All Smiles Again in the Conciliar Church: Cardinal Muller Caves! Dubia gets nowhere. Fraternal Correction gets nowhere. Its full steam ahead for Conciliar Apostasy. 2018!
Dr. Chojnowski
HERE IS THE LATEST FROM THE VATICAN:
ANDREA TORNIELLI
VATICAN CITY
For his seventieth birthday, the most significant words were those
received by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI: Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller
has "defended the clear traditions of faith, but in Pope Francis’
spirit" he has "tried to understand how they can be lived today". It it
precisely the sense that the German cardinal wanted to give in the rich
and articulated introductory essay in support of philosopher Rocco
Buttiglione’s initiative, who in a recently published volume collected
his contributions for an in depth reading on Amoris laetitia beyond
opposite extremisms.
For many years now, first as cardinal and then as Pope, Joseph Ratzinger
had spoken of the problem represented by the increasing number of
marriages celebrated without faith and without the awareness of the
sacrament. A problem taken into consideration by Müller himself in a
pastoral letter published at the beginning of his episcopate in
Regensburg. In this interview with Vatican Insider, the Cardinal returns to the dubia and elaborates on some passages of his introduction to Buttiglione's book.
Your Eminence, why did you support philosopher Rocco Buttiglione’s book on Amoris laetitia?
My friend Rocco Buttiglione's intention in this book is to offer
competent answers to questions formulated in a competent manner. I
wanted to support this contribution to honest dialogue without bias and
without controversy. In German there is a way of saying, "whoever wants
to bring peace takes the barrel from both sides". However, I believe
that we must accept this risk out of love for the truth of the Gospel
and, for the unity of the Church.
Do you believe that Professor Buttiglione's book has actually answered to the famous dubia expressed by the four cardinals?
I am convinced that he has dispelled the doubts of the cardinals and
many Catholics who feared that in "Amoris Laetitia" a substantial
alteration of the doctrine of faith had taken place both on the valid
and fruitful way of receiving Holy Communion as well as on the
indissolubility of a marriage validly contracted between baptized.
The
impression one gets when reading the five dubia texts of the cardinals
is that we are not dealing with real questions, that is, doubts
expressed in order to have an answer in one sense or another, but rather
with questions that are a little rhetorical and that lead towards an
already established direction. What do you think about it?
In all my stances, which have been requested to me by many parties, I
have always tried to overcome polarizations and opposing ways of
thinking. For this reason, Professor Buttiglione asked me for an
introduction essay to his book entitled "Why Amoris Laetitia can and
must be interpreted in the orthodox sense". Now, however, we must not
waste time wondering how we have entered this tense situation, but
rather on focusing on how to come out of it. we need more confidence and
more benevolent attention to each other. As Christians, we must never
doubt the good will of our brothers but "each one of you, humbly think of others as being better than yourselves" (Phil. 2,3) - so the Apostle admonishes us to all share the same feelings in love.
In your
introductory essay to Buttiglione's book, you speak of at least one
exception concerning the sacraments for those who live a second union,
that concerning those who cannot obtain marriage annulment in court but
are convinced in conscience of the nullity of the first marriage. This
hypothesis was already considered, in 2000, by the then Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger. In this case, can we open the way to the sacraments? Could
Amoris laetitia be considered a development of that position?
Faced with the often-inadequate education in Catholic doctrine, and in a
secularized environment in which Christian marriage is not a convincing
example of life, the question arises also on the validity of marriages
celebrated according to the canonical ritual. There is a natural right
to marry a person of the opposite sex. This also applies to Catholics
who have departed from the faith or maintained only a superficial bond
with the Church. How can we consider the situation of those Catholics
who do not appreciate or even deny the sacramentality of Christian
marriage? Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to reflect on this without having a
ready-made solution. This is not about artificially constructing some
kind of pretext for being able to give communion. Those who do not
recognize or take marriage seriously as a sacrament in the sense that
the Church considers, cannot even, and this is the most important thing,
receive in holy communion, Christ who is the foundation of the
sacramental grace of marriage. There should first be a conversion to the
entire mystery of faith. Only in the light of these considerations can a
good pastor clarify the family and marriage situation. It is possible
that the penitent may be convinced in conscience, and with good reasons,
of the invalidity of the first marriage even though they cannot offer
canonical proof. In this case the marriage valid before God would be the
second one and the pastor could grant the sacrament, certainly with the
appropriate precautions as not to scandalize the community of the
faithful and not to weaken the conviction of marriage indissolubility.
We are faced
with an increasing number of marriages celebrated without real faith
between people who, after a few years (sometimes a few months) leave
each other. And then, perhaps, after having entered a new civil union,
they truly meet Christian faith and embark on a journey. How to act in
these cases?
We
do not yet have a consolidated answer here. However, we should develop
criteria without falling into the casuistic trap. Theoretically, it is
quite easy to define the difference between a non-baptized believer and a
so-called "Christian in name only" who later reaches the fullness of
faith. It is more difficult to verify this in the concrete reality of
the individual person on the pilgrimage of their life. Faithful to the
Word of God, the Church does not recognize any dissolution of the
marriage bond and therefore no division. A sacramental marriage valid
before God and before the Church cannot be dissolved by the spouses or
by the authority of the Church, nor can it be dissolved by a civil
divorce followed by a new marriage. The case is different, which we have
already mentioned, of a marriage that has been invalid since the
beginning because of the lack of a true consensus. In this case, a valid
marriage is not dissolved or considered irrelevant. It is simply
recognized that what seemed to be a marriage actually wasn’t.
In your
introductory essay to Buttiglione's book, you also speak of the
diminished imputability of guilt for those who "are not yet able to
satisfy all the requirements of moral law". What does that mean?
Mortal sin deprives us of the supernatural life in grace. Its formal
principle is the will to contradict the holy will of God. To this is
added the "matter" of actions in serious conflict against the doctrine
of the faith of the Church and its unity with the Pope and the bishops,
the holiness of the sacraments and the commandments of God. Catholics
cannot excuse themselves by saying that they do not know all these
things. But there are people who, without their own gross negligence,
have not received sufficient religious teachings and live in a spiritual
and cultural environment that endangers the sentire cum Ecclesia (think
with the Church). Here we need the good shepherd who, this time, must
not repel the wolves with his stick but - according to the model of the
good Samaritan - pour oil and wine into the wounds and hospitalize the
wounded in the inn that is the Church.
In your
introductory essay, you also recall the traditional doctrine according
to which "for the imputability of guilt in God’s judgment, one must
consider subjective factors such as full knowledge and deliberate
consent in the serious lack of respect for God’s commandments". So,
then, can there be cases in which, lacking full knowledge and deliberate
consent, imputability has diminished?
Whoever in the Sacrament of Penance asks for reconciliation with God
and the Church must confess all their grave sins remembered after a
thorough examination of conscience. Only God can measure the gravity of
the sins committed against His commandments because He alone knows the
hearts of people. The circumstances, which God alone knows, which
diminish the guilt and punishment before His court, differ from those
which can be judged from the outside, such as those which can call into
question the validity of a marriage. The Church can administer the
sacraments as instruments of grace only in accordance with the way in
which Christ established them. Saint Thomas Aquinas distinguishes the
sacrament of penance from that of the Eucharist as the former being a
medicine that purifies (purgative) while the latter, a medicine that
edifies (supporting). If they are exchanged for each other, damage is
done to the sick or healthy person. Those who remember a grave sin must
first of all receive the sacrament of penance. For this reason,
repentance and the intention to avoid future occasions of sin is
necessary. Without this, sacramental forgiveness cannot be given. This
is in any case the doctrine of the Church. In the introduction to
Buttiglione's book, I also mentioned the relevant passages of the most
authoritative magisterium. However, believers also have the right to a
careful accompaniment that corresponds to their personal journey of
faith. In pastoral accompaniment and especially in the sacrament of
penance, the priest must help in the examination of conscience. The
believer cannot decide in conscience alone whether or not to recognize
God's commandments as just and binding on them. Rather, we examine our
thoughts, words, deeds and omissions in conscience in the light of His
holy will. Instead of justifying ourselves alone, we pray humbly to God
and "with a contrite spirit" (Psalm 51:19) for the forgiveness also of
sins that we do not know we have committed. So a new start is
possible.
How then can
we overcome the opposite risks of subjectivism and legalism? How do we
take account of each, individual, specific, sometimes dramatic, event?
In the Catholic vision, the conscience of the individual, the
commandments of God and the authority of the Church are not isolated in
front of each other, but stand with one another in a carefully
calibrated internal connection. This excludes both legalism and
self-referential individualism. It is not our duty to justify a new
union that resembles a marriage with a person who is not the legitimate
spouse. We are not allowed in our thought to believe “in a worldly way"
that Jesus cannot have taken so seriously the indissolubility of
marriage or that this indissolubility can no longer be demanded to the
people of today who, because of life’s length, cannot resist so long
with a single spouse. However, there are in fact dramatic situations
from which it is difficult to find a way out. In these cases, the Good
Shepherd accurately distinguishes objective and subjective conditions
and gives spiritual counselling. But he does not stand up as Lord above
the conscience of others. Here we must link the God's word of salvation,
which in the doctrine of the Church can only be transmitted, with the
concrete situation in which people find themselves along their
pilgrimage. It is good to remember here also the ancient principle that
the confessor should not disturb the conscience of the penitent in good
faith before they have grown in faith and in the knowledge of Christian
doctrine to the point of being able to recognize their sin and formulate
the intention of no longer committing it. Between obedience to Christ
the Master and imitation of Christ the Good Shepherd there is not an
"or" but an "and".
The
pastoral-application guidelines of Amoris laetitia of the Buenos Aires
bishops, which were praised by the Pontiff, have been published in the
Acta Apostolicae Sedis. How do you rate them?
This is an issue on which I would not like to comment. In my preface to
Buttiglione's book I spoke in general about the relationship between
the papal magisterium and the authority of the pastoral directives of
the diocesan bishops. These are not dogmatic decisions or a sort of
evolution of the dogma. This is only a potential practice concerning the
administration of the sacraments since in such serious cases the
sacrament of penance must precede the reception of communion. In this
regard, however, it should be remembered that according to the Catholic
faith the Eucharistic sacrifice, the Holy Mass, cannot be reduced to the
reception (with the mouth) of communion. The Council of Trent speaks of
a triple way of receiving the sacrament: in desire (in vow); the
reception with the mouth of the holy host (the sacramental communion);
the intimate union of grace with Christ (the spiritual communion).
Dr. Peter Chojnowski "Luther, Funtime Francis & Vatican II, the Great Revolt"
No comments:
Post a Comment