German church OKs case-by-case Communion for remarried

[billy15]

Thank you for your wonderful witness Mac. Great points.

I think there are two things that are being forgotten by some people in this thread.

1. As Dan pointed out, this isn’t a statement by all 66 of the German bishops. This is a statement made by only 27 of the bishops, who are called the Permanent Council.
2. Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was not included in this group, and it seems his words on the topic which were also released today haven’t found it’s way here yet.

Here’s what the Cardinal had to say in a recent interview regarding the claim that the Church’s practice on allowing Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried has changed, emphases mine:

Q: Can there be a contradiction between doctrine and personal conscience?

A [Müller]: …[AL] must clearly be interpreted in the light of the whole doctrine of the Church. …it is not right that so many bishops are interpreting [AL] according to their way of understanding the pope’s teaching. This does not keep to the line of Catholic doctrine. The magisterium of the pope is interpreted only by him or through the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. The pope interprets the bishops, it is not the bishops who interpret the pope, this would constitute an inversion of the structure of the Catholic Church. To all these who are talking too much, I urge them to study first the doctrine [of the councils] on the papacy and the episcopate. The bishop, as teacher of the Word, must himself be the first to be well-formed so as not to fall into the risk of the blind leading the blind.

---

Q: The exhortation of Saint John Paul II, “Familiaris Consortio,” stipulates that divorced and remarried couples that cannot separate, in order to receive the sacraments must strive to live in continence. Is this requirement still valid?

A [Müller]: Of course, it is not dispensable, because it is not only a positive law of John Paul II, but he expressed an essential element of Christian moral theology and the theology of the sacraments. The confusion on this point also concerns the failure to accept the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, with the clear doctrine of the intrinsece malum… For us marriage is the expression of participation in the unity between Christ the bridegroom and the Church his bride. This is not, as some said during the Synod, a simple vague analogy. No! This is the substance of the sacrament, and no 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.

I see a couple people in this thread saying that these 27 bishops are “embracing the clear meaning” of AL; that this is an “authentic interpretation of AL.” Is Cardinal Müller’s interpretation wrong then? If so, why?

I also think it’s very presumptuous for one to say that “For now it seems the Germans and other bishop groups mentioned above are the forefront of what eventually will be a universal implementation of this development of doctrine re: marriage, divorce and the Eucharist.” Where is the evidence for this? I don’t think it’s clear at all that there is a majority at all in either of the two interpretations of AL. If one interpretation is in the forefront, the margin can’t be very wide.

There are several bishop’s conferences that have stated a different interpretation, such as those bishop conferences in Alberta and Kazakhstan. Not to mention, the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, representing 1,000 priests in Britain, Ireland, Australia and the United States, echoed what Cardinal Muller said in his recent and previous interviews. They also support the four Cardinals who put forth the five dubia. They said, in part:

In particular, since at the present time there is much confusion, it is necessary to make clear that Holy Communion cannot be given to someone choosing to live in a sexual relationship with a person other than their validly espoused husband or wife.

To say that conferences and confraternities such as these and the Polish bishops will “come along eventually” is very presumptuous. Instead, it’d be better to say that, in the end, orthodoxy will prevail. It may take a while though. Maybe a few decades, even a century. Look how long it took for the Arianism to die out. Or Iconoclasm. How many bishops supported those errors? One thing is for sure:

There are two different interpretation of AL. One is right. One is wrong. No matter how you slice it, we must admit that there are some bishops out there who are not interpreting AL correctly. Lines are being drawn unfortunately, and I hope and pray this division in the Church ceases. I have to side with the interpretations given by Cardinal Muller, Archbishops Sample and Chaput, and the many others I’ve linked to here in this post. That does not mean I am against Pope Francis. Our Holy Father is a son of the Church.

As Cardinal Muller said, “The magisterium of the pope is interpreted only by him or through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The pope interprets the bishops, it is not the bishops who interpret the pope…”

 

[Tobias2]

Moreover, there’s a whole can-of-worms that is opened. Wouldn’t it also be merciful to allow married couples in situations where unprotected sex might transmit STDs, or where an accidental pregnancy might be faithful, to use artificial birth control? What about same-sex couples. How can the Church honestly tell two men, or two women, in love that they absolutely cannot have a romantic relationship when they’re willing to let to unmarried heterosexuals do the same? The logic of allowing communion for sexually active divorcees can be spread pretty darn far.

Your logic is correct on the implications of AL if it becomes Church dogma. Dogma takes centuries to develop - the infallibility of the Pope for instance as defined in V1.

Catholics seem afraid of Pope Francis indicating a development in dogma here yet the infallibility dogma is already defined and If you believe that dogma then you must accept where the Spirit is guiding the Pope now. Including if AL eventually becomes defined dogma. Have no fear.

Back to the implications of this. The Argentine bishops said “living in countenance” may not “be feasible for some couples” living in adultery and that the couple would fall into an additional fault “damaging the children of the new union” if they refrained from sexual intercourse. The Pope specifically said this Argentine bishops interpretation was correct. The Pope’s advisor Fr. Spadaro said “it may not be practical” for some Catholics living in an adulterous union to refrain from intercourse. The Pope has not corrected him on that.

So yes, this development has implications for contraception, same sex situations and more. The logic would follow over to many areas.

Pope Francis IMO will be a transformational Pope bringing a more merciful, less legalistic Church. His frequent reference to Pharisees is pretty telling. Other Popes in union with the bishops will expand upon this new understanding of conscious (not really new) and if this merciful approach becomes dogma then you can cast your doubts aside as the Spirit is leading the Church, through the Pope, to all truth.

 

[JimG]

The issue is whether Jesus meant what he said about the permanence of marriage, and whether we believe and follow him.

Marriage is permanent until death. If someone who is already married attempts a second marriage, the second marriage cannot be valid unless the first one is determined to have been null from the beginning.

Husband and wife make vows of permanence until death, before God and man. The Church takes them at their word.

 

[JimG]

. . .

So yes, this development has implications for contraception, same sex situations and more. The logic would follow over to many areas.

Yes, I think you are right about this and I am waiting for these particular German bishops to admit as much.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

The Catholic Church does not proclaim doctrinal error and never will.

Sigh…This being the 500th anniversary of the Reformation I would think you would know that’s not correct.

Pride comes the before the fall.

 

[Vouthon]

Sigh…This being the 500th anniversary of the Reformation I would think you would know that’s not true.

Pride come th before the fall.

When did the Papacy and Magisterium of the Church teach doctrinal error in 1517?

I think one will find that they opposed doctrinal error.

 

[FollowChrist34]

All I can say is, Congratulations guys, on a hard fought, hard won battle. Wow.

Addendum:
ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/thousands-of-priests-worldwide-call-for-clarification-of-amoris-laetitia

 

[ChurchSoldier]

When did the Papacy and Magisterium of the Church teach doctrinal error in 1517?

I think one will find that they opposed doctrinal error.

I’ll let you answer, what doctrinal issues did Trent address? As well the Reformation was not about just 1517.

The Pope and Magisterium had to oppose error, whether Arianism or selling Indulgences because it was being taught so widely (in the name of the Church), that it was splitting the church and needed to be addressed.

To my initial point though, I am not pointing out that these false teachings of the German and other Bishops are a serious problem because I am against the church, but because I am a proponent of it!

50 years ago very few in Episcopal church / Anglican Communion ever thought that it would be where it is today. It is where it is because they allowed serious error to get a foothold, the same kind behind the confusion / intentional non-clarification of Amoris Laetitia. Make no mistake, those allowing or taking part in the lack of clarification are very aware of the possible results of their inaction.

It isn’t whether allowing this will lead to massive negative consequences, but how fast will they come? Others here have already pointed out the slippery slope of this leading to the acceptance of birth control, then…

Thanks for your response!

 

[JPUSC]

All I can say is, Congratulations guys, on a hard fought, hard won battle. Wow.

Addendum:
ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/thousands-of-priests-worldwide-call-for-clarification-of-amoris-laetitia

Who’s winning?

 

[Brendan]

Back to the implications of this. The Argentine bishops said “living in countenance” may not “be feasible for some couples” living in adultery and that the couple would fall into an additional fault “damaging the children of the new union” if they refrained from sexual intercourse. The Pope specifically said this Argentine bishops interpretation was correct. The Pope’s advisor Fr. Spadaro said “it may not be practical” for some Catholics living in an adulterous union to refrain from intercourse. The Pope has not corrected him on that.

.

That is because Pope St. John Paul II already had

1. In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: “Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. "As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt),

Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?".

Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.
.

Veritas Splendor -81

In otherwords, an evil act cannot be chosen, even if goodcomes of it.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Who’s winning?

You got me.

 

[jeannetherese]

Addendum:
ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/thousands-of-priests-worldwide-call-for-clarification-of-amoris-laetitia

From the linked article

“As pastors of souls, we are well aware of the many challenges facing the men and women of today. We strive to help our people, often living in complex situations, to hear the call of Christ and his Gospel. This task is made easier when the Church expounds her teaching boldly and clearly. It is also essential that the Church’s discipline must always follow her dogmatic teaching. In particular, since at the present time there is much confusion, it is necessary to make clear that Holy Communion cannot be given to someone choosing to live in a sexual relationship with a person other than their validly espoused husband or wife. Those who find themselves in this situation are of course deserving of pastoral support and must be helped to play as full a part in the life of the Church as their circumstances allow. In connection with this, it is important to state that conscience is not a law unto itself replacing the holy law of God with private judgment, but rather an echo of the voice of the Creator. The dignity of conscience must be assisted to overcome all ignorance and protected from becoming ‘practically sightless as a result of habitual sin’ (Gaudium et Spes, 16)1”

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Can we get waivers for other sins? I’ve got some I struggle with and it would be just easier, I mean, more merciful if I didn’t have to bother with confession all the time.

It happens all the time. Example: you steal a car at gunpoint. Is it grave matter? Yes. Is it mortal sin? No: free will is impeded.

If a Catholic couple just wants communion and has no desire to even attempt to do the right thing, they ain’t gonna get a pass.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

“Pope Francis clearly wanted to change the Church’s practice on the admission of the divorced and civilly remarried to holy Communion, but could not get the synod of bishops to agree. It was an example of the Holy Spirit guiding the magisterium of the Church through the bishops against their head rather than in concert with him. Thus, on the contested question, Amoris Laetitia was ambiguous, employing hints buried in footnotes and deceptive citations of previous magisterial teaching.”
ncregister.com/daily-news/what-argentinas-amoris-laetitia-guidelines-really-mean

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I’ll let you answer, what doctrinal issues did Trent address? As well the Reformation was not about just 1517.

The Pope and Magisterium had to oppose error, whether Arianism or selling Indulgences because it was being taught so widely (in the name of the Church), that it was splitting the church and needed to be addressed.

To my initial point though, I am not pointing out that these false teachings of the German and other Bishops are a serious problem because I am against the church, but because I am a proponent of it!

50 years ago very few in Episcopal church / Anglican Communion ever thought that it would be where it is today. It is where it is because they allowed serious error to get a foothold, the same kind behind the confusion / intentional non-clarification of Amoris Laetitia. Make no mistake, those allowing or taking part in the lack of clarification are very aware of the possible results of their inaction.

It isn’t whether allowing this will lead to massive negative consequences, but how fast will they come? Others here have already pointed out the slippery slope of this leading to the acceptance of birth control, then…

Thanks for your response!

"Pope Francis clearly wanted to change the Church’s practice on the admission of the divorced and civilly remarried to holy Communion, but could not get the synod of bishops to agree. It was an example of the Holy Spirit guiding the magisterium of the Church through the bishops against their head rather than in concert with him. Thus, on the contested question, Amoris Laetitia was ambiguous, employing hints buried in footnotes and deceptive citations of previous magisterial teaching."

ncregister.com/daily-news/what-argentinas-amoris-laetitia-guidelines-really-mean

 

[JPUSC]

"Pope Francis clearly wanted to change the Church’s practice on the admission of the divorced and civilly remarried to holy Communion, but could not get the synod of bishops to agree. It was an example of the Holy Spirit guiding the magisterium of the Church through the bishops against their head rather than in concert with him. Thus, on the contested question, Amoris Laetitia was ambiguous, employing hints buried in footnotes and deceptive citations of previous magisterial teaching."

ncregister.com/daily-news/what-argentinas-amoris-laetitia-guidelines-really-mean

“If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried, you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

Pope Francis to Archbishop Bruno Forte, the Archbishop of Chieti-Vasto, Italy chosen by the Pope to be the special secretary to the synods, relayed during a presentation on the Pope’s recent exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

Italian news website, Zonalocale.it
zonalocale.it/2016/05/03/…-chiesa-/20471