Exclusive interview: Cardinal Burke says confusion spreading among Catholics ‘in an alarming way’

[Seraphignatius]

Ah, but the world is not Europe (sorry Europeans.) Christianity in the form of Catholicism is widespread now, probably more so than at any time in history. There are an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world, according to Vatican figures. More than 40% of the world’s Catholics live in Latin America - but Africa has seen the biggest growth in Catholic congregations in recent years.

No doubt, but the Roman Empire was centered around the Mediterranean and was for the most part in Europe. (The Gentiles of North Africa and Asia Minor have also largely departed from the faith as well.)

 

[ringil]

I really don’t believe this is proper behavior on the part of Burke.

 

[Ender]

I think he also wanted to take anything having to do with the pastoral approach to remarried Catholics and any part of a homosexual union (including children of such parents) off the table.

There is nothing in any comment he has ever made that could be interpreted this way…unless by “being pastoral” you mean giving communion to those who are now excluded. That is a doctrinal issue, and unless the bishops mean to reverse the doctrines involved what is the purpose of discussing it? This is what Burke opposes. What possible reason could he have against finding ways to minister more effectively to Catholics? That makes no sense at all.

We can’t ignore over 1/2 of the population who consider themselves Catholic.

So be up front with your recommendation: should they be allowed to receive or not? If not then you are in agreement with Burke; if yes then you are recommending the reversal of 2000 years of teaching, and if it is done in this case there is no argument that could make any doctrine secure.

My thought is that a black and white answer like that may or may not be the right pastoral approach that Christ would want us to have.

It isn’t at all clear that Christ found it difficult to say “These are sins, don’t do them.” Why do we find it so difficult?

It is a hard question and I don’t think the Pope wanted to necessarily ignore it. Cardinal Burke seems to what to ignore the question for now though… that is his view.

This is a very great distortion of Burke’s comments, which were actually rather straightforward. He opposes changing the doctrines of the church so as to allow those in objectively sinful situations to receive communion. That’s it. Assertions that he wants to “ignore” the problem, and isn’t “pastoral” are flatly untrue. Instead of attacking him personally deal with his actual comments - rebut the arguments he makes instead of inventing your own and attributing them to him.

Ender

 

[dans0622]

My answer is trust the Magistarium and the Holy Father. I really don’t see either asking the Church to go in the wrong direction right now. And silencing the bishops isn’t the answer anyway. That is only the answer if you want a oppressive Church and Christ wasn’t a founder of an oppressive Church.

BTW: that is also why you don’t want canon lawyers running the Church right now

Hello,

That’s a rather…odd juxtaposition of comments.

Dan

 

[gilliam]

It isn’t at all clear that Christ found it difficult to say “These are sins, don’t do them.” Why do we find it so difficult?

Which presents the challenge in how to embrace these Catholics. Isn’t that what part of the synod’s discussions are all about? (except I don’t think, from what he has said, Cardinal Burke wants that discussion.)

This is a very great distortion of Burke’s comments, which were actually rather straightforward. He opposes changing the doctrines of the church so as to allow those in objectively sinful situations to receive communion. That’s it. Assertions that he wants to “ignore” the problem, and isn’t “pastoral” are flatly untrue. Instead of attacking him personally deal with his actual comments - rebut the arguments he makes instead of inventing your own and attributing them to him.

Didn’t he say he didn’t want them discussing pastoral approaches to those who are divorced and remarried? I realize it is sometimes hard for me to really understand what he is against. This is what he said when discussing those who are divorced and remarried:

Yes. In fact I have asked more than once that these subjects which have nothing to do with the truth about marriage be taken out of the agenda of the synod. [If people want to discuss these questions, fine, but they have nothing to do with the Church’s teaching on marriage.]

 

[Rubia]

I do not see too many objecting against orthodoxy, especially among Catholics. I really think all the bishops are pretty much orthodox, even when the do not agree.

Then you’ve missed a great deal. Many people on CAF HATE Cardinal Burke. They think the fact that he disagrees with a Pope on a non-infallible decision (like the decision to discuss communion for the remarried) makes him some sort of legitimate target for disrespect and personal attacks. As if the pope cannot make a mistake. The pope cannot teach error to the church, that is what infallibility means.

The bishops cannot all be orthodox. If you listen to some of the Cardinal’s statements,like Cardinal Sarah Robert and Muller, there is a doctrinal issue here under discussion which we at CAF do not discuss often but is really THE whole debate issue and it is doctrinal: The idea that pastoral practice can LEGITIMATELY deviate from doctrine. Cardinal Muller and Sarah-Robert have called that a heresy of some sort. That is the whole debate between the Kasper group and the Burke group. The first are telling us that the church must BELIEVE Jesus but not necessarily act according to that belief. THIS is what Burke and all the “conservatives” have rejected and the two cardinals above have said that it is a heresy of sorts, not simply a bad discplinary practice. I am on the latter’s side. After all, it was Jesus who proclaimed “Why call you me Lord and yet DO NOT as I say”? Claiming that pastoral practice can EVER possibly be separated from TRUTH is an error and it is a doctrinal one. This, people, isthe debate: Does the church HAVE to act according to the TRUTH she proclaims? Is the church free to say in action that Truth is not really true?

If in the future we have a council that settles the current issue, THIS will be the doctrinal issue that council will decide. And who knows? Perhaps this is what the church needs: Enough trouble to force an ecumenical council that will in one “fell swoop” get rid of the “progressive” elements that have infiltrated the church in confessionals and pulpits in much of the Western world for too long. For decades, this kasper view has been the dominant, albeit unofficial view in much of the church. “Yes, OFFICIALLY,contraceptives are bad, sex before marriage is bad, but in REALITY, Hey we are all human, arent we?”

 

[Ender]

Which presents the challenge in how to embrace these Catholics. Isn’t that what part of the synod’s discussions are all about? (except I don’t think, from what he has said, Cardinal Burke wants that discussion.)

Cite any comment Burke has made that suggests he is opposed to discussing ways of ministering to “these Catholics.” I suggest that if you can’t find such a statement you might want to reconsider your position.

Didn’t he say he didn’t want them discussing pastoral approaches to those who are divorced and remarried?

How do you find it so easy to believe that anyone, let alone a cardinal, could care so little for others that he would oppose improving the pastoral care of the people in his charge? I find the concept beyond ludicrous, yet you seem to find it quite reasonable. What kind of monster do you take him for?

Burke doesn’t oppose “pastoral approaches”; what he is adamantly against is the abrogation of the doctrines of the church. Take that off the table and we probably wouldn’t hear another word he said.

Ender

 

[Rubia]

Which presents the challenge in how to embrace these Catholics. Isn’t that what part of the synod’s discussions are all about? (except I don’t think, from what he has said, Cardinal Burke wants that discussion.)

When have we ever NOT embraced them? We just cant rewrite Jesus or the Apostle Paul or the 6th commandment:shrug: If this simple fact were acknowledged, we would be veryfar incoming up with other ways to embrace others more effectively, and bring them to Christ.

 

[Rubia]

It’s Pope John XXII

If John XXII lived on CAF, I’d bet my last tooth that those theologians would have been labelled dissenters bent on opposing the agenda of the Holy Spirit. They were right, of course, and the pope was wrong in that disagreement. Thank God for the Holy Spirit and the gift of infallibility for not allowing John XII to teach that error to the church as a truth to be held by all the faithful. Instead, the Holy Spirit converted his thought to reflect truth. It is the same Spirit who is in charge of the church today and we should put our faith and trust in him. 2,000 years and numerous controversies and counting…he has not failed once yet.

 

[gilliam]

Cite any comment Burke has made that suggests he is opposed to discussing ways of ministering to “these Catholics.” I suggest that if you can’t find such a statement you might want to reconsider your position.
How do you find it so easy to believe that anyone, let alone a cardinal, could care so little for others that he would oppose improving the pastoral care of the people in his charge? I find the concept beyond ludicrous, yet you seem to find it quite reasonable. What kind of monster do you take him for?

Burke doesn’t oppose “pastoral approaches”; what he is adamantly against is the abrogation of the doctrines of the church. Take that off the table and we probably wouldn’t hear another word he said.

Ender

The Synod was and is about pastoral approaches and he said he didn’t want certain topics discussed, including what I quoted above. I’m just reflecting what he said. I could have interpreted him incorrectly; but if so, I am not alone in that interpretation. I don’t know, maybe if he wants the Synod to discuss pastoral approaches to those who were divorced and remarried, he could indicate that?

 

[Seraphignatius]

Which presents the challenge in how to embrace these Catholics. Isn’t that what part of the synod’s discussions are all about?

It would do grave harm to everyone involved to “embrace” them without calling them to repentence. This is one of those issues where Jesus would have turned to the Apostles and said, “Do you also wish to go away?”

 

[gilliam]

When have we ever NOT embraced them? We just cant rewrite Jesus or the Apostle Paul or the 6th commandment:shrug: If this simple fact were acknowledged, we would be veryfar incoming up with other ways to embrace others more effectively, and bring them to Christ.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting we rewrite what Jesus said.

 

[Rubia]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting we rewrite what Jesus said.

What about the 6th commandment? Thou shalt NOT commit adultery. Is the church free to dispense us from that in the 21st century? This is the kasper suggestion, that the church oks remarriage after divorce which Jesus calls adultery. Something MUST be rewritten to make the church okey adultery, don’t you think?

 

[Seamus_L]

For the first time in my life, I’ve heard people who identify as liberal Catholics, respond to statements like “the Pope cannot change Catholic teaching” with comments like “how dare you try and tell the Holy Father what he can’t do”. It’s very strange to say the least.

 

[Rubia]

For the first time in my life, I’ve heard people who identify as liberal Catholics, respond to statements like “the Pope cannot change Catholic teaching” with comments like “how dare you try and tell the Holy Father what he can’t do”. It’s very strange to say the least.

Liberal catholics? Want to see strange? How about NON-catholics and agnostics saying the same thing? Surreal

 

[Tigg]

There are very few bishops making comments that are at all controversial and those comments are often taken out of context by conservative commentators and shouted loudly on social media. (pretty shameful activity IMHO.)

Anyone following this rather heated debate knows this simply is not true. And here is just one good illustration of the **severity **of this issue among the bishops:

Cardinal Kasper:

"after the shipwreck of sin, the shipwrecked person should not have a second boat at his or her disposal, but rather a life raft in the form of the sacrament of Communion.”
The Catholic Church needs to find a way to help divorced and remarried Catholics who long to participate fully in the life of the church, Cardinal Kasper told the cardinals. While insisting – for the good of individuals and of the church – on the need to affirm Jesus’ teaching that sacramental marriage is indissoluble, he allowed for the possibility that in very specific cases the church could tolerate, though not accept, a second union.

Cardinal Caffarra:

“Those who advance this hypothesis do not have an answer to a very simple question: what about the first marriage, ratified and consummated? The proposed solution leads one to think that the first marriage remains intact, but that there is also a second form of cohabitation that the Church legitimizes. Therefore there is an extramarital exercise of human sexuality that the Church considers legitimate. But with this comes a denial of the cornerstone of the Church’s teaching on sexuality. At this point one could ask oneself: so why not approve cohabitation at will? So why not relationships between homosexuals? This is not only a question of practice, it also touches upon doctrine. Unavoidably. One may say that it doesn’t, but it does. Not only that. It introduces a custom that in the long run determines this idea in the people, and not only among Christians: there is no such thing as an absolutely indissoluble marriage. And this is certainly against the Lord’s will.”

With this exchange one can begin to understand the gravity…

My thought is that a black and white answer like that may or may not be the right pastoral approach that Christ would want us to have.

Is our faith so complex we cannot understand right from wrong? How is it pastoral or even possible to disrespect the truth about marriage? It is a contradiction to think that the attribute of mercy alone (the pastoral approach) can compromise clear teaching being that the Author Himself is the Spirit of Truth.

 

[gilliam]

Anyone following this rather heated debate knows this simply is not true. And here is just one good illustration of the **severity **of this issue among the bishops:

Cardinal Kasper:

"after the shipwreck of sin, the shipwrecked person should not have a second boat at his or her disposal, but rather a life raft in the form of the sacrament of Communion.”
The Catholic Church needs to find a way to help divorced and remarried Catholics who long to participate fully in the life of the church, Cardinal Kasper told the cardinals. While insisting – for the good of individuals and of the church – on the need to affirm Jesus’ teaching that sacramental marriage is indissoluble, he allowed for the possibility that in very specific cases the church could tolerate, though not accept, a second union.

Cardinal Caffarra:

“Those who advance this hypothesis do not have an answer to a very simple question: what about the first marriage, ratified and consummated? The proposed solution leads one to think that the first marriage remains intact, but that there is also a second form of cohabitation that the Church legitimizes. Therefore there is an extramarital exercise of human sexuality that the Church considers legitimate. But with this comes a denial of the cornerstone of the Church’s teaching on sexuality. At this point one could ask oneself: so why not approve cohabitation at will? So why not relationships between homosexuals? This is not only a question of practice, it also touches upon doctrine. Unavoidably. One may say that it doesn’t, but it does. Not only that. It introduces a custom that in the long run determines this idea in the people, and not only among Christians: there is no such thing as an absolutely indissoluble marriage. And this is certainly against the Lord’s will.”

With this exchange one can begin to understand the gravity…

The discussion here is how do you embrace all Catholics without embracing sin. That is a valid discussion, is it not?

Is our faith so complex we cannot understand right from wrong? How is it pastoral or even possible to disrespect the truth about marriage? It is a contradiction to think that the attribute of mercy alone (the pastoral approach) can compromise clear teaching being that the Author Himself is the Spirit of Truth.

I don’t think anyone is saying we need to say sin is not sin.

 

[Ender]

The Synod was and is about pastoral approaches and he said he didn’t want certain topics discussed, including what I quoted above.

He never said anything about opposing “pastoral approaches.” He was very specific in what he said: he opposes discussions that would involve the repudiation of existing doctrines.

I’m just reflecting what he said. I could have interpreted him incorrectly; but if so, I am not alone in that interpretation.

You may be reflecting what others have said about him but you are not reflecting what he himself has said. If you cannot find in his statements anything that supports your assertions it should be pretty obvious that you have been mislead on this point.

I don’t know, maybe if he wants the Synod to discuss pastoral approaches to those who were divorced and remarried, he could indicate that?

Once again what you believe has no direct relation to the truth of the matter. Burke has supported the synod, believing it could be a very good thing, but only if it doesn’t go off the rails and reverse doctrine. You are forming your opinion of him not based on anything he himself has said but solely on the basis of the condemnations others have made about him. Here is his position on the synod in a nutshell:“To the degree that all of it is solidly grounded in the Church’s teaching and her discipline, I believe it will be very positive.”
Ender

 

[Ender]

It is a contradiction to think that the attribute of mercy alone (the pastoral approach) can compromise clear teaching being that the Author Himself is the Spirit of Truth.

We have an altogether skewed perspective of mercy if we believe it means overlooking sins and not holding people accountable for their actions.*In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. *(JPII)

*There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. *(CCC 1864)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

It would do grave harm to everyone involved to “embrace” them without calling them to repentence. This is one of those issues where Jesus would have turned to the Apostles and said, “Do you also wish to go away?”

The Church has adopted more loving and merciful attitudes over time towards those whose behaviours are affected by mental illness and alcoholism for example. There were many conditions where people were considered to be possessed by the devil or being punished for the sins of their Fathers etc. where peoples attitudes remained resolutely black and white towards them. They were sinners not sick and nothing was going to change their godly judgements.

With time we are now aware of the nature of these sicknesses and aware that they are not guaranteed to eternal condemnation by God… and our attitude towards them reflects that. That merciful attitude can only be possible by genuine compassion and brotherly love. The ability to say ‘there but for the grace of God go I’.

This is nothing like Jesus saying “Do you also wish to go away?” Pope Francis wants this discussion with a passion and has ensured it for the synod even though the two thirds majority wasn’t reached. So unless your genuine position is that the Holy Father is actually working against Jesus by asking that this issues be explored more deeply for the answers we seek… stop suggesting that all of us faithful sons and daughters of the Church who support Pope Francis, are rejecting Jesus.