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

[irenaeus1]

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.

What I can’t figure out is why someone would think that it should be irrelevant simply because it does not apply to them personally. Doesn’t the integrity of the faith mean anything? How is one to counsel another person struggling with a particular sin in their life if one does not firmly believe and understand the truth of the faith? I don’t have to have been involved in an ‘unwanted’ pregnancy and subsequently procured an abortion to want to know that the Church faithfully condemns abortion. I don’t have to be struggling with gender identity to care or be concerned whether the Church rejects gender theory and gender identity issues. I care that the bishops of the Church faithfully teach and advocate the truth no matter whether any particular issue directly touches my life or not.

 

[pnewton]

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.

Except that it is hardly the only manifest sin, when it is, and often it is not manifest. As to being “perpetual” that is exactly what I mean by being unique. I do not get, it is not unique because it is “perpetual” whent that is the way it is being unique.

 

[irenaeus1]

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.

That’s a lot of words to simply say that you disagree with JPII. I just so happen to disagree with Pope Francis.

 

[pnewton]

How is one to counsel another person struggling with a particular sin in their life if one does not firmly believe and understand the truth of the faith?

I do not see much “counseling” happening here. Obviously counselors, like the priests who are mentioned here by Pope Francis, understand the truth of the faith.

 

[irenaeus1]

Except that it is hardly the only manifest sin, when it is, and often it is not manifest. As to being “perpetual” that is exactly what I mean by being unique. I do not get, it is not unique because it is “perpetual” whent that is the way it is being unique.

I already said it was not the only one, just the most common. Another one would be politicians who advocates laws supporting abortion… grave matter (support of abortion), manifest (matter of public record), and persistent (continually advocated and consistent voting record).

 

[irenaeus1]

I do not see much “counseling” happening here. Obviously counselors, like the priests who are mentioned here by Pope Francis, understand the truth of the faith.

Sometimes I wonder with the amount of times Pope Francis rails against priests.

 

[Ender]

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.

The church has a very different view of the matter.In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage.That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the Sacraments and a defense of Christian morality, and for the correct formation of the faithful.

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.

Normal rules do apply, which is why people in irregular unions are prohibited from publicly receiving, and it is inventive to suggest that this has all been changed.

Ender

 

[Ender]

That’s a lot of words to simply say that you disagree with JPII. I just so happen to disagree with Pope Francis.

If what has been claimed about the document was true I could perhaps understand why you would disagree with it, but I don’t think a good case can be made that these various expansive interpretations of the document are valid.

Ender

 

[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.

OK, let’s look at that section:Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. 351

*351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).
*What is the change you refer to? The mention of objective sin and subjective culpability? The assertion that the Eucharist can be a powerful medicine? What Francis is discussing is that discernment is not a one size fits all response to practical situations. More to the point, nothing is explicitly stated here; it is implied, and what he implies is that there may in fact be situations where objective sin exists - and given the topic it is reasonable to assume he means the adultery inherent is irregular marriages - yet the person may subjectively have sufficiently reduced culpability that would allow for communion.

It isn’t completely obvious that change is properly brought about by implication. I don’t have a real good feeling about this as it might very well result in major differences in how it is interpreted and implemented from one parish to the next.

Ender

 

[Brendan_64]

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.

So what exactly has Cardinal Burke attacked regarding what Pope Francis has written in Amoris Laetitia?

I think this is a case of some people looking at what Pope Francis has written, reading into it things that Pope Francis hasn’t written, and thinking, “He may not have actually written it, but we know what he really means”. Then I could see how this might be viewed as an attack.

 

[pnewton]

So what exactly has Cardinal Burke attacked regarding what Pope Francis has written in Amoris Laetitia?.

While not an attack on the Pope, he did not need to undermine the Holy Father’s use of the marriage ideal. As in:

There is frequent reference in the document to the “ideal” of marriage. Such a description of marriage can be misleading.

 

[Brendan]

Some of his writing seemed like criticism to me.

There is criticism of those who have misrepresented it, but no criticism of the document itself.

 

[Brendan]

I can state this now, since I am home. But I spend the last two weeks in Tanzania.

I do regular mission trips there, as my pastor is good friends with the Bishop of one of the diocese.

Last Saturday was the deducation of the new parish Church. The Papal Nuncio flew in from Dar Es Salaam to attend. My pastor and I also flew in.

So last Friday night, after this document had released, you can imagine that it was the topic of conversation. At the dinner table at the bishop’s house, were the Nuncio, the local bishop, his secretary, the Mother General of Benedictine monastery that has sisters teaching at the parish with the new Church, her assistant, my pastor and myself.

The Nuncio had indicated that they were sent copies ( in Italian) of the document shortly after it was signed, along with instructions from the Pope on how to answer any questions.

The words of the Nuncio were “Nothing has changed, only the way we talk about it” I specifically asked if any part of Familiaris Consortio was no longer applicable. The Nuncio stated that what Pope John Paul II stated is the truth of the Church, Pope Francis is simply helping pastors bring everyone to that beauty of that truth

Attached is a pic from dinner Awesome experience

 

[pnewton]

There is criticism of those who have misrepresented it, but no criticism of the document itself.

Perhaps we are not using the word “criticism” the same way, not that opinion is something that can be gainsaid. I found his letter critical, not that it is bad to be critical, though such quick criticism is unseemly, in my opinion. I prefer the advice of Cardinal Dinardo.

Not that it matters. Here is the response that applies to me.
google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=cardinal+dinardo+amoris+laetitia&gbv=2&oq=cardinal+dinardo+amoris+laetitia&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3…1718.13325.0.13668.34.12.1.21.22.0.63.640.12.12.0…0…1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp…17.17.688.DUxOr5tWYDQ

We should take time to read and ponder, discern and judge wisely what the Holy Father has written for our use, pastoral practice and spiritual wellbeing.

 

[Ender]

Perhaps we are not using the word “criticism” the same way, not that opinion is something that can be gainsaid. I found his letter critical, not that it is bad to be critical, though such quick criticism is unseemly, in my opinion.

I would think the important point is not whether the comments are critical but whether they are accurate. If they are then not much more needs to be said about them. This would be a better discussion if it was about the ideas expressed rather than the person who expressed them.

Ender

 

[OraLabora]

What I can’t figure out is why someone would think that it should be irrelevant simply because it does not apply to them personally. Doesn’t the integrity of the faith mean anything? How is one to counsel another person struggling with a particular sin in their life if one does not firmly believe and understand the truth of the faith? I don’t have to have been involved in an ‘unwanted’ pregnancy and subsequently procured an abortion to want to know that the Church faithfully condemns abortion. I don’t have to be struggling with gender identity to care or be concerned whether the Church rejects gender theory and gender identity issues. I care that the bishops of the Church faithfully teach and advocate the truth no matter whether any particular issue directly touches my life or not.

I am not in a position to counsel anybody. I am a layman and a Benedictine oblate. Oblation is not a mark of authority, it is a mark of submission, to Christ, His Church, its leader, and my abbot on matters of oblation and local ordinary and his priests on matters of faith and the parish.

My way of dealing with other people that struggle with sin, is to love them anyway and lead my life the way I believe it should be led according to the way Christ guides us. If they ask me for some kind of advice, I’ll listen to their story, and point them in the right direction to someone who can counsel them, with a strong preference to have them meet a monk at the abbey. I’d rather they see someone who is in authority to help than ti risk making a mess of it and driving a soul further away.

Do I care about the faith? Yes. Do I worry about the Church? No, I have faith in the Promise. Do I worry about some of its members including the clergy? Absolutely, praying is the way I deal with it.

 

[OraLabora]

That’s a lot of words to simply say that you disagree with JPII. I just so happen to disagree with Pope Francis.

Then we agree to disagree.

The church has a very different view of the matter.In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage.That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the Sacraments and a defense of Christian morality, and for the correct formation of the faithful.
Normal rules do apply, which is why people in irregular unions are prohibited from publicly receiving, and it is inventive to suggest that this has all been changed.

Ender

It’s not the issue of divorce no longer evoking surprise. It’s the issue that something that happens in private is nobody’s business. If we accept that continent D&R couples can receive the Eucharist, then the Church herself has de facto admitted that merely living under the same roof is not a scandal. Therefore we are not to be scandalized by a divorced couple going up for communion because it is our Christian duty to always assume in charity the best of people, i.e. if a couple we know to be divorced is going up for communion, we assume that it is because they are continent. If they are not, it is a private matter between them, God and their confessor. Should D&R couples who are not continent wear a scarlet letter???

OK, let’s look at that section:Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. 351

*351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).
*What is the change you refer to? The mention of objective sin and subjective culpability? The assertion that the Eucharist can be a powerful medicine? What Francis is discussing is that discernment is not a one size fits all response to practical situations. More to the point, nothing is explicitly stated here; it is implied, and what he implies is that there may in fact be situations where objective sin exists - and given the topic it is reasonable to assume he means the adultery inherent is irregular marriages - yet the person may subjectively have sufficiently reduced culpability that would allow for communion.

It isn’t completely obvious that change is properly brought about by implication. I don’t have a real good feeling about this as it might very well result in major differences in how it is interpreted and implemented from one parish to the next.

Ender

Correct, this has always been the teaching of the Church, that factors can mitigate sin to reduce culpability. In the chapter on irregular situations, Pope Francis doesn’t divide them into categories. I think it is reasonably clear then, that he intends it to apply to all irregular situations. There is no “interpretation” needed. It’s written clearly enough to me, that we can accept it at face value and stop trying to “spin” it. That these circumstances may be very rare in the D&R cases, is to me fairly obvious. Most divorces today are no-fault “we just don’t love each other anymore” type divorces. But a few situations exist where people (in particularly women) were abandoned, or severely abused or the children abused, and had to leave, and may have remarried, perhaps many years ago and are in a stable relationship with children from the second union.

I know of one opposite case, a woman ran off with her boss, leaving her husband with their infant child; I can tell you the workplace was not kind to a single father with a baby in terms of helping him make is life function. I don’t know if they are practicing Catholics or not but he remarried.

These are hard cases, and I expect that is where the “wiggle room”, and in particularly the need for mercy exists. It isn’t always black and white, even in the D&R cases.

 

[JimG]

It seems to me that nothing has changed. The Church still believes what Jesus taught about the permanence of marriage. It teaches that a valid, consummated sacramental marriage can be dissolved only by death.

The only question in my mind is whether a change in practice might in practice deny the teaching. Can a person in a second marriage act as though the first marriage were effectively dissolved? I don’t think that will happen, but then why the confusion about it?

 

[Brendan_64]

The words of the Nuncio were “Nothing has changed, only the way we talk about it”

And I think that is what some people cannot handle. I think that some people were so sure that things would change that they are now trying to grasp at things not said in the document and are trying to pin these onto what they see as hints within footnotes.

It strikes me that a hermeneutic of rupture is being adopted by some Catholics (on either extreme) to try and present this document as a break with the past, rather than a continuity of existing teaching.

It would seem to me that it is this manner of reading the document that Cardinal Burke is criticising rather than anything in the document itself.

 

[Lormar]

And I think that is what some people cannot handle. I think that some people were so sure that things would change that they are now trying to grasp at things not said in the document and are trying to pin these onto what they see as hints within footnotes.

It strikes me that a hermeneutic of rupture is being adopted by some Catholics (on either extreme) to try and present this document as a break with the past, rather than a continuity of existing teaching.

It would seem to me that it is this manner of reading the document that Cardinal Burke is criticising rather than anything in the document itself.

Have you read the entire document yet? I’m waiting for a hard copy since I have difficulty comprehending (more than usual) anything lengthy that I try to read on the internet.

I have the entire document saved on my desktop and have only read parts of it.