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

[irenaeus1]

Have you READ the document??? From Chapter 8:

Footnote 329:

and

Footnote 339:

I would also point out that Familiaris Consortio is also an Apostolic Exhortation, thus at the same level as Amoris Laetitia. The first doesn’t override the second, but the second develops from the first.

Yes, I have read most of the document, and of course, I have read the infamous Chapter 8. That’s why, unless I somehow missed it, I know that Pope Francis did not cite the one place in Familiaris Consortio where JPII explicitly addressed the issue of D&R with respect to Holy Communion. Interesting that this would be passed over.

JPII was extremely clear and concise:

"However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

“Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.””

And yes, while this too is an Apostolic Exhortation, a similar message and teaching is in the CCC, which would have added weight.

But Francis shifts the focus of objective sin to mortal sin in order to bring in mitigating factors of culpability. And that’s completely in line with Catholic teaching, but this has never been the criterion for admission of D&R individuals to Holy Communion. Also, Francis cites a passage in footnote 329 from Gaudium et Spes intended for married couples and applies it to those who are in a second union, which seems inappropriate. And while JPII stated that he wanted to avoid confusion, Pope Francis seems to prefer it and actually acknowledges this as a result of a less rigorous pastoral approach.

 

[irenaeus1]

Originally Posted by irenaeus1

You mean sort of like the way Familiaris Consortio has been cast aside?

This is flat out untrue.

I meant to say Familiaris Consortio 84.

 

[pnewton]

But Francis shifts the focus of objective sin to mortal sin in order to bring in mitigating factors of culpability. And that’s completely in line with Catholic teaching, but this has never been the criterion for admission of D&R individuals to Holy Communion. … And while JPII stated that he wanted to avoid confusion, Pope Francis seems to prefer it and actually acknowledges this as a result of a less rigorous pastoral approach.

Probably the reason I have liked this latest letter so much is that I have never really cared for the way the issue of divorce and remarriage has been dealt with in a unique manner. The Catholic Church never considered culpability for this sin alone, at least in practice. I understand the reason for this, but never really liked it. St. John Paul (and the Church) to the path of avoiding confusion, but only at the price of rigidity. Pope Francis risks confusion for the purpose of making the law subservient to mercy, at least in some situations.

 

[Ender]

I would clarify and say not everything one who can exercise magisterial authority says carries magisterial import.

“Magisterial import” is an undefined term (at least as far as this discussion is concerned). For myself, I understand it to mean something that requires our assent, either because it is part of the infallible or ordinary Magisterium. That would rule out prudential judgments. There are doctrines, to which we must assent, and there are judgments, about which we may decide for ourselves.

This type of document has consistently been treated by the Church as being used in exercise of the papal magisterium.

According to whom, and what do you mean by “papal magisterium”? Do you mean doctrinal as opposed to prudential? (name removed by moderator) provided one definition of an Apostolic Exhortation that indicated it was not about doctrine. That Wikipedia definition agrees with another one I encountered:An* Apostolic Exhortation** is published to encourage the faithful to live in a particular manner or to do something, e.g., post-synodal documents offered to the church is typically a summary of a previous synod and hoping the faithful will do something helpful for the life of the church
*If that definition is accurate then there is good reason to understand these types of documents as not being doctrinal in nature. That said, I am sure there are doctrinal statements made in apostolic exhortations just as there are prudential ones made in encyclicals.

Prudential judgments certainly carry magisterial import. Donum Veritatis explained how we are to treat prudential magisterial judgments, including those that may be in error:

Donum Veritatis does not say that prudential judgments require assent, which is not surprising as they in fact do not.*“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning … It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. **Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. ***(Cardinal Dulles)

I guess we’ll see. It’s spelled out right in the document, so there really isn’t much excuse for giving it a different weight than what the Pope said it should have

Can you cite the part of the document that spells this out?

Ender

 

[Brendan_64]

Slippery Slope Warning.

You have to wonder about the urgency of the line-drawing. Are Catholics in the last 60 years more likely to over emphasize, or to under emphasize, the authority of ongoing papal teaching? Do you think the fervent support for the prompt line-drawing will make it easier, or harder, for the acceptance of the Magisterium under future popes?

Commenter, you make a very good point there, and on reflection I think you are entirely correct. We do need to be very careful about drawing such lines (for the reason you have stated and for the reasons Lormar and OraLabora were alluding to).

When I think about it would seem to me that this argument regarding assent or otherwise doesn’t apply in the case of Amoris Laetitia. It would appear that no new teaching has been put forward and no existing teaching has been amended therefore there is nothing to assent to other than established existing teaching, which we already are required to assent to. I think Cardinal Burke is entirely correct, this document needs to be read in light of tradition. As far as teaching is concerned, nothing has changed. Nothing has changed regarding discipline either (and Pope Francis has complete authority to change discipline as he sees fit).

I think that people may be guilty of reading the document in light of what they feared would come from it (change in Church teaching) or what they wished would come from it (change in Church teaching). I think people then look in the document for ‘evidence’ of such change in order cry in despair at the abandonment of Church teaching or celebrate a ‘new dawn’. I think this the wrong approach here. I think this document represents what Pope Francis himself seems to allude to in its introduction, a reflective examination of marriage and the family, a reiteration of existing Church teaching, and an attempt to offer useful advice to pastors within the bounds of existing teaching and discipline.

I think that questions of assent, or otherwise do not apply here, other than assent to teaching that already exists and is reflected in this document. Essentially, nothing has changed.

 

[OraLabora]

I meant to say Familiaris Consortio 84.

Which was cited in footnote 329.

 

[OraLabora]

Which was cited in footnote 329.

And I should add that Familiaris Consortio is also an apostolic exhortation and should thus not be given more, nor less weight than Amoris Laetitia.

 

[unafraid]

I agree with those who say that various utterances of a pope have different levels of authority. Although I disagree with the details of what some have posted, I am glad that at least we are talking about the subject. An apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis is clearly not infallible, but it has a level of authority that demands that we not push it aside in favor of our own opinion on the subject (or Cardinal Burke’s for that matter). Thank you all for a respectful discussion.

Thank you for your tone, your clarity and your calm. Excellent!

My own commentary is thus: “Amoris Laetitia” is authored by the successor of St. Peter; Cardinal Burke’s retort derives its authority from what official authority?

Needless to say, I will be absorbing what our pontif is trying to convey, while quite frankly, not giving much gravitas toward Cardinal Burke’s response.

At some point, the squeaky wheel no longer deserves more grease!

 

[irenaeus1]

Which was cited in footnote 329.

which is dismantled in footnote 329 as well as citing a conciliar document out of context in support of a new position.

 

[irenaeus1]

And I should add that Familiaris Consortio is also an apostolic exhortation and should thus not be given more, nor less weight than Amoris Laetitia.

So what is a faithful Catholic to understand if the two are in conflict with one another?

 

[OraLabora]

So what is a faithful Catholic to understand if the two are in conflict with one another?

They are not in conflict, the second one moves further down the road to mercy; there was a time before Saint John Paul II’s exhortation that even living together while continent was so scandalous it barred folks from the Eucharist.

One is to obediently take the Holy Father’s document prayerfully, obediently, and at face value. He clearly is distancing himself from the absolutist position of the past if only ever so slightly. I for one am not prepared to question his use of conciliar documents. He is way above my pay grade, and I trust the Promise that Jesus made to Peter through the keys.

Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ, He whom I follow. It stands to reason that I will be in lockstep with the Vicar He appointed through Apostolic Succession, on matters of faith and morals.

My faith is not, in other words, shaken by Pope Francis’s small opening to the divorced and remarried.

I consider myself neither liberal nor conservative, but orthodox and given my spiritual affiliation to the Benedictines of the very orthodox Salesmen Congregation, that includes faithful obedience and support of the Holy Father.

Try obedience. It is liberating. One sleeps so much better at night. I don’t say this flippantly. When the little squirrel in the cage no longer spins during the night, one sleeps much better. There is no sense fretting over this exhortation.

 

[christofirst]

Salesmen Congregation,

Salesman Congregation? They must be quite persuasive!

Not to make light of what you’re saying. I truly appreciate your thoughtful point of view here in this thread, but I could resist commenting on what was likely a spell-check correction.

 

[Ender]

They are not in conflict, the second one moves further down the road to mercy…

How does mercy figure into this? If it is truly wrong for a person in an irregular marriage to receive communion, how does mercy justify allowing it? And if it not wrong for that person to receive then it is justice, not mercy, that permits it. It isn’t clear how mercy plays any part in this conversation.

He clearly is distancing himself from the absolutist position of the past if only ever so slightly.

I haven’t read the entire document yet - can you cite the passages you believe represent changes to the past?

I for one am not prepared to question his use of conciliar documents. He is way above my pay grade, and I trust the Promise that Jesus made to Peter through the keys.

Holding the keys to the church doesn’t actually mean that the pope gets to decide what doctrine ought to be. The pope is actually the caretaker of doctrine, not its master.

Ender

 

[OraLabora]

How does mercy figure into this? If it is truly wrong for a person in an irregular marriage to receive communion, how does mercy justify allowing it? And if it not wrong for that person to receive then it is justice, not mercy, that permits it. It isn’t clear how mercy plays any part in this conversation.
I haven’t read the entire document yet - can you cite the passages you believe represent changes to the past?
Holding the keys to the church doesn’t actually mean that the pope gets to decide what doctrine ought to be. The pope is actually the caretaker of doctrine, not its master.

Ender

I am not the Pope’s watchdog and nor are you. I’m not at my computer at the moment but I suggest looking at chapter 8, and the paragraph in which footnote 351 is included, I forget its number.

 

[Brendan_64]

My own commentary is thus: “Amoris Laetitia” is authored by the successor of St. Peter; Cardinal Burke’s retort derives its authority from what official authority?

Needless to say, I will be absorbing what our pontif is trying to convey, while quite frankly, not giving much gravitas toward Cardinal Burke’s response.

At some point, the squeaky wheel no longer deserves more grease!

Cardinal Burke has not criticised this document in any way, he simply speaks in order to clarify the confusion whereby sensationalists, on either side, seem to be viewing this document as essentially a change in teaching or at least discipline. This document is nothing of the sort. Teaching hasn’t been altered, nor have Canon Law or Church discipline been changed. Essentially nothing has changed, so how else is this document to be read other than in light of tradition?

Pope Francis has written what he has written and Cardinal Burke has not criticised the content of this document. It would seem to me that some people are reading into what Pope Francis has written, things other than what he has written.

Cardinal Burke is a well-respected and eminent prince of the Church, and is probably the most esteemed Canon Lawyer in the Church, describing him as a squeaky wheel that no longer deserves more grease is very disrespectful, reprehensible even.

As for the footnote 351 furore, do we really think that the Vicar of Christ would attempt to implement change, not by directly stating the proposed change in the actual text of the document, but by sneaking it in through the use of a footnote?

 

[adowcday]

Cardinal Burke has not criticised this document in any way, he simply speaks in order to clarify the confusion whereby sensationalists, on either side, seem to be viewing this document as essentially a change in teaching or at least discipline. This document is nothing of the sort. Teaching hasn’t been altered, nor have Canon Law or Church discipline been changed. Essentially nothing has changed, so how else is this document to be read other than in light of tradition?

Pope Francis has written what he has written and Cardinal Burke has not criticised the content of this document. It would seem to me that some people are reading into what Pope Francis has written, things other than what he has written.

Cardinal Burke is a well-respected and eminent prince of the Church, and is probably the most esteemed Canon Lawyer in the Church, describing him as a squeaky wheel that no longer deserves more grease is very disrespectful, reprehensible even.

Cardinal Burke has become one of the most vocal critics of Pope Francis, which is why he was demoted. He is an intelligent man, so he veils his attacks, but he has attacked Pope Francis and his teaching at every turn. That’s not reading into what Cardinal Burke has written: its simply reading what he has written in context. He is a sort of hero to many who liked the style of John Paul II and Benedict XVI and conservative U.S. bishops like Chaput, Bruskewicz and Burke. However, his opposition to Pope Francis is not a friendly quarrel. He thinks Pope Francis is going down the wrong road and he wants to stop or slow him down.

 

[irenaeus1]

They are not in conflict, the second one moves further down the road to mercy;

But in order to “move further down the road of mercy”, the obstacles of the previous exhortation had to be removed… not built upon, but removed.

there was a time before Saint John Paul II’s exhortation that even living together while continent was so scandalous it barred folks from the Eucharist.

I don’t know that that’s true… do you have a church document supporting this? The continence issue certainly removed the objective sinfulness of the situation.

 

[irenaeus1]

Probably the reason I have liked this latest letter so much is that I have never really cared for the way the issue of divorce and remarriage has been dealt with in a unique manner. The Catholic Church never considered culpability for this sin alone, at least in practice. I understand the reason for this, but never really liked it. St. John Paul (and the Church) to the path of avoiding confusion, but only at the price of rigidity. Pope Francis risks confusion for the purpose of making the law subservient to mercy, at least in some situations.

Divorce and remarriage is dealt with in a ‘unique’ manner because the nature of it is different… namely, it is manifest and it is perpetual. The Church has always taught that an individual is not to be admitted to Holy Communion if they persist in manifest, grave sin - not just divorce and remarriage; it just happens to be one of the most common. If an individual continues in other grave sins, which are not manifested (i.e., not public), they are to judge themselves (for obvious reasons since who would know if it is not public) and refrain from Holy Communion.

I also would challenge the notion of the Church (or St. John Paul) being rigid. They certainly were in line with Jesus’ and Paul’s rigidity, both of which could show God’s mercy without compromising the demands of the Gospel. If you didn’t think there were already those who practiced fast and loose with the rules, it will only get worse, and now apparently with Pope Francis’ endorsement. Pope Francis’ risk of confusion is already being seen by the statements from bishops and priests claiming positions that are supposedly backed by AL, such as all divorced and remarried folks are welcome to receive Holy Communion, or another absurd statement on a popular priest’s blog stating that now those who are unmarried and living together are no longer ‘living in sin.’ These particular clergy should know better (and probably do), but they are presuming that their flock doesn’t.

 

[OraLabora]

Divorce and remarriage is dealt with in a ‘unique’ manner because the nature of it is different… namely, it is manifest and it is perpetual. The Church has always taught that an individual is not to be admitted to Holy Communion if they persist in manifest, grave sin - not just divorce and remarriage; it just happens to be one of the most common. If an individual continues in other grave sins, which are not manifested (i.e., not public), they are to judge themselves (for obvious reasons since who would know if it is not public) and refrain from Holy Communion.

I also would challenge the notion of the Church (or St. John Paul) being rigid. They certainly were in line with Jesus’ and Paul’s rigidity, both of which could show God’s mercy without compromising the demands of the Gospel. If you didn’t think there were already those who practiced fast and loose with the rules, it will only get worse, and now apparently with Pope Francis’ endorsement. Pope Francis’ risk of confusion is already being seen by the statements from bishops and priests claiming positions that are supposedly backed by AL, such as all divorced and remarried folks are welcome to receive Holy Communion, or another absurd statement on a popular priest’s blog stating that now those who are unmarried and living together are no longer ‘living in sin.’ These particular clergy should know better (and probably do), but they are presuming that their flock doesn’t.

What I can’t figure out is why it worries people to whom it doesn’t apply, so much. I personally have enough on my plate dealing with my own sins.

That said to me there has always been an element of busybody in the “public and manifest”. If a couple can receive the Eucharist even if they live together, because they are continent, and another couple cannot because they aren’t… frankly it is no business of mine what goes on in their bedroom, and if I see a known divorced couple go up for to receive the Eucharist (which is rare because I tend to not know people in my parish so much and I usually attend Mass at a Benedictine abbey), in Christian charity I can only assume that they’ve made right with God (continence), and if they haven’t, then it’s a matter between themselves, God and their confessor.

It’s not as if D & R people have a scarlet letter… so it seems disingenuous to say that a continent divorced couple going up isn’t a public and manifest sin, while a divorced and not continent couple go up for the Eucharist, is. I really can’t tell the difference from my pew which is which. Both the continent and non-continent couples are plainly living together, that is public and manifest. But their continence, or not, is clearly to me a private matter and not something that is any business of mine. So either there is no public scandal, or both the continent and not continent couple are behaving in a scandalous and public manner just by openly living under the same roof.

I personally see that there’s no public scandal if we accept the continent couple receiving the Eucharist. By extension there is no public scandal by the non-continent couple, because the “scandalous” act is occurring in private. Ergo, the normal rules for determining mortal culpability should then apply, and the application of those rules is exactly what Pope Francis is suggesting in his document.

 

[pnewton]

Cardinal Burke has not criticised this document in any way,

Some of his writing seemed like criticism to me.