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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ginny89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TMC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why do they believe their remarriage is valid? Probably because they didn’t get married in the Catholic faith, right? The Church would never have married them (or acknowledged their marriage as Sacramental). Christians who don’t know their faith, lead lives that have gone astray from the faith. Then, they want the faith to move to where they have ended up.
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.
Click to expand...
So the amount of time past by changes things? What if it was 3 days?
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.
Click to expand...
Are these, really the situations that the Pope wants to deal with? What does the Church do in these situations right now?
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not ignorant of the complicated lives people get themselves into. And neither was Jesus, St Paul or JPII. I think we already have an annulment process that should be implemented. If that tribunal finds the first marriage to be valid, there isn’t much that can be done.
 
rcwitness said:
I’m not ignorant of the complicated lives people get themselves into. And neither was Jesus, St Paul or JPII. I think we already have an annulment process that should be implemented. If that tribunal finds the first marriage to be valid, there isn’t much that can be done.
Click to expand...
Amoris Laetitia suggests that there is no time the Church ever says there isn’t much that can be done. This attitude (I am not saying you have it. You just used a common phrase and I am the one that is using it out of context) is precisely what we must discontinue. First, tribunals are not infallible. They are very good, but they are also very busy and overworked. Second, even if the process of the internal forum never brings about and “exception” (and the final answer on this is not in), there is still the path of living as brother and sister that some will find, but I doubt few will find quickly and easily.
 
Kliska said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. And that is the profound mystery of Holy Communion. It is the individual, coming together as “a whole” because we receive from the One who makes us whole.
 
pnewton said:
Amoris Laetitia suggests that there is no time the Church ever says there isn’t much that can be done. This attitude (I am not saying you have it. You just used a common phrase and I am the one that is using it out of context) is precisely what we must discontinue. First, tribunals are not infallible. They are very good, but they are also very busy and overworked. Second, even if the process of the internal forum never brings about and “exception” (and the final answer on this is not in), there is still the path of living as brother and sister that some will find, but I doubt few will find quickly and easily.
Click to expand...
Yes, this isn’t what I was suggesting “couldn’t be done”.

As TMC mentioned, a huge aspect of these situations is that people truly do believe their remarriage is valid. How do they come to that conclusion? Is it by faith? Did they have faith when they remarried?
 
rcwitness said:
Yes, this isn’t what I was suggesting “couldn’t be done”.

As TMC mentioned, a huge aspect of these situations is that people truly do believe their remarriage is valid. How do they come to that conclusion? Is it by faith? Did they have faith when they remarried?
Click to expand...
Two ways come to mind right away. One would be that the were not Catholic at the time and even with spiritual counsel may view the divorce as a past sin and that they were free to marry. The Catholic Church is unique in its view of marriage. Most see divorce as sinful, but only as a point of sin that can be forgiven, if it was truly sinful.

The second way may be that a person is aware of a defect in their first marriage even if they do not have the evidence to submit to a tribunal.
 
pnewton said:
Two ways come to mind right away. One would be that the were not Catholic at the time and even with spiritual counsel may view the divorce as a past sin and that they were free to marry. The Catholic Church is unique in its view of marriage. Most see divorce as sinful, but only as a point of sin that can be forgiven, if it was truly sinful.
Click to expand...
So, in this situation, the couple were married, divorced and remarried and THEN decided to become Catholic, and they are unable to even receive First Communion as they are in an invalid marriage?
The second way may be that a person is aware of a defect in their first marriage even if they do not have the evidence to submit to a tribunal.
Click to expand...
But the Tribunal accepts the person’s testimony, no? And it would then rest on their conscience, if they were bearing false witness?
 
TMC said:
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.
Click to expand...
This may be true for converts from a non-Catholic faith, as they were not bound to Catholic form at the time of the second marriage. But a Catholic who married outside the Church would not be considered validly married even if there was no first marriage. Their sin would become fornication and not adultery, but last I checked that is also grave matter.
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.
Click to expand...
There’s a whole movie based on a similar concept, “It’s Complicated”, though the situation is mostly played for laughs.

I think per Catholic thought, technically this wouldn’t be adultery but assuming the man isn’t announcing his intent to do so to his second wife, he would still be guilty of betraying her trust. But then on the other hand the Catholic position seems to see adultery as essentially breaking a moral law, more than betraying a spouse.
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.
Click to expand...
Again, Catholics not married in the Church are still not in a valid marriage regardless. Believing the first marriage invalid doesn’t automatically validate the current marriage. But this may not apply to those who were not Catholics at the time of the second marriage.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
I think per Catholic thought, technically this wouldn’t be adultery but assuming the man isn’t announcing his intent to do so to his second wife, he would still be guilty of betraying her trust. But then on the other hand the Catholic position seems to see adultery as essentially breaking a moral law, more than betraying a spouse.
Click to expand...
Maybe it would be Polygamy?
 
Kliska said:
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.
Click to expand...
Kliska… A very thoughtful piece… It encapsulates the thoughts of many of my friends–Catholics and non-Catholics–whom I respect.
 
rcwitness said:
So, in this situation, the couple were married, divorced and remarried and THEN decided to become Catholic, and they are unable to even receive First Communion as they are in an invalid marriage?

But the Tribunal accepts the person’s testimony, no? And it would then rest on their conscience, if they were bearing false witness?
Click to expand...
Yes to all three.
 
pnewton said:
Yes to all three.
Click to expand...
So the Tribunal recognizes a non Catholic Christian marriage as binding, even before they make a conversion the fullness of the Catholic faith? This is the impression I’ve had.

But then, their church may grant them permission to remarry! And so when they are remarried and seek Communion with Rome, they are required to live as brother and sister?

This is definitely a sticky situation!

You know, I had a serious debate with a childhood friend of mine. She is engaged to her church’s youth pastor’s son. He is divorced from a first wife (which was a Christian marriage). The wife was unfaithful and left him. My friend and he, approached their church elders about seeking to marry. I told her it’s not lawful, unless there was an impediment that rendered the marriage null. I explained our faith the best I could, but they believe in an “abandonment and unreconciled” doctrine. I explained that our marriage is like our relationship with Christ. He never closes the door to Reconciliation until our death. But she is choosing their doctrine. I told her that I don’t blame her, but I do blame her church leaders. We will probably never be close friends again. I tried to keep contact with her, and move on from that disagreement. But she took personal offense.

It’s a difficult call.
 
pnewton said:
Two ways come to mind right away. One would be that the were not Catholic at the time and even with spiritual counsel may view the divorce as a past sin and that they were free to marry. The Catholic Church is unique in its view of marriage. Most see divorce as sinful, but only as a point of sin that can be forgiven, if it was truly sinful.

The second way may be that a person is aware of a defect in their first marriage even if they do not have the evidence to submit to a tribunal.
Click to expand...
A non-Catholic may understand divorce to be sinful, and sin can be forgiven. But the question is: do they understand marriage to be permanent? Did they state vows of permanence? If they did and did not mean them, did they perjure themselves before God?

If marriage is permanent, divorce is impossible. The only way for an existing marriage to be disregarded is if it never happened in the first place, due to some defect in consent. However, the Church does believe that some marriages can be dissolved, e.g. through the Pauline Privilege or in cases in which a valid marriage was not consummated.
 
JimG said:
A non-Catholic may understand divorce to be sinful, and sin can be forgiven. But the question is: do they understand marriage to be permanent? Did they state vows of permanence? If they did and did not mean them, did they perjure themselves before God?

If marriage is permanent, divorce is impossible. The only way for an existing marriage to be disregarded is if it never happened in the first place, due to some defect in consent. However, the Church does believe that some marriages can be dissolved, e.g. through the Pauline Privilege or in cases in which a valid marriage was not consummated.
Click to expand...
Do you mean “a Sacramental marriage was not consummated”?
 
Ginny89 said:
"ROME (ChurchMilitant.com) - Cardinal Gerhard Müller is affirming that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics must pledge to remain continent before being admitted to the sacraments and that not even the pope can remove this indispensable condition.

The Italian magazine II Timone recently asked the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) if the stipulation that such couples “strive to live in continence” prior to reception of confession and Holy Communion — as required by Pope St. John Paul II — was still required. The Vatican’s chief doctrinal watchdog responded, “Of course, it is not dispensable.”

The cardinal emphasized that the Church has no ability to alter this law. “[N]o power in heaven or on earth, neither an angel, nor the pope, nor a council, nor a law of the bishops, has the faculty to change it.”"

churchmilitant.com/news/article/cdl.-mueller-no-communion-to-civilly-remarried-divorcees
Click to expand...
Very glad to see this. I was confused by Cardinal Mueller’s earlier comments that no response to the dubia presented by the four Cardinals was necessary and that ‘there was no confusion.’ I now understand what he meant, he doesn’t think there is any confusion in the sense that there is no change (or development). That makes so much more sense. (I thought he’d gone soft…which would have been very strange indeed.)
 
rcwitness said:
Do you mean “a Sacramental marriage was not consummated”?
Click to expand...
Probably. This sort of dissolution is, I believe, a papal prerogative. So a dissolution of an unconsummated union would not be done by a local tribunal. Most persons applying for such a dissolution would probably be in Catholic marriages.

I do note, however, that a tribunal decision pertains only to the validity of a marriage, not its sacramentality.
 
JimG said:
A non-Catholic may understand divorce to be sinful, and sin can be forgiven. But the question is: do they understand marriage to be permanent? Did they state vows of permanence? If they did and did not mean them, did they perjure themselves before God? .
Click to expand...
I can answer this, I think. Most view marriage as a contract, more than a covenant, one that is permanent, sort or. It is usually considered that if a party commits adultery, then that party is the one that broke the marriage contract and that the exception Jesus gave for divorce applies. The innocent party does not sin by getting a divorce, and then re-married. Even the guilty party can be forgiven and the move on to a new marriage, if there is genuine repentance for the sexual infidelity.
 
Amongst protestant Christianity you’ll see a really wide array of interpretations when it comes to marriage. From more “strict” than the CC to very secular.
 
Kliska said:
Amongst protestant Christianity you’ll see a really wide array of interpretations when it comes to marriage. From more “strict” than the CC to very secular.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was speaking of mainstream evangelical and fundamentalist viewpoints. I know of no denomination that is more strict than the Catholic Church, except maybe the defunct Shakers who did not allow marriage.
 
pnewton said:
Yes, I was speaking of mainstream evangelical and fundamentalist viewpoints. I know of no denomination that is more strict than the Catholic Church, except maybe the defunct Shakers who did not allow marriage.
Click to expand...
Some don’t believe in any sort of annulment or divorce, so they are the ones I consider to be more strict than the CC. Once you’re married it is permanent with no annulment (in fact, they talk about how easy it is to get an annulment in the CC, and speak of it as divorce just as much as secular divorce). In other words they have very similar laws about divorce as the CC and don’t practice annulments, hence, they are more strict, though in extreme situations separation (without any remarriage) would be allowed. The Amish would be one example of this, of course I don’t know how “mainstream” they would be considered, but they, along with several other non-denom groups around my area of the US also have the same, or similar, teaching. As with other issues, the protestant world runs the gamut.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top