PODCAzT 160: Bishops of Kazakhstan issue “Profession of the immutable truths about sacramental marriage” AUDIO

As the controversy erupted at the irruption of Amoris laetitia, I opined that, even though the document could be read in a properly orthodox way, those who were inclined not to support the Church’s teaching would say it meant something innovative but justifiable under the light of “mercy”, and those who were inclined to defend and teach with clarity what the Church teaches would stand their ground. Amoris laetitia caused a kind of “decomposition reaction” in the Church, if you recall your basic chemistry.  It’s breaking down the unity of the Church.

This breaking of unity is in increasing evidence.  Bishops conferences have developed different policies that contradict each other.  For example, step over the border from Germany into Poland and the divorced and civilly remarried who don’t live continent lives and who don’t have a firm purpose of amendment cannot be admitted to Holy Communion.  Step back across the border from Poland into Germany, and they can be.  One small step for an adulterer, one giant disaster for doctrine.   Other examples of decomposition can be found in statements from the Bishops of Malta and of Buenos Aires in Argentina.

There must, of course, be counter reactions to try to reestablish the integrity of the Church in her unity of doctrine.

The other day I received a text from the Bishops of Kazakhstan (including the great Bp. Schneider) which addresses certain truth about sacramental marriage.

It is very good.

As a preamble, you will want to scan quickly what canonist Ed Peters says about it.  HERE  He makes a couple of distinctions which head off what will be the backlash and denial on the part of libs, who will whipped up by the New Red Guards against this statement.

Peters makes three helpful observations.  First, he reminds us that the Kazakhstani bishops are talking about sacramental marriage, even though much of what they say applies to other marriages.   Second, when we write about “marriage” we can’t always put in every possible qualifier.  Third, Peters points to the minuscule number of cases to which the Pauline and Petrine Privilege apply, or which are ratum sed non consummatum.

Now let’s look at the statement of the Bishops of Kazakhstan.  Or rather, let’s hear it and look at it.

I rant at the end.

BONUS: At the end, I include several minutes of bells of a well-known church in EuropeCan anyone identify the church?  I made the recording on the street near the church, so you might hear the occasional motorbike.


I read on Twitter that

Two Italian Bishops, + Luigi Negri, archbishop emeritus of Ferrara-Comacchio and +Carlo Maria Viganò, former apostolic nuncio to the United States, have joined the bishops of Kazakhstan in putting their names to the Profession


Interview with Bp. Negri HERE He said:

Faced with the grave confusion in the Church regarding the issue of marriage, I believe it is necessary to put forward again the clarity of the traditional position. It seemed right to me to sign because the content of the [document’s] position is what I have widely presented over the past years — not only in recent months – at every step of the efforts I dedicated to the theme of the family, life, procreation, and the responsibility to educate and form young people. These are issues of absolute importance which the Catholic world as a whole does not seem to be very aware of.

Card. Pujats of Riga has signed on. HERE


Profession of the immutable truths
about sacramental marriage

After the publication of the Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia” (2016) various bishops issued at local, regional, and national levels applicable norms regarding the sacramental discipline of those faithful, called “divorced and remarried,” who having still a living spouse to whom they are united with a valid sacramental matrimonial bond, have nevertheless begun a stable cohabitation more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse.

The aforementioned rules provide inter alia that in individual cases the persons, called “divorced and remarried,” may receive the sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion, while continuing to live habitually and intentionally more uxorio with a person who is not their legitimate spouse. These pastoral norms have received approval from various hierarchical authorities. Some of these norms have received approval even from the supreme authority of the Church.

The spread of these ecclesiastically approved pastoral norms has caused a considerable and ever increasing confusion among the faithful and the clergy, a confusion that touches the central manifestations of the life of the Church, such as sacramental marriage with the family, the domestic church, and the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist.

According to the doctrine of the Church, only the sacramental matrimonial bond constitutes a domestic church (see Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 11). The admission of so-called “divorced and remarried” faithful to Holy Communion, which is the highest expression of the unity of Christ the Spouse with His Church, means in practice a way of approving or legitimizing divorce, and in this meaning a kind of introduction of divorce in the life of the Church.

The mentioned pastoral norms are revealed in practice and in time as a means of spreading the “plague of divorce” (an expression used by the Second Vatican Council, see Gaudium et spes, 47). It is a matter of spreading the “plague of divorce” even in the life of the Church, when the Church, instead, because of her unconditional fidelity to the doctrine of Christ, should be a bulwark and an unmistakable sign of contradiction against the plague of divorce which is every day more rampant in civil society.

Unequivocally and without admitting any exception Our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ solemnly reaffirmed God’s will regarding the absolute prohibition of divorce. An approval or legitimation of the violation of the sacredness of the marriage bond, even indirectly through the mentioned new sacramental discipline, seriously contradicts God’s express will and His commandment. This practice therefore represents a substantial alteration of the two thousand-year-old sacramental discipline of the Church. Furthermore, a substantially altered discipline will eventually lead to an alteration in the corresponding doctrine.

The constant Magisterium of the Church, beginning with the teachings of the Apostles and of all the Supreme Pontiffs, has preserved and faithfully transmitted both in the doctrine (in theory) and in the sacramental discipline (in practice) in an unequivocal way, without any shadow of doubt and always in the same sense and in the same meaning (eodem sensu eademque sententia), the crystalline teaching of Christ concerning the indissolubility of marriage.

Because of its Divinely established nature, the discipline of the sacraments must never contradict the revealed word of God and the faith of the Church in the absolute indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage. “The sacraments not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it; that is why they are called “sacraments of faith.” (Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 59). “Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1125).

The Catholic faith by its nature excludes a formal contradiction between the faith professed on the one hand and the life and practice of the sacraments on the other. In this sense we can also understand the following affirmation of the Magisterium: “This split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age.” (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, 43) and “Accordingly, the concrete pedagogy of the Church must always remain linked with her doctrine and never be separated from it” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).

In view of the vital importance that the doctrine and discipline of marriage and the Eucharist constitute, the Church is obliged to speak with the same voice. The pastoral norms regarding the indissolubility of marriage must not, therefore, be contradicted between one diocese and another, between one country and another. Since the time of the Apostles, the Church has observed this principle as St. Irenaeus of Lyons testifies: “The Church, though spread throughout the world to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the Apostles and their disciples, preserves this preaching and this faith with care and, as if she inhabits a single house, believes in the same identical way, as if she had only one soul and only one heart, and preaches the truth of the faith, teaches it and transmits it in a unanimous voice, as if she had only one mouth”(Adversus haereses, I, 10, 2). Saint Thomas Aquinas transmits to us the same perennial principle of the life of the Church: “There is one and the same faith of the ancients and the moderns, otherwise there would not be one and the same Church” (Questiones Disputatae de Veritate, q. 14, a. 12c).

The following warning from Pope John Paul II remains current and valid: “The confusion, created in the conscience of many faithful by the differences of opinions and teachings in theology, in preaching, in catechesis, in spiritual direction, about serious and delicate questions of Christian morals, ends up by diminishing the true sense of sin almost to the point of eliminating it” (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitenia, 18).

The meaning of the following statements of the Magisterium of the Church is fully applicable to the doctrine and sacramental discipline concerning the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage:

  • “For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient doctrines faithfully and wisely, which the faith of the Fathers has transmitted. She strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning” (Pius IX, Dogmatic Bull Ineffabilis Deus)
  • “With regard to the very substance of truth, the Church has before God and men the sacred duty to announce it, to teach it without any attenuation, as Christ revealed it, and there is no condition of time that can reduce the rigor of this obligation. It binds in conscience every priest who is entrusted with the care of teaching, admonishing, and guiding the faithful “(Pius XII, Discourse to parish priests and Lenten preachers, March 23, 1949).
  • “The Church does not historicize, does not relativize to the metamorphoses of profane culture the nature of the Church that is always equal and faithful to itself, as Christ wanted it and authentic tradition perfected it” (Paul VI, Homily from October 28, 1965).
  • “Now it is an outstanding manifestation of charity toward souls to omit nothing from the saving doctrine of Christ” (Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae Vitae, 29).
  • “Any conjugal difficulties are resolved without ever falsifying and compromising the truth” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).
  • “The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm [of the Divine moral law]. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 33).
  • “The other principle is that of truth and consistency, whereby the church does not agree to call good evil and evil good. Basing herself on these two complementary principles, the church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34).
  • “The Church’s firmness in defending the universal and unchanging moral norms is not demeaning at all. Its only purpose is to serve man’s true freedom. Because there can be no freedom apart from or in opposition to the truth”(John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 96).
  • When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the “poorest of the poor” on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal” (emphasis in original) (John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 96).
  • “The obligation of reiterating this impossibility of admission to the Eucharist is required for genuine pastoral care and for an authentic concern for the well-being of these faithful and of the whole Church, as it indicates the conditions necessary for the fullness of that conversion to which all are always invited by the Lord“ (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration on the admissibility to the Holy Communion of the divorced and remarried, 24 June 2000, n. 5).As Catholic bishops, who – according to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council – must defend the unity of faith and the common discipline of the Church, and take care that the light of the full truth should arise for all men (see Lumen Gentium, 23 ) we are forced in conscience to profess in the face of the current rampant confusion the unchanging truth and the equally immutable sacramental discipline regarding the indissolubility of marriage according to the bimillennial and unaltered teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. In this spirit we reiterate:
  • Sexual relationships between people who are not in the bond to one another of a valid marriage – which occurs in the case of the so-called “divorced and remarried” – are always contrary to God’s will and constitute a grave offense against God.
  • No circumstance or finality, not even a possible imputability or diminished guilt, can make such sexual relations a positive moral reality and pleasing to God. The same applies to the other negative precepts of the Ten Commandments of God. Since “there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).
  • The Church does not possess the infallible charism of judging the internal state of grace of a member of the faithful (see Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1). The non-admission to Holy Communion of the so-called “divorced and remarried” does not therefore mean a judgment on their state of grace before God, but a judgment on the visible, public, and objective character of their situation. Because of the visible nature of the sacraments and of the Church herself, the reception of the sacraments necessarily depends on the corresponding visible and objective situation of the faithful.
  • It is not morally licit to engage in sexual relations with a person who is not one’s legitimate spouse supposedly to avoid another sin. Since the Word of God teaches us, it is not lawful “to do evil so that good may come” (Romans 3, 8).
  • The admission of such persons to Holy Communion may be permitted only when they with the help of God’s grace and a patient and individual pastoral accompaniment make a sincere intention to cease from now on the habit of such sexual relations and to avoid scandal. It is in this way that true discernment and authentic pastoral accompaniment were always expressed in the Church.
  • People who have habitual non-marital sexual relations violate their indissoluble sacramental nuptial bond with their life style in relation to their legitimate spouse. For this reason they are not able to participate “in Spirit and in Truth” (see John 4, 23) at the Eucharistic wedding supper of Christ, also taking into account the words of the rite of Holy Communion: “Blessed are the guests at the wedding supper of the Lamb!” (Revelation 19, 9).
  • The fulfillment of God’s will, revealed in His Ten Commandments and in His explicit and absolute prohibition of divorce, constitutes the true spiritual good of the people here on earth and will lead them to the true joy of love in the salvation of eternal life.

Being bishops in the pastoral office those, who promote the Catholic and Apostolic faith (“cultores catholicae et apostolicae fidei”, see Missale Romanum, Canon Romanus), we are aware of this grave responsibility and our duty before the faithful who await from us a public and unequivocal profession of the truth and the immutable discipline of the Church regarding the indissolubility of marriage. For this reason we are not allowed to be silent.

We affirm therefore in the spirit of St. John the Baptist, of St. John Fisher, of St. Thomas More, of Blessed Laura Vicuña and of numerous known and unknown confessors and martyrs of the indissolubility of marriage:

It is not licit (non licet) to justify, approve, or legitimize either directly or indirectly divorce and a non-conjugal stable sexual relationship through the sacramental discipline of the admission of so-called “divorced and remarried” to Holy Communion, in this case a discipline alien to the entire Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

By making this public profession before our conscience and before God who will judge us, we are sincerely convinced that we have provided a service of charity in truth to the Church of our day and to the Supreme Pontiff, Successor of Saint Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth .

31 December 2017, the Feast of the Holy Family, in the year of the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima.

+ Tomash Peta, Archbishop Metropolitan of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

+ Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop of Karaganda

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, PODCAzT, Wherein Fr. Z Rants and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. dholwell says:

    This is important to share widely. Kudos to these bishops for their clarity and charity in peaking what needs to be said.

  2. David says:

    Commendable as this statement is, Bishop Schneider and his colleagues are so obscure to anyone not familiar with traditionalist circles that the Vatican can safely assume it will remain virtually unknown. I would be surprised if there was even any official comment on it. Now Cardinal Burke’s much-talked-about-but-never-produced “letter of correction” would be another matter entirely.

  3. David says: so obscure to anyone not familiar with traditionalist circles

    Is that so? You underestimate social media.

    Those who pay attention, pay attention also to this.

  4. Traductora says:

    Actually, I think this IS the formal correction. Nobody ever said that it had to be the “Four Cardinals” or even any cardinals, although it is generally agreed that it has to come from bishops. Kazakhstan may be a little unheard of to many people, but again, nobody ever said historically that the correction had to come from a major diocese in Western Europe or the US.

    Personally, I think it’s finally happened. Others will adhere to it or they won’t, but at least somebody has finally come out and made the correction.

  5. UncleBlobb says:

    Thank you, Father Z.! My guess about the bells is Westminster Abbey. [No. Nice try! Please follow the lovely Vanna to collect your contestant’s prize!

  6. iPadre says:

    This is going to be an exciting year. And it’s only just begun.


  8. VexillaRegis says:

    Vanna, aha, I suspect hear the bells of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence. [While that’s a lovely church, these bells are not in Italy. Funny thing about bells… once they get into your head, you never forget the sound and the pattern. They are distinctive. I suspect that someone who lives in the city where these bells live will nail it immediately.]

  9. VexillaRegis says:

    Sorry, it should read: “Vanna, aha, I suspect we hear the bells of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence.”

  10. Riddley says:

    Whether or not this document is intended to be the “fraternal” correction to accompany last year’s filial one, I imagine it could end up serving that purpose if other bishops start adding their names to it (which I believe has started to happen).

    A number of Bishops Conferences have issued documents about the interpretation of AL, but this one seems to go beyond what the other conservative statements have done, and can certainly be read as an explicit counterargument.

  11. JamesA says:

    Fantastic. Deo gratias.
    By the way, Father, the comment “miniscule number of cases” brings to mind a question I’ve had since the eruption of this whole mess : how many Catholic couples who find themselves in an irregular marriage and repent and want to change, and thus petition for declarations of nullity, are turned down ? It seems to me, with the ease with which annulments are granted now, that the number of couples must be relatively small ?! This has always seemed to me to be a “solution” in search of a problem.

  12. Andrew says:

    Are those the bells of the La Sagrada Familia?

    [They are not. And I will say that the church isn’t as well-known as Sagrada Familia.]

  13. DavidR says:

    Sheep on the right, goats on the left.

  14. jameeka says:

    Thank you very much, Father Z. Exceptionally good rant at the end.

  15. VexillaRegis says:

    Oh, so Vanna is a red herring, hmm, let me see, not in Italy, motorbikes, lesser known church than Sagrada Familia, men shouting in a romance language (?) – three bells ringing (not a small church)…

    My new guess would be a church in France.

  16. VexillaRegis says:

    Avignon – another papal mess…

  17. Semper Gumby says:

    I agree with jameeka. As for the bells, my first guess was, given the topic here and St. John Paul II and Familiaris Consortio: Wawel Cathedral in Krakow. But, I’m going with spiritual warfare and St. Mare-Eglise, and thanks to VexillaRegis for mentioning France. Whether I’m right or wrong, superb podcast Fr. Z.



  18. Semper Gumby says:

    Fr. Z, one more video, this from Band of Brothers. This actually occurred in January or February 1945 at the end of the Battle of the Bulge. This infantry unit has lost about half its men and has been pulled out of the line in Belgium and allowed to go indoors for the first time since arriving at Bastogne in December. Turns out, a convent gave them shelter and a girl’s choir sang. This is one of my favorite scenes.

    “The Sisters brought in their choir to sing for us. It was Heaven.”


  19. Grateful to be Catholic says:

    These bishops are not so obscure. According to this report, https://anonimidellacroceblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/spifferi-parte-lvi-la-quiete-prima-della-tempesta-cosa-sta-preparando-bergoglio-per-i-tre-vescovi-della-correzione-ufficiale-di-fra-cristoforo/, the Pope held a strategy session at Santa Marta on Tuesday evening, to plan what to do about the Official Correction, as it is being called. The Pope is said to be furious. The plan is to have the press agents of the Vatican and the press proxies (we know who they are) conduct a campaign of defamation against the bishops. No substantive response to their statement, of course. And the campaign against them will only serve to publicize what they have said.

    Marco Tossati picked up the post and added his own information, wherein our friend Beans is the star: http://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/01/03/la-strategia-del-pontefice-contro-i-cinque-vescovi-coraggiosi-secondo-anonimi-della-croce-screditarli-poi-una-coincidenza-singolare/.

  20. David says:

    I’m glad to hear that the Vatican is in fact paying attention to this statement. I’ll be interested to see what they can come up with that would “defame” a man like Bishop Schneider, who virtually radiates holiness. So far the Pope’s strategy of saying nothing at all about the substantive objections of his critics has worked perfectly. It will be interesting to see if his well known desire to be universally loved and agreed with finally gets the better of him, and he makes an angry mistake in his tactics.

    It’s hard for me to see this as Cardinal Burke’s “letter of correction”, which has always been discussed in the context of the “dubia” submitted by the four cardinals, and as a project he keeps talking about in a personal way. [I’m pretty sure that Card. Burke had nothing to do with this.]

  21. Grateful to be Catholic says:

    Cardinal Pujats has signed! http://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/01/05/4005/.

  22. Pingback: La hostilidad hacia el Vaticano II es profunda con los críticos del Papa Francisco | Evangelizadoras de los apóstoles

Comments are closed.