Cdl. Gerhard Müller: Neither "the pope, nor a council, nor a law of the bishops, has the faculty to change it"

[TCEL]

Not sure how your additional stuff about women’s rights and sex is relevant to this conversation, except that it seems that people only seem to get up in arms about theological issues when sex is somehow involved.

Well, for myself, I care because I’m the generation living in the aftermath of the sexual revolution, and there are terribly strong forces that have trivialized the importance of the body. It’s seen as something ancillary, not intrinsic, to who we are. That’s why I keep going back to the theological significance of communion for divorced/remarried, because it seems like a lot of these discussions about AL turn into questions of precedence and authority, but that the heart of the law is being overlooked.

 

[Brendan]

The Trinity is in the Creed. The bar on the admission of the remarried to the Sacraments is not an infallible dogma, and even infallible dogmas are subject to changes in understanding.

No, it is an infallible doctrine

And any changes to doctrines cannot contradict what was previously taught.

 

[rcwitness]

This is getting pretty far off topic, but this is really not controversial. The Church teaches that atheists can be saved. Lumen Gentium makes this clear, para 16, as does the Catechism, section 1260. Pope Francis has also said directly that atheists can be saved.

You are right. I didn’t mean to get off topic. In fact I’d like to start a thread about this. I want to see all the apparent teachings. I’m not convinced yet, because it is a very strange concept to me. But I am willing to read and discuss the relevant teachings.

Btw, I appreciate your fellowship about these things, I can see that you are well mannered and respectful.

 

[TMC]

No, it is an infallible doctrine

And any changes to doctrines cannot contradict what was previously taught.

Well, I disagree both that the way the Sacraments are administered to the remarried is infallible, and that changing that is a change to the core teaching. Just as the change to EENS, which appeared to many to contradict what was previously taught, was not a contradiction, this is also not a contradiction.

But we are drifting from the actual thread topic, which was Card. Muller’s statement, to the actual doctrine, which is the subject of many other threads.

 

[TMC]

Well, for myself, I care because I’m the generation living in the aftermath of the sexual revolution, and there are terribly strong forces that have trivialized the importance of the body. It’s seen as something ancillary, not intrinsic, to who we are. That’s why I keep going back to the theological significance of communion for divorced/remarried, because it seems like a lot of these discussions about AL turn into questions of precedence and authority, but that the heart of the law is being overlooked.

Well, I am not trying to trivialize it. It is important. But it does seem to me that discussions of theology tend to get little more than shrugs from most Catholics, unless sex is somehow involved. I think sex is important, but it is not the only thing that is important, or even the key issue of our day (or any day).

 

[TMC]

You are right. I didn’t mean to get off topic. In fact I’d like to start a thread about this. I want to see all the apparent teachings. I’m not convinced yet, because it is a very strange concept to me. But I am willing to read and discuss the relevant teachings.

Btw, I appreciate your fellowship about these things, I can see that you are well mannered and respectful.

I appreciate your kind words, but I can assure you that many here find me difficult and unmannered. Sometimes that opinion is justified, unfortunately.

 

[TCEL]

Well, I am not trying to trivialize it. It is important. But it does seem to me that discussions of theology tend to get little more than shrugs from most Catholics, unless sex is somehow involved. I think sex is important, but it is not the only thing that is important, or even the key issue of our day (or any day).

What is the key issue?

 

[TMC]

What is the key issue?

I am not sure there is a single key issue, but I am sure it is not sex. To the extent there is a key issue for Christians I think it is what it has always been - treating one another with love and kindness.

 

[TCEL]

I am not sure there is a single key issue, but I am sure it is not sex. To the extent there is a key issue for Christians I think it is what it has always been - treating one another with love and kindness.

Well, I agree that we need to treat each other with love and kindness, and that evil is always present, but evil can particularly manifest itself in certain ways in certain eras. I’m kind of tired of seeing the aftermath of the sexual revolution and being told, in often erudite fashion, that sexual sin is ho-hum, low on the scales, and not as sophisticated as other sins. Frankly, so what? We’ve seen an incredible cheapening of human life linked to the incredible cheapening of human sexuality. Now, I can also agree there are deeper motivations for this, but I can’t deny the evidence of my eyes when I see my generation dealing with the fallouts of downplaying this unsophisticated sin. Just because it’s not considered interesting in academic circles doesn’t mean it hasn’t wreaked havoc.

 

[rcwitness]

What is the key issue?

I think the argument is whether “under all situations” the state of the divorced and remarried (while the first spouse still lives) is a state of mortal sin, or can some be “judged” as sufficiently reconciled and remain in that second marriage.

 

[TCEL]

I think the argument is whether “under all situations” the state of the divorced and remarried (while the first spouse still lives) is a state of mortal sin, or can some be “judged” as sufficiently reconciled and remain in that second marriage.

Yes. Perhaps something comparable with a married couple where one contracepts and the other can’t stop them. So, a spouse who is having sex against their will, so the other spouse doesn’t leave? As soon as it becomes willful, then I don’t see how a couple couldn’t also choose to contracept (or sterilize) in good conscience for a serious enough reason, and discern Communion.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes. Perhaps something comparable with a married couple where one contracepts and the other can’t stop them. So, a spouse who is having sex against their will, so the other spouse doesn’t leave? As soon as it becomes willful, then I don’t see how a couple couldn’t also choose to contracept (or sterilize) in good conscience for a serious enough reason, and discern Communion.

And yes, sex is involved, for you sex crazed maniacs.

 

[TCEL]

And yes, sex is involved, for you sex crazed maniacs.

I am fatigued by it all sometimes. Everyone but Catholics are allowed to talk about it. Even my Pandora account is often soliciting the pill. Or they want my eggs. It’s kind of intrusive when mixed in with Baroque, especially.

 

[rcwitness]

I am fatigued by it all sometimes. Everyone but Catholics are allowed to talk about it. Even my Pandora account is often soliciting the pill. It’s kind of intrusive when mixed in with Baroque, especially.

But seriously, the issue of sex, in the situations is a key factor, in the “reconciled couple”. That constitutes the act of adultery.

What troubles me, though I know it is a matter of either situations can be reconciled while remaining together (sexually) or not, is who decides this? Priests? I don’t have that great of confidence in our priests to make that judgment. Sorry to say, but it would be like the annulment process, which sounds like many situations are shameful.

 

[Brendan]

I think the argument is whether “under all situations” the state of the divorced and remarried (while the first spouse still lives) is a state of mortal sin, or can some be “judged” as sufficiently reconciled and remain in that second marriage.

The*reasoning offered by the Church actually does not revolve around the issue of mortal sin.

The issue is infidelity itself.

I would offer*Pope St John Paul II’s reasoning in Familaris Consortio

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

Note that the*state of either party’s soul is not even mentioned. What IS mentioned is their condition of life.

The participation*in adultery is objectively a contradiction with what the Eucharist IS.

The Eucharist is the Wedding Supper of the Lamb; and the ever faithful Christ’s gift of His Body to*His ever faithful spouse, the Church.

One cannot simultaneously commit to the Fidelity, which issignified and effected in the Eucharist, while committing TO infidelity. It is accepting thedeepest sign of fidelity to a spouse, while, at the same time, acting against fidelity to one’s own spouse.

 

[rcwitness]

The*reasoning offered by the Church actually does not revolve around the issue of mortal sin.

The issue is infidelity itself.

I would offer*Pope St John Paul II’s reasoning in Familaris Consortio

Note that the*state of either party’s soul is not even mentioned. What IS mentioned is their condition of life.

The participation*in adultery is objectively a contradiction with what the Eucharist IS.

The Eucharist is the Wedding Supper of the Lamb; and the ever faithful Christ’s gift of His Body to*His ever faithful spouse, the Church.

One cannot simultaneously commit to the Fidelity, which issignified and effected in the Eucharist, while committing TO infidelity. It is accepting thedeepest sign of fidelity to a spouse, while, at the same time, acting against fidelity to one’s own spouse.

Interesting.

 

[JimG]

I think that the key issue is whether one who is having sexual relations with someone who is not his spouse can be considered free to receive communion.

 

[Randolph]

The*reasoning offered by the Church actually does not revolve around the issue of mortal sin.

The issue is infidelity itself.

I would offer*Pope St John Paul II’s reasoning in Familaris Consortio

Note that the*state of either party’s soul is not even mentioned. What IS mentioned is their condition of life.

The participation*in adultery is objectively a contradiction with what the Eucharist IS.

The Eucharist is the Wedding Supper of the Lamb; and the ever faithful Christ’s gift of His Body to*His ever faithful spouse, the Church.

One cannot simultaneously commit to the Fidelity, which issignified and effected in the Eucharist, while committing TO infidelity. It is accepting thedeepest sign of fidelity to a spouse, while, at the same time, acting against fidelity to one’s own spouse.

Thank you very much, Brendan… I had not thought of it in terms of fidelity vs infidelity to the Eurcharist. This goes beyond the issues of mortal sin and culpability.

 

[TMC]

I think that the key issue is whether one who is having sexual relations with someone who is not his spouse can be considered free to receive communion.

I think it must be added that one must consider who the people involved believe to be their spouses. One of the issues is that the person in question believes his or her current spouse to be their real spouse, and that having sex with them is not adultery. This strongly held and good faith belief informs their opinion that they are not committing adultery.

Think of this. If a man who has been divorced and remarried for ten years were to one night drive across town and have sex with his ex-wife, would that be OK? Would it be adultery? Most people would say that the one night stand with the ex-wife constitutes adultery against his current marriage.

If a man believes his wife is dead and remarries, he is clearly not committing adultery. But if his wife shows up one day alive, has he now been committing adultery all those years? The fact is that he still had a wife, but he truly and heartily believed he did not. While factually different, most of the remarried believe the same (that their second marriage is their real marriage), and their sinfulness and culpability must be evaluated in that context.

It is in this context that the Church is working with the remarried. The issues are more complicated than internet posters simply declaring that a hypothetical person is in adultery. The Church is ministering to real people in real situations who must be met where they are. AL provides for that without contradicting the Church’s long standing teaching on marriage.

 

[Kliska]

Society and culture have to also be considered, and I assume we can all agree the culture (at least here in the US) has been moving away from traditional views of marriage for a long while. For me, being outside of the CC, I have to admit my thought is that if the CC changes on teachings on marriage, divorce, remarriage, who can receive, etc… it may add to the decline of the respect and reality of marriage even more.

I struggle looking at this because the individual is highly important in my style of protestant thought; individual conscience, individual salvation, individual relationship… Having now looked at an institution that looks at the family or group (the CC) I can see how a small change that on the surface looks like a matter for individual guidance/conscience can and will have an effect on the whole… and even the entire surrounding culture.