Who are the most prominent representatives of the individual camps and what do they bring to the synod?

However, it is not enough to distinguish it only academically.

One example on which Pope Benedict XVI wanted. to explain the subjective dimension of sin, was widely publicized. It was when he was talking about a homosexual prostitute who is infected with HIV. The Pope said that when the person starts using a condom, it is a moral step forward for him. Here we are talking about a morally perverted act on all levels. For that person to choose to protect their “client” is a moral step forward.

It seems to me that these positions of Pope Francis – drawing attention to the subjective side of sin – have been consistent for a long time in his pontificate. He also speaks very similarly about the giving of the Eucharist for the divorced and remarried. Is that so?

Yes. And it is not only consistent with his previous statements, it is also consistent with the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church signed by Pope John Paul II. and was developed under the leadership of Cardinal Ratzinger.

However, we cannot categorically say that something is not a sin. A specific person may be in a situation where he is so conditioned by external factors that objectively he acts disorderly, but subjectively he is not blamed. He may have weakened free will, for example due to psychological or sociological factors.

I also understand the bishops who are worried about this. Because the priests themselves often cannot distinguish much simpler things.

That’s right, this is another huge problem. Priests and bishops ask who and how should distinguish the situation of the given people, whether there should be any minimum written rules and the like. A bishop in Poland looks at some practice in Germany, and even if, of course, he cannot know all the specifics of individual cases, he says to himself that he would not sin in his life.

The solution is not to be defensive in order to be comfortable that “we defined what it objectively is”. It is also very comfortable for a priest to say that this is how it is and done, these are the rules and I don’t care that you poor people are in real life with all the conditions. This is not an evangelical attitude.

So what is the solution?

Go deep. Formation. The Pope said that it would be a big mistake if each episcopal conference set a standard. We have to accompany each individual in his unrepeatable, unique situations.

At most, I can create such a norm that the bishop would say that there are quite specific moral questions that ordinary priests cannot distinguish properly, so he will form priests whom he will trust, and people who struggle with those difficult situations will be sent to trained priests. to accompany them. That’s what’s happening.

Ultimately, and this is the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, there is freedom of conscience. We must remember that my conscience has the last word in assessing my situation and guilt. The conscience is supposed to be formed, and that is why the accompaniment is important there, but it should not be the priest who says what kind of guilt the given person has.

The priest should be wise, educated, well formed in moral questions and principles, as well as in objective truth, and he should help the conscience to judge it correctly.

But in the end, the priest gives or gives absolution, right?

This was the last media-interesting question of the cardinals towards the Pope. Pope Francis says that absolution must always be granted. So the doubt was that for the absolution to be valid, repentance should be present. Don’t need it now?

The Pope answers that, of course, repentance is needed. But in judging what repentance is, we must be careful that we do not have the standards by which we have become accustomed to judging repentance, and that we are not asking too much of a person at a given moment. The Pope asks if going to confession is not an act of repentance. He even says that even the ability to anticipate that the fall will come again does not destroy a person’s ability to repent at that moment.

It happens to me that in confession, where there is a threat of its invalidity or even sacrilege, I will explain moral principles to people and ask them if they want me to give them absolution. I have already encountered that they will say that they understand that it is not yet ripe for this. We pray together, I give them a blessing – not because they are committing a sin, but because they are seeking God – and it often happens to me that after a while it matures in them.

We have to ask ourselves what is troubling the Pope: how hard it is to fight sin with God’s grace. And we want people to struggle with sin without God’s grace and then come? Is confession a help to the sinner or is it, like Holy Communion, a reward for a good life? This is no longer evangelical.

I ask with a little smile. Doesn’t Francis complicate everything? Does he really want to leave the assessment of guilt up to each person? Won’t it be a terrible mess? Shouldn’t the church have order and clear rules?

Does the church run by clever rules or by the Holy Spirit? Do we still have faith that God works in the church and also works in people’s consciences?

We got to the bottom line. This also applies to synodality. People wonder what will come of it, confusion will arise. Do we believe that the church is governed by the Holy Spirit? Do we believe in the pastoral office and in the fact that the synod is also under the authority of Peter and ultimately it is also his charisma and his office that recognizes God’s will in the various promptings of the Holy Spirit?