Gerhard Ludwig Müller

Cardinal Müller’s confusion

2017 09 20 Cdl

685 words, 4 min read

It is interesting to see the approach that Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller has taken to responding to an ostensible call from “many bishops, priests, religious and lay people of the Catholic Church” to “make a public testimony about the truth of revelation”, which he constructs by referencing 33 of the Catechism’s 2865 paragraphs.

Sadly, those 33 paragraphs do not include the one that would have sufficed: §85, which goes like this and two thirds of which come from one of Vatican II’s four dogmatic constitutions – Dei Verbum:

““The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” (Dei Verbum, §10) This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.”

Also curious is the total lack of mention of the pope, the “successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome” in Cardinal Müller’s attempt to dispel confusion and shed light on the “many bishops, priests, religious and lay people of the Catholic Church” who are currently at a loss with regard to the “truth of revelation”, especially since he is rather central (to put it mildly) to the “shepherds’ very own task” that Cardinal Müller self-attributes in his statement. Yet again the answer is in the Catechism that Cardinal Müller presents – quoting St. John Paul II’s Fidei Depositum – as the “safe standard for the doctrine of the faith” in the opening paragraph of his declaration. There, at §883, and quoting from another of Vatican II’s dogmatic constitutions, we read:

““The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.” (Lumen Gentium, §22)”

Besides such paradigmatic confusion, Cardinal Müller also seems to be exercising some, shall we say, poetic license. Just to give an example, he presents “[f]or he who dies in mortal sin without repentance will be forever separated from God” as the summary of §1033, which reads:

“We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” (1 Jn 3:14-15) Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. (Cf. Mt 25:31-46.) To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.””

I’m afraid the Catechism (and the magisterium of at least the last three popes) is a shade more nuanced. Instead of Cardinal Müller’s “[f]or he who dies in mortal sin without repentance will be forever separated from God” we have “[t]o die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice” (emphasis mine). Not the same and a bit confusing, if you ask me … or even better, if you ask the Pope, or read and put into practice the Gospel, or read the whole Catechism, instead of Reader’s Digest versions of 33 of its 2865 paragraphs.

Finally, the entire missive ends on another confusion, which is its author’s title, given as “Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 2012-2017” and which instead ought to be “Prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, with all the implications of authority that this difference entails.

Amoris Lætitia: Communion for the divorced and remarried

2314 words, 13 min read

The most hotly debated aspect of Amoris Lætitia, much to Pope Francis’ chagrin, is whether or not it opens access to the Eucharist for at least some divorced and remarried Catholics. Some say that it clearly does not (e.g., Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, or Bishop Philip Egan of Portsmouth), others say that is clearly does (e.g., the German Synod Fathers, Card. Marx, Abp. Koch and Bp. Bode, the great German philosopher Robert Spaemann, who by the way doesn’t like that one bit), yet others are reported as saying that it doesn’t, while – if you listen to what they say – they don’t actually do so (e.g., Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, whose introduction to Amoris Lætitia Pope Francis singled out as being authoritative). What is clear from the numerous reactions so far is that Pope Francis’ words are being interpreted in contradictory terms not only by some, whose capacity for interpreting them could be questioned and whose conclusions could easily be dismissed, but by competent and expert readers of this 264 page apostolic exhortation.

Instead of engaging with interpretations of Francis’ text, I would here like to take a look directly at what he says in AL that could lead us to a “yes” or “no” conclusion, and instead of presuming to settle the issue, just offer you my own reading.

The obvious starting point is a passage from §305, which is often quoted and which is in the middle of the section entitled “The discernment of “irregular” situations” that spans paragraphs 296-312. Before looking at it, let’s get a sense of the lay of the land first. Right from the get go, in §296, Francis declares that:

“There are two ways of thinking which recur throughout the Church’s history: casting off and reinstating. The Church’s way, from the time of the Council of Jerusalem, has always always been the way of Jesus, the way of mercy and reinstatement… The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever; it is to pour out the balm of God’s mercy on all those who ask for it with a sincere heart… For true charity is always unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous.”

In §297, Francis then reiterates that “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” and speaks with great clarity about the need to preserve the Gospel ideal:

“Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion.”

What reinstatement and inclusion do not mean is an “anything goes” or a change to what the Church has taught about Christian ideals. At the same time, in §298, Francis calls for nuance instead of a “one size fits all” approach when it comes to the divorced and remarried:

“The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. […] Another thing is a new un- ion arising from a recent divorce, with all the suffering and confusion which this entails for children and entire families, or the case of someone who has consistently failed in his obligations to the family.”

Francis echoes Benedict XVI in acknowledging that no “easy recipes” exist here and adds that “the discernment of pastors must always take place “by adequately distinguishing”, with an approach which “carefully discerns situations”.” §300 then sets out a specific, five-stage “examination of conscience” that is to be part of a discernment process involving a pastor and the divorced remarried person. Such a process also has specific pre-conditions: “humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it.”

§301 presents the consideration of “mitigating factors in pastoral discernment” and Francis declares that it “can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.” (Bearing in mind that “sanctifying grace” is the state that one needs to be in to be eligible for the reception of the Eucharist.) §302 then backs up the legitimacy of the concept of mitigating factors by pointing to passages in the Catechism, which Francis summarizes by saying:

“For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved.”

§303 then calls for a “better incorporation” of “individual conscience […] into the Church’s praxis,” saying that

“conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.”

Next, we get a section entitled “Rules and discernment,” which opens with the following statement at the beginning of §304:

“It is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being.”

Next, Francis “earnestly ask[s] that we always recall a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our pastoral discernment”:

“Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all… The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail”.

What does this mean? Even general rules that set out an absolute good, cannot – in their formulation – provide for all particular situations. Therefore, Francis says in the opening line of §305, “a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives,” which brings us to the key passage in §305 where Francis declares that a person “in an objective situation of sin” (such as re-marriage after divorce) can nonetheless be “living in God’s grace” (a pre-requisite for access to the Eucharist¹):

“Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.”

To elaborate on what help can be expected from the Church, the above sentence points to the following, much-debated footnote number 351:

“In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).”

The most obvious interpretation, to my mind, here is that, yes, what Pope Francis is saying is that access to the Eucharist is a possibility in the context of the pastor-lead discernment, where he understands the particular circumstances of a person who approaches him on the back of the pre-conditions spelled out above. It is worth noting here that Cardinal Müller has specifically denied such an interpretation of footnote 351, claiming that “this footnote refers to objective situations of sin in general, not to the specific case of civilly remarried divorcees.” Personally, I find this very hard to see, given that the entire section, in the very middle of which we are here, is all about the divorced and civilly remarried … Furthermore, it is primarily §301 that is the basis of the Eucharist being offered to some divorced and civilly remarried – as “medicine and nourishment”, since it states that those in “irregular” circumstances may nonetheless be in a state of grace. Footnote 351 is then just a spelling out of §301’s consequences.

Before wrapping up my reading of AL from the perspective of whether or not the divorced and civilly remarried have access to the Eucharist (through the above process of pastor-lead discernment), it is also worth noting two aspects of the exhortation that, I believe, indirectly support my interpretation.

First, that Pope Francis never says that the divorced and civilly remarried are excluded from access to the Eucharist, while at the same time making categorical statements about abortion (“So great is the value of a human life, and so inalienable the right to life of an innocent child growing in the mother’s womb, that no alleged right to one’s own body can justify a decision to terminate that life.” (§83)), same-sex marriage (“there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family” (§251)) and the indissolubility of marriage (“only the exclusive and indissoluble union between a man and a woman has a plenary role to play in society as a stable commitment that bears fruit in new life” (§52)). If Pope Francis would have wanted to maintain pastoral practice as it stands, he could have said that there is no change to it. In fact, even when asked directly after the publication of AL about whether there were “new, concrete possibilities that didn’t exist before” with regard to the “discipline that regulates access to the sacraments for the divorced and remarried”, his response was: “I can say yes, many.”

Second, Pope Francis does explicitly speak about obstacles to receiving the Eucharist in a different context, which consist in “creating scandalous distinctions and divisions among [the Church’s] members” and in “turn[ing] a blind eye to the poor and suffering, or consent[ing] to various forms of division, contempt and inequality”:

“The Eucharist demands that we be members of the one body of the Church. Those who approach the Body and Blood of Christ may not wound that same Body by creating scandalous distinctions and divisions among its members. This is what it means to “discern” the body of the Lord, to acknowledge it with faith and charity both in the sacramental signs and in the community; those who fail to do so eat and drink judgement against themselves. The celebration of the Eucharist thus becomes a constant summons for everyone “to examine himself or herself”, to open the doors of the family to greater fellowship with the underprivileged, and in this way to receive the sacrament of that eucharistic love which makes us one body. We must not forget that “the ‘mysticism’ of the sacrament has a social character”. When those who receive it turn a blind eye to the poor and suffering, or consent to various forms of division, contempt and inequality, the Eucharist is received unworthily. On the other hand, families who are properly disposed and receive the Eucharist regularly, reinforce their desire for fraternity, their social consciousness and their commitment to those in need.” (§186)

Against the background of the above secondary features of Amoris Lætitia, but primarily because of the introduction of greater granularity to how the state of grace is understood of those who are divorced and civilly remarried, as expressed in §301, I have to side with the German Synod Fathers’ and with Robert Spaemann’s reading that Amoris Lætitia does indeed allow for access to the Eucharist for some divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.^{2, 3}

[UPDATE on 13 September 2016] Last Friday, a pair of documents were published that confirm the above reading of Amoris Lætitia directly through the words of Pope Francis, who, responding to a document shared with him by the bishops of the diocese of Buenos Aires, stated that “there is no other interpretation” of Amoris Lætitia’s chapter 8 than that the divorced and civilly remarried may in some cases be admitted to receiving the Eucharist. In addition to the continence scenario that the Buenos Aires document mentions (and that comes from St. John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio), it also states that such access may also be an option under other circumstances:

“Under other, more complex circumstances, and when it was not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, the option mentioned above [i.e., continence] may not in fact be feasible. Nonetheless, a path of discernment is still possible. If this arrives, in a specific case, at the conclusion that there are limitations that attenuate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), in particular when a person deems that they would commit further faults that would harm the children of the new union, Amoris Lætitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). These in turn will dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the power of grace.”

The document then proceeds to caution against interpreting this as unrestricted access to the sacraments and emphasizes the importance of continuing accompaniment, and examination of conscience.

Having Pope Francis identify this as the only interpretation of Amoris Lætitia now confirms the substantial change that it has introduced to the Church’s pastoral care for the divorced and civilly remarried.

¹ The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of [Penance and] Reconciliation before coming to communion.” (§1385) and that “[t]he whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God’s grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship.” (§1468), with Pope Benedict XVI even bringing these two points together explicitly in in Sacramentum Caritatis §20, emphasizing “the need to be in a state of grace in order to approach sacramental communion worthily”.
² Beyond what Familiaris Consortio set out in its §84, where the divorced and civilly remarried who abstained from sex were declared to be in a position to receive the Eucharist. I.e., already with St. John Paul II the prohibition was not absolute.
³ Just in case you feel like exclaiming that the Church’s understanding and teaching never changes, take a look here and here (but mainly at the second “here”).

Synod15: Gospel is mercy, guilt is useless

Synod lay

In his intervention during a General Congregation last week, Cardinal Reinhard Marx spoke about two topics. First, the need for a renewed marriage preparation and the subsequent accompanying of married couples:

“The Church’s marriage preparation and accompanying must not be driven by moral perfectionism. Neither can pastoral care be one of the “all or nothing”. It is much more about a differentiated perception of the various life and love experiences of people. Our eyes should be directed less at what (still) does not succeed in life, or perhaps fails thoroughly, and more what already succeeds. It is usually not the raised finger, but the outstretched hand, that motivates people to pursue the path of sanctification. We need a ministry that values the experience of people in loving relationships and that is able to awaken spiritual yearning. The sacrament of marriage is to be announced above all as a gift that enriches and strengthens marriage and family life, and less as an ideal that is to be achieved by human power. As essential as lifelong fidelity is to the unfolding of love, so the sacramental nature of marriage should not be reduced to its indissolubility. It is a comprehensive relationship that unfolds.”

Cardinal Marx then proceeds to argue for an admission of some divorced and civilly-remarried to the Eucharist, where the core of his argument is the following:

“From a perspective of sacramental theology, two things are to be borne in mind. Can we, in good conscience, exclude all divorced and civilly remarried faithful from the Sacrament of Reconciliation? Can we deny them a reconciliation with God and the sacramental experience of God’s mercy, even when they sincerely repent for the breakup of their marriage? Regarding the question of admission to sacramental communion, it must be remembered that the Eucharist not only represents the union of Christ and his Church, but that it also renews that union repeatedly and strengthens the faithful on their path of sanctification. Both these principles of admission to the Eucharist, namely the witness of the unity of the Church and a participation in the means of grace, can sometimes be in tension. The Council says in the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio (no. 8): “Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice.” Beyond Ecumenism, this statement is also of fundamental pastoral importance. In his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, the Holy Father added, with reference to the teaching of the Church Fathers: “The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak. These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness.” (no. 47)”

To bring this topic closer to lived experiences, Bishop Alonso Gerardo Garza spoke to the Synod about a boy from his diocese, who shared the Eucharist he received with his divorced and re-married parents:

“During catechism classes, what remained imprinted in his heart and in his mind were a few things: the first is that Jesus is really present in every part of the Eucharist, no matter how small, the second is the importance of not keeping Jesus only to ourselves, but to take him to our friends and families. Finally when communion was spoken about during catechism, there was also an emphasis on parents and godparents approach the sacrament of confession and the Eucharist.

In this boy, these concepts were very clear and they led him to giving a piece of the host that he received to his parents, because he saw that they are good, they accompanied him to catechism, they all went to church together and he did not understand why a priest could not give the host to them while he could receive it himself.”

When asked in an interview what he expects to see in terms of the divorced and re-married, Cardinal Donald Wuerl responded:

“I do not know what the result will be. But we have already got one, a really positive step: it is clear that Pope Francis wants a Church in which everyone’s concerns are heard. I do not know what will happen at the end of this week. It seems to me that the outcome of the synod is to tell the whole world that in the Catholic Church we can have arguments and that the principle of God’s love is the norm. We have to understand how to bring people to God.”

Surprisingly, even Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller is reported by the German language Vatican Radio to have said that, in extreme cases, some divorced and civilly-remarried could be admitted to receiving the Eucharist (pointing to paragraph 84 of St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio, where such an option is proposed where repentance and abstinence from sexual intercourse are the conditions). Cardinal Müller added that “it would be possible to think more in this direction.”

In an interview yesterday, Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ spoke very clearly about a key challenge that underlies the topics discussed at the Synod, which is that of how the Church and world are to relate:

“You can not illuminate reality without having listened to it first. Man is not an alien element to the preaching of the Gospel: the Gospel is not an abstract doctrine that sets out to hit men from the outside, like a stone. It is to be incarnated in the lived lives, in experiences; sometimes also conflicting, sometimes instead serene … So, this dimension of the relationship with reality, with actual experience, is fundamental. The Gospel must enlighten lives in their concreteness.”

When asked about whether there is a need for a rediscovery of sin, Fr. Spadaro argued:

“The proclamation of the Gospel, i.e., that the Lord died for us, died for me, is not a proclamation of sin. So, it is important to understand the reality of the Gospel well. The proclamation of the Gospel is a proclamation of mercy: in the light of the mercy of the Lord’s forgiveness, I understand my sin, I comprehend my sin, because the risk is to fall into a kind of great sense of guilt. Then, if the perception of the merciful God is lacking, the sense of sin is only a sense of guilt, that is often useless.”