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

[Stat_Crux]

Thankyou for having the patience to outline your position. Apologies for in advance for the lengthy reply.

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.

Absolutely agreed. This was the position of Pope St John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio. Teaching before FC was that couples who civilly remarry must separate as it presents a public scandal. As a pastoral concession the practice changed in the case where children are involved and the relationship was providing for their upbrining. However, to retain consistency with the Church’s doctrine on the indissolubility of Marriage and the objectively sinful nature of sex outside of a valid marriage, the couple are bound to observe chastity. So the pastoral practice was changed to meet new circumstances, but in a manner which is consistent with the Church’s teaching on the subject of sex outside of marriage. The liberal interpretations of AL attempt to make a further concession, but in doing so cross a line which has never been crossed before in allowing couples to engage in sexual activity outside of a valid Marriage.

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.

Agreed, the Mosaic Law allowed for divorce. However, as Christ teaches in the Gospel, the teaching from the beginning was that divorce is not possible. The Ten Commandments are the foundation of the Mosaic Law, but are not the same thing. The Ten Commandments come directly from God himself. Christ also, in the other quotes in my original post, reiterates that the Ten Commandments still apply and specifically states “do not commit adultery”. The Mosaic Law was fulfilled by Christ’s coming, the Ten Commandments are still in effect. That is why we can eat Pork but not steal, worship another God, create idols or commit adultery.

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”.

Again agreed, the “if” is important. The Church’s constant teaching has been that sex outside of Marriage is always mortally sinful. So whilst you are correct to draw attention to the “if”, the specific circumstance we are discussing (consciously or intentionally having sex outside of Marriage) has always been understood to be mortally sinful. To propose otherwise, even in good faith, would need to be justified and reconciled as being compatible with the Church’s teaching from the beginning on the subject.

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.

This is one of the inconsistencies in the liberal interpretation of AL. Marriage is stated as being indissoluble in AL. But therefore any sexual activity in the civilly remarried couple is done outside of the bounds of a valid union (because they cannot Sacramentally marry), indeed done whilst in a valid union to another person (because the previous Marriage still exists in the eyes of God). The proposed teaching would in effect be that you don’t need to be married in order to have sex with someone, or that you can be married and have sex with someone with whom you are not married. So yes, “Marriage is indissoluble” but “go ahead and sleep with whomever you like anyway and ignore anything previously written or taught on the subject which suggests you are committing mortal sin.”

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

This is a logical consequence of this whole argument, either:

• The couple enter the confessional and confess engaging in sexual activity outside of Marriage, but have no intention to stop doing so and therefore have no intention to stop committing the sin they are confessing. This is one of the requirements for a valid confession.
• The couple enter the confessional and do not confess engaging in sexual activity, whilst in fact doing so, in which case they know they are engaging in mortally sinful actions that the Church teaches against, but do not consider it necessary to confess it before receiving the Eucharist.

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.

He has not formally declared what direction he is leading us in, and has refused to state what he is teaching on the subject on several occasions. I am capable of being wrong on this subject. However, if we are to believe that the proposed interpretation is possible we need to be taught how it is possible. Silence and not engaging the discussion or answering the questions/dubia from concerned Catholics creates confusion and division. It may be politically expedient not to discuss controversial topics, but it would be wrong to suggest that this amounts to “leading the Church in a direction”. I’m not aware of any precedent where “God is leading the Church” through a footnote that was never voted on in either Synod. In light of anything official on the subject, it would be wrong to propose that teaching has changed on so fundamental a subject.

 

[Pythagoras]

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”.

Don’t trust these mainstream media like Huff. Post, NYT and CNN coz they have been destroying the Catholic Church with their bias liberal reporting for more than a decade now…

 

[Thomas_White]

Both the indissolubility of marriage and adultery were for millennia clearly defined and taught by the Church. It is doctrine. It would seem that the Church first embarked upon a slippery slope with the modifications of the 1917 code of canon law by the promulgation of the 1983 code of canon law. Marriage annulments granted annually in the U.S. were never larger than in the low hundreds under the 1917 code. That number quickly skyrocketed following the promulgation of the modified 1983 code to a peak of around 70,000 annually in the U.S. alone. Prior to the synod, Pope Francis was widely quoted as having said that as marriage tribunals now interpret canon law nearly half of all Catholic marriages wound be judged invalid.

There is either doctrine derived from absolute truth or there is not. What we see now with the confusion and ambiguity surrounding AL is surely related to a continuing process, and it is indeed a slippery slope.

 

[commenter]

Don’t trust these mainstream media like Huff. Post, NYT and CNN coz they have been destroying the Catholic Church with their bias liberal reporting for more than a decade now…

Of course we shouldn’t trust them. But if a cardinal brings a disagreement with the pope into the media whirlpool, 99% of the attention will be in a context hostile to the Faith. That’s the unavoidable consequence of going media. That’s why it is a bad idea to bring intra-church matters there.

The Church can’t avoid using the media for evangelism, to reach out to individuals with the gospel. Airing internal battles there is totally different, and a disaster.

 

[ringil]

So by bringing this matter into the public is Burke trying to strong arm the Holy Father? If so is that appropriate?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So by bringing this matter into the public is Burke trying to strong arm the Holy Father? If so is that appropriate?

Answers: No to the first, and thereby the second is moot.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Answers: No to the first, and thereby the second is moot.

I agree.

 

[ringil]

Answers: No to the first, and thereby the second is moot.

Why not handle the issue internally then?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

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

It’s an estimate. There are 4 initial Cardinals, then there have been a couple others that have said the agree/support them, so less than 10.

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.

What informed sources? Most of the priests I have talked to have no issues at all with the document. No doctrine has been changed. It is not necessary to issue any clarification, NOTHING HAS CHANGED!
As I said, I can speculate as to why the only “voting Cardinal” to bring this up is Burke, but not many here would like my speculations. I think the Cardinal is doing a great disservice to the Church by airing his objections in such a public way. How can one claim to be a champion of tradition, yet act like a petulant child who isn’t getting his way?

 

[commenter]

Why not handle the issue internally then?

The whole purpose of having a **College **of Cardinals is that this body would be a better forum than the secular media. The problem is that when a cardinal (usually liberal, sometimes conservative) goes to the secular media forum, the media gives extreme, and unbalanced attention, to whatever is controversial, (ignoring the fact there are 227 living cardinals).

Somewhere I saw a post that said a cardinal has to go to the media to communicate with “his flock”. But a cardinal who is not a current bishop of a diocese *does *not have, **should **not have, a “flock”. In my diocese there is a priest who is contacted by the secular media on every issue, because he constantly gives them juicy quotes challenging Church authority. The media does not really care if a priest challenges Church authority because he is liberal, or conservative, as long as he does that through the media.

 

[Thomas_White]

It’s an estimate. There are 4 initial Cardinals, then there have been a couple others that have said the agree/support them, so less than 10.

That’s hardly a scientific survey taken among the clergy.

What informed sources? Most of the priests I have talked to have no issues at all with the document. No doctrine has been changed. It is not necessary to issue any clarification, NOTHING HAS CHANGED!

The many informed sources have been provided on this thread and others.

Nothing has changed? Does it then remain the teaching of the Church that a person in the grave sin of adultery is not permitted to receive the Eucharist?

As I said, I can speculate as to why the only “voting Cardinal” to bring this up is Burke, but not many here would like my speculations. I think the Cardinal is doing a great disservice to the Church by airing his objections in such a public way. How can one claim to be a champion of tradition, yet act like a petulant child who isn’t getting his way?

Speculation is one thing, ad hominem argument another.

 

[Seamus_L]

As far as I’ve been able to ascertain using confirmable online sources, the actual number of Cardinals-Bishops supporting and including the 4, is currently 13.

 

[fred_conty]

It’s an estimate. There are 4 initial Cardinals, then there have been a couple others that have said the agree/support them, so less than 10.

What informed sources? Most of the priests I have talked to have no issues at all with the document. No doctrine has been changed. It is not necessary to issue any clarification, NOTHING HAS CHANGED!
As I said, I can speculate as to why the only “voting Cardinal” to bring this up is Burke, but not many here would like my speculations. I think the Cardinal is doing a great disservice to the Church by airing his objections in such a public way. How can one claim to be a champion of tradition, yet act like a petulant child who isn’t getting his way?

“NOTHING HAS CHANGED!”

But annulment of marriage does seem to have changed. The Pope said that it may be that there is more than just black and white but some grey too. Maybe I’m off base in my guesstamation, but I think he means that if someone’s marriage cannot be proven thru the required documentation for various reasons to be invalid, but that the local bishop knows that the marriage was invalid, then he could grant them the right to the Eucharist.

That would be a change not in doctrine but in pastoral policy. And it would be so simple to put this in Canon Law, the church law.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

That’s hardly a scientific survey taken among the clergy.

The many informed sources have been provided on this thread and others.

Nothing has changed? Does it then remain the teaching of the Church that a person in the grave sin of adultery is not permitted to receive the Eucharist?

Speculation is one thing, ad hominem argument another.

No ad hominem, it is just my opinion on the matter. This public, vocal challenge of the Holy Father is wrong. This same Cardinal brought up his objections in the Synod and they were answered then. He just didn’t like the answers.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No ad hominem, it is just my opinion on the matter. This public, vocal challenge of the Holy Father is wrong. This same Cardinal brought up his objections in the Synod and they were answered then. He just didn’t like the answers.

No, that is not my understanding.

The Synod did NOT pass these issues with a 2/3 vote. In fact, they were not part of the original document at all as given by the Synod, apparently.

And this is not a public vocal challenge of the Holy Father. This is a reasonable and Church sanctioned procedure for any such cases.

The Cardinal (and all the others, there are quite a few) are not trying to ‘correct’ or challenge Pope Francis, and I think it is a disservice to all Christians when this ‘view’ is promulgated.

 

[Stat_Crux]

No ad hominem, it is just my opinion on the matter. This public, vocal challenge of the Holy Father is wrong. This same Cardinal brought up his objections in the Synod and they were answered then. He just didn’t like the answers.

Is it a “challenge” though? They have simply asked some questions of the Holy Father on whether or not the accepted teaching still stands, and for clarification on what his intended meaning is in Amoris Laetitia. These questions were asked respectfully and in private. These are not simply the personal questions of these Cardinals, but the questions of millions of confused Catholics in parishes across the world (myself included). In asking their questions in the form of five dubia, they have used the conventional/official means of requesting clarification on points of theology. The dubia were addressed to both the Pope and Cardinal Müller as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, both of whose capacity it is to outline the Church’s position on matters of Doctrine and teaching. The questions were asked in a spirit of pastoral concern for Catholics such as myself.

The Cardinals were subsequently told (in private) that they would not be receiving a response to their request for clarification on what the Pope is teaching. The four Cardinals then, understanding the grave state of confusion in the Church as a result of the contradictory interpretations of AL being proposed, made it clear to us that questions have been asked of the Holy Father. We all now anxiously look to the Pope and await his answer on what he is trying to teach us, and whether or not he thinks there should be a change of teaching for those civilly divorced and remarried who refuse to live in chastity. Cardinal Müller himself has since gone on record stating that he is unable to respond without the Pope’s permission.

Is it a “good” situation that we are now in? No. Was it probably an easy choice to go public? Unlikely. But consider the alternative if they had not. We in the pews would still be looking around us wondering why some Bishops suddenly say there has been a change of teaching and other Bishops say there has not. We would be wondering why nobody is talking about it, we would be wondering why nobody seems to have pastoral concern for our confusion, we would be wondering why nobody is talking about the elephant in the room and why in one parish a couple is apparently in a state of mortal sin and in the parish next door there’s now suddenly no problem.

 

[Thomas_White]

No ad hominem, it is just my opinion on the matter. This public, vocal challenge of the Holy Father is wrong. This same Cardinal brought up his objections in the Synod and they were answered then. He just didn’t like the answers.

I will ask the question again: Does it remain the doctrine and teaching of the Church that a person in the grave sin of adultery should not be permitted to receive communion?

 

[TCEL]

“NOTHING HAS CHANGED!”

But annulment of marriage does seem to have changed. The Pope said that it may be that there is more than just black and white but some grey too. **Maybe I’m off base in my guesstamation, but I think he means that if someone’s marriage cannot be proven thru the required documentation for various reasons to be invalid, but that the local bishop knows that the marriage was invalid, then he could grant them the right to the Eucharist. **

Thanks for stating it so clearly and succinctly. See, stuff like this doesn’t raise my red alert as much as suggestions I’ve seen floating around that we allow people to receive Communion who are basically being strong-armed into having sex with whoever they are living with. If they’re in that kind of situation, they need to get out of it, if at all possible, and the Church should provide for them and their children.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Cardinal Raymond Burke said in an interview this week that it is “amazing” that those who have defended Catholic teaching and practice on withholding Communion from those in publicly “irregular” sexual situations, are being accused of “being against the Holy Father, and of not being in harmony with the Church.”

The blog Rorate Caeli carried a translation of the comments Cardinal Burke made this week to the French language daily Le Figaro. Burke, one of a small group of vocal opponents of the so-called Kasper proposal, said that October’s Synod of Bishops on the family “was a difficult experience.” Those who were “in line” with Cardinal Walter Kasper had control of the Synod’s processes, he said.

Burke noted the insertion of homosexuality into the Synod’s discussion, saying that it “has no relation with the question of marriage.”

The Synod’s direction appeared to be predetermined by these, he said, adding that the mid-term document “seemed to have had already been written before the interventions of the Synod Fathers.” That mid-term Relatio, understood to have been written by the Italian liberal theologian, Archbishop Bruno Forte, called for the Church to change its practice, and to “accept and value” the homosexual “orientation.”

Cardinal Burke reiterated his point, made many times during and since the Synod, that the mid-term Relatio “made no reference to Scripture, nor to the Tradition of the Church, nor to the teaching of John Paul II on conjugal love,” an unprecedented occurrence for a document of the highest authorities of the Catholic Church. He added that it is “highly offputting” that the paragraphs on Communion for remarried divorcees and homosexuality were retained in the Final Relatio – and now in the Lineamenta, the document issued in preparation for next year’s Synod – even though they had been rejected in a vote by the Synod bishops.

Asked whether it is legitimate for a cardinal to be critical of a pope, Burke said, “A Cardinal, in certain situations, has the duty to say what he truly thinks to the pope.” He said, however, that between a cardinal and the pope it is “impossible for there to be a divergence on a matter of doctrine and discipline of the Church.”

“In an age filled with confusion, as we see with Gender Theory, we need the teaching of the Church on marriage,” Burke said.

Link:
lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-its-amazing-that-faithful-catholics-are-now-accused-of-oppos?utm_content=bufferc7667

 

[EIF5A]

“Accept and value the homosexual orientation” as in a struggle for people to overcome temptation with God’s grace for a greater good, or as in valuing the “diversity” of human sexuality to accept anything and everything in the name of being “nice” and non-confrontational against the immoral spirit of the world?