Cardinali-contro.
Potremmo intitolare così questo nostro post. Già alcuni mesi prima dello scorso
sinodo si annunciava una grande battaglia tra prelati. E difatti vi è stata,
con un crescendo di toni accesi.
Oggi, a
circa sei mesi prima del sinodo – quello ordinario – decisivo, la battaglia si
ripropone. Il card. Brandmüller, in una lunga intervista a Life Site News,
senza mezzi termini definisce eretico chiunque pensasse di portare ad una modifica
della prassi pastorale rispetto alla dottrina, le quali cose non possono andare
disgiunte. Afferma il presidente emerito della Pontificia Accademia di Scienze
Storiche: “Un cambiamento della dottrina, del dogma, è impensabile. Chi tuttavia
lo fa consapevolmente, o invoca con insistenza che venga fatto, è un eretico,
anche se indossa la porpora romana” (v. Il Timone). Anche il card. Müller si era espresso in
termini non diversi da quelli di Brandmüller (v. qui). Il
riferimento – non detto – è al card. Kasper. Cfr. l’articolo di Lorenzo Bertocchi, Due cardinali avvisano Kasper: la dottrina non si discute.
Vedremo
se ci sarà dalla controparte una reazione.
Cardinal Brandmüller: Advocates
for changing Catholic teaching on marriage are ‘heretics’ – even if they are
bishops
April 14, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 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.
LifeSiteNews: 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?
Cardinal: The answer is to be found in the Catechism
of the Catholic Church no. 1638-1642.
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 for 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. In the
same manner, an architect could perhaps build 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 in the same time he disregards consciously 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 any more recognized, then
everybody makes himself his own moral law. That has as a consequence that one
does what one pleases. It can be added the individualistic approach to life
which 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 was little
talk in the last decades about the teaching about the Fallen Human Nature. The
dominant impression was 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 the
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 did not leave 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, another 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.
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. There opens up a whole field for
creative imagination.
What would you say about the recent statements of
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 shall 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 he can take nationally an independent path, 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.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento