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

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyc176
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stylteralmaldo said:
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.”
Click to expand...
I thought that a cardinal could have a divergence on a discipline, such as Friday abstinence, for example?
 
Cardinal Burke has been on a Sour Grape Mission since his demotion by Pope Francis. He has taken his differences publicly with Pope Francis. His differences with Pope Francis should be settled privately inside the Curia. He has become an Obstructionist toward Pope Francis.
 
PassingSoul said:
Cardinal Burke has been on a Sour Grape Mission since his demotion by Pope Francis. He has taken his differences publicly with Pope Francis. His differences with Pope Francis should be settled privately inside the Curia. He has become an Obstructionist toward Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
Yes. It’s exactly this continuing drip, drip, drip of interviews, comments, and asides - playing out in the media - that leads to the impression that Cardinal Burke is attempting to achieve via public pressure what he hasn’t been able to do “within channels.”
 
MODERATOR REMINDER

You may not make disparaging remarks about:
  • Vatican II
  • Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
  • Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
  • Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
  • Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
  • Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.
 
commenter said:
There is a tendency, for all of us, on all sides, to demonize our “opponents”.
This tries to put the matter into perspective of the last few decades:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/12/how-pope-benedict-xvi-dealt-with.html
Click to expand...
Thanks for the read. I enjoy Ed Feser. His polemics aren’t my style, but after being on campus, I know it allows him to converse with certain groups of people. In other words, some of those new atheists are quite the prickly type and he speaks their speak; probably because he was in their shoes once.
 
Seamus_L said:
Cardinal Brandmuller may have made the strongest statement on this matter so far, in yesterday’s Der Spiegel. “Whoever considers continuity of adultery and the reception of the Holy Communion to be compatible is heretic, and drives the schism ahead.” spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/vatikan-kritik-an-papst-franziskus-nimmt-vor-weihnachten-zu-a-1127247.html
Click to expand...
The article referenced in the link is in German. Consequently, all I can comment on is what is translated above from the article. It is strong language, speaking of “heresy” and “schism” (both terms I would not use lightly). It would seem inappropriate to apply these terms to AL given its generally perceived ambiguity.

One scarcely knows what to say when the controversy apparently involves high-ranking officials of the Church. Or is this apparent controversy only the perceptions of the media? With respect to AL specifically, it would seem the following would be an appropriate question to ask:

“Should the Church permit a Catholic in the state of mortal sin to receive communion?”

In the discussion of AL, and particularly with reference to paragraphs 305-6 and footnote 351, it is unclear what is spoken of, in the discussion, with respect to the term “adultery”. Attempts are made to define the word in a fluid rather than an absolute way. But adultery is adultery, and it would seem that if a given act is not the mortal sin of adultery, then what it is ought to be clarified in a precise way if it is not to conflict with Church doctrine. I have seen no persuasive attempt.

I also dislike the term “schism” if by its use it is meant to apply to the current discussion of AL. This is premature. However, the quote by the Cardinal is clear enough if its usage of terms are clear. Obviously, it has been the perennial doctrine and teaching of the Church that a Catholic in the state of mortal sin, for whatever reason, should not be permitted to receive communion.

It is noted that Cardinal Burke has said, “No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy.”
 
Robert_Bay said:
MODERATOR REMINDER

You may not make disparaging remarks about:
  • Vatican II
  • Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
  • Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
  • Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
  • Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
  • Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the mods for letting this thread run. I am sure it is time consuming for them because of the sensitive nature of the topic, they no doubt check on things more often. But it touches some extremely important issues in my opinion, let us all refrain from any post that disrespects the above guidelines, or each other. Personally I feel I have learned a lot from this thread, and I have changed my mind to some extent.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
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.
Click to expand...
In the Code of Canon Law under the Obligations and Rights of all the Christian Faithful, canon 212 states " The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires. 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… (bolded my own)

Exactly what are the answers given by the Synods on the Family in 2014 and 2015 to the objections or concerns of Cardinal Burke and others (Cardinal Burke was not the only concerned father regarding to what you are probably referring to the so-called Kasper proposal, in fact, I’m not sure he attended the synods) that you are referring too? The final report of the 2015 synod does not mention holy communion or sacrament for the divorced and civilly remarried, absent a decree of nullity. From what I understand, the three paragraphs (84-86) dealing with the baptized who are divorced and remarried got the most no votes of all the paragraphs in the 2015 final report though they did pass with the required 2/3 majority.

Here is an interesting article by Fr. Gerald E. Murray titiled “Rewriting the History of Two Synods?”
thecatholicthing.org/2016/12/17/rewriting-the-history-of-two-synods/

Another interesting article by George Weigle at First Things “What really happened at Synod 2015”

firstthings.com/article/2016/01/what-really-happened-at-synod-2015

Merry Christmas to all!
 
Thomas_White said:
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?
Click to expand...
I find it quite incredible and astonishing that Catholics can’t seem to answer this simple question firmly and with great conviction. This teaching came directly from the lips of Christ and echoed by Apostle Paul, and it has been affirmed by the Church through the ages.

The teachings of Christ and of the Church seem to be blurred and even lost in new questionable creativities of otherwise good practices when applied faithfully to the Magisterium. Among which are: certain situations/circumstances; pastoral sensitivity; conscience; pastoral accompaniment; etc… Meanwhile, defenders of the faith are showered with unkind, uncharitable labels. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church ceases to be herself if separated from Christ and His teachings.

As Catholics, we are reminded that the teachings of Christ are beyond elitist intelligence, or having special knowledge. Most of the apostles and our Holy Mother herself were fishermen and peasants. Yet, they evangelized the whole world on foot, and with whatever belongings they could carry with them. Most of them met their death and martyrdom because they wanted Christ Himself and His teachings be brought to the world.
 
I would like to wish everyone on CAF a blessed Christmas. Personally, despite all the drama going on in the Church I feel peaceful. Our Lord remains in control of His Church and I cannot but help but think that things are changing for the better, albeit with a lot of fireworks.
Thomas_White said:
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.
Click to expand...
We need to be honest with ourselves and accept the fact that Pope Francis is personally in favour of Communion for remarried divorcees. This he made patently clear in his letter to the Argentinian bishops. To quote first from their directive of September 5th (emphases and parethesis mine):5) When the concrete circumstances of a couple make it feasible, especially when both are Christians with a journey of faith, it is possible to propose that they make the effort of living in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulties of this option (cf. note 329) and leaves open the possibility of receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation when one fails in this intention (cf. note 364, according to the teaching of Saint John Paul II to Cardinal W. Baum, of 22/03/1996).
  1. In other, more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity,** the aforementioned option** * may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, it is equally possible to undertake a journey of discernment. If one arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). These in turn dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the aid of grace.
    This is clear. The directive in paragraph 6 suggests living as brother and sister but does not insist on it. Paragraph 7 clearly and unambiguously allows for Confession and Communion for those who are in an irregular cohabitation and do ***not ***practise continence.
The Pope approved of this approach in his letter of September 5th (the same date as the publication of the directive):The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity.
Having said that, there is one crucial detail in the Pope’s approach to this issue which most Catholics have overlooked. Never, from the beginning of his pontificate until now, has he attempted to change the official Magisterial teaching of the Church on the subject. He could easily have done so, bringing out a heavyweight magisterial document in which he clearly affirms that henceforth remarried divorcees can receive Communion, period. Humanly speaking nothing is stopping him. Pope Francis is immensely popular and I have no hesitation in believing that the great majority of the clergy and faithful would go along with him.

Why hasn’t he done so? Why limit himself to unclear passages, obscure footnotes and private letters? Because he is the Vicar of Christ and in what matters he is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He will never change the Church’s definitive teaching because Christ will not let him, and since the Pope, like every other human being, keeps his free will, that means that when the chips are down he himself respects that definitive teaching whatever his personal opinions may be. I find that very heartening.*
 
Justin_Swanton said:
We need to be honest with ourselves and accept the fact that Pope Francis is personally in favour of Communion for remarried divorcees. This he made patently clear in his letter to the Argentinian bishops. To quote first from their directive of September 5th (emphases and parethesis mine):5) When the concrete circumstances of a couple make it feasible, especially when both are Christians with a journey of faith, it is possible to propose that they make the effort of living in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulties of this option (cf. note 329) and leaves open the possibility of receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation when one fails in this intention (cf. note 364, according to the teaching of Saint John Paul II to Cardinal W. Baum, of 22/03/1996).
  1. In other, more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity,** the aforementioned option** * may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, it is equally possible to undertake a journey of discernment. If one arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability* (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). These in turn dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the aid of grace.
    This is clear. The directive in paragraph 6 suggests living as brother and sister but does not insist on it. Paragraph 7 clearly and unambiguously allows for Confession and Communion for those who are in an irregular cohabitation and do ***not ***practise continence.
The Pope approved of this approach in his letter of September 5th (the same date as the publication of the directive):The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity.
Having said that, there is one crucial detail in the Pope’s approach to this issue which most Catholics have overlooked**. Never**, from the beginning of his pontificate until now, has he attempted to change the official Magisterial teaching of the Church on the subject. He could easily have done so, bringing out a heavyweight magisterial document in which he clearly affirms that henceforth remarried divorcees can receive Communion, period. Humanly speaking nothing is stopping him. Pope Francis is immensely popular and I have no hesitation in believing that the great majority of the clergy and faithful would go along with him.

Why hasn’t he done so? Why limit himself to unclear passages, obscure footnotes and private letters? Because he is the Vicar of Christ and in what matters he is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He will never change the Church’s definitive teaching because Christ will not let him, and since the Pope, like every other human being, keeps his free will, that means that when the chips are down he himself respects that definitive teaching whatever his personal opinions may be. I find that very heartening.

Not sure if I am interpreting you right, but I believe God protects the pope from teaching false doctrine. But he is not protected from ambiguity. “Flexibility” is good, when you are at the parish level, working with a couple. But the pope is not working with a couple now. Ambiguity is harmful when it leads different dioceses in the same culture to take contradictory positions. If innocent parties from the original marriage are respected wildly different in San Diego than in Philadelphia, that’s not being pastoral.

Even though the current topic is not directly about annulments, that may be how it is regarded in the community, that this is now Catholic sanctioned divorce (but only in some places). One can argue the pope could not have foreseen the contradictions and divisions caused. OK, but now having seen it, he may choose to respond either to the Dubia or in some other way.
Click to expand...
 
Justin_Swanton said:
We need to be honest with ourselves and accept the fact that Pope Francis is personally in favour of Communion for remarried divorcees. This he made patently clear in his letter to the Argentinian bishops. To quote first from their directive of September 5th (emphases and parethesis mine):

“6) In other, more complex circumstances, and when it is not possible to obtain a declaration of nullity,** the aforementioned option** * may not, in fact, be feasible. Nonetheless, it is equally possible to undertake a journey of discernment. If one arrives at the recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability* (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault [emphasis added] by damaging the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia opens up the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351). These in turn dispose the person to continue maturing and growing with the aid of grace.”
Click to expand...
What is most concerning about this passage is the reference to “subsequent fault”, for it means that the passage clearly provides that although the person is committing the obstinate sin of adultery, Amoris Laetitia nevertheless opens up the "possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist."

The question is then how could this practice be reconciled with the perennial doctrine and teaching of the Church?
 
Thomas_White said:
What is most concerning about this passage is the reference to “subsequent fault”, for it means that the passage clearly provides that although the person is committing the obstinate sin of adultery, Amoris Laetitia nevertheless opens up the "possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist."

The question is then how could this practice be reconciled with the perennial doctrine and teaching of the Church?
Click to expand...
If people are willing to live as brothers and sisters, or at least make an intention to do so, does this issue all go away?
 
EIF5A said:
If people are willing to live as brothers and sisters, or at least make an intention to do so, does this issue all go away?
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt it if there is only “an intention to do so”.
 
I think there is a danger of becoming too legalistic here. The Church is in the business of saving souls, it is not a court of law. The enforcement of Canon Law is not the ultimate goal, the ultimate goal is to save souls. We can easily fall into the error of the Pharisees. Keeping one’s eye on the ultimate goal will help the Church navigate through this.
 
gilliam said:
I think there is a danger of becoming too legalistic here. The Church is in the business of saving souls, it is not a court of law. The enforcement of Canon Law is not the ultimate goal, the ultimate goal is to save souls. We can easily fall into the error of the Pharisees. Keeping one’s eye on the ultimate goal will help the Church navigate through this.
Click to expand...
There is also an equal, if not greater danger, of becoming too, um, lax.

It would be a false attempt to save souls if the ‘assurance of salvation’ were to be based on an error.

And, not to be a pill, but in the last 50 or 60 years, the very last thing that one could accuse the average Catholic, at least in the Western world, and to an extent worldwide, would be ‘legalism’ or being too caught up in ‘the law’. So it’s kind of like the state that Hillaire Belloc spoke of decades ago, to paraphrase, that the Church usually, in a given age, accuses itself and others of being involved in the sin which it is least likely that people are guilty of (in this case, worry about being too rigid and narrow and focused on legalism), while it takes the virtue most opposed to that ‘sin’ (in this case, it would be mercy/tolerance) and makes the definition so broad and wide that it would, unchecked, make mercy and tolerance the ultimate god.

Christianity is a paradox. It is a balancing act, the middle way that avoids falling either to the left or the right. When something pushes it too far in one direction, it will wobble and be at risk of falling altogether.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top