FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Cardinal Muller adds his own Dubia
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
"Two books have come out recently, both of them by prominent authors and both in response to the “dubia” submitted to Pope Francis one year ago by four cardinals, concerning the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Laetitia.”
The first of these books, published in Italy by Ares, has already prompted a lot of discussion. It is by Rocco Buttiglione, a well-known scholar of philosophy and an authoritative interpreter of the philosophical thought of John Paul II, today a staunch defender of the “openness” introduced by Francis regarding communion for the divorced and remarried, and an equally resolute proponent of the perfect continuity between the magisterium of the current pope on the subject of morality and the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” by pope Karol Wojtyla.
But even more than by what Buttiglione has written, which was already known, the discussion has been ignited by the preface for the same book, signed by Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, the former prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith."

More here: http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repu...l-his-own/
If Sandro Magister is correct this is far worse than Amoris Lætitiæ!

His description of Cardinal Müller's (and apparently Benedict XVI's notions) are the door to ramming Communion for Adulterers into obligatory practice while keeping the appearance of orthodoxy.

What he suggests with regard to declarations of nullity is correct : Often in investigations for nullity it is very probably that a marriage is in fact null, but there is insufficient canonical proof for a tribunal (if they are following the traditional jurisprudence and moral theology of the Church) to declare the marriage null.

For example, if one of the spouses intended to leave the other one and remarry if the other committed adultery, that would be an invalidating condition, still if it was never discussed with anyone nor was there proof that that condition existed at the time of the marriage, there is no way to declare the marriage null, because there is no evidence, and obviously the testimony of the person benefiting from a nullity decree is insufficient proof. In such a case it is very possible that the marriage was null, but no one can act as if it is null.

In the external forum there is no way to prove the invalidity of the marriage , so we must act as if it is valid. In the internal forum (e.g. the confessional) we may have good evidence from honest testimony of the invalidity, so certain things could be counseled (like convalidation, or if the spouses do not want to continue living as married, a separation if there is just cause). Because there is no proof in the external forum, however, such separation might have to appear externally to be two who are validly married separating, and being unable to remarry.

Because of this while they might be truly free to marry, but this cannot be proven, they are bound to externally consider themselves married.

That is a sad situation, but the solution is to clearly teach the necessary doctrines with regard to marriage (so it is clear that have no excuses), not try to find loopholes.

In a Hegelian Dialectic, so loved by Cardinal Müller and Benedict, that is what he suggests here : a loophole.

He effectively asserts : The Catholic Doctrine is too harsh, the libertine interpertation of AL is too lax, so let's come to a happy medium. Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis. 

So while externally, sure, we cannot prove externally invalidity, so the person is objectively living in adultery, we can in the confessional, perhaps, find out that indeed that first marriage was invalid, and so they are really not adulterers, just fornicating, thus they can be forgiven, and since they are not living in an adulterous union be admitted to communion.

Two problems flow from that :

1. Even if this were true, they would living in an objectively sinful state still, since they would not have married in the Church, and thus are living objectively in an invalid union (for lack of form, at least) and are thus persistently in a proximate occasion of grave sin. They cannot be absolved unless they were to leave this union. Ironically, that would solve the whole problem anyway

2. It sets the stage for one to say that, because we cannot know what happens in the internal forum (e.g. confessional), if they apparent adulterer is going to Communion, then it must be that the priest prudently judged that that his first marriage was invalid, as we cannot assume the worst, and cannot know that internal forum. It's the golden ticket to Communion for the Divorced and Remarried—force it into the internal forum, and then claim that because that's secret, we can violate the Natural Law, cause Scandal, and objectively violate Divine and Ecclesiastical Precepts in the external forum, now under the appearance of traditional theology. If everyone is own judge and his own law—objective sin doesn't matter any more, just my subjective feeling—then Church law and Divine law don't matter (even if we claim they do and are retained).

It's precisely like those "Time-Bombs" we often speak of with Vatican II :

"The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended."

= Totally vernacular Mass

"In view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful. The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed ... where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See ... lays on those [bishops'] conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow."

= Communion in the Hand forced on everyone

“It is possible that the tension seen here between the public-objective status of the ‘second’ marriage and the subjective fault could open, under the conditions described, the way to the sacrament of penance and to holy communion, passing through a pastoral discernment in the internal forum.”

= Communion for unrepentant adulterers