Cardinal Brandmüller: Advocates for changing Catholic teaching
on marriage are ‘heretics’ – even if they are bishops
April 14, 2015
Cardinal Walter Brandmüller has been among the leading voices critical of proposals stemming from the Vatican’s Synod on the Family that risk subverting Catholic teaching on the sacraments and morality.
He was one of five cardinals who contributed to the book
Remaining in the Truth of Christ, which focused on criticizing Cardinal Walter Kasper’s proposal to open up Communion to those in irregular sexual unions.
LifeSiteNews contributor Dr. Maike Hickson interviewed Cardinal Brandmüller last month.
Could you present once more for our readers clearly the teaching of the Catholic Church, as it has been consistently taught throughout centuries concerning marriage and its indissolubility?
The answer is to be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 1638-1642.
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IV. The Effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony
1638 "From a valid marriage arises a bond between the spouses which by its very nature is perpetual and exclusive; furthermore, in a Christian marriage the spouses are strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and the dignity of their state by a special sacrament".
The marriage bond
1639 The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself.141 From their covenant arises "an institution, confirmed by the divine law, . . . even in the eyes of society." The covenant between the spouses is integrated into God's covenant with man: "Authentic married love is caught up into divine love."
1640 Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God's fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.
The grace of the sacrament of Matrimony
1641 "By reason of their state in life and of their order, [Christian spouses] have their own special gifts in the People of God." This grace proper to the sacrament of Matrimony is intended to perfect the couple's love and to strengthen their indissoluble unity. By this grace they "help one another to attain holiness in their married life and in welcoming and educating their children."
1642 Christ is the source of this grace. "Just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and fidelity, so our Savior, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of Matrimony."
Christ dwells with them, gives them the strength to take up their crosses and so follow him, to rise again after they have fallen, to forgive one another, to bear one another's burdens, to "be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ," and to love one another with supernatural, tender, and fruitful love. In the joys of their love and family life he gives them here on earth a foretaste of the wedding feast of the Lamb:
"How can I ever express the happiness of a marriage joined by the Church, strengthened by an offering, sealed by a blessing, announced by angels, and ratified by the Father? . . . How wonderful the bond between two believers, now one in hope, one in desire, one in discipline, one in the same service! They are both children of one Father and servants of the same Master, undivided in spirit and flesh, truly two in one flesh. Where the flesh is one, one also is the spirit."
Can the Church admit remarried couples to Holy Communion, even though their second marriage is not valid in the eyes of the Church?
That would be possible if the concerned couples would make the decision to live in the future like brother and sister. This solution is especially worth considering when the care of children disallows a separation. The decision for such a path would be a convincing expression of the penance for the previous and protracted act of adultery.
Can the Church deal with the topic of marriage in a pastoral manner that is different from the continual teaching of the Church? Can the Church at all change the teaching itself without falling herself into heresy?
It is evident that the pastoral practice of the Church cannot stand in opposition to the binding doctrine nor simply ignore it. An architect could perhaps design a most beautiful bridge. However, if he does not pay attention to the laws of structural engineering, he risks the collapse of his construction.
In the same manner, every pastoral practice has to follow the Word of God if it does not want to fail. A change of the teaching, of the dogma, is unthinkable. Who nevertheless consciously does it, or insistently demands it, is a heretic – even if he wears the Roman Purple.
Is not the whole discussion about the admittance of remarried to the Holy Eucharist also an expression of the fact that many Catholics do not believe any more in the Real Presence and rather think that they receive in Holy Communion anyway only a piece of bread?
Indeed, there is an indissoluble inner contradiction in someone who wants to receive the Body and Blood of Christ and to unite himself with Him, while at the same time he consciously disregards His Commandment. How shall this work?
St. Paul says about this matter: 'Who eats and drinks unworthily, is eating and drinking his judgment...' But: You are right. By far, not all Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the consecrated host. One can see this fact already in the way many – even priests – pass the tabernacle without genuflection.
Why is there nowadays such a strong attack on the indissolubility of marriage within the Church? A possible answer could be that the spirit of relativism has entered the Church, but there must be more reasons. Could you name some? And are not all these reasons a sign of the crisis of Faith within the Church herself?
Of course, if certain moral standards that have been valid generally, always, and everywhere, are not recognized anymore, then everybody makes himself his own moral law. That has as a consequence that one does what one pleases.
This individualistic approach regards life as a single chance for self-actualization – and not as a mission of the Creator. It is evident that such attitudes are the expression of a deeply rooted loss of Faith.
In this context, one can state that there has been little talk in the last decades about the teaching about human nature after the Fall. The dominant impression is that man, all in all, is good. In my view, this has led to a lax attitude toward sin. Now, that we see the result of such a lax attitude – an explosion of inhuman conduct in all possible areas of human life – should this not be a reason for the Church to see that the teaching on fallen human nature has been confirmed and to therefore proclaim it again?
That is true, indeed. The topic 'Original Sin' with its consequences, the necessity for Redemption through the suffering, death and Resurrection of Christ, has been largely suppressed and forgotten for a long time. However, one cannot understand the course of the world – and one's own life – without these truths. It is unavoidable that this ignoring of essential truths leads to moral misconduct. You are right: one should finally preach again about this topic, and with clarity.
The high numbers of abortion especially in the West have done great harm, not only for those killed babies, but also for the women (and men) who decided to kill their child. Should the prelates of the Church not take a strong stance about this terrible truth and try to shake the consciences of those women and men, also for the sake of their salvation? And does not the Church have a duty to defend with insistence the Little Ones who cannot defend themselves because they are not even allowed to live? “Let the Little Ones come to Me....”
Here one can say that the Church, especially under the last popes as well as under the Holy Father Francis, has left any room for doubt about the despicable character of the killing of unborn children in the womb. This applies no doubt also to all bishops.
However, the question is whether and in which form the teaching of the Church has been witnessed and presented in the public realm. That is where the hierarchy certainly could do more. One only has to think of the participation of cardinals and bishops at pro-life marches to underscore their witness to the Church's teaching.
Which steps would you recommend for the Church to strengthen the call to holiness and to show the path how to attain it?
One certainly has to witness to the Faith in a way that is fitting for the specific situation. In which form this can happen depends upon the specific circumstances. It opens up a whole field for creative imagination.
What would you say about the recent statements of [German] Bishop Franz-Josef Bode that the Catholic Church has to adapt increasingly to the “life realities” of the people of today and adjust accordingly her moral teaching? I am sure that you as a Church historian have in front of your eyes other examples from the history of the Church, where she was pressured from outside to change the teaching of Christ. Could you name some, and how did the Church in the past respond to such attacks?
It is completely clear and also not new that the proclamation of the teaching of the Church has to be adapted to the concrete life situations of society and of the individual, if the message is to be heard.
But this applies only to the way of the proclamation, and not at all to its inviolable content. An adaptation of the moral teaching is not acceptable.
'Do not conform to the world,' said the Apostle St. Paul. If Bishop Bode teaches something different, he finds himself in contradiction to the teaching of the Church. Is he conscious of that?
Is the German Catholic Church permitted to go her own paths in the question of the admittance of remarried couples to the Holy Eucharist, and thereby decide independently of Rome, as Reinhard Cardinal Marx pronounced after the recent meeting of the German Bishops Conference?
The well-known statements of Cardinal Marx are in contradiction with the dogma of the Church. They are irresponsible in a pastoral respect, because they expose the faithful to confusion and doubts. If he thinks that the German Church can take an independent path nationally, he puts the unity of the Church at risk. It remains: the binding standard for all of the teaching and practice of the Church are her clearly defined doctrines.
Polish Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki:
Only those in a state of grace
can make act of spiritual communion
April 15, 2015
Voice of the Family welcomes the recent comments by His Excellency Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki, Archbishop of Poznań and President of the Polish Episcopal Conference, explaining why the divorced and “remarried” do not possess the correct dispositions to make an act of spiritual communion.
The Archbishop’s intervention was reported by Corrispondenza Romana (as translated by Rorate Caeli) as follows:
“The divorced and remarried cannot make spiritual communion” , Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki, President of the Polish Episcopal Conference affirmed in an intervention at the Convention “What God joined together…” Marriage, Family and Sexuality in the Context of the Synod of Bishops 2014-2015” which took place on April 14 tht the Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw.
Archbishop Gadecki, who stood out during the Synod of Bishops in 2014 for his defense of Catholic morality, was responding to those like Cardinal Kasper who sustain that "if the divorced and remarried can receive spiritual communion, they can also actually receive the Sacrament".
The use that is made of the term “spiritual communion” in order to justify the admittance of the divorced and remarried to the Sacraments is absolutely improper, explained Archbishop Gadecki. Spiritual communion refers, in fact, to what people in a state of grace can do if, on account of a physical impediment or other justifiable circumstance, cannot receive Communion (as happened for example, in the part of Poland occupied by the Soviets after the Second World War).
But Mons. Gadecki said 'spiritual communion' cannot properly be applied refer to those who are forbidden to receive the Eucharist on account of a moral impediment that they can freely remove, by abandoning the situation of sin they are in.
Therefore, all those who are in a state of God’s grace can make a spiritual communion. Those who are in a state of sin, can pray, attend Mass, and develop their relationship with God, but this relationship cannot be defined as spiritual communion.
The Archbishop’s words are important because, as noted above, Cardinal Kasper has tried to use this issue to advance his proposal that remarried divorcees should be admitted to the sacrament of Holy Communion.
In his speech to the consistory of cardinals in February 2013 Cardinal Kasper asserted, that
'according to recent ecclesiastical documents', this question was already settled and that the remarried divorcees could make acts of spiritual communion. [This assertion is probably as (un)reliable as his claim in the same consistory that St. Basil the Great and other early Fathers of the Church had no problem with second marriages (if the first spouse is still alive). Pope Francis went out of his way at the end of that consistory to praise Kasper's exposition as 'theology on bended knee' which would seem to ignore the tendentious dishonesties found here and there in Kasper's so-called 'gospel of the family'.]
From this Kasper drew the following conclusions:
How can he or she then be in contradiction to Christ’s commandments? Why, then, can’t he or she also receive sacramental communion? If we exclude divorced and remarried Christians, who are properly disposed, from the sacraments, and refer them to the extrasacramental way of salvation, do we not then place the fundamental sacramental structure of the Church in question?
[But what does Kasper mean by 'properly disposed' - that the person concerned wishes to receive communion even if remaining in the 'chronic state of sin' that disqualifies him, to begin with, from receiving communion, and who does not have not the least intention to leave his state of sin? Assuming that they even consider their adulterous second marriage a sin at all!]
A similar argument was introduced into the
relatio synodi of the Extraordinary Synod in 2014. In paragraph 53 we read:
Some synod fathers maintained that divorced and remarried persons or those living together can have fruitful recourse to a spiritual communion. Others raised the question as to why, then, they cannot have access “sacramentally.”
Voice of the Family explored this question in our analysis of the final report of the synod. We wrote:
In paragraph 53 the drafters try to find an opening for the admission to Holy Communion of the divorced and “remarried” by asserting that there are synod fathers who find it difficult to understand the difference between spiritual communion and sacramental communion. The traditional understanding of the Church is as follows:
(1) If a person receives Holy Communion with the correct dispositions [i.e., in a state of grace'], then the has Communion both sacramentally and spiritually.
(2) If a person receives Holy Communion, but is not correctly disposed (not in a state of grace), he receives it sacramentally but not spiritually - they may physically partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord but do not receive an increase of sanctifying grace, rather “he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.”(1 Cor 11:29) [Worse, the person who does receive communion knowing he is not in a state of grace is also committing the mortal sin of sacrilege!]
(3) Finally, a person who is correctly disposed to receive Holy Communion, but is not able to do so physically, receives spiritually but not sacramentally, when they make an act of spiritual communion.
A person who willfully persists in a state of mortal sin is thus not able to make a spiritual communion in the proper sense of the term. Therefore a person who is divorced and “remarried” is not able to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion, or able to make a spiritual communion, until they repent of their sin.
The erroneous view that a person who is in unrepentant mortal sin can make an act of spiritual communion, in the proper sense of the term, is perhaps responsible for the confusion among bishops expressed in paragraph 53.
If this position is correct, and we are convinced that it is, then the argument of Cardinal Kasper and the insinuation of the
relatio synodi are shown to be groundless.
We strongly recommend the excellent article “Is Spiritual Communion for Everyone?” by Paul Jerome Keller O.P, which explains the traditional position in depth.
Finally, a new initiative by VOICE OF THE FAMILY.
Let me reiterate once more that we are witnessing what is probably the first instance in modern times when the faithful - and the clergy, including many cardinals and bishops - have to petition the Pope to preserve the deposit of faith. Which is remarkable because it is the mission of whoever is Pope to preserve the deposit of faith handed down to him. So these petitions being presented by various groups on various platforms indicate the perception by the petitioners that this Pope may tamper with, pilfer from, or otherwise change that deposit of faith.
Other than the petitions addressed to Paul VI in 1969-70 not to discard the traditional Mass, was it ever necessary for the lower orders of the Church to remind or petition Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI 'to preserve the deposit of faith'?
Clearly these petitions today to uphold the Church teaching on marriage and the Eucharist constitute an ecclesial singularity that could very well be stemmed right away by an assurance from the Pope that "I do not intend in any way to tamper with the deposit of faith that I am pledged to preserve, uphold and defend".
Which this Pope cannot do because he has given the green light to his followers to "change pastoral practice but not doctrine" about the leniencies that he convened his 'family synods' to ratify in behalf, ostensibly, of the bishops of the world, but really, in behalf most of all, of the Bishop of Rome who wants to be able to claim 'collegiality' when he formally moves in on the deposit of faith.
VOTF starts US priest initiative
asking the Pope to preserve
the deposit of faith at the family Synod
April 17, 2015
Voice of the Family - a coalition of 23 pro-life and pro-family groups from around the globe - is organizing an American version of the Priests' Initiative. In March, a "Support for Marriage Letter," signed by 461 Catholic priests in England and Wales, was released, reaffirming traditional Catholic doctrine, and urging the Holy See to put an end to growing confusion over Catholic teaching on marriage and human sexuality.
The letter was prompted by events at the October 2014 bishops' synod on the family in Rome, where various prelates, some of whom claimed the support of the Pope, called for the recognition of homosexual unions and for the repeal of Catholic moral prohibitions - rooted in Holy Scripture - against the reception of Holy Communion by those in a state of mortal sin. The synod will conclude with a final session in the Vatican, in October of this year.
The Voice of the Family is headed by John-Henry Westen, Editor-in-Chief of LifeSiteNews, the online pro-life news service known for its vigorous defense of Catholic orthodoxy.
Any members of the clergy wishing to sign the American version of the Voice of the Family letter may do so below. Please forward this email to any priest, diocesan or religious, who you believe might be interested in lending his name to the sacred cause of upholding the Deposit of Faith. Thank you.
Dear Father,
Will you join the nearly-500 priests in England who recently signed a public statement defending the Church’s teachings on the nature and indissolubility of marriage, and asking for clarity from the upcoming Synod on the Family?
Following the amazing success of the priests initiative in England, Voice of the Family, a lay initiative made up of 23 pro-life and pro-family groups from around the world, is now working to promote the initiative internationally.
To add your name to the letter , simply send an e-mail to voiceofthefamilyusa@gmail.com with your full name, parish and/or religious order, and affirm that you wish to be added as a signatory to the letter.
The full text of the open letter appears below. A fuller explanation of this initiative follows after that.
FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER TO THE PRESS
Following the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in Rome in October 2014 much confusion has arisen concerning Catholic moral teaching. In this situation we wish, as Catholic priests, to re-state our unwavering fidelity to the traditional doctrines regarding marriage and the true meaning of human sexuality, founded on the Word of God and taught by the Church’s Magisterium for two millennia.
We commit ourselves anew to the task of presenting this teaching in all its fullness, while reaching out with the Lord’s compassion to those struggling to respond to the demands and challenges of the Gospel in an increasingly secular society.
Furthermore we affirm the importance of upholding the Church’s traditional discipline regarding the reception of the sacraments, and that doctrine and practice remain firmly and inseparably in harmony.
We urge all those who will participate in the second Synod in October 2015 to make a clear and firm proclamation of the Church’s unchanging moral teaching, so that confusion may be removed, and faith confirmed.
Yours in Christ,
Your name
Your parish
It is most likely that, like us, you will have followed the events of last October’s Extraordinary Synod of Bishops and its aftermath with interest. Like us, you may also have been left unsettled and deeply concerned by some of the statements coming out of that Synod, and the manner in which the Synod was at times reported by the media and interpreted by those with a secular ideological agenda.
There is now a distorted general sense that the Church’s moral teaching could be changed and that Catholic practice could be altered regardless of doctrine. Even some committed Catholics are making statements that do not reflect the settled teaching of the Church, nor the clear message of the New Testament.
As pastors of souls you will be only too aware of the confusion this has caused to those to whom you minister. All too often it is those who have been most faithful to the teaching of the Church and have made great sacrifices in order to conform their lives to the Gospel, who have been left in greatest distress.
Pope Francis exhorted the participants of the Extraordinary Synod: 'Speak freely and from the heart. And listen humbly to each other.’ Inspired by the Holy Father’s invitation, we wish to make our voice heard.
The letter we intend and propose to publish in the Catholic/national press states our adherence to the Church’s traditional doctrine and discipline of marriage, and our request that this will be affirmed without ambiguity by the Synod to be held later in 2015.
We also make clear our commitment to serve all those who struggle to live out the demands of the Gospel amidst the often difficult circumstances of modern life. Clarity in teaching is never opposed to good pastoral practice, but is rather its foundation.
Please join your brother priests around the world in making this statement, for which we know many people are longing. We invite you to sign the letter and return it, without delay, to the email address provided.
Yours in Our Lord,
John-Henry Westen
Co-Founder
Voice of the Family
Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief
LifeSiteNews.com
Frankly, I am apprehensive about response to this initiative, not because I do not think there are enough priests who continue to maintain and preach orthodox doctrine and discipline, but because too many priests adopt the herd mentality - and if the herd mentality today seems to be "Go with Pope Francis all the way", they will follow that rather than their own convictions, and in the process, may have changed their convictions already.
In England and Wales, the initial response came from 461 out of 2000 priests and male religious, though I believe another 250 names or so have since joined up. I would be happy if, in the United States, the response was at least 4% of the number of priests and male religious in the USA (38,275 in 2014, according to the latest CARA figures), which would make it 1,531 signatories.
[I picked the 4% figure since it was the percentage of US priests accused of sexual abuses and investigated by the police in 1950-2002, of which, I hasten to add, only 1 out of 10 (actually only 8.7%) were formally charged [the base was 109,800 - cumulative number of priests in those five decades]. Of those 364 who were formally charged and tried, 252 were convicted, representing less than 6% of those who had been accused. In other words, 94% of all charges presented turned out to be not prosecutable, though that doesn't mean that in all such cases, the accused was necessarily innocent. This has nothing to do with the subject on hand, but I just wanted to bring up the figures as a reminder. One offense is one too many, but neither is it right to exaggerate the dimensions of that crisis!]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 18/04/2015 23:19]