Cardinal Burke: Formal correction of Amoris Laetitia could happen in New Year

[commenter]

While it concerns theologians and has a different context, this still seems relevant:

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the “mass media”, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

This citation, from then-Cardinal Ratzinger, sums up the situation. If the cardinals did not get a response from the pope, they could have brought it to the College of Cardinals privately. They bypassed the College of Cardinals. Instead one of them went to the secular media, including his Facebook page. Going to the secular media in 2016 is comparable to a Polish bishop, under the communist dictatorship, asking the government to help settle a doctrinal matter.

If you think that one footnote in AL opens a can of worms, a cardinal asking the (mostly hostile-to-the-Church) secular media for assistance opens a can of much worse things.

 

[Seamus_L]

I’m not going to get into trouble by speculating about what may come next, but I’ll just point out that at this point, based on statements from Bishops, it appears that the way AL will be interpreted in say San Diego, is not the way it will be interpreted in Philadelphia.

 

[Brendan]

If you think that one footnote in AL opens a can of worms, a cardinal asking the (mostly hostile-to-the-Church) secular media for assistance opens a can of much worse things.

Where did the ask the secular media to resolve it? *

It seems to have been a legitimate use of Canon 202

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

 

[Convert_in_99]

It is not my place to judge the Cardinal and he certainly means well, but the bolded seems to me to be the issue, which also has upset a number of prominent ecclesiastics.

While it concerns theologians and has a different context, this still seems relevant:

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the “mass media”, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

I agree!

 

[Brendan]

I agree!

I think the Cardinals point is that they would havepreferred to have recourse to theresponsible authority. They were denied that.

 

[commenter]

Where did the ask the secular media to resolve it? *

It seems to have been a legitimate use of Canon 202

§3. “According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.” (from earlier post)

I am not sure if what you quoted is canon 202, but in any event, it refers to rights of the Christian faithful (laity). It does not refer to what cardinals can do. They have very different rights and limitations. They are not referred to as the faithful. The faithful can marry. Bishops cannot.

Wouldn’t you consider the cardinal’s facebook page as “secular media”? I am not against using facebook to try to spread Catholic values into the larger forum. I do so myself. But he is using it to promote a single party within the Church, and there are hundreds of posts on his facebook page by “the faithful”, bashing the pope.

 

[Convert_in_99]

I think the Cardinals point is that they would havepreferred to have recourse to theresponsible authority. They were denied that.

No, they just weren’t persistent enough. Did they appeal to their fellows at all in this? Multiple times? Or did they only appeal directly to the Holy Father? This isn’t a trick question I am honestly unsure.

 

[TMC]

Not at all. Let me reproduce my third paragraph with some emphases:

The Catholic Faith, or to be specific, principles of Catholic moral theology and their application in at least one concrete field are now up front and centre, and every Catholic is being obliged to choose whether he/she stands by the perennial teaching of the Church or not, just as the hierarchy is being obliged to choose, and is choosing. The point is that Communion for remarried divorcees is not an issue susceptible of compromise or interpretation. You cannot wrap your head around it and preserve Catholic moral theology at the same time. You have to choose. This, perhaps contra-intuitively, is an excellent state of affairs.

As Catholics we are bound to believe the perennial teaching of the Church, and if we pick and choose what we will accept of it then we become protestant. The point now though is that Catholics are being obliged to reaffirm (or reject) their Catholic identity which is built precisely on that perennial teaching. In a sense Pope Francis is right - it is good to have a messy Church as that is the first step towards sweeping it clean.

So you are saying that the Pope is teaching against the perennial teaching of the Church, and that Catholics must choose to oppose him or become Protestant? Is that what you are saying, because that is what it sounds like to me.

 

[Convert_in_99]

§3. “According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.” (from earlier post)

I am not sure if what you quoted is canon 202, but in any event, it refers to rights of the Christian faithful (laity). It does not refer to what cardinals can do. They have very different rights and limitations. They are not referred to as the faithful. The faithful can marry. Bishops cannot.

Wouldn’t you consider the cardinal’s facebook page as “secular media”? I am not against using facebook to try to spread Catholic values into the larger forum. I do so myself. But he is using it to promote a single party within the Church, and there are hundreds of posts on his facebook page by “the faithful”, bashing the pope.

First of all, The Pope should never have gotten onto Facebook. That’s where he goofed. Second, I agree that no one should have ever gone after the Pope via the media. That is where they (in my opinion) goofed.

 

[Seamus_L]

This is 2016 not 1016, it’s the age of the internet, instant communication, if Bishop X makes a seemingly controversial statement in a gathering large enough for word to get out, both the religious and secular media will at least want to ask a spokesperson questions about the statement, and if they’re turned down, they’ll simply answer that no one from the diocese is responding at this time.

 

[ringil]

The goal is to clearly state and proclaim the teaching that came directly from the lips of Christ–which is the responsibility and obligation of all bishops.

Maybe the Pope has already done this and believes no further clarification is needed.

Why are Burke and the other Cardinals seen as promoting Christ’s teachings while the Pope’s expositions on this matter are seen as lacking?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Maybe the Pope has already done this and believes no further clarification is needed.

Why are Burke and the other Cardinals seen as promoting Christ’s teachings while the Pope’s expositions on this matter are seen as lacking?

Yes,this seems to be the $64K question, doesn’t it?

I will not speculate as to why, but I still find it odd that less than 10 clerics, out of how many, seem to not understand AL?
I don’t think the problem lies with any document, that is for sure.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Yes,this seems to be the $64K question, doesn’t it?

I will not speculate as to why, but I still find it odd that less than 10 clerics, out of how many, seem to not understand AL?
I don’t think the problem lies with any document, that is for sure.

Maybe these were brave or honest enough to speak out about the confusion. Could be others are thankful they did.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Amoris Laetitia was issued and has been discussed/debated since March 2016. We don’t know all the details. It is reasonable to assume that Cardinal Burke and the other three cardinals:

1. Met and wrote the Dubia;
2. Submitted the Dubia;
3. Had a private discussion with Pope Francis about the Dubia;
4. Did not see a clarification from Pope Francis for Dubia forthcoming.
5. Went public with the Dubia.

What, specifically, do you want these cardinals to do?

I think #5 wasn’t the right course of action.

Keep in mind of their duty and responsibility as Cardinals (advising the pope and upholding/defending the Magisterium). This is not something these cardinals did to seek the attention of mass media, nor to create scandals.

Cardinals are at the service of the Holy Father. Speaking of a “formal correction” and making the dubia public has given this the appearance of being confrontational. I know they mean well but I don’t think making this public has been helpful.

 

[Brendan]

No, they just weren’t persistent enough. Did they appeal to their fellows at all in this? Multiple times? Or did they only appeal directly to the Holy Father? This isn’t a trick question I am honestly unsure.

The correct body would the the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Cardinal Muller said that he had been barred by the Pope from answering the*dubium, so the next step is the Holy Father himself.

There is no point in asking their fellows, as the other Cardinals cannot make a definitive ruling

 

[Brendan]

I know they mean well but I don’t think making this public has been helpful.

Why? Should discussions of Church teaching should be applied be done in a secretive manner?

I highly doubt that secrecy in such*matters is of benefit to the Church

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes,this seems to be the $64K question, doesn’t it?

I will not speculate as to why, but I still find it odd that less than 10 clerics, out of how many, seem to not understand AL?

How could this number possibly be known? What is the source of the number 10?
Oneofthewomen;:

I don’t think the problem lies with any document, that is for sure.

Many informed sources see the document as a problem. However, I believe the Cardinals understand the document and its apparent ambiguity very well and that they do is the problem.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This citation, from then-Cardinal Ratzinger, sums up the situation. If the cardinals did not get a response from the pope, they could have brought it to the College of Cardinals privately. They bypassed the College of Cardinals. Instead one of them went to the secular media, including his Facebook page. Going to the secular media in 2016 is comparable to a Polish bishop, under the communist dictatorship, asking the government to help settle a doctrinal matter.

If you think that one footnote in AL opens a can of worms, a cardinal asking the (mostly hostile-to-the-Church) secular media for assistance opens a can of much worse things.

I don’t think so. Please show that the official procedure absolutely requires 'privately going to the College of Cardinals before going to ‘the secular media’ because I just do not see that.

Also I find your ‘Polish bishop under the communists’ analogy flawed.

The cardinal (s) are not asking the media to assist them.

They are using the media, as is their right, to communicate with the public.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The correct body would the the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Cardinal Muller said that he had been barred by the Pope from answering the*dubium, so the next step is the Holy Father himself.

There is no point in asking their fellows, as the other Cardinals cannot make a definitive ruling

Thank you Brendan. Yes, in fact the dubia were submitted to Cardinal Muller as well as the Pope, so it is not as though the cardinals only addressed the Pope.

 

[mlz]

But they are not sitting in judgment of the Pope.

They are going along with the teachings of the Catholic Church and making sure that areas of a document which are being read ambiguously and by some in a way which appears could contradict dogma/doctrine, are addressed so that all can be certain that the dogmatic/doctrinal teachings of the Church are not changed and cannot be contradicted.

As we have noted, there are already ‘case by case’ scenarios, not just here with regard to divorced-and-remarried-Catholics being able to receive ‘even if they are planning to continue sexual relations in a marriage not found valid by the Church’, on Catholics 'with the accompaniment of a prelate choosingfor themselves whether to consider their present marriage ‘valid’. . .but also cases whereby the bishops of one Canadian area are saying that the anointing of the sick may not be given to those who plan to commit suicide, and the bishops of another Canadian area saying the sacrament may be given and citing the 'view of Pope Francis as conveyed in AL as the reason.

So important as marriage is, it appears that the ambiguity of this particular text is spilling over onto other sacraments in the Church. And we are faced with the personal decisions of one man --an area’s bishop–and in some cases with one priest --'the one accompanying those in discernment–who take it upon themselves to make a judgment binding their faithful by saying ‘This may be done’–and the personal decisions of one man, etc. etc binding their faithful with ‘this may not be done.’

Do you not see the problem? Do you not see the harm this does to all the Faithful? Either teachings bind all, whether one lives in Toledo or Timbuktu, when it comes to the magisterium and the dogma and doctrine of the Church --not to mention the teachings on divorce come from the lips of Christ Himself --or hey, what is ‘dogma’ this year for the people in Peoria is no longer dogma for those in Phnom Pen, if I want to be able to disregard the doctrine of X in my diocese I can choose Father McMercy who never met a scenario he couldn’t approve ‘in good conscience’.

Jesus Christ King of the Universe is being turned into Jesus the Burger King where everyone from laity on up can go through His teachings and “have it their way”.

mlz