Cardinal Müller: no need to clarify Amoris Laetitia
January 09, 2017
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), has said that there is no need for clarification of Amoris Laetitia.
Speaking to a German television audience, Cardinal Müller said that the papal document is “very clear in its doctrine,” and does not conflict with traditional Church teaching regarding marriage and the Eucharist.” He said that in the apostolic exhortation, Pope Francis is asking pastors to help people who are living in irregular unions “to find a path for a new integration in the Church, according to the conditions of the sacraments.”
Cardinal Müller himself has indicated that he does not interpret Amoris Laetitia as authorizing reception of Communion by Catholics who are divorced and remarried. Several weeks ago, he said that the CDF could offer a clarification of the issue, but only with the Pope’s authorization.
Cardinal Müller said that he was surprised that the dubia submitted by four cardinals had become public. “I don’t like this,” he remarked, saying that the public debate could be “damaging” to the Church. The CDF prefect said that he could not foresee the need to “correct” the Pope because the document poses “no danger to the faith.”
For all current news, visit our News home page.
Further information:
- Vatican doctrine chief: No need to correct pope on divorce (AP)
- Cardinal Müller says CDF cannot answer cardinals’ dubia without Pope’s approval (CWN, 12/1/16)
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: feedback -
Jan. 10, 2017 1:53 PM ET USA
I couldn't figure out whether this was actual retraction from all the confusion caused by opposing interpretations of AL, or is this adding some more confusion? I will stick with the first option, for the time being. Hopefully, that was the intent, and the African polygamists, Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego, the Bishops of Germany and of Argentine will be notified about the correction.
-
Posted by: claude-ccc2991 -
Jan. 10, 2017 12:06 PM ET USA
True mercy is consistent with being. Human sexuality calls for relationships faithful to the heterosexual nature of human form & functional potential, to care for progeny, to sacramental marriage. It's true mercy to celebrate these. Faithfulness prohibits masturbation, active homosexuality, cohabitation, contraception, abortion, divorce & adultery as inconsistent w/ divinely ordained human nature. It's true mercy to say no to these. All else is immoral license inauthentically mimicking mercy.
-
Posted by: pvanderl7463 -
Jan. 10, 2017 12:30 AM ET USA
It is so ironic and counter-productive to me to go this dubia route. There is a dechristianization in the world; the world is near apocalypse for killing and meaninglessness and indifference or denial that humans have dignity being created in the image and likeness of God and we taunt the Pope? Distrust is evil. Mercy! Mercy! Mercy!
-
Posted by: brenda22890 -
Jan. 09, 2017 8:22 PM ET USA
I agree that public debate "could" be damaging to the Church. However, it is not those who have noticed discrepancies and discussed it, who are doing the damage.
-
Posted by: [email protected] -
Jan. 09, 2017 7:13 PM ET USA
Well if it is so clear, then he should have a good talk with bishop from San Diego. Somebody has their wires crossed. Maybe that is the reason for the Dubai. Thanks Cardinal Muller for making it clea??
-
Posted by: skall391825 -
Jan. 09, 2017 7:02 PM ET USA
What a disappointing, sneaky way to "clarify" Amoris Laetitia--just say that there has been no change because Francis did not actually say there was a change. Thus, what is there to clarify? And if some prelates want to teach heresy based on the strongly implied change, a future Pope can deal with it. In the meantime, Burke et al. are the bad guys.
-
Posted by: jimr451 -
Jan. 09, 2017 5:25 PM ET USA
The fact that Cardinal Müller had to address the question should indicate to him that there indeed does need to be clarification. If the document was "very clear in its doctrine," then why is there any confusion? Obviously, because for many people around the globe, clarification is required.
