JANUARY 2023 A Defense of Casuistry

 Casuistry and Clericalism: A Reply to

A Defense of Casuistry  

Casuistry doesn’t have to be rigid.

By Cathleen Kaveny, Commonweal January 24, 2023

The objection to casuistry by Pope Francis is about much more than rigidity, it is about the moral elitism that underlies both casuistry and its frequent companion, clericalism. 

Caveny rightly locates the elaborate development of casuistry to the sacramental practice of confession. Unfortunately, she glosses over the huge change in the practice of confession from that of public penance and reconciliation for serious sinners in the first millennium to private confession of all sins for all Catholics in the second millennium. Let us take a close look at the two paragraphs of Canon 21 of the Forth Lateran Council (1215) which she mentions briefly.  

The first paragraph was obviously intended to universalize and regularize the practice of private confession which had developed in the preceding centuries.

All the faithful of both sexes shall after they have reached the age of discretion faithfully confess all their sins at least once a year to their own (parish) priest and perform to the best of their ability the penance imposed, receiving reverently at least at Easter the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perchance at the advice of their own priest they may for a good reason abstain for a time from its reception; otherwise they shall be cut off from the Church (excommunicated) during life and deprived of Christian burial in death. Wherefore, let this salutary decree be published frequently in the churches, that no one may find in the plea of ignorance a shadow of excuse. But if anyone for a good reason should wish to confess his sins to another priest, let him first seek and obtain permission from his own (parish) priest, since otherwise he (the other priest) cannot loose or bind him.

Note first that it applied to all the faithful in regard to all their sins, not simply to those who had committed grave sins. Note that confession was required to one's parish priest or a priest approved by one's pastor.  The requirement for Easter communion is not as absolute as that of annual confession; their pastor could allow them to abstain.  This canon made confession not communion the center of Catholic life. The consequences of failure to observe this decree were severe: excommunication during life and deprivation of Christian burial. This paragraph certainly had the potential for putting into place a Christian theocracy under control of parish priests. This Council took place before the development of the modern state with its social controls and monopoly of violence. The council fathers probably through they had to act and they had in private confession the instrument to do something. However, they also contributed greatly to clericalism.

The second paragraph below is very much along the lines of the field hospital of Pope Frances and draws upon the long tradition of the church about the care of souls which uses medical imagery.

Let the priest be discreet and cautious that he may pour wine and oil into the wounds of the one injured after the manner of a skillful physician, carefully inquiring into the circumstances of the sinner and the sin, from the nature of which he may understand what kind of advice to give and what remedy to apply, making use of different experiments to heal the sick one. But let him exercise the greatest precaution that he does not in any degree by word, sign, or any other manner make known the sinner, but should he need more prudent counsel, let him seek it cautiously without any mention of the person. He who dares to reveal a sin confided to him in the tribunal of penance, we decree that he be not only deposed from the sacerdotal office but also relegated to a monastery of strict observance to do penance for the remainder of his life.

The second paragraph also underlines the practical problems of private confession, namely the competence of the priest as both judge and physician as well as how to keep the secrecy involved in private confession. In the public confession of the first millennium the bishop had always been the final judge of readmission first to the ranks of penitents and finally to communion. Priests likely counseled penitents along the way about the nature of their sins and their repentance in a private manner.  The new way of doing confession required a lot more of the priest-penitent relationship. This resulted not only in the development of manuals for priests but also the development of the seminary system of priestly education after the Council of Trent. This simple and likely well intended canon helped develop over the last millennium not only a moral theology of casuistry but also a very clerical church. 

We need to do much more than develop an improved casuistry, or even an improved moral theology.  We need an improved understanding of role of confession.  According to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, a nonprofit organization affiliated with Georgetown University—three-quarters of Catholics never go or go less than once a year to confession. Only two percent are involved in the regular practice of confession. The attempt to have general absolution without confession of particular sins was torpedoed by Pope John Paul II. So, the issue of enumeration of particular sins needs to be faced. Is it that important?

Francis

According to Francis, concern with particular acts, whether they are sinful or not, leads us to neglect the totality of our relationship with God and with others. We let our understanding of rules control our relationships. That can result in both pride that we are superior to others and/or doing the minimal amount to comply with rules rather than asking what our relationship to God and neighbor really require. 

Francis talks about this in terms of casuistry, but the problem is really deeper, it requires a morality theology of persons and relationships rather than of abstract acts. Francis does call for a comprehensive rethinking of moral theology and invites moral theologians to take into account the insights of other disciplines including the social sciences. As someone with an interdisciplinary doctorate in sociology and psychology, all human behavior has to be located simultaneously within personal history, current interpersonal relationships, and the institutions and values of the various communities (household, families, work, civic, religious) in which the person lives. 

Kaveny

Kaveny's background is in law. From her numerous articles in Commonweal, teaching law has been an important aspect of her life., and that teaching often involves case law. My impression is that law students largely learn to be lawyers by analyzing cases, in which precedents are often deciding factors. In responding to Francis's plea for an improved moral theology I am sure she can see many ways that moral theology could develop a better "case" approach.  

She presents an interesting case of a moral choice between visiting a sick grandparent or preparing for an important meeting. Unfortunately, she begins with a traditional analysis that looks largely at motives. From a social science perspective this is obviously a example of widespread conflicts in our society among family, business, civic and religious obligations that arise because we are simultaneously members of many different communities where we related to different people under different circumstances. In order to make a decision one has to take into account the history of our personal relationships to the people involved, and to the institutions and communities with which we are involved. 

The more basic moral framework appears to me not to be particular cases and acts but the whole history our relationships to family members and to our work community. Certainly, we work out relationships both to family and work through acts, but these are acts that are usually perceived in continuity or discontinuity with a whole series of acts. A long history of good relationships with grandma is likely to perceive preparing for next day's meeting as an exception just as a long history of being preparing for meetings is also likely to see a visit to grandma as an exception. I disagree that a better analysis of a particular act apart from relationships will be very helpful in making decisions about that act.

Both Kaveny and Francis appear to take a longer view that has some things in common with the view that I am proposing. Unfortunately, both tend to approach human beings in terms of being mired in poor relationships to the family and work life. That may appear realistic, but he neglects the hopes and dreams that are essential to human life as well as the proclamation of the Gospel.