Cardinal Burke - ‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyc176
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And did Cardinal Burke have anything to say about Laudato Si’? I imagine he at least had some concerns with it.
 
Brendan_64 said:
The good cardinal is drawing attention to the fact that Amoris Laetitia is an Apostolic exhortation (not an encyclical etc.), that it is not part of magisterial teaching, and that it must be read and interpreted in light of Tradition.
Click to expand...
I would disagree that it is not an act of the Magisterium. This canon lawyer makes the same point I would–essentially Cardinal Burke is using a too narrow definition of the word Magisterium, that does not line up with how the concept is traditionally understood:

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/12/the-slow-decline-of-the-ordinary-magisterium/

That’s really just a quibble though with what Cardinal Burke’s point is, since we get to the same result. Not all acts of the Magisterium are due divine and Catholic faith, but rather are due religious submission, which is not absolute. Burke even says this document is due such submission. He is of course also right that we cannot depart from Tradition. Here’s how Lumen Gentium says we are to approach acts of the papal Magisterium like this one:
Vatican II:
This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Click to expand...
One thing Pope Francis has done consistently well in his major magisterial acts, is make his mind and will for the document known explicitly right up front. In this case, he does this in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6. He does not intend this to be a definitively binding doctrinal judgment, to amend any canon law, etc. Rather, this document is intended merely as “an aid to reflection, dialogue and pastoral practice, and as a help and encouragement to families in their daily commitments and challenges” and should therefore be treated as such.
 
I can’t help but note that the very real concern that the document wold create confusion has proven to be the case already. We have a Cardinal whom I much admire trying to clarify what the Pope, to whom we all owe loyalty and respect, has said. And we don’t all agree on the meaning of that.

I fear that this is another area where Pope Francis might not quite understand the nature of things in the northern hemisphere of the Western World where the social pressure is towards “anything you want to do is okay” and people accommodate their religious beliefs to their personal ones. Indeed, more and more I hope that our next Pope (and no, I’m not wishing for a short reign here) is chosen, he’ll be either from the vibrant and growing African Church or the vibrant but embattled American one. Here in the West things are so pre-loaded that nearly any ambiguity will results in an immediate set of assumptions, and yet the Pope has given us that fairly frequently. The message received here might not be the one he intended to send, but he needs to be very careful about that.
 
Genesis315 said:
I would disagree that it is not an act of the Magisterium. This canon lawyer makes the same point I would–essentially Cardinal Burke is using a too narrow definition of the word Magisterium, that does not line up with how the concept is traditionally understood: …

That’s really just a quibble though with what Cardinal Burke’s point is, since we get to the same result. Not all acts of the Magisterium are due divine and Catholic faith, but rather are due religious submission, which is not absolute. Burke even says this document is due such submission. He is of course also right that we cannot depart from Tradition.
Click to expand...
I think that we’re going down a very dangerous path here. Are we to pick and choose among the Church’s non-infallible teachings to suit our purposes? “Religious submission of the mind and will” must mean something more than “I prefer Cardinal Burke’s approach” vs. “I prefer Pope Francis’ approach.” Cardinal Burke is clearly dissenting from Pope Francis and has emerged as a leader of the opposition to his papacy – which is probably why he was removed by Pope Francis as the leader of the Vatican’s highest court and appointed to a ceremonial position as chaplain of the Knights of Malta, a ceremonial role. For all the talk of dissenting priests and bishops on CA Forums during the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, many on this Forum are very comfortable with opposition to Pope Francis. Cafeteria Catholics come in all shapes and sizes, I guess.
 
adowcday said:
I think that we’re going down a very dangerous path here. Are we to pick and choose among the Church’s non-infallible teachings to suit our purposes? “Religious submission of the mind and will” must mean something more than “I prefer Cardinal Burke’s approach” vs. “I prefer Pope Francis’ approach.” Cardinal Burke is clearly dissenting from Pope Francis and has emerged as a leader of the opposition to his papacy – which is probably why he was removed by Pope Francis as the leader of the Vatican’s highest court and appointed to a ceremonial position as chaplain of the Knights of Malta, a ceremonial role. For all the talk of dissenting priests and bishops on CA Forums during the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, many on this Forum are very comfortable with opposition to Pope Francis. Cafeteria Catholics come in all shapes and sizes, I guess.
Click to expand...
Although we must keep in mind that in former stormy eras of the church’s history Cardinals and Popes would debate.

Indeed, Paul and Peter didn’t always agree.

Having said that, we must be very careful not to make debate into dissent.
 
Yeoman said:
I fear that this is another area where Pope Francis might not quite understand the nature of things in the northern hemisphere of the Western World where the social pressure is towards “anything you want to do is okay” and people accommodate their religious beliefs to their personal ones.
Click to expand...
I think he understands it perfectly well. He also understands that in such culture you don’t convert people by condemnation, rigid legality, and lack of mercy. He believes in meeting people where they are as the starting point of conversion.

He also has a latin mindset where the law is meant to achieve an overall objective, but not at the expense of individual injustices that the law could not foresee. On the contrary I think it is people sticking to a rigid legalist mindset that don’t get the picture, not the Holy Father who has considerable on-the-ground experience as a pastor in what has often been a troubled country.

He clearly views his job as more shepherd than prosecutor. He doesn’t want to abrogate the law, he wants to convert people to belief in the law, at a speed that they can manage. Hence the approach of “gradualism” he mentions in the exhortation, and which BTW Saint John Paul II also proposed in Familiaris Consortio (not, in that context, to the divorced and remarried but other irregular situations).

The Holy Father recognizes that conversion isn’t a flip of a switch. It’s the start of a life-long process, something that any Benedictine monk inherently recognizes. It requires meeting people where they are and leading by the hand to where then need to be, and not imposing on them burdens that they can’t yet handle lest they get discouraged and fall away.

I have read the whole exhortation, it is beautifully written, clear and concise. It is clear from reading it that the Holy Father understands human nature more that many here at CAF, and that he fully understands the role of the father and both sons in the story of the Prodigal Son.

We would do well to accord this exhortation all the respect and obedience due to the Holy Father, work on our own sins, not worry about those of others, and let the Church figure out how to best deal with the sins of others in the privacy of the confessional.
 
Yeoman said:
Although we must keep in mind that in former stormy eras of the church’s history Cardinals and Popes would debate.

Indeed, Paul and Peter didn’t always agree.

Having said that, we must be very careful not to make debate into dissent.
Click to expand...
Yes and they didn’t have the Internet for the whole world to be in on their disagreements.

However, I believe the time for the debate was the Synod. The Holy Father listened to all views there, synthesized the discussions, and pronounced himself in Amoris Laetitia.

The time for debate has passed, it is now the time for obedience.
 
Why is now the “time for obedience”?

Why wasn’t it the “time for obedience” when the priests and bishops thumbed their noses at Paul VI after Humanae Vitae?

Or when they gathered to argue over whether Pope John Paul’s prohibition against women priests was a doctrinal pronouncement?

Just asking a question and not being confrontational. Honest.
 
adowcday said:
Cardinal Burke states that “the post-synodal apostolic exhortation can only be correctly interpreted, as a non-magisterial document.” That is ridiculous.

A magisterial teaching may be solemn or ordinary. He may be correct that the document is not an exercise of the solemn magisterium, that is, that it is not an infallible teaching. However, any teaching of a pope or bishop is part of the ordinary magisterium and should be taken seriously by the faithful. It is authoritative and the faithful are to respond to such teaching with religious submission of intellect and will.

To diminish an apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis as “non-magisterial,” that is, as not an authoritative teaching to be taken seriously, is false and misleading. Church leaders like Cardinal Burke have been playing this sort of game with Vatican II, for example, for decades, in an attempt to diminish its impact on the Church. Burke is now training his sights on Pope Francis’ teaching. I realize that Burke is popular on CA, but I don’t appreciate his opposition to the Pope.
Click to expand...
Although we are required to listen respectfully to what any pope says and take what he says seriously (and rightly so) we are not required to respond to everything a pope says or right with religious submission of intellect and will, that would in effect be a kind of papolatry.

So assuming that there is a to be drawn with regard to what are we bound to submit our intellect and will to, where does that line lie? Comments from popes made at press conferences? Comments made in newspaper interviews? Homilies given at Masses said by the pope, or at papal audiences? Apostolic exhortations? Encyclicals? Papal acts? Statements made ex-Cathedra?

Cardinal Burke, arguably the most eminent Canon lawyer in the Church, maintains that this line lies above Apostolic exhortations and below Encyclicals. Amoris Laetitia is not an encyclical, and falls below this line. Pope Francis could have chosen to approve this document ‘In Forma Specifica’ which would certainly have made it binding, but he did not choose to do so. This document would seem to be written as a reflection on existing Church teaching on marriage and the family, combined with advice to clergy on how they might be able to best give pastoral care to families in difficult situations and do so within the framework of existing, unchanged, Church teaching. Amoris Laetitia does not change Church teaching, add to Church teaching, or even change Church discipline. Rather it is well-meaning, reflective advice to pastors.

Amoris Laetitia is not a radical document, it does not represent change, it is not some sort of ‘fresh start’, it is just a case of the pope reflecting on the discussions from the Synod on the Family, adding some of his own opinions, reiterating existing Church teaching, and giving advice to pastors within this framework. It does not in itself represent Magisterial teaching.

And Cardinal Burke is not attacking Pope Francis at all in what he has said on this, quite the contrary, he is just (as a highly esteemed Canon Lawyer) pointing out the status of this document within the framework of the Church.
 
Lormar said:
Didn’t Pope Francis himself say the document is pastoral?
Click to expand...
Which doesn’t mean it can be cast aside and ignored at will.

It contains guidelines for pastors and the laity alike, and I expect that he expects they will be followed, and not have pastors say “I don’t agree with that so I will ignore it”.

I know our Benedictine monks will follow it, because the Benedictine tradition is to obey and defend the Pope. While they aren’t in marriage ministry they do counsel people who are in troubled marital situations and I am absolutely positive they will do their best to conform to the will of the Pope.

It’s a lesson in humility and obedience we all could draw from.
 
OraLabora said:
Which doesn’t mean it can be cast aside and ignored at will.

It contains guidelines for pastors and the laity alike, and I expect that he expects they will be followed, and not have pastors say “I don’t agree with that so I will ignore it”.

I know our Benedictine monks will follow it, because the Benedictine tradition is to obey and defend the Pope. While they aren’t in marriage ministry they do counsel people who are in troubled marital situations and I am absolutely positive they will do their best to conform to the will of the Pope.

It’s a lesson in humility and obedience we all could draw from.
Click to expand...
And most fall far short of. :o

👍
 
Does anyone know if a hard copy of AL is available yet for purchase?
 
Brendan_64 said:
Although we are required to listen respectfully to what any pope says and take what he says seriously (and rightly so) we are not required to respond to everything a pope says or right with religious submission of intellect and will, that would in effect be a kind of papolatry.

So assuming that there is a to be drawn with regard to what are we bound to submit our intellect and will to, where does that line lie? Comments from popes made at press conferences? Comments made in newspaper interviews? Homilies given at Masses said by the pope, or at papal audiences? Apostolic exhortations? Encyclicals? Papal acts? Statements made ex-Cathedra?

Cardinal Burke, arguably the most eminent Canon lawyer in the Church, maintains that this line lies above Apostolic exhortations and below Encyclicals. Amoris Laetitia is not an encyclical, and falls below this line. Pope Francis could have chosen to approve this document ‘In Forma Specifica’ which would certainly have made it binding, but he did not choose to do so. This document would seem to be written as a reflection on existing Church teaching on marriage and the family, combined with advice to clergy on how they might be able to best give pastoral care to families in difficult situations and do so within the framework of existing, unchanged, Church teaching. Amoris Laetitia does not change Church teaching, add to Church teaching, or even change Church discipline. Rather it is well-meaning, reflective advice to pastors.

Amoris Laetitia is not a radical document, it does not represent change, it is not some sort of ‘fresh start’, it is just a case of the pope reflecting on the discussions from the Synod on the Family, adding some of his own opinions, reiterating existing Church teaching, and giving advice to pastors within this framework. It does not in itself represent Magisterial teaching.

And Cardinal Burke is not attacking Pope Francis at all in what he has said on this, quite the contrary, he is just (as a highly esteemed Canon Lawyer) pointing out the status of this document within the framework of the Church.
Click to expand...
Lumen Gentium 25a had this to say about how the faithful are to respond to non-infallible papal teaching:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

There is widespread misunderstanding about how the Catholic faithful are to respond to the ordinary magisterium. I lay much of the blame at those who opposed the implementation of Vatican II and who made much of the fact that it was non-infallible teaching. The result was that not only was the authority of Vatican II undercut – mind you, this was an ecumenical council of the Church! – but also any other teaching that was not branded as “ex cathedra” or infallible. Moreover, there were other papal teachings that were branded as infallible even though they were not labeled as “ex cathedra” statements. As a result, unless a teaching is called “ex cathedra” or includes an “anathema,” then the faithful believe they can pick or choose whether to adhere to such teaching. I’m reminded of the Apostle Paul and his criticism of the church at Corinth with its rival factions: “I’m for Paul, I’m for Apollos…”.

Unfortunately, Cardinal Burke is more than willing to attack Pope Francis, although his attacks are artful and seem to be a defense of the Church and its doctrine rather than a dissenter’s attack against a Pope. As you can tell, I’m not a fan of Cardinal Burke.
 
Genesis315 said:
I would disagree that it is not an act of the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
I think your final argument undercuts this assertion.
Not all acts of the Magisterium are due divine and Catholic faith, but rather are due religious submission, which is not absolute.
Click to expand...
Even the canon lawyer you cited makes a distinction between things the Magisterium states that are magisterial and those that are not. Clearly not everything that emanates from the Magisterium is magisterial.the multitudinous expressions of the ordinary Magisterium tend to be diffuse, prolix, and mixed in with all sorts of other assertions that do not carry magisterial import.
Burke even says this document is due such submission. He is of course also right that we cannot depart from Tradition. Here’s how Lumen Gentium says we are to approach acts of the papal Magisterium like this one:
Click to expand...
Lumen Gentium addresses statements that are infallible or ordinary. It does not address statements that “do not carry magisterial import”…such as prudential judgments. The point being that judgments do not oblige our assent.
One thing Pope Francis has done consistently well in his major magisterial acts, is make his mind and will for the document known explicitly right up front. In this case, he does this in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6.
Click to expand...
I would disagree. I don’t think anyone can say precisely what the document means, and this will be demonstrated by the opinions expressed that are directly contrary to one another.
He does not intend this to be a definitively binding doctrinal judgment, to amend any canon law, etc. Rather, this document is intended merely as “an aid to reflection, dialogue and pastoral practice, and as a help and encouragement to families in their daily commitments and challenges” and should therefore be treated as such.
Click to expand...
If by not being “definitively binding” you mean it is not infallible, that is clearly true. If it is merely an aid to reflection - and should be treated as such - then it is prudential, and a prudential judgment does not require assent.

Ender
 
irenaeus1 said:
You mean sort of like the way Familiaris Consortio has been cast aside?
Click to expand...
You mean the way Familiaris Consortio was cited, built upon and used as inspiration 24 times in Amoris Laetitia? :roll eyes:

You may not like the way Pope Francis built upon Familiaris Consortio. I would suggest however, that whether one likes it or not is besides the point. The issuing and implementation of Amoris Laetitia is way above our pay grade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top