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

[CrossofChrist]

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

One can discuss Church teaching without making a specific dubia public. And speaking about a “formal correction” of an Apostolic Exhortation makes it appear somewhat confrontational.

 

[mlz]

God Bless Cardinal Burke.

I hope Pope Francis does answer the dubia and is able to bring clarity to what has been clearly expressed by multiple people, confusion in relation to certain aspects of Amoris Latetia. But if he does not respond, a formal correction of the type Cardinal Burke has expressed may well be needed. I am thankful to Cardinal Burke and the Cardinals who brought the dubia.

I am also grateful! They need answered !
ray:t2: mlz

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

Yes. Choose between the perennial teaching of the Church and what, exactly? An ambiguous footnote (351) of AL? This presents no true choice at all for the faithful, or not when Pope Francis has said he does not even recall reading the footnote.

 

[Brendan]

One can discuss Church teaching without making a specific dubia public.

Each Diacastery publishes their received dubia, the are part of the historical record of the Church. So*the Ceardinal’s dubium would be made public anyway.

And speaking about a “formal correction” of an Apostolic Exhortation makes it appear somewhat confrontational.

How so? They would publish their theologicalview, andother*theologians might respond to that correction. That is how theological debate works. Heck,*most other academic disciplines as well.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Well I just pray this whole catastrophe is over with quickly. Whatever is going to happen. Then we can just go back to being Catholic and not split a thousand ways like our Protestant brothers and sisters. . This is certainly not what I had in mind seventeen years ago when I converted. Not at all. :nope:

 

[CrossofChrist]

Each Diacastery publishes their received dubia, the are part of the historical record of the Church. So*the Ceardinal’s dubium would be made public anyway.

I did not know this, thank you. That said, one could argue it was premature and that they should have waited.

How so?

Because no Cardinal is in a position to correct an Apostolic Exhortation, as if the Apostolic Exhortation has errors…which is what a “formal correction of Amoris Laetitia” would imply. It also doesn’t help that he curiously thinks Amoris Laetitia is not a magisterial document.

 

[Brendan]

Because no Cardinal is in a position to correct an Apostolic Exhortation, as if the Apostolic Exhortation has errors…which is what a “formal correction of Amoris Laetitia” would imply. It also doesn’t help that he curiously thinks Amoris Laetitia is not a magisterial document.

As I mentioned, thatwouldbe the whole pointof theological discussion. If a Magisterialdocument leaves a point unanswered, then it may bediscussed. The Cardinals are free to offer their opinion, andany supporting definitive teachings of the Church. Others are free to rebut and*offer their supporting evidence.

That is what theological discussion is about.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Well I just pray this whole catastrophe is over with quickly. Whatever is going to happen. Then we can just go back to being Catholic and not split a thousand ways like our Protestant brothers and sisters. . This is certainly not what I had in mind seventeen years ago when I converted. Not at all. :nope:

I converted 8 1/2 years ago. I don’t see how asking for clarification on AL is going to cause the Catholic church to split a thousand ways.
The Catholic church moves slowly, so I don’t know how long this will go on for.

I definitely don’t see this as a catastrophe (like the sex abuse scandal that was covered up). The Holy Spirit will guide the Pope and the Cardinals through this I am sure through much prayer. We just have to be patient.

 

[Randolph]

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

 

[CrossofChrist]

As I mentioned, thatwouldbe the whole pointof theological discussion. If a Magisterialdocument leaves a point unanswered, then it may bediscussed. The Cardinals are free to offer their opinion, andany supporting definitive teachings of the Church. Others are free to rebut and*offer their supporting evidence.

That is what theological discussion is about.

Is that what a “formal correction” is about? If all a “formal correction” means is to have a theological discussion, okay. But then why on earth would one phrase it so? As it is, speaking about a “formal correction” implies the need and ability to correct what is said in the Apostolic Exhortation, as if AL were wrong. That is the impression one is at least initially left with whether or not the Cardinal intends it to be that way.

 

[Brendan]

Is that what a “formal correction” is about? If all a “formal correction” means is to have a theological discussion, .

What it meansis that, if the Cardinals so choose, they will release a document that discusses what they view aserrors in some interpretations of AL.

This will be a formal, theological paper produced and disseminated to the world.

I imagine, ( and this is just my two cents), it will cover*how the known theology of the Church would restrict Holy Communion from those who are in irregular situations and choose not to live as brother and sister.

Two of the Cardinals, + Caffarra and*+Meisner are theologians specializing in Sacramental Theology, specifically the Sacrament of Marriage. So*I expect the document to be very well researched.

 

[Randolph]

Well I just pray this whole catastrophe is over with quickly. Whatever is going to happen. Then we can just go back to being Catholic and not split a thousand ways like our Protestant brothers and sisters. . This is certainly not what I had in mind seventeen years ago when I converted. Not at all. :nope:

Thank you for your post. Your concerns are quite correct and justified. This is really nothing new under the sun. The Church had been in and survived through much, much worse over 2,000 years. Christ’s promise to protect the Church from the gate of hell will triumph once again. Through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, the faithful will do all that is necessary to ensure the Church to remain faithful to Christ. This time, as it always was, will also be uniquely difficult. The best we can do is recourse to prayers.

I am reminded of the three theological virtues: faith, hope and charity.

 

[commenter]

What it meansis that, if the Cardinals so choose, they will release a document that discusses what they view aserrors in some interpretations of AL.

This will be a formal, theological paper produced and disseminated to the world.

I imagine, ( and this is just my two cents), it will cover*how the known theology of the Church would restrict Holy Communion from those who are in irregular situations and choose not to live as brother and sister.

Two of the Cardinals, + Caffarra and*+Meisner are theologians specializing in Sacramental Theology, specifically the Sacrament of Marriage. So*I expect the document to be very well researched.

There is a precedent, Fr. Charles Curran chose to bring his “dubia” regarding Humanae Vitae to the secular media in 1968. I am sure the secular media will give this the same sensitive, impartial coverage this time around. Huffington Post, the NY Times, CNN, and Facebook are known for attentiveness to Faith and the Truth. Don’t forget the commentators, such as “The View”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

There is a precedent, Fr. Charles Curran chose to bring his “dubia” regarding Humanae Vitae to the secular media in 1968. I am sure the secular media will give this the same sensitive, impartial coverage this time around. Huffington Post, the NY Times, CNN, and Facebook are known for attentiveness to Faith and the Truth. Don’t forget the commentators, such as “The View”.

Would you mind citing the ‘dubia’ from Fr. Curran? I heard that he and others made a statement. A statement is not dubia. The later Winnipeg Commission was not a dubia either.

Comparison of apples and oranges does not help advance a discussion.

Pray tell, what method of communication is appropriate and safe for the cardinals to use to speak to us, the laity, if ‘secular media’ (the Pope himself uses Twitter and gives all kinds of interviews to 'secular media) is verboten? Carrier pigeon? Maybe they need to send us all mimeographed copies. . .hey it won’t take THAT long to run off those, along with the stamped envelopes, right? (J/K but on a serious note, objecting to ‘secular media’ as being evil biased goons is kind of silly, when you don’t seem to have a problem with Pope Francis using it!)

 

[pnewton]

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”.

Which teaching of Jesus are you referring to? He gave some in the Gospel, but he also gave some to Moses at Mount Sinai, then more through they guidance of the Holy Spirit to the Church.

You say teachings bind all, but that just begs the question as to what is the eternal doctrine that has applied since the Garden of Eden to all cultures and all time, and what is not. Someone earlier said, “You cannot wrap your head around it and preserve Catholic moral theology at the same time.” I do not agree. I will agree it is not easy, but I think I understand what the Holy Father is doing. I am sure that he knows what is doctrine and what is not, and is acting while still preserving Catholic moral theology.

So I think it important every time we refer to doctrine, that we acknowledge all the doctrine acknowledged in Amoris Laetitia, but recognize that some theologians go further in what they believe doctrine is. They may not be right. The “practice” that St. John Paul outlined for divorced and remarried as a practice, was not said to be doctrine. I do not care to go once again into the logic employed to make it doctrine. If anyone ever finds where it has been defined as doctrine, then that would refresh my interest so I could re-evaluate my position. Likewise, the annulment system of tribunals is not a doctrine and, again, I have never had anyone show otherwise.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Which teaching of Jesus are you referring to? He gave some in the Gospel, but he also gave some to Moses at Mount Sinai, then more through they guidance of the Holy Spirit to the Church.

You say teachings bind all, but that just begs the question as to what is the eternal doctrine that has applied since the Garden of Eden to all cultures and all time, and what is not. Someone earlier said, “You cannot wrap your head around it and preserve Catholic moral theology at the same time.” I do not agree. I will agree it is not easy, but I think I understand what the Holy Father is doing. I am sure that he knows what is doctrine and what is not, and is acting while still preserving Catholic moral theology.

So I think it important every time we refer to doctrine, that we acknowledge all the doctrine acknowledged in Amoris Laetitia, but recognize that some theologians go further in what they believe doctrine is. They may not be right. The “practice” that St. John Paul outlined for divorced and remarried as a practice, was not said to be doctrine. I do not care to go once again into the logic employed to make it doctrine. If anyone ever finds where it has been defined as doctrine, then that would refresh my interest so I could re-evaluate my position. Likewise, the annulment system of tribunals is not a doctrine and, again, I have never had anyone show otherwise.

Are you saying that doctrines are never or have never been called practices?

Are you saying that admission of those in an irregular union which has not been judged valid by the Church, who take it upon themselves to decide that the current union is good and valid and the previous not, and who intend to remain in the union, and undergo sexual relations, without repentance as there is no ‘need’ to repent, has been a practice in the Church?

Somebody really ought to take St. Thomas More out of the canon then. And St John Fisher too.

Because, when dear old King Henry VIII and his consort Anne Boleyn decided that their union, undertaken when Catherine of Aragon was still living and still considered herself lawful wife of Henry, because of Henry’s ‘tender conscience’ was in fact totally valid. . .St. Thomas should have accepted it, instead of arguing that the first marriage was the lawful one. After all, Henry was a Defender of the Faith, scholarly enough to refute Martin Luther; he knew the teaching from Leviticus that a man who married his brother’s wife would be barren, and lo and behold, Catharine was barren (a female child didn’t count). Heaven’s, the King’s Great Matter was known to all and sundry to be based on the King’s conscience!

In fact, by this reasoning, all the prelates of the Church who ‘sided with Henry’ were perfectly correct, never broke from the Catholic Church, and were able to pass on valid orders, etc. etc. And St Thomas and St. John were ‘rigid’ men, dissenters even.

Henry wasn’t breaking with Catholic teaching here at all. Not by the reasoning that has been given 'in the spirit of AL".

This is a very strange world we live in.

The event that arguably fractured the Christian world (because had Henry not taken England from The Church, we would all arguably be united Catholic Christians today, as historians such as Hillaire Belloc have observed) is now to be considered a 'new development of Catholic teaching". . .

 

[Stat_Crux]

So I think it important every time we refer to doctrine, that we acknowledge all the doctrine acknowledged in Amoris Laetitia, but recognize that some theologians go further in what they believe doctrine is. They may not be right. The “practice” that St. John Paul outlined for divorced and remarried as a practice, was not said to be doctrine. I do not care to go once again into the logic employed to make it doctrine. If anyone ever finds where it has been defined as doctrine, then that would refresh my interest so I could re-evaluate my position. Likewise, the annulment system of tribunals is not a doctrine and, again, I have never had anyone show otherwise.

Familiaris Consortio 84 states:
“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.”

So yes, he uses the word “practice”, but the practice is “based upon sacred scripture” and is consistent with the constant teaching and doctrine regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony and its indissolubility. Practice does not contradict Doctrine or past/present teaching. The prohibition on Communion for civilly remarried Catholics who habitually continue to engage in sexual activity conveys a consistent teaching that sex outside of marriage is never permissible, being against the explicit commandments of God himself:

You shall not commit adultery - Exodus 20:14

“Which ones?” the man asked. Jesus answered, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness" - Matthew 19:18

(Jesus speaking) You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to depart into hell. - Matthew 5:27-30

This has been consistently taught for 2,000 years. It remains codified in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1650:

"Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.”

If we commit mortal sin we are obliged to seek Absolution in the Sacrament of Confession before receiving the Eucharist:

“CANON XI.-lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.” - From the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent, on The Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.

You are of course entitled to your personal opinions. Free will is a cornerstone of Christianity. But you are wrongly making a generalised comment on the fact that some aspects of Christianity are open to debate and interpretation, and using that as a justification for stating that the Church’s specific teachings on sex outside of Marriage, the indissolubility of a Sacramental Marriage and the need for a firm purpose of amendment in or to have a valid Confession must therefore similarly be up for debate.

 

[commenter]

Pray tell, what method of communication is appropriate and safe for the cardinals to use to speak to us, the laity, if ‘secular media’ (the Pope himself uses Twitter and gives all kinds of interviews to 'secular media) is verboten?

I am not sure why “the cardinals” need to speak to us, the laity, bypassing the pope, considering 3 are retired, and the fourth has no responsibilities related to this topic. What expertise of mine do the cardinals, or the pope, lack?

There are 227 living cardinals. Perhaps a couple of the other 223 cardinals have assignments that do relate to the topic at hand, and thus, they may have reason to communicate with the laity about this if they felt the need. It is kind of a leap to assume the other 223, half of them retired, regard these 4 as Spokesmen (elected when?) for the College of Cardinals but are in fearful silence so they rely on these 4.

Imagine if there are 227 priests in your diocese, and 4 insist on bringing a disagreement with the bishop to the daily newspaper. The others are silent. Would we assume these 4, unelected priests, represent the College of Priests for your diocese, and that the daily newspaper is the best place to reason this theological issue out?

 

[pnewton]

I will concede it is impossible to “wrap your head around” anything, if assumptions, straw men and inaccurate rephrasing is more prevalent than counter-arguments and discussion.

 

[pnewton]

Familiaris Consortio 84 states:
"However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of …
So yes, he uses the word “practice”, but the practice is “based upon sacred scripture”

I have answered these points before, but here I go again. Having a practice that is based on Scripture and is based in doctrine does not preclude the possibility of another practice also be based on Scripture and doctrine.

You shall not commit adultery - Exodus 20:14

The problem with quoting this commandment is that the Mosaic Law, given by God, allowed for a writ of divorce due to the hardness of heart.

"Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.

Two points here need exploration. The first is that that this is predicated on the first marriage being valid, not an issuance of a decree of nullity by a tribunal. The second is that the Church is saying here that one cannot receive communion in such a state. It is possible, based on the wording, that this is a practice or a doctrine. After all, the Catechism is teaching both, hence the inclusion of the precepts of the Church. I am no saying I believe this, only that this is something no one has produced here as defined as doctrine.

If we commit mortal sin we are obliged to seek Absolution in the Sacrament of Confession before receiving the Eucharist:

Without getting into how much of the canons from the Council of Trent is doctrine (because I think we would all accept this as doctrine), the first word is “If”.

But you are wrongly making a generalised comment on the fact that some aspects of Christianity are open to debate and interpretation,

But this is true. I have never met anyone who thought otherwise. Every council and synod since the beginning of the Church points is evidence that anything that has not been defined is open to debate.

a justification for stating that the Church’s specific teachings on sex outside of Marriage, the indissolubility of a Sacramental Marriage and the need for a firm purpose of amendment in or to have a valid Confession must therefore similarly be up for debate.

I did not propose that either of these two items were up for debate. In fact, I clearly stated earlier that Amoris Laetitia addressed the doctrinal limits, one of which was the insolubility of Marriage.

I do not think I have addressed confession prior to you mentioning it.

My point is not to convince anyone of anything other than the possibility that there is more than one way to look at this other than what Pope Francis called rigid categories. His Holiness may be leading the Church in an direction that some consider theologically impossible. Please understand that if the Pope could be wrong (which everyone accepts quite readily, the how much more could all his detractors be wrong. If that happens this next year, how much more a reason to be serene and try to understand when God is leading the Church instead of kicking against the goads.