Editor’s Note: Bishop Andreas Laun is Auxiliary Bishop of Salzburg, Austria. He is also a Professor of Moral Theology at the Philosophical-Theological Faculty of Heiligenkreuz, Austria. He is a member of the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales.
Maike Hickson (MH): You are one of the signatories of the Filial Appeal “Declaration of Fidelity to the Church’s Unchangeable Teaching on Marriage and to Her Uninterrupted Discipline” which has now already found more than 30,000 supporters. Which aspects of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia are in your eyes problematic and open to contradictory interpretations?
Bishop Andreas Laun (AL): I have read the concerns of the Four Cardinals, and I agree with them! Additionally, I know personally especially Cardinals Meisner and Caffarra and know how competent they are! With them, I am in the best company!
MH: Do you see any way for the “remarried” divorcees to receive the Sacraments without their first changing their way of life, and then continuing to live as brother and sister?
AL: “Unfortunately,” no! I would like to name for them an easier path. But it is all about truth and not about my feelings. This objective question has nothing to do with mercy. Could St. John the Baptist have “mercifully allowed” Herod to have his brother’s wife? The spiritual guide whose importance Pope Francis so much emphasizes has the role of a physician who makes a diagnosis but who then does not also render a true service to the patient when he only glosses over this illness – as he would prefer to have it – even though he knows of the illness’ dangers.
MH: Now, four Cardinals – Walter Brandmüller, Joachim Meisner, Carlo Caffarra and Raymond Leo Burke – have presented to Pope Francis five dubia concerning Amoris Laetitia and – since they did not receive an answer – they also have now published them. The four cardinals have been criticized for it and some people have accused them of a lack of loyalty. How do you yourself judge the conduct of these four cardinals?
AL: The conduct of the cardinals is a service to the teaching of the Church! In history, there are many examples of criticism also of a pope. However, it has to follow the “morality of criticism”: that is, to say it politely, objectively, justly, born in love, and with much understanding for the one who is to be criticized because each criticism also hurts more or less.
MH: If it were offered to you, would you also sign these dubia yourself?
AL: Yes, after re-reading them, and perhaps also after consulting at least one of the cardinals, I would sign them!
MH: Do you know other cardinals or bishops who have sympathy with these four cardinals, but who do not dare to say so publicly?
AL: No, but it would be a certain shame if, out of fear, someone would not then speak! As Saint Gregory the Great said, silence can be a sin, and Otto von Habsburg said that cowardice is one of the main vices of our time!
MH: In your eyes, is it permitted for a cardinal or a bishop to express criticism of the Holy Father in public, and, if yes, under what conditions? Which goods are being weighed in such a step – which must be weighed carefully, of course?
AL: Each person has the right to such a critique: if the pope, for example, were to talk about themes that are not part of his competence. More specifically: naturally, a pope can raise his voice about all possible themes, but it should remain clear as to where he speaks as pope or where he speaks merely as a person just as everybody else: for example concerning climate development, or, rather, concerning a question of Faith or Morals! For example, at one time, Pius XII spoke in a very competent way about bees, but, of course, for this [knowledge] he could not also demand the consent and assent of Faith. In some cases, criticism can also pertain to the personal life of a pope, as it was the case with St. Catherine of Siena. The pope at the time was humble enough to accept her [chastening] criticism!
MH: In the face of a great moral crisis within and external to the Catholic Church, where a great number of people do not any longer follow Christian morality – do you think that it is right to soften and lower the Catholic moral standard? Or, should one, rather, call people to convert, after first showing them the negative consequences of a morally disordered life?
AL: The pope cannot lower or raise a moral standard – just as he cannot change a physical law. Moral laws are Divine Laws – or, if they are merely positive human laws, they are not part of morality, as such. For a good and Catholic moral teaching, it is important to make understandable the reference to God and to show that Catholic morality is – to speak in images – the “keeping human beings appropriately to their own species” – as distinct from other animals – in freedom and on the basis of understanding!
MH: How should the Catholic Church lead this discussion and where is there at all any more present an attentiveness to the well-being of the children – in the question of marriage, as well as in the question of pro-life issues? Does the Word of Christ – “Let the Little Ones come to Me” – inspire and sustain any meaning at all any more today?
AL: The best catechesis and teaching consists in referring to good examples and stories which help us to read in the right way (St. Paul!) the Scripture of God within one’s heart. Jesus did not give presentations and did not write in complicated books; rather, he provoked, especially in a personal dialogue, one’s own thinking and one’s own understanding. Concerning the issue of understanding and insight, I mention here the precarious example of contraception: Whoever has understood how contraception also damages love, and whoever has made this experience with the help of the Church’s counsel, also now knows why Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae and how good a life according to this teaching is for any love, even if it is, at the same time, hard to live out. But, something like this also exists in other situations where one follows the Commandment of God!
Thank God that this Bishop spoke up to defend the traditional discipline of the Church. May more Cardinals and Bishops join the four courageous Cardinals in opposing AL!
There will be in 2017. We just don’t know who yet.
Cardinal Burke says that numbers do not matter – it’s the Truth that matters. To say that “numbers do not matter” may have been hyperbole to emphasize Who is the priority, and that these cardinals are “all in”, so to speak, regardless of the numbers since Jesus Christ and His doctrine has a right to be defended and is not determined by those defendants. That is true.
Nevertheless, on a practical level, the numbers will help to impede and push back the liberals in general; so in this sense, numbers do matter.
Well, and this isn’t about politics, why these bishops have not said anything is scandalous. They are waiting to see how things play out , its disgusting.
Truth is true no matter how few believe it; error is error no matter how many support it. Morality is not subject to the democratic process; rectitude does not belong with the one who has the most votes, but with the one who adheres to the traditional teachings of the Church.
“Right’s right if nobody’s right; Wrong’s wrong if everyone’s wrong.”
and, “Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one” (Henry David Thoreau) This last might have been written about St Athanasius, as in “Athanasius contra mundum” when he found himself the only non-Arian bishop in the church. . . .
May God bless and guide the Bishop.
And May God protect his faithful from the pack of wolves.
Thanks be to God for this Bishop’s stand for the Truth. And thank you Maike for this encouraging interview and may God bless your efforts in defence of the Faith.
This remark reminds me of something: “The pope cannot lower or raise a moral standard – just as he cannot change a physical law. Moral laws are Divine Laws.” In the Catena Aurea on Matthew 16:19, Saint Jerome is quoted as making the following comparison between the priests of Leviticus declaring a leper unclean and the power of binding and loosing found with St Peter. The point being that they are both bound by a standard outside of themselves:
“Bishops and Presbyters, not understanding this passage [regarding the keys to the kingdom and binding and loosing], assume to themselves something of the lofty pretensions of the Pharisees, and suppose that they may either condemn the innocent, or absolve the guilty; whereas what will be enquired into before the Lord will be not the sentence of the Priests, but the life of him that is being judged. We read in Leviticus of the lepers, how they are commanded to shew themselves to the Priests; and if they have the leprosy, then they are made unclean by the Priest; not that the Priest makes them leprous and unclean, but that the Priest has knowledge of what is leprosy and what is not leprosy, and can discern who is clean, and who is unclean. In the same way then as there the Priest makes the leper unclean, here the Bishop or Presbyter binds or looses not those who are without sin, or guilt, but in discharge of his function when he has heard the varieties of their sins, he knows who is to be bound, and who loosed.”
Wow, you know your Fathers!
Why more bishops havn’t spoken out against this cruel, satanic teaching is shameful. The reprobate in San Diego has already put that poison out there.
I have emailed many bishops. I have said this before, but we need a Catholic Brexit. We are done with Commies. Why isn’t Morlino speaking out? Cowards all these people.
We must remember that Peter was also a coward before Christ showed His faith in him to lead His Church & gave with it the graces necessary for the job. He ended up giving his life for Christ in Rome along with Paul, another great saint who was smitten from his horse & admonished by God for his persecution of Him through his licentiousness & his malevolent treatment of the early Christians. He was struck blind for three days until he repented. Maybe God has withdrawn His Grace from these Cardinals & Bishops with a divine purpose in order to bring them all to heel & recognise His omnipotence. They will not succeed in their actions against Him & they can’t all be fools, so something is being withheld until the moment God wishes to act. That time is drawing closer with every day.
This is a very good point. I have felt so betrayed by V II, being raised in the 80s. Something must happen, and it’s a blessing that it might happen in our lifetimes!
They are just like the apostles, cowards, until later, when they became heros, and heros having been cowards, made them all the more a witness.
Praying for conversion! Restore His Church!
Kudos to Maike Hickson for this very, very fine interview. The comment by Otto von Habsburg that Bishop Laun reminds us of is particularly striking, especially here in Europe where the name Habsburg, even after all these years, still commands respect and a certain authority.
Thanks Maike. The Cardinals and Bishops who speak for the truth are as rare as saints. Speaking out for the truth is giving witness to God. Let us thank God for the few who do it.
Cardinal Burke, issue the formal act of correction next month. Be not afraid!
He’s said it’s coming after Christmas.
Faithful Catholics look forward to the correction process. We are praying for the 4 courageous cardinals.
A Catholic priest who finds his vow of celibacy insupportable may be granted laicisation, whereby he is permitted to behave as a layman, including marrying, although his priesthood is not, and cannot be, removed. The Orthodox churches regard sacramental marriage as indissoluble, even by death. But they have found a way to permit people, under certain circumstances which would include abandonment or death, to enter a second relationship, recognised by the church but not accorded the same status. I have never seen a theological analysis of this difference, and have no idea where it might lead. I also understand that Orthodox christians in good standing may be admitted to communion in a Catholic church.
mspahni, on another site, has synthsized and said it well, referring to the Holy Spirit Teaching in Saint John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI):
Bottom line.
Be like Jesus.
Be merciful and loving.
Then, “Go and sin no more.”
Pretty clear to me.
“Brother and sister,” for the sake of the kids.
Then, “Go and sin no more.”
For my eternal salvation.
Do I understand it correctly?
What has happened, it appears, is this Holy Spirit Teaching in Saint John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, in AL 298, appears to change to this:
……
“Brother and sister,” for the sake of the kids, no longer.
Then, “go and remain in the sin”, for the ‘sake of faithfulness and fruitfulness’.
For my eternal salvation.
Do I understand it correctly??
And this is why clarification is being asked, because some are taking it this way for their dioceses.
ChristMass blessings, hope, peace and joy in the Holy Mother of God for tomorrow!!
___________
…might add Gaudium et Spes 51 seems to be used this way:
GS 51: ….. But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered. (Vatican website translation)
AL’s appearance version of GS 51 (AL298/329-GS-51):
….. But where the adulterous intimacy of married life is broken off, its adulterous faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of adulterous fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered.
________________
AL footnote 329: In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 51).
AL footnote 329 should, it seems, read:
In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of the adulterous intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that the adulterous faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 51).
ACTUAL:
AL Para. 298 Footnote 329: JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 51).
So in reality, SINCE the Vatican website translation of GS 51 and AL’s 51 translation of GS 51 differ, AL 298’s footnote and GS 51 should read:
….. But where the adulterous intimacy of married life is broken off, its adulterous faithfulness is OFTEN ENDANGERED [versus: sometimes be imperiled] and THE GOOD OF THE CHILDREN SUFFERS [versus: its quality of adulterous fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered].
How is it that when Bishop Laun and others speak that are serving the truth I understand them.
However when those that are trying to manipulate the truth speak (AL supporters et al) I’m lost in the sense that I can’t understand what it is they are trying to say, where is the objective point?