(Image: The University of Freiburg, circa 1900)
Two German theologians – Professors Jan-Heiner Tück and Helmut Hoping – have now also raised their voices in support of the Four Cardinals and their presented dubia concerning Amoris Laetitia. What both men have in common is that they once worked together at the University of Freiburg in Germany and that they both now write for notably prestigious European newspapers and thus already have a larger audience for their published reflections.
Jan-Heiner Tück – a former Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the University of Freiburg who now teaches at the University of Vienna in Austria – is a regular contributor to the important Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung. He is generally known for his expertise in questions relating the Second Vatican Council; he has also been very critical of any more generously proposed or allowed canonical integration of the Society of St. Pius X without their prior doctrinal retractions and corrections. Thus, his now public defense of the Four Cardinals’ dubia might have even some special weight, because he is not known to be a more traditional-Catholic theologian.
In an 17 December interview with the Austrian news portal KirchenZeitung im Netz, Professor Tück has nonetheless now said that Pope Francis should provide “further clarifications” with regard to his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. For, the Church currently finds herself “in the middle of a controversy of interpretations” concerning this papal document, as Tück sees it. Importantly, the theologian even stresses that Pope Francis himself should make it clear if he aims at a “further development” of doctrine and practice in dealing with the “remarried” divorcees. Tück also said, with regard to the dubia of the Four Cardinals, the following:
That [i.e., the fact that the Four Cardinals issued their dubia] shows that Francis went one step further than his predecessors with regard to the question of how to deal with the remarried divorcees. He decided not to decide this question for all of the cases and recommends a path of accompaniment. Then, at the end, it is very well possible, in individual cases, to give Holy Communion to the remarried divorcees. This is a further development which one should clearly name as such. The fact that one has not done it is also a reason why the four cardinals have now raised their voices.
Thus, in his fairness, Professor Tück speaks up and says what many Catholic observers think, namely that Pope Francis should at least be clear and frank about what his reform plans are, instead of using his friends and favorable journalists to speak for him, and often in indirect ways. In Tück’s eyes, the initiative of the four cardinals, therefore, is not at all a scandal: “I consider it exaggerated to make out of this a scandal. Francis has always said that he welcomes criticism. At the same time, it is a unique procedure that cardinals [more critically and in public now] follow up on a matter after the pope’s publication of a post-synodal document. There thus exists a need for further clarification.” Tück repeats this statement in another part of the interview when he states that “it would be good if Pope Francis himself, while he is still in office, could bring about some clarifications [concerning Amoris Laetitia].”
This just and well-pondered line of argumentation as presented here notably comes from a theologian who admires Pope Francis. In the same interview, he praises the pope for having changed the perception of the Catholic Church in the world and for having promoted the idea of welcoming the refugees in Europe.
For a more detailed commentary on the matter of Amoris Laetitia and the Four Cardinals’ dubia, we may turn to Professor Hoping. Freiburg’s Professor Helmut Hoping – the second German dogmatic theologian who has now raised his voice in defense of the Four Cardinals – does not, however, seem so positively impressed with Pope Francis, and his own response is fuller and more substantive, as well as more detailed. One of his two articles concerning Amoris Laetitia, which he wrote for the prominent German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, published on 17 November 2016, is entitled “An Alleluia for Adultery” (Ein Halleluja für den Seitensprung) and it pertly is introduced with the following indignant words:
The papal document Amoris Laetitia concerning the teaching on marriage and the family is splitting the Universal Church. Just recently four cardinals rebelled with a detailed intervention (dubia) against this magisterial text. Can Pope Francis – as he claims – rely here upon the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas?
Hoping’s own rebuke of Amoris Laetitia is also explicitly aimed at Cardinal Walter Kasper’s own recent defense of the papal document (see here LifeSiteNews’ own report on it), especially in refutation of his claim that Amoris Laetitia is based upon the thoughts of St. Thomas Aquinas. For, Hoping stresses that Aquinas’ “teaching on the virtues is embedded in a normative ethics” – in contradistinction to the view of Francis and Kasper who see mainly, and much more subjectively, his teaching on the virtues. Thus any virtue – such as the first cardinal virtue of prudence – has to be oriented according to “the natural law and the Divine Law, in addition to the [positive] human law,” explains Hoping. Thus one may not make use of the teaching on the virtues “in order to replace them [these norms], but rather, in order to implement them.” Thus, according to Hoping, any virtue has to orient itself according to the ethical norms, and not be independent of them.
As Hoping also says, Aquinas’ teaching on marriage sees marriage as being “part of the natural law, but at the same time also part of the Divine Law.” Adultery is, therefore, “an intrinsically evil act in terms of nature.” Those acts that belong to this category, adds the German theologian, are never justifiable, unlike acts such as the killing of a person which might be justified in a situation of a just and proportionate self-defense. Hoping notices that Amoris Laetitia never quotes Aquinas with reference to these specific passages, nor even any other passage concerning marriage, as such, even if it openly claims to use Aquinas as a source for its new “pastoral approach” with regard to the “remarried” divorcees. The German theologian adds: “It is striking that not one single St. Thomas quote refers to marriage or to the reception of the Sacraments, even though this is the matter with which Amoris Laetitia is mainly dealing.” To summarize Hoping’s more detailed and solid argumentation: St. Thomas ought not and cannot justly be used “as an authority” with regard to the innovative teaching in Amoris Laetitia, especially its eighth chapter.
Hoping also states that – contrary to Kasper’s own claim that “Amoris Laetitia does not change an iota of the teaching” – the papal document does indeed change the Church’s teaching. He says:
The document does not any more consider a sexual relationship outside of an existing marriage in each case as being unlawful (AL 301). Rather, it is now dependent upon the circumstances as to whether a certain act is adultery or not. [my emphasis]
Importantly, Hoping concludes with the words: “Thus, Amoris Laetitia departs from a central point of Pope John Paul II’s own teaching on marriage and sexuality who himself here adhered, with St. Thomas himself, to the decisive magisterial tradition.” Hoping himself reminds the Church, in this context, of the importance of justice in relation to mercy. He also challenges Amoris Laetitia in asking whether or not there are now two valid marriages existing at the same time when there is a “remarried” couple that has found approval according to Amoris Laetitia‘s new guidelines. The German scholar concludes his article with these words: “The document Amoris Laetitia omits answering this central question which it has itself provoked.”
On the background of this well-pondered and well-reasoned refutation of Amoris Laetitia, it is very understandable that Professor Hoping then – after the publication of the dubia and the subsequent criticism oriented toward the Four Cardinals – came once more into the public with a defense of the Four Cardinals. In a 7 December, 2016 article, he declares that “because this [the question of how to deal with the “remarried” divorcees] is not clearly presented in the document [AL], which thus provokes world-wide contradictory interpretations, the Four Cardinals ask the pope for a clarification.” Hoping explains that the Four Cardinals present their questions in an objective tone, one of them being whether adultery still is considered to be an intrinsically evil act. For him, it is clear that the Four Cardinals “thwart the admission of the remarried divorcees to the Sacrament which Francis obviously has in mind but which is not the compelling conclusion of his document.”
In this context, Hoping thus shows himself surprised at the criticism made by Father Antonio Spadaro, S.J, according to which these Four Cardinals were actually acting in a “divisive way.” “Heavy weaponry” is also used by “high-ranking prelates” such as Cardinal Joseph William Tobin, of Newark, who now even accuses his fellow cardinals of “heresy.” In Hoping’s eyes, the latter, however, “overlooks in his zeal that questions as such – even if pertaining to a magisterial text – are [inherently] not capable of being heretical.” The German theologian then also reminds the readers of Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto and his earlier words that the initiative of the Four Cardinals is an “enormous scandal,” and that the pope might well remove their red hats – even though, Pinto added, Pope Francis will not do such an act because of his abundant petrine mercy.
Profesor Hoping also refers in this context to the intervention of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), who reminded the Catholic Church and others of the indispensable teaching on marriage of previous popes, as well as of the 1994 CDF letter with regard to the “remarried” divorcees. Importantly, Hoping adds: “However, Müller’s intervention has not been authorized by the pope. Thus, the magisterial questions will be solved in a purely practical way [and differently, according to the individual bishops’ conferences], since a final and binding normative clarity fails to materialize.” [my emphasis] This observation is very important, and that is the reason why we at OnePeterFive have repeatedly asked Cardinal Müller to make an even clearer and more authoritative statement, for the sake of the salvation of souls.
As Hoping clearly says, the debate concerning Amoris Laetitia deals with the question of the teaching on the Sacrament of Marriage. “As long as one clings to it,” explains the Freiburg German theologian, “the union of the remarried divorcees cannot be a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church.” Hoping puts his finger in the wound when he says:
At the end, it is about the question as to how the Catholic Church wants to deal with the plurality of sexual relationships – be it a ‘wild marriage’, a civil marriage without an ecclesial ceremony, or a same-sex partnership. For liberal bishops and theologians the question of Communion for the remarried divorcees is a door opener for the [laxer] revision of the whole Catholic sexual morality. That is to say, once one gives up the binding traditional teaching – according to which a validly contracted marriage between a woman and a man is the exclusive place for practiced sexuality – the Church might as well, just like the Evangelical church, give her blessing, even within the frame of a religious ceremony, to relationships that are similar to marriage. [my emphasis]
For Hoping, this debate is about much more than a mere “ecclesial-political controversy”; “that is the reason why it is now conducted with such vehemence.”
It is to be hoped that the arguments of these two eminent theologians – especially Hoping’s – both of whose arguments have now received much attention in the German-speaking world, may now also find resonance in the English-speaking world. May their two names thus now be added to the many other theologians and varied scholars, such as the 45 theologians, who raise grave doubts about the papal document Amoris Laetitia.
Excellent article. The analysis of Professor Hoping should be a wake up call to the Cardinals and Bishops to defend Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and the Sacrament of Matrimony. The Catholic Faithful need them to speak up and show themselves to be followers of the Good Shepherd.
John 10: 9-16
Most Catholic faithful have absolutely no idea that this is even happening.
They will.
You see it simply will not be possible for a good and holy priest to abide by anything or anyone who goes against our Lord’s Divine Law. And likewise a bishop.
Example – I know a young man ( seminarian) rather well. He is a good and obedient, wise young man. I asked him, ” What would happen if you were a priest in a particular diocese where the bishop tells you that shall abide by AL and possibly grant Communion……..etc.?”
He calmly replied, ” If our order of priests were required this, we would turn away and not take the sand on your the soles of our shoes with us.”
In time, the faithful will notice, when their priests must have fidelity to Christ first!
All priest shall be effected by this terrible situation. The faithful will know who to follow.
JAS, you are correct. I have been very disappointed with the mainstream Catholic media for barely mentioning anything throughout PF’s papacy in regards to his many, many statements and writings that are meant to undermine and destroy not only the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church given to us by Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, but the very Church itself.
One notable exception would be the Papal Posse – Raymond Arroyo, Robert Royal and Fr. Gerald Murray. They have done a good job dissecting AL. Last week Raymond Arroyo interviewed Cardinal Burke (Steve posted it previously). Really fantastic.
Obviously, CFN, the Remnant, 1P5 and other TC blogs have been on top of this from the beginning. The news is getting out, though, which is a good sign.
Yes, JAS, but speaking out in Truth is not a numbers game as Cardinal Burke has pointed out. There are some Catholics who are aware of what is going on – they are the informed Faithful. For them, if for no one else the Truth must be spoken.
We could look at it like this: in future generations there will still be documents for the Faithful to read which show the heresy, apostasy of this generation, and the remedies proposed to stop their spread. Church history is full of such things. Writings of heretics, and writings that come from councils, popes, bishops and cardinals refuting the errors and teaching Catholics in their own time – which teach us in our time.
You are absolutely correct in stating that these documents are for future generations. They must know that the Gospel message of our Lord has been defended. However, sadly, the current generation of Catholics are mostly unaware of what is transpiring at this time. My own diocese is currently involved in a big push for 2017 to put the Alpha program in every parish. I agree that it is not about numbers…but it is about souls… and how many could possibly be lost by further corrupting of our Catholic Faith?
I’m afraid to ask my in-laws and parents what they think of all this although my parents might have a better idea since they regularly watch EWTN
Excellent article! Thank you.
To narrow it down a bit ……..”At the end, it is about the question as to how the Catholic Church wants to deal with the plurality of sexual relationships – be it a ‘wild marriage’, a civil marriage without an ecclesial ceremony, or a same-sex partnership. For liberal bishops and theologians the question of Communion for the remarried divorcees is a door opener for the [laxer] revision of the whole Catholic sexual morality.”
God bless this man for speaking to the inherent evil that awaits.
Perhaps Cardinal Mueller is not signing on the dotted line for reasons we are unaware of, as surely
he is not a man to sit idly by and watch this diabolical seduction take root. And once it does…….there shall
be no stopping it by human forces. For me, I do not long for the great prophecies to take place, for there shall be great suffering and too many souls to be lost.
We need the Church and God grant us time to work out our
salvation through Her, our gift by our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Perhaps we misunderstand Mueller’s role. Does he not have to wait to be asked for a definitive opinion from the CDF? Is not its role to help the Pope untangle matters pertaining to Faith and Morals? If Francis does not give Mueller permission to examine this issue, and certainly does not give him permission to speak publicly about it – it’s clear that Mueller cannot speak. He is a coward who wants to keep his position – he is a coward who truly thinks he will have more good influence if he remains in his job – we know he will have to answer to Our Lord for his silence, his false obedience – but so be it.
It really is between Cardinal Mueller and our Lord now.
I understand his definitive role in assisting the Pope in these matters. That is why I continue to trust Cardinal Mueller and pray for him to do what he knows he must. So hard, so difficult…..I cannot even imagine. But, I believe in him. I must.
Slowly they are emerging as the trickery contained in AL is finally hitting the fan. Nothing shall be resolved until the author of AL & the one who signed it raise their arms & admit their wrong-doing. As that isn’t very likely the sooner the formal correction is made the better.
Yes indeed!
The formal correction will just be another document. Francis’ supporters will just roll their eyes and accuse the cardinals of being Pharisaical followers of the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law. Francis himself will mostly ignore it, going on about “encounter” and other Post-Vatican II mush. He will continue to get diarrhea of the mouth every time a reporter’s microphone is in sight, because he apparently LOVES being adored by man. He will continue to make ostentatious displays of “humility” that will endear him to the world, making sure that his left hand knows well what his right hand is doing. Those are earthly works, and they will be destroyed with the earth in the end.
As for the liberal Papacy and the liberal Prelates; “If you want to know who rules over you, ask yourself who (or what) you are not allowed to criticize..” This Papacy reminds me of the left in our country. The minute you speak the Truth to them or try to, they lash out at you like rabid wolves! These four men of God are not criticizing the person/persons but are doing God’s will by proclaiming the “Truth” without fear because after all, if the Vatican isn’t doing it or going to do it, then someone must and its fallen on these ‘four’ brave souls. The other two that we need to add to the four are Cardinal Sarah and Bishop Schneider, may Almighty God keep them safe!
Your comparison is right on. A very good friend of mine who passed away nearly 20 years ago and taught Constitutional Law seemed to see all of this before it actually happened. I think of him often now and wish I had his counsel.
The vast majority of bishops, and, indeed, the last five Popes, long ago surrendered on this issue, through decades of giving Communion to public promoters of abortion.
I just read an item about Mark Shriver, brother of Maria, and author of a new biography of Francis. In the photo were the two pro-abortion Shrivers at Maria’s parish in Santa Monica, grinning before an audience of parishioners, including the pastor.
Whole dioceses are in schism.
Imagine…. imagine standing at the First Vatican Council, or the Council of Trent and telling them that in the future Cardinals of the church would be called heretics by other cardinals for phrasing questions in a way that implies marriage is indissoluble and objectively evil acts exist…
No wonder the Vatican is opening up so much to the SSPX…. it seems like much of the church is practically in Schism anyway.
Heaven please send us a saint and fix this mess
First of all, the SSPX should not even THINK of regularization until the next pontificate.
Second, the only way out of this mess is twofold: 1) the Holy Father MUST reveal the Third Secret of Fatima (I.e. the exact words of Our Lady which follow: “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved…”) and 2) the Holy Father MUST order and make in union with all the bishops of the world the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This is what God asked for through Our Lady on June 13, 1929. Check out http://www.fatima.org. They are the best resource on Fatima.
Hi Margaret. Could the rest of the message read: “…but will not be preserved elsewhere?” That seems the most reasonable way to see this. We are to use our reason, after all. As for Portugal keeping the Faith…they have gone a long way down the wide and easy path but if Our Lady tells us there will be a remnant of faithful there – I guess it’s true.
Our Lord told Lucy the consecration would be done – so no worries there – unfortunately He also told her “it will be late.” That’s the suffering, eh? We may not be the generation which sees this triumph of The Immaculate Heart. Let us for Heaven sake offer this particular suffering – not let a drop be wasted – in reparation for our sins.
Pope Francis will most probably do nothing in response to any of the dubia controversy. My guess is he feels most of the Church is with him and will stay with him. If anyone doesn’t like this they can join SSPX which, he will say, is fine with him. So where do we go from there? Divine intercession is the ONLY answer and it may very well come next year. What we can do is prayer and mortification.
Divine intervention. The Divine intercedes to no one because He is Supreme
All the secular media coverage of this (which is scant) paints the situation as cold-hearted conservatives opposing Francis’ merciful outreach. Francis definitely has the world on his side. I suspect also that most of the lay Church is favorable to what he’s doing. I’m uncertain about the clergy though.
My own pastor is quietly resolute that he will not absolve or give communion to remarried couples who are not continent and lack a firm purpose of amendment. I asked him, what if our Bishop says you must? He said the Bishop can’t do that. He seemed to be saying that there are limits to a Bishop’s authority. Or maybe he just meant that even a Bishop cannot command one to sin (which is how he clearly regards it).
He’s a good priest, very young (late 20’s). I hope there are many like him out there.
He could mean that the Bishop would not dare to put things so boldly – instead the Bishop will use the nudge-nudge-wink-wink approach and ‘suggest’ that his priests use more ‘mercy.’ So each priest will decide how far to go. A priest who has complaints will be somewhat protected. In this day and age Bishops in many places have so few priests to go around they will be loath to get rid of any.
I agree with the nudge-nudge-wink-wink. But, depending on the bishop, I wouldn’t be so certain what they will do with a priest who is purely faithful to the Church in this regard. I hope you right though.
More like the world has Francis on its side