Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the Vatican’s doctrinal chief, has made one of his strongest statements yet on the controversial question of Communion for the divorced and remarried.
In an interview with the Italian magazine Il Timone, Cardinal Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked whether the teaching reaffirmed by Pope St John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio is still valid.
St John Paul said that the divorced and remarried cannot take Communion, except possibly when they try to live “in complete continence”.
Cardinal Müller said of this condition: “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.”
In Familiaris Consortio, St. John Paul said that the prohibition was based on Scripture and the intrinsic link between the Eucharist and marriage: to live in a sexual relationship “objectively contradict[s] that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist”.
The cardinal told Il Timone that this made Communion for the remarried impossible: “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.”
In the new interview, Cardinal Müller says: “Amoris Laetitia must clearly be interpreted in the light of the whole doctrine of the Church.” He added: “I don’t like it, it is not right that so many bishops are interpreting Amoris Laetitia according to their way of understanding the Pope’s teaching. This does not keep to the line of Catholic doctrine.”
He said that many people needed to study more doctrine on the office of the bishop, which was not to offer novel accounts of papal teaching. “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,” the cardinal said. He also warned against “sophistries” and “casuistry” which would diminish Church teaching on marriage.
Full story at Catholic News Live.
Yet Cardinal Mueller didn’t mention the letter to the Argentine bishops and what is going on in Malta.
Regarding the Bishop of San Diego in light of the Cardinal’s words, it goes to show that book knowledge doesn’t always lead to powers of wisdom, discernment, and truth.
True enough, I guess. But I took Cardinal Mueller’s complaint to be that some bishops shoot their mouths off and teach error PRECISELY BECAUSE they are insufficiently versed in Magisterial teaching (“book knowledge”, as you call it].
….they also shoot their mouths off because they are given full endorsement from the Pope. Are you intimating that Francis is insufficiently versed in Magisterial teaching?
Not all candidates for the seminary are suitable to enter, and be ordained as priests. Not all have the gift of Faith, and are spiritually blessed and called by God, to lead the flocks of Christ. Not all are mature men, suitable for the role of the priest. Candidates should be carefully chosen, watched, and prayed over, and the local Bishop is supposed to be very careful, in whom he ordains! Of course– we all know what happened, after Vatican II! Disaster in the Church! Nothing normal, any more!
Nothing normal anymore?? Please, such exaggerations do not serve whatever point you’re making. The fact is that the sacraments in the OF and the EF are still being offered for the salvation of souls, that there are souls out there that are holy and saintly (inspire of liturgical abuses many folks here keep reminding us), that there are bishops and priests and religious who are holy, that there are lay people who are holy, that the Gospel continues to be preached, that God continues to watch over His Church on whom the gates of hell will not prevail against. This overblown hyperbole that all is a disaster in the Church after Vatican II is a figment of your imagination. NOT ALL IS DISASTER IN THE CHURCH!. However, for those poor souls…
who have an agenda, or who have been inflicted with some kind of heresy or even evil: yeah, they’d see black everywhere. Repent.
Ahh, let’s see Cardinal Mueller versus the German Bishops (and, likely, their pal, Pope Francis). Let’s see who wins. In fact, the debate is already over as the entirety — that means all of them that count — of the German Catholic hierarchy are now implementing the “it’s OK if you feel good about it” pastoral approach to permitting adulterers — that is, some adulterers — go to communion if they want to. It’s over. Done, Finito.
The ball is now in America’s episcopal court. So far, a few big ones have come out in favor of the free lunch approach to communion: Abp. Cupich, B. McElroy and C. Wuerl. Where do you stand, USCCB? Time to stand up for Christ.
Cardinal Müller is implying that Pope Francis is against God’s law.
No he isn’t. He’s implying that Cardinal Burke isn’t doing proper discernment over the truth of A.L.
The only fruit from Amoris Laetitia is rotten, “YFC.” Cardinal Mueller is simply not courageous enough to stand up to the Pope yet; perhaps that will come soon.
There is nothing to “discern” about AL. You cannot condone adultery, which is what exists when people play at remarriage without the Church granting an annulment (unless as brother and sister). St. John Paul II expressly stated this, on several occasions, events completely ignored by Francis. Cardinal Burke is spot-on with the dubium. The Pope must answer or be corrected.
Sorry, but proper discernment is to call for clarity where clarity is needed – especially with Bishops now endorsing wholesale communion for the divorced and civilly remarried. The truth about AL is that it is intentionally ambiguous.
Search his words, YFC, and you will find Muller is carrying C. Burke’s water for him, as is obvious to all of the commentators on this topic but yourself.
Yes, I agree, Joel Fago! And YES– Your “Fellow Catholic”– Cardinal Burke has been courageously and responsibly affirming correct Catholic teaching, as he is called to do, by Christ.
Really, all of these theological debates do not matter at the parish level. I have known several divorced and remarried Catholics who have been receiving Communion for many years, even prior to Amoris Laetitia. What is the Pastor and the parish priests supposed to do? In some cases, the priests do not know of these situations.
…if the priests do not know then the onus of guilt lies solely on those who are receiving the Blessed Sacrament sacrilegiously. If, however, the priest does know, there is an obligation to not take part in another’s sin.
The pretense of AL is that there is some charity in facilitating sacrilege. As if the Blessed Mother and Saint John, instead of standing firm at the foot of the cross, should rather have encouraged the defamation of Christ in order to make those calling for His blood feel better.
But George, if 2/3rds of the divorcees (according to National Surveys) in the V2 Church don’t believe in transubstantiation, you can see why it is really not a big deal to them; and maybe others, it may not really matter to them either! I wonder how many of the V2 clergy still believe in transubstantiation? With all the liturgical abuses, one can genuinely ponder that thought.
Jean: the pastor and priest at the parish I attend believe in the real presence and have preached about it. I don’t think that is the issue. There are no apparent liturgical abuses during the celebration of the Holy Mass. Actually, several of these couples attend the TLM at the parish.
George, Yours is but one parish, perhaps a bit more on the moderate side. In a may be a fortunate person.