CDF prefect nixes German archdiocesan policy on Communion for divorced/remarried Catholics [CC]

[Catholic_Press]

The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has directed the Archdiocese of Freiburg, Germany, to retract a policy allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to …

More…

 

[MarcoPolo]

*The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has directed the Archdiocese of Freiburg, Germany, to retract a policy allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion if they reached a “decision in conscience” that they should do so.

Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller said that the Freiburg policy “would cause confusion among the faithful about the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.”*This sounds like a prudent decision, not only because it would cause confusion about the permanence of marriage, but because it sounds like an invitation to convince oneself that one’s “conscience” says it’s okay.

 

[TRH1292]

Glad to see Archbishop Muller doing a good job and keeping things in line.

 

[LupusCatholicus]

Forgive me if I seem skeptical, but isn’t this a bit out of Muller’s jurisdiction? Bishops and Archbishops have always had the authority to make their decisions for their diocese: I could see there being a precedent if the Holy Father, or say the head of the German Bishops’ Conference directed them to do this, but I don’t believe the CDF has the authority to tell the Bishops how to act.

Pope Francis has said he wants the Church and Curia to get away from Roman/Vatican Centralism and to serve the Bishops and the people- I might suggest Muller’s actions go against that vision- i.e. top down dictation of policy vs. more collegiality and dialoguing together in servitude to the Church.

Now, the CDF could claim it has the authority to dictate the doctrinal policy of the Church, but on what grounds? Historically such authority has been dictated by the Scriptures or Ecumenical Councils or the Holy Father himself or the Bishops together with the Holy Father.

Isn’t it really the Bishops in conjunction with the Pope who should be getting together to decide Church policy- and not just one congregation of the Curia? Really if the Bishops are supposed to be teaching and acting as the Magisterium, how can they be free to teach and act according to the Spirit if the CDF, or any department of the Curia for that matter, is telling them how to act? If the CDF is in effect doing the Bishops’ jobs for them, then why should the Bishops continue to teach if they can’t determine the will of God without a certain viewpoint/agenda/bias being thrust upon them?

I am not showing contempt for the CDF here- I am just very concerned that the actions seen here in this article could set a very dangerous precedent for the Church. Is it not dangerous for one department of the Curia to be in effect taking over the role of the entire Catholic Magisterium? Just my thoughts, no disrespect meant to any member of the CDF or Abp. Muller, just genuine concern over the role of our Bishops here.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well, Lupus, isn’t that what congregations have done for centuries upon centuries? (Albeit not as extreme as you would make it sound.)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Forgive me if I seem skeptical, but isn’t this a bit out of Muller’s jurisdiction? Bishops and Archbishops have always had the authority to make their decisions for their diocese: I could see there being a precedent if the Holy Father, or say the head of the German Bishops’ Conference directed them to do this, but I don’t believe the CDF has the authority to tell the Bishops how to act.

Pope Francis has said he wants the Church and Curia to get away from Roman/Vatican Centralism and to serve the Bishops and the people- I might suggest Muller’s actions go against that vision- i.e. top down dictation of policy vs. more collegiality and dialoguing together in servitude to the Church.

Now, the CDF could claim it has the authority to dictate the doctrinal policy of the Church, but on what grounds? Historically such authority has been dictated by the Scriptures or Ecumenical Councils or the Holy Father himself or the Bishops together with the Holy Father.

Isn’t it really the Bishops in conjunction with the Pope who should be getting together to decide Church policy- and not just one congregation of the Curia? Really if the Bishops are supposed to be teaching and acting as the Magisterium, how can they be free to teach and act according to the Spirit if the CDF, or any department of the Curia for that matter, is telling them how to act? If the CDF is in effect doing the Bishops’ jobs for them, then why should the Bishops continue to teach if they can’t determine the will of God without a certain viewpoint/agenda/bias being thrust upon them?

I am not showing contempt for the CDF here- I am just very concerned that the actions seen here in this article could set a very dangerous precedent for the Church. Is it not dangerous for one department of the Curia to be in effect taking over the role of the entire Catholic Magisterium? Just my thoughts, no disrespect meant to any member of the CDF or Abp. Muller, just genuine concern over the role of our Bishops here.

The CDF is overstepping it’s bounds by being Catholic? What do you think the role of the CDF is if it isn’t this?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has a weekly (and perhaps more frequent) audience with the Holy Father. All its actions are taken with his consent and with his authority…indeed, no congregation or dicastery has any authority that is not the Pope’s in the first place. He delegates that authority to them.

 

[Tigg]

Forgive me if I seem skeptical, but isn’t this a bit out of Muller’s jurisdiction? Bishops and Archbishops have always had the authority to make their decisions for their diocese: I could see there being a precedent if the Holy Father, or say the head of the German Bishops’ Conference directed them to do this, but I don’t believe the CDF has the authority to tell the Bishops how to act.

Are you upset that the CDF is upholding authentic Church teaching on marriage?

 

[One_point]

Forgive me if I seem skeptical, but isn’t this a bit out of Muller’s jurisdiction? Bishops and Archbishops have always had the authority to make their decisions for their diocese: I could see there being a precedent if the Holy Father, or say the head of the German Bishops’ Conference directed them to do this, but I don’t believe the CDF has the authority to tell the Bishops how to act.

Pope Francis has said he wants the Church and Curia to get away from Roman/Vatican Centralism and to serve the Bishops and the people- I might suggest Muller’s actions go against that vision- i.e. top down dictation of policy vs. more collegiality and dialoguing together in servitude to the Church.

Now, the CDF could claim it has the authority to dictate the doctrinal policy of the Church, but on what grounds? Historically such authority has been dictated by the Scriptures or Ecumenical Councils or the Holy Father himself or the Bishops together with the Holy Father.

Isn’t it really the Bishops in conjunction with the Pope who should be getting together to decide Church policy- and not just one congregation of the Curia? Really if the Bishops are supposed to be teaching and acting as the Magisterium, how can they be free to teach and act according to the Spirit if the CDF, or any department of the Curia for that matter, is telling them how to act? If the CDF is in effect doing the Bishops’ jobs for them, then why should the Bishops continue to teach if they can’t determine the will of God without a certain viewpoint/agenda/bias being thrust upon them?

I am not showing contempt for the CDF here- I am just very concerned that the actions seen here in this article could set a very dangerous precedent for the Church. Is it not dangerous for one department of the Curia to be in effect taking over the role of the entire Catholic Magisterium? Just my thoughts, no disrespect meant to any member of the CDF or Abp. Muller, just genuine concern over the role of our Bishops here.

The CDF is acting for the Pope. In this case, just consider it the case that the Pope has directed the German Bishops to stop that policy.

 

[EphelDuath]

Forgive me if I seem skeptical, but isn’t this a bit out of Muller’s jurisdiction? Bishops and Archbishops have always had the authority to make their decisions for their diocese: I could see there being a precedent if the Holy Father, or say the head of the German Bishops’ Conference directed them to do this, but I don’t believe the CDF has the authority to tell the Bishops how to act.

Bishops have pastoral authority over their diocese. However they cannot rewrite canon law or alter the theology of the Church; those things are regulated by the Holy See.

 

[venerablejohn]

Are you upset that the CDF is upholding authentic Church teaching on marriage?

Do you think it is right that a convicted murderer can receive Holy Communion but a woman who leaves her abusive husband can’t?

 

[Brendan]

Do you think it is right that a convicted murderer can receive Holy Communion but a woman who leaves her abusive husband can’t?

Both can. The murderer if he\she is sorry for their sin, confesses it and receives absolution.

There is no impediment at all to the woman you mention receiving Holy Communion for simply leaving an abusive relationship.

Where the bar to Holy Communion comes is if the murders continues to murder, or if the woman commits adultery in the form of attempted remarriage.

 

[polki]

Both can. The murderer if he\she is sorry for their sin, confesses it and receives absolution.

There is no impediment at all to the woman you mention receiving Holy Communion for simply leaving an abusive relationship.

Where the bar to Holy Communion comes is if the murders continues to murder, or if the woman commits adultery in the form of attempted remarriage.

That’s right. A divorced person is allowed to receive Communion. They can also receive Communion if they remarry, as long as their first marriage has been annulled.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Do you think it is right that a convicted murderer can receive Holy Communion but a woman who leaves her abusive husband can’t?

No, I don’t. But here is the thing. Neither does the Church. You are leaving out a BIG detail. I think you mean to say "Why can a repentant murderer receive communion and someone who has gone outside the Church for a sacrament that the Church does not consider valid, and keeps committing adultery not receive communion? See, in one a murderer stops murdering. In the other the adulterer does not stop adulterating.

Do you really think the Church does what you are accusing Her of?

 

[Tigg]

Do you think it is right that a convicted murderer can receive Holy Communion but a woman who leaves her abusive husband can’t?

Seems your question has already been answered, but I’d like to know why we are so confused about the basics regarding the laws of marriage and the sacraments. The act of divorce or separation in and of itself does not constitute sin. It’s only when a relationship is taken up with another without benefit of an annulment that it becomes sinful. That would be adulterous but any mortal sin can be sacramentally forgiven if the proper disposition of heart is present. It’s all about living in the grace of God, which a remarried-outside-the-church status has lost due to its continued intent to stay in an adulterous relationship.

 

[Emerite]

Am I correct in thinking that a divorced Catholic, who remarries yet claims they have no relations with the new spouse, is able to receive the Sacraments in good grace? We’re friends with two late middle-aged, divorced and remarried couples who receive Communion, and I’d be the last to tell them if it’s not O.K. Thinking it’s the Christian way to not judge them, is it necessary, and should we suggest they obtain an annulment?

 

[Elizium23]

I’d like to know why we are so confused about the basics regarding the laws of marriage and the sacraments. The act of divorce or separation in and of itself does not constitute sin. It’s only when a relationship is taken up with another without benefit of an annulment that it becomes sinful.

No, divorce is sinful in itself. There are times when it is the only valid option which would lessen the imputability, or where one person is innocent of the wrongdoing, but the real difference between divorce and remarriage is that divorce is something that is done once (or twice or thrice…) and can be confessed, while remarriage sets up a persistently sinful situation from which there is sometimes no easy exit.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178
2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179

We are confused because the Culture of Death has been around for a long time telling us what marriage “should be”. We are confused because even before homosexual “marriage” was proposed, we had no-fault divorce and Henry VIII. Marriage has got to be one of the most complicated of sacraments. It is unique in its theology and effects, yet it is the fundamental building block of human society.

To anyone who wants to learn more about Catholic marriage, I suggest a good Bible study on the Book of Revelation such as the Great Adventure. I am not kidding you. I learned more about marriage and the liturgy in that Bible study than anywhere else. It should be required material for pre-Cana preparation.

 

[SMGS127]

No, divorce is sinful in itself. There are times when it is the only valid option which would lessen the imputability, or where one person is innocent of the wrongdoing, but the real difference between divorce and remarriage is that divorce is something that is done once (or twice or thrice…) and can be confessed, while remarriage sets up a persistently sinful situation from which there is sometimes no easy exit.

We are confused because the Culture of Death has been around for a long time telling us what marriage “should be”. We are confused because even before homosexual “marriage” was proposed, we had no-fault divorce and Henry VIII. Marriage has got to be one of the most complicated of sacraments. It is unique in its theology and effects, yet it is the fundamental building block of human society.

To anyone who wants to learn more about Catholic marriage, I suggest a good Bible study on the Book of Revelation such as the Great Adventure. I am not kidding you. I learned more about marriage and the liturgy in that Bible study than anywhere else. It should be required material for pre-Cana preparation.

I was told by my Priest that one can actually be aided by the Church in obtaining a legal divorce in the case of abuse. I wouldn’t submit such a blanket statement claiming there are no exceptions, just mitigating factors, for divorce. Sure, your average joe divorcing because he “fell out of love” is likely a grave sin, but legal divorce is not always a sin. Divorce in the case of abuse is not a “lessened” sin; it is in fact not a sin at all and does not need to be confessed.

 

[Tigg]

No, divorce is sinful in itself. There are times when it is the only valid option which would lessen the imputability, or where one person is innocent of the wrongdoing, but the real difference between divorce and remarriage is that divorce is something that is done once (or twice or thrice…) and can be confessed, while remarriage sets up a persistently sinful situation from which there is sometimes no easy exit.

Thank you for clarifying my hasty post.

 

[Tigg]

Am I correct in thinking that a divorced Catholic, who remarries yet claims they have no relations with the new spouse, is able to receive the Sacraments in good grace? We’re friends with two late middle-aged, divorced and remarried couples who receive Communion, and I’d be the last to tell them if it’s not O.K. Thinking it’s the Christian way to not judge them, is it necessary, and should we suggest they obtain an annulment?

PASTORAL MINISTRY TO THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED
Bishop Rene H. Gracida, D. D.
Bishop of Corpus Christi May 22, 1994

What about receiving Holy Communion? Taking into account the discussion at the 1980 Synod of Bishops, Pope John Paul II clearly answered this question by saying:

Quote:
"…the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist…Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance, which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.

This means in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[8]

To many, that way of life will sound impossible and no doubt it would be for men and women acting on their own, unaided by God’s grace. But with God’s grace, a Christian can do everything God asks.[9] So, to you I offer this saving truth: that way of life certainly can be achieved by any couple who repent their past sins, constantly call on God for needed help, and do their very best to live blamelessly in God’s sight. Even those who do not choose to make that commitment, but who accept the truth about their situation, should continue to hope for salvation. The Church prays for them and trusts that the Lord will be ready to receive them with tender mercy whenever they are ready to avail themselves of reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance and amend their lives.

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/DIVORCE.HTM