Swiss Bishop Remains Faithful to Traditional Teaching on Marriage in His Own Guidelines

[Emphasis and {commentary} in red type by Abyssum]

{Oh the irony of it !!!  I love it !!!  In the very Canton of Sankt Gallen, where the conspiracy to force the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and cause the election of Cardinal Jorge Bergolio to succeed to the papacy was hatched, comes another bishop from that Canton who gives the strongest repudiation of the errors being promoted as authorized in Amoris Laetitia in the guidelines which this bishop has issued for his Diocese.  Oh the irony of it !!!  It is more than poetic justice !!!  See the article below this one by Rod Dreher for an explanation!!!}

In the wake of an indisputably liberalizing Pastoral Letter on Marriage and the Family as published by the German Bishops two days ago, there comes now to us a more encouraging event from the neighboring country of Switzerland. One Swiss Bishop now publicly defends the traditional Catholic teaching on marriage.

Bishop Vitus Huonder of Chur, Grisons, issued yesterday, 2 February, a fairly short set of pastoral-doctrinal guidelines for the priests of his own diocese as his specific commentary on the post-synodal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. After some introductory remarks concerning the papal document, Bishop Huonder himself stresses the importance of the marriage bond – which, he insists, is to be regarded as holy. Indeed, the bishop explains, the Church has a duty to “teach the holiness of the marriage bond.” Huonder further defines the concept of marriage by saying:

The bond of marriage itself is a gift of the love, of the wisdom, and of the mercy of God which gives the spouses Grace and aid. That is why the reference to the marriage bond has to take a prior and emphatic place in any path of accompaniment, discernment and integration.

With the holiness of the marriage bond in mind, the Swiss bishop forthrightly addresses the currently important question of the “remarried” divorcees and their possible access to the Sacraments. He declares that these couples may not decide for themselves as to whether they may receive Holy Communion; and he says that they may only do so if they are living – according to Familiaris Consortio 84 – as brother and sister. He specifically says, as follows:

The reception of Holy Communion on the side of civilly remarried divorcees may not be left up to the subjective decision. One has to be rooted in objective conditions (according to the Church’s rules concerning the reception of Holy Communion). With regard to the civilly remarried divorcees, the respect for the already existing marriage bond is decisive. If, during a conversation (in confession) someone requests absolution for a civilly remarried and divorced person, it has to be clear that this person is ready to accept the precepts of Familiaris Consortio 84 (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 12 November 1981). That is to say: should the two partners, for serious reasons, … not be able to follow the obligation to separate (see AL 298), they are obliged to live as brother and sister. This rule is still valid – already because the new Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia does not explicitly foresee any “new canonical rule” (see AL 300). The penitent will have to show the firm will to want to live with a respect for the marriage bond of the “first” marriage. [my emphasis]

As a helpful reference for further pertinent information, Bishop Huonder then names an Italian book soon to be published also in German by the publishing house Fe-Medienverlag; this book is co-authored by Professor Stephan Kampowski. This philosopher – who teaches at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family in Rome – has repeatedly expressed in public his polite criticism of the idea of weakening the Sacrament of Marriage and its indissolubility in the context of discussions about Amoris Laetitia. Kampowski also wrote the book The Gospel of The Family: Going Beyond Cardinal Kasper’s Proposal in the Debate on Marriage, Civil Re-Marriage, and Communion in the Church(Ignatius Press, 2014). Moreover, in the December 2016 issue(52/2016) of the Swiss journal Schweizerische Kirchen-ZeitungKampowski wrote, once again, an article about Amoris Laetitia in which he argues that, since marriage is in itself a public matter, those “remarried” divorcees may not receive Holy Communion since, “by their state in life, that is to say by continuously violating their own marriage vows,” they are objectively in opposition to what the Church teaches. Thus, he argues, the discussions about the internal state of sanctifying grace – or the lack of it – is not an initial, crucial aspect with regard to marriage, since marriage itself is always a public entity. Therefore, the weight of the subjective conscience has its own limits here. “The reception of Holy Communion is not a private matter,” explains the philosopher, and Kampowski then adds:

The contradiction between one’s state in life [i.e., adultery] and the Eucharist as the mystery of Christ’s absolute loyalty to His Church is objective. Simply to remove this contradiction without giving those [“remarried”] persons the perspective [sic] of a change of their own state in life would mean to cut any bond between life and liturgy, between ethos and Sacrament. This in turn would mean to put into question the sacramentality of marriage and, finally, even the sacramental structure of the Church.

Thus it seems that, by referencing in his new guidelines a book co-authored by Professor Kampowski, Bishop Huonder is quite aware of the current dangers that threaten the holiness of marriage. Bishop Huonder is thus to be commended for his courage and for his love of the truth which are both manifested in his own guidelines. Moreover, he does so amidst an atmosphere in Switzerland – as well as in the neighboring German-speaking countries of Germany and Austria – that is hostilely permeated by progressive ideas and attitudes. Therefore, he will most likely receive much criticism from his fellow countrymen for his new set of guidelines, just as he has had to endure it many a time in the recent past. May God grant him strength, once again.


The Anti-Benedict Conspiracy

Catholic journalist Edward Pentin got his hands on a copy of the authorized  — repeat, authorized — biography of retired Belgian cardinal Godfried Danneels. Blockbuster stuff in it, according to Pentin’s report. Excerpts:

At the launch of the book in Brussels this week, the cardinal said he was part of a secret club of cardinals opposed to Pope Benedict XVI.

He called it a “mafia” club that bore the name of St. Gallen. The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, to make it “much more modern”, and for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to head it. The group, which also comprised Cardinal Walter Kasper and the late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, has been documented in Austen Ivereigh’s biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer.

Danneels has been bad news for a long time. Pentin again:

It was also revealed this week that he once wrote a letter to the Belgium government favoring same-sex “marriage” legislation because it ended discrimination against LGBT groups.

The cardinal is already known for having once advised the king of Belgium to sign an abortion law in 1990, for telling a victim of clerical sex abuse to keep quiet, and for refusing to forbid pornographic, “educational” materials being used in Belgian Catholic schools.

He also once said same-sex “marriage” was a “positive development,” although he has sought to distinguish such a union from the Church’s understanding of marriage.

The Italian Vaticanist Marco Tosatti writes (in Italian; I’ve modified the Google translation:

The election of Jorge Bergoglio was the result of secret meetings that cardinals and bishops, organized by Carlo Maria Martini, held for years in St. Gallen, Switzerland. {It was this series of meetings that went on for twenty years that caused Pope Saint John Paul II in his Apostolic Constitution, paragraph No. 81 to revise the rules governing conclaves by imposing the penalty EXCOMMUNICATION LATAE SENTENTIAE on any and all conspirators who attempt to rig the election of a pope.}


22 FEBRUARY 1996


This, according to Jürgen Mettepenningen et Karim Schelkens, authors of a newly published biography of the Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who calls the group of cardinals and bishops a “Mafia club”.
Danneels according to the authors, worked for years to prepare for the election of Pope Francis, which took place in 2013. Danneels, moreover, in a video recorded during the presentation of the book in Brussels, admits that he was part of a secret club of cardinals who opposed Joseph Ratzinger. Laughing, he calls it “a Mafia club that  bore the name of St. Gallen”.
The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, much more modern and current, with Jorge Bergoglio, Pope Francis, as its head. They got what they wanted. Besides Danneels and Martini, the group according to the book were part of the Dutch bishop Adriaan Van Luyn, the German cardinal Walter Kasper and Karl Lehman, the Italian Cardinal Achille Silvestrini and British Basil Hume, among others.

I underscore that this is not some secretly sourced claim, but it’s from an advance copy of Cardinal Danneels’ official biography, approved by himself. 

This is the first confirmation of rumors that had been going around for years about Benedict being thwarted by a liberal conspiracy, one that eventually forced him out. These men — Danneels, Van Luyn, Kasper, Lehman, and Hume, at least — all preside over dying churches. And they killed the Benedict papacy. Danneels, you will note, was given by Francis a prominent place at next month’s Synod on the Family.

I am glad this came out now. The orthodox bishops and others going to the Synod now know what a nest of snakes they are working with, and how high up the corruption goes. Poor Pope Benedict. My heart breaks for that good man.

UPDATE: Apparently there has been a lot of talk in some circles about the “Team Bergoglio” affair since Austen Ivereigh’s book about Francis, The Great Reformer, came out late last year. Br. Alexis Bugnolo writes about it here, and again here.

Posted in . Tagged .

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to OH,THE IRONY !!! I LOVE IT !!!

  1. SanSan says:

    After reading this article, it gives me “pause” to consider that Benedict knew all along of this “mafia” and that he didn’t retire on his own. Did he lie to us too?

    And, as Mary asked, why aren’t these Cardinals and Bishops excommunicated?

    This is not a chess game……souls are at stake……many souls.

  2. ilovethomisticstraw says:

    It is ironic, indeed.  Consider these two facts. Fact #1: In addition to the general knowledge of the Catholic faith available to all that would lead to a standard condemnation of the Amoris heresy, this Bishop has a unique knowledge of the Sankt Gallen group, since his post of observation from which to view the group gives him the ability to observe it from close proximity and/or to have observers report directly to him.  Fact #2: Over and above the standard condemnation, this Bishop has expressed the most vehement of condemnations. These two facts cannot be unrelated.   He must know the historical events leading up to the sedition.  Matthew Moore The Gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes. Romans 1:16.  

  3. {It was this series of meetings that went on for twenty years that caused Pope Saint John Paul II in his Apostolic Constitution, paragraph No. 81 to revise the rules governing conclaves by imposing the penalty EXCOMMUNICATION LATAE SENTENTIAE on any and all conspirators who attempt to rig the election of a pope.}

    Why aren’t these Cardinals and Bishops excommunicated then? Why are they allowed to continue to spout heresy? How does this make Pope Francis a pope chosen by the Holy Spirit?

    Bravo to Bishop Huonder! May the Lord give him His strength and courage!!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: