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

[ThankUJP2]

Do you mean you are disappointed that some Catholics do not share the same opinion that confusion currently exists as a substantive problem

The first, I do not understand, as there should be hope that many are not confuse and do not encounter much confusion in their experience with the Church…

We do have hope…

Romans 8:28
And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints.

I know that many are not confused. Christ promised us that he would be with us until the end of the age - and we believe. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discern the times and question the potential impact especially to the spiritual well being of many marginal Catholics or those outside of the Church.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Are you saying that he is publicly dissenting from official papal teaching, or are you saying that he disagrees with some opinions or actions of the pope? There is a world of difference.

I think there is a battle being waged in the Catholic Church between those who want to approach certain subjects through love and compassion and those who prefer to be divisive and uncharitable. I think Pope Francis and Cardinal Burke are on opposite ends of the spectrum and I think Cardinal Burke dissents from the Pope’s vision of and for the Church in that regard.

 

[Seraphignatius]

I think Pope Francis and Cardinal Burke are on opposite ends and I think Cardinal Burke, whether intentionally or not, dissents from the Pope’s vision of and for the Church.

That is like dissenting from the “spirit” of Vatican II. We can’t see Papa Francis’ “vision of and for the Church” and even if we could it would still be his actual teachings from the Chair of Peter which have papal authority.

P.S. Happy sixth year on the forum. It’s your CAF birthday.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

That is like dissenting from the “spirit” of Vatican II. We can’t see Papa Francis’ “vision of and for the Church” and even if we could it would still be his actual teachings from the Chair of Peter which have papal authority.

I think Pope Francis has been clear on what his vision of and for the Church is. Either way, there shouldn’t be a Cardinal making public statements that run contrary to that vision of love, compassion, and charity and then bemoaning “confusion” as though his words and deeds are not a contributing factor.

P.S. Happy sixth year on the forum. It’s your CAF birthday.

Thanks! Happy to still be around!

 

[Seraphignatius]

I think Pope Francis has been clear on what his vision of and for the Church is. Either way, there shouldn’t be a Cardinal making public statements that run contrary to that vision of love, compassion, and charity and then bemoaning “confusion” as though his words and deeds are not a contributing factor.

From a catholic standpoint it is not only Cardinal Burke’s prerogative, it is his duty to point out these dangers to the faithful. Far from adding to confusion he is putting it to rest by pointing out what the church has always believed and which principles still ought to be guiding the Church’s decisions. I also don’t believe that Pope Francis has been the one pushing these proposals which run contrariwise to Catholic belief. Cardinal Burke is also a loving, compassionate and charitable man; which is confirmed rather than contradicted by his uncompromising love of orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

 

[McCall1981]

From a catholic standpoint it is not only Cardinal Burke’s prerogative, it is his duty to point out these dangers to the faithful. Far from adding to confusion he is putting it to rest by pointing out what the church has always believed and which principles still ought to be guiding the Church’s decisions. I also don’t believe that Pope Francis has been the one pushing these proposals which run contrariwise to Catholic belief. Cardinal Burke is also a loving, compassionate and charitable man; which is confirmed rather than contradicted by his uncompromising love of orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

This

Card Burke is promoting the teachings of the Church. Pope Francis’ “vision” for the Church cannot be other than in accordance with those same teachings. So the two cannot be in conflict with each other unless you start with the premise that Francis’ “vision” is somehow different from what the Church already teaches.

 

[ProVobis]

I think there is a battle being waged in the Catholic Church between those who want to approach certain subjects through love and compassion and those who prefer to be divisive and uncharitable.

It’s a battle I believe Pope Benedict has already addressed in his “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” observations.

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia.html

 

[pnewton]

Nevertheless there is much confusion in the Church.

I don’t think anyone here believes themselves to be confused,…

See, this is why I do not believe there really is a lot of confusion. Everyone I know pretty much understands doctrine. It is always the “someone else” that is confused. I understand many people do not choose to be catechized and wear “Catholic” as a name only. I am not speaking of those, but the normal, active Catholic. The “someone else’s” I know are not confused.

I want to point this out to give comfort to those in despair because your parish, or circle is some how lacking in understanding. It is not that way everywhere.

 

[LongingSoul]

Ok. So there are none (authorities stating that POLICIES and non-exathedra papal teachings are infallible), since you’ve cited none. Good. That article you’ve pasted says nothing close to what you claimed and that I asked you to support with church teaching. All it does is repeat the Vatican I teaching, especially in its first paragraph. Only those teachings that meet that criteria are infallible.

So we have (1) Doctrine (2) On faith or morals (3) by a DEFINITIVE act (4) taught to the whole church by virtue of the papal office, or ex-cathedra.

Nothing there on policy or on any and all papal teachings being infallible.

In fact,Catholic answers goes on to explain:

catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

Catholic encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Again, I have no idea where you got the idea that all teachings and policy decisions of the pope are infallible. I would think if that were the case then the church has been acting rather pointlessly in STRICTLY defining just when the pope is speaking infallibly. Yet you claim that whatever the pope says or decides in the church is infallible. Certainly wrong and NOT a catholic teaching by any measure.

If you’ll go back to my posts on the subject you will notice that I always used the word ‘policy’ in quotes to indicate that I’d simply made an analogy with democratic Government processes. I didn’t say that it is a word used in the Church at all, but was indicating the act that occurred after a particular process. I wasn’t suggesting that the synod was like the government or that the policies that came out of that government process were the same as the teachings that arise out of the Church processes. I certainly don’t claim *“that whatever the pope says or decides in the church is infallible. Certainly wrong and NOT a catholic teaching by any measure.” *so I don’t appreciate your contemptful shrug in response to that strawman.

What I was originally addressing was the articles subject saying that it is wrong to discuss the issues at the synod or anywhere, when Pope Francis has specifically invited those questions to discussion. In doing that the Pope has assured us that “the Synod is not a parliament; it is an ecclesial, protected space and this protection is so that the Holy Spirit may work.” We have that guarantee that whatever the Pope promulgates or teaches in respect of the doctrine of marriage from the synod, will be protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

So if Pope Francis assures us that a full, open and honest examination of these issues is safe and necessary, we can be further assured of the impossibility of faith and morals being destroyed by any doctrinal outcome whether it be of a pastoral nature or an enrichment of the doctrine itself.

 

[pnewton]

I think Pope Francis and Cardinal Burke are on opposite ends of the spectrum and I think Cardinal Burke dissents from the Pope’s vision of and for the Church in that regard.

Good. The Church does her best work opposing views and a common goal. Both of the men mentioned here love the Church and want to help shepherd the faithful. Cardinal Burke understand the role of the papacy. Pope Francis is a humble man and I have no doubt he understands his limitations. Let all these good shepherds work toward a mutual understanding. I doubt either end will be totally satisfied, but I am positive no doctrine will be reversed. That is the nature of progress.

 

[pnewton]

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discern the times and question the potential impact especially to the spiritual well being of many marginal Catholics or those outside of the Church.

I totally concur.

 

[Maxirad]

I agree with you about LSN. In reading the interview, it’s clear that their “questions” would never have been allowed in a court, they are so leading and agenda-driven. Is it fair to wonder what role these continuing publicity “interviews” by the cardinal in fact add to the perceived “confusion?”

Um, what does the word “leading” mean in this case?

 

[SWolf]

I think there is a battle being waged in the Catholic Church between those who want to approach certain subjects through love and compassion and those who prefer to be divisive and uncharitable. I think Pope Francis and Cardinal Burke are on opposite ends of the spectrum and I think Cardinal Burke dissents from the Pope’s vision of and for the Church in that regard.

Agreed. Burke shows immense compassion towards the immortal souls of those in irregular relationships, and shows solidarity and justice with those who got divorced against their will.

 

[Rubia]

If you’ll go back to my posts on the subject you will notice that I always used the word ‘policy’ in quotes to indicate that I’d simply made an analogy with democratic Government processes. I didn’t say that it is a word used in the Church at all, but was indicating the act that occurred after a particular process. I wasn’t suggesting that the synod was like the government or that the policies that came out of that government process were the same as the teachings that arise out of the Church processes. I certainly don’t claim *"that whatever the pope says or decides in the church is infallible. " *so I don’t appreciate your contemptful shrug in response to that strawman.

This is the post I first responded to: Note the bold.

When he ‘makes policy’ he is protected from error. In this current situation around a couple of synod issues, he has invited a wide range of ideas to the table in the spirit of democratic discussion… but when he ‘makes policy’ as a result of the Churchs processes, he cannot teach error. He cannot make a decision that will harm faith or Catholicism. That guarantee is not limited to the occasions of declarations of dogma. It guarantees all his teachings. His fearlessness to explore comes from a deep trust in that guarantee.

“Guarantees ALL his teachings”, you said…and all his DECISIONS as he “cannot make decisions that will harm faith”, further that infallibility goes beyond dogmatic declarations. That is precisely what is “Certainly wrong and NOT a catholic teaching by any measure.”

No. The Pope’s non-dogmatic “decisions”, including the call to discussion is NOT infallible. Only a formal dogmatic declaration, that is, a solemn proclamation of doctrine intended to bind the whole church under pain of the sin of heresy and decreed in the officially recognized way, if the pope decides to do that, will be infallible. It has already been made clear there will be NO doctrinal teaching issuing forth from the synod, only pastoral practice. Neither pastoral practice nor non-doctrinal ex-cathedra proclamations can be infallible.

What I was originally addressing was the articles subject saying that it is wrong to discuss the issues at the synod or anywhere, when Pope Francis has specifically invited those questions to discussion. In doing that the Pope has assured us that “the Synod is not a parliament; it is an ecclesial, protected space and this protection is so that the Holy Spirit may work.” We have that guarantee that whatever the Pope promulgates or teaches in respect of the doctrine of marriage from the synod, will be protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

Nope. Only what he teaches as a doctrine of the deposit of faith to be held by all the faithful as binding irreformable truth will be infallible. Disciplinary decisions will not belong there, though this does not mean they will be wrong. Just not infallible. Please note that not even the reasoning process leading to the dogmatic definition is infallible, nor even the arguments upon which the doctrine is finally taught. Only the final definition itself shall be infallible, if it is made, and all indications show that the pope has no intention of making a solemn definition.

So if Pope Francis assures us that a full, open and honest examination of these issues is safe and necessary, we can be further assured of the impossibility of faith and morals being destroyed by any doctrinal outcome whether it be of a pastoral nature or an enrichment of the doctrine itself.

No, again. Only doctrinal definitions are protected. Not pastoral decisions. Please note that Ecumenical councils in union with the popes have taught “pastoral approaches” that cannot be deemed infallible, such as requiring the faithful to burn heretics to death and take their property. Only the formal dogmatic/doctrinal proclamations of these councils are infallible and binding even today, not the disciplines or pastoral decisions issued by them.

 

[PTL]

I think there is a battle being waged in the Catholic Church between those who want to approach certain subjects through love and compassion and those who prefer to be divisive and uncharitable. I think Pope Francis and Cardinal Burke are on opposite ends of the spectrum and **I think Cardinal Burke dissents from the Pope’s vision **of and for the Church in that regard.

I thought this forum rule is not allowed for personal attack on any clergy!

 

[LongingSoul]

This is the post I first responded to: Note the bold.

“Guarantees ALL his teachings”, you said…and all his DECISIONS as he “cannot make decisions that will harm faith”, further that infallibility goes beyond dogmatic declarations. That is precisely what is “Certainly wrong and NOT a catholic teaching by any measure.”

No. The Pope’s non-dogmatic “decisions”, including the call to discussion is NOT infallible. Only a formal dogmatic declaration, that is, a solemn proclamation of doctrine intended to bind the whole church under pain of the sin of heresy and decreed in the officially recognized way, if the pope decides to do that, will be infallible. It has already been made clear there will be NO doctrinal teaching issuing forth from the synod, only pastoral practice. Neither pastoral practice nor non-doctrinal ex-cathedra proclamations can be infallible.

Nope. Only what he teaches as a doctrine of the deposit of faith to be held by all the faithful as binding irreformable truth will be infallible. Disciplinary decisions will not belong there, though this does not mean they will be wrong. Just not infallible. Please note that not even the reasoning process leading to the dogmatic definition is infallible, nor even the arguments upon which the doctrine is finally taught. Only the final definition itself shall be infallible, if it is made, and all indications show that the pope has no intention of making a solemn definition.

No, again. Only doctrinal definitions are protected. Not pastoral decisions. Please note that Ecumenical councils in union with the popes have taught “pastoral approaches” that cannot be deemed infallible, such as requiring the faithful to burn heretics to death and take their property. Only the formal dogmatic/doctrinal proclamations of these councils are infallible and binding even today, not the disciplines or pastoral decisions issued by them.

You are obviously a scholar of theology so I’ll let you have the floor.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I thought this forum rule is not allowed for personal attack on any clergy!

No one is personally attacking clergy.

 

[on_the_hill]

It seems to me that if someone is going to constantly muddy the waters by publicly dissenting from the Pope and then talk about confusion spreading among the laity then one does not have to look too far for the cause.

 

[Seraphignatius]

So, do you have him on record dissenting from official papal teaching, or is this perhaps another objection to his dissent from the “spirit” of Pope Francis?

 

[on_the_hill]

I’m merely agreeing with the EmporerNapoleon.

Aside from whatever Cardinal Burke has to say, I’d prefer the Church to move away from the more conservative elements among the hierarchy.