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

[Brendan_64]

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…”.

Of course it is not only ex-cathedra statements that are binding, but there a huge gulf, and a lot in between, ex-cathedra statements and an apostolic exhortation. Your argument could be extended to say that Catholics are bound by everything any pope says or writes. There are indeed a great many teachings that are not determined by ex-cathedra statements, but are indeed part of the ordinary magisterium. However this does not mean that everything said or written by a pope (that is not ex-cathedra) is actually binding teaching.

If the most eminent Canon Lawyer in the Church says that post-synodial exhortations fall below the line of binding teaching, then I would accept that he probably knows what he’s talking about.

 

[Yeoman]

Regarding obedience to the Pope, did not St. John Paul the Great examine this same question in some context (communion for the divorced) and reach the opposite conclusion?

If I am correct (and I might not understand the context of it at all) what does that mean for us when we have to Papal statements of some type which would appear to reach opposite conclusions?

I suppose there are various ways to look at this, such as the nature of the statements, so what does that seem to do here?

I note this not to spark a fight. I just don’t know the answer. And maybe I don’t grasp the context.

 

[Ender]

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?

I don’t think the nature of an expression can necessarily be determined from the form of the document that contains it. It’s not that cut and dry. Various statements within the same document can be infallible, ordinary, or prudential. It is the nature of the statement, not the nature of the document, that determines its significance. That said, there is a general order of significance among the different forms, and this may be one of the “lower” forms; I don’t know about that.

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.

If this is truly written as a reflection containing “well-meaning advice” then it is difficult to see how it could be considered Magisterial (in the context addressed by Lumen Gentium) rather than prudential.

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.

So much for the clarity of the document if there is not even agreement on the nature of the form it takes.

Ender

 

[Genesis315]

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.”

That’s not what I said. As the passage I provided from Lumen Gentium said, the concept of religious submission requires us to receive the document as the Pope intends. His intent can be known “be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” Cardinal Burke is looking at these things and concluding the Pope’s intent is to not be teaching authoritatively. I disagree looking at those same things: the character of the document is one always used in a magisterial way. That being said, the Pope can require different levels of assent.

Either way, religious submission requires us to receive the teaching with a spirit of docility according to the Pope’s intention. But, if after a good faith attempt to assimilate the teaching fails and one in good conscience believes it to be in error, then assent can be withheld.

Despite arguing it was not an act of the Magisterium, I don’t see Cardinal Burke rejecting or condemning anything contained therein.

 

[Genesis315]

I think your final argument undercuts this assertion.
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.
​

I would clarify and say not everything one who can exercise magisterial authority says carries magisterial import. Take for example that document on the Jews that explicitly said it was not an act of the Magisterium. Or, take for example a pastoral letter from a bishop which addresses various things,from reaffirming some doctrine in order to pass judgment on some proposed law or whatnot, to congratulating some local Catholics on receiving a local service award. Obviously, part of the letter would be of magisterial import, but part not.

Lumen Gentium says we can evaluate the Pope’s intention “from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” This type of document has consistently been treated by the Church as being used in exercise of the papal magisterium. I can’t think of an example that has not.

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.

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:

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(24)

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.

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.

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

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

Again, see above. I’m arguing that our assent should be as the Pope intends. We should consider what he has put forth with docility as he intends us to. We shouldn’t do more or less.​

 

[Yeoman]

Solid advice in almost any circumstances.

 

[commenter]

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? …

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?

 

[adowcday]

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.

 

[Lormar]

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.

Very true, and it is unfortunate that many of us think that we can. Or should. Speaking for myself, there is very little submission of my mind and will, and even less obedience. Of course, to attain either I would need a good dose of humility which I am obviously lacking.

How do any one of us know what God wants for His Church? How do we know that He doesn’t want this at this moment in the history of His Church? We don’t. And here we sit around and argue as if we are all experts and have a direct hot-line to the Holy Spirit who lets us in on everything.

I spent over 25 years playing magisterium. I’m going to try obedience for a refreshing change. This way I don’t have to agonize over where I will spend Eternity if my magisterial pronouncements and decisions are wrong.

 

[OraLabora]

Very true, and it is unfortunate that many of us think that we can. Or should. Speaking for myself, there is very little submission of my mind and will, and even less obedience. Of course, to attain either I would need a good dose of humility which I am obviously lacking.

How do any one of us know what God wants for His Church? How do we know that He doesn’t want this at this moment in the history of His Church? We don’t. And here we sit around and argue as if we are all experts and have a direct hot-line to the Holy Spirit who lets us in on everything.

I spent over 25 years playing magisterium. I’m going to try obedience for a refreshing change. This way I don’t have to agonize over where I will spend Eternity if my magisterial pronouncements and decisions are wrong.

Obedience is very liberating. As an oblate friend of mine is fond of saying, “let go and let God”.

As far as knowing what He wants for our Church, He has put people in charge of that. In the case of this exhortation, I don’t think too many of us on here are in a position to have the controversial bits affect our lives directly, so we can’t sin by it. For those who are affected because of their life situation, we can offer our prayers and trust in our clergy to guide them as best they can.

God is a realist, He doesn’t expect perfection, He expects effort.

 

[irenaeus1]

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.

One would think that if Familiaris Consortio was cited 24 times, how is it even possible that the passages that Pope JP II offered that address precisely the issue being discussed in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia are missing? Certainly appears to be cast aside to me. Do you have an explanation while you are rolling your eyes?

 

[irenaeus1]

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.

Can we push it aside in favor of Church doctrine, JP II’s apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, the CCC, etc?

 

[commenter]

Can we push it aside in favor of Church doctrine, JP II’s apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, the CCC, etc?

Dangerous Precedent Warning.

 

[OraLabora]

One would think that if Familiaris Consortio was cited 24 times, how is it even possible that the passages that Pope JP II offered that address precisely the issue being discussed in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia are missing? Certainly appears to be cast aside to me. Do you have an explanation while you are rolling your eyes?

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

The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious
reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”.329

Footnote 329:

329 John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 84: AAS 74 (1982), 186. In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51).

and

The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty
in understanding “its inherent values”,339

Footnote 339:

339 John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 33: AAS 74 (1982), 121.

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.

 

[pnewton]

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.

Many things Cardinals and Popes have done personally through the ages have not been proper. Historical occurance is not evidence of wisdom. Today, debate takes a new form of press released and blogs. Whether such public banter is helpful or not remains to be seen. I note that with the thousands of bishops out there, it seems only a handful take this course.

 

[pnewton]

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

This is flat out untrue.

 

[pnewton]

.
If the most eminent Canon Lawyer in the Church says …

Is that the current position Cardinal Burke holds? I ask because I do not know what the Military Order of Malta is. Is it a canon law organization?

 

[PPeterson]

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.

I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion. I think it’s possible that Pope Francis finds what he perceives as extreme foppishness questionable enough that this was the soul reason for attempting to move him just a little bit away from the spotlight.

 

[PPeterson]

Actually that’s not very nice speculation. Sorry about that

 

[dans0622]

…
Dissent has a legitimate place in the Church. However, it is not only liberal theologians who dissent from papal teaching. …

How would you define “dissent”?

Dan