diplomatic agendas overorthdoxy during the past forty years, has made it impossible to relyupon the probity of the journals. Bishops in the United States havelived in terror of liberal theologians since the Council: they aregenerally more concerned for media approval than for orthodoxy.

BenedictXVI is facing a schism long nourished by the unwillingness of hisPolish predecessor to govern the Church. A decade or so after John PaulII took office, a well known and highly influential theologian hadobserved this reluctance sufficiently to remark in my presence that hedid not care what the pope said, only what he did. This stance is nownearly universal.

I doubt that any of this is news, but I'vebeen fighting the Bonandis of this world for too long to let this one'sinsolence go by.

Update

Miller has returned with more on Bonandi. I know more than a few credentialed moral theologians regularly read dotCommonweal, so have at it. I'm particularly intrigued by Miller's lesson in the true end (not plural) of sexual acts--and their causal roles.

Rather, the normative significance of sexuality arises from its naturalconnection to the transmission of human lifeits procreative end, ifwe must use such languageand it is this procreative end that does allthe work in sexual ethics. Treating the unitive end as being on a parwith the procreative is a theological error, and it encourages othererrors, too, including Fr. Bonandis

Update 2

The Heart, Mind, and Strength blog is hashing some of this out, finding fault with the argument, not the conclusions. Have a look.

Grant Gallicho joined Commonweal as an intern and was an associate editor for the magazine until 2015. 

Also by this author
© 2024 Commonweal Magazine. All rights reserved. Design by Point Five. Site by Deck Fifty.