T
Exclusive interview: Cardinal Burke says confusion spreading among Catholics ‘in an alarming way’
- Status
M
McCall1981
Guest
But there is no valid reason to suggest, or discuss, an idea that is heterodox. It can serve no purpose, and can’t contribute anything constructive to the discussion.As long as the bishops agree on doctrine, I think they can all be considered orthodox. And as long as they are just brain storming, where all angles are considered, all the bishops should be considered orthodox (maybe some of the suggestions could be considered unorthodox… but that is kind of the definition of ‘thinking outside the box’ … right?)
I disagree with Cardinal Burke’s suggestion that some topics concerning family should be off the table. And I guess from what I have read, Pope Francis does as well.
So they discuss all types of ideas. Then at the end of this year they publish their recommendations; and the Holy Father takes them under consideration. Eventually he publishes his thoughts on the topic (or not.) Some items that can be changed without a new council may be changed or added. That’s the process.
I think we all need patience here as the bishops discuss this and talk to their congregations about it all. I think in the end we may wonder what all the fuss was about.
PS: I doubt any infallible declarations will come out of this process.
I don’t think anyone is saying any issues should be off the table. Discussing divorce and remarriage is perfectly fine, discussing homosexual unions is perfectly fine. Similarly, seeking diverse points of view on these subjects, seeking creative ideas and solutions is also fine.
What I think Card Burke is saying (and I agree with him) is that heterodox ideas should not be discussed because a heterodox idea A) can’t be implemented anyway, B) can’t lead to an orthodox idea (or at least it strains credibility to think it could), and C) will cause confusion amongst the faithful.
Plus, every minute spent discussing a heterodox idea is a minute wasted that could have been spent discussing an orthodox solution to a pressing problem.
G
gilliam
Guest
And who is to say something is heterodox or not if it is in a grey area? You? Me? Burke? Seems to me a lot of what he is against discussing is in that grey area. Have faith in the bishops self directing themselves. I know I have that faith.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Do you mean like how they’ve been debating whether or not to allow people to receive Holy Communion even while knowing that they are living in a state of mortal sin?
Because if that’s what you mean that’s not grey area.
G
gilliam
Guest
Oh, if it was as simple as that!
There is a concerted effort to shut down any dialog about how to welcome back those who feel they are pushed out of the Church.Personally, what I think will happen is a simplified annulment process will be recommended. (just trying to read the tea leaves here)
“Cardinal Muller’s essay, previously published in the Vatican newspaper, reaffirms the traditional ban. However, the cardinal notes that many Catholics’ first marriages might be invalid, and thus eligible for annulment, if the parties have been influenced by prevailing contemporary conceptions of marriage as a temporary arrangement.”
cruxnow.com/church/2014/09/18/doctrinal-wars-both-sides-fire-over-communion-for-divorced-remarried/
M
McCall1981
Guest
It is that simple. From the Catechism we know that a person in xyz situation cannot receive communion. Any idea that proposes that a person in xyz situation can receive communion is objectively heterodox and has no business being discussed.Oh, if it was as simple as that!
Youre blurring distinctions by bringing up “welcoming people back”. What is being discussed here is receiving communion specifically. I think you know perfectly well that no one, including Card Burke, objects to “welcoming people back”
And I hope your prediction of what will happen is correct.
O
OraLabora
Guest
In order for an idea to be declared heterodox it has to be examined first. By the bishops and the pope, with (name removed by moderator)ut from prominent theologians. Not by the armchair theologians here.
This is what the Holy Father has called for: that all ideas be on the table for examination, without fear of recrimination.
I don’t think anyone can object to Cardinal Burke defending his view of what is orthodox and what isn’t. It’s the privilege, right and duty of his position to speak out with his conscience and indeed the Holy Father wants to hear all viewpoints.
What many people are objecting to, is that he’s not limiting his statements to what he believes is orthodox, but by stating that Synod is “spreading confusion”, he is in fact criticizing the Holy Father’s leadership on the issue.
It’s been my experience after a 34 year career that when a subordinate publicly criticizes the boss in the media, it rarely ends well.
M
McCall1981
Guest
You don’t need to be a theologian, armchair or otherwise, to read and understand the Catechism. If the Catechism says “a person in xyz situation cannot receive communion”, and we can propose that a person in xyz situation can receive communion, then the words in the Catechism simply have no meaning.
As for “critisizing his boss” I’m staying out of that part of the discussion.
S
SWolf
Guest
Is it fair to say they feel pushed out of the Church?Oh, if it was as simple as that!
Most remarried knowing full well the Church’s position. They pushed themselves out.
Also, I have some divorced and remarried Catholic relatives. They take communion anyways. I would argue the people who actually abstain due to Church teaching is very few.
The reason this is so contentious is the way the argument is framed. If it was just changing the annulment process, it may be a good or bad thing. Some of the discussions are much, much more radical.
If it’s a matter of allowing communion to a divorced and remarried parishioner with a valid first marriage after a “penitential period”, it puts the entire concept of forgiveness on it’s head, since there is no resolution to stop sexual relations, essentially sanctioning continuous adultery.
Matthew 19:8
He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1 Corinthians 11:27
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
If the Church’s mission is the salvation of souls, is this debate, and the confusion it fosters, really the best way?
G
gilliam
Guest
I’ve been watching this pretty closely and my impression is that most of the people ‘framing’ things are conservative organizations; and they are making pretty outrageous allegations. The other side, the Liberals who are outside the Church are making wishful comments. The vast majority in the middle are waiting for the bishops to make their official statement. And that is the side I claim to be on. 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.)
my 2-cents
-g
S
SWolf
Guest
Many of the Bishops support Communion for divorced and remarried without an annulment, or give incredibly vague responses about how the problem is to be tackled. This makes people have legitimate concerns. Blaming it on conservative chicken-littleism is counterproductive.
ncronline.org/news/cardinal-outlines-possible-paths-communion-divorced-remarried
Kasper:
Because they are human and prone to sin, husbands and wives continually must follow a path of conversion, renewal and maturation, asking forgiveness and renewing their commitment to one another, Kasper said. But the church also must be realistic and acknowledge “the complex and thorny problem” posed by Catholics whose marriages have failed, but who find support, family stability and happiness in a new relationship, he continued.
Marx:
Cardinal Reinhard Marx said that most bishops support 'differentiated solutions that do justice to the individual case and under certain conditions allow admission to the sacraments.” Cardinal Marx-- who is also a member of the Council of Cardinals-- had signaled his own support for the “Kasper proposal” during October’s meeting of the Synod of Bishops. But he took an additional step by saying that the German episcopal conference as a body would back the proposal.
In a Vatican briefing today, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio said that in cases of “urgency and necessity,” such Catholics ought to be readmitted.
cruxnow.com/church/2014/10/09/two-more-cardinals-back-communion-for-divorced-and-remarried/
Coccopalmerio:
Coccopalmerio offered a specific example of a woman who married a man who had been abandoned by his first wife, through no fault of his own, and left to care for three children. The woman who married him, and who is now helping to care for his children, is considered to be in an “irregular” situation.
“She cannot abandon that union or those children,” he said. “In these cases, we have to do something.”
What was shameful were the actions of many at the last Synod, and commentators were completely within their rights to be appalled. When a Cardinal has to slam his fist on the table asking for manipulation to end, something went off the rails.
E
Ender
Guest
Isn’t it precisely Burke’s point that it is doctrines and not disciplines that are being debated? How could there be a debate if everyone took the same position, but if there is a disagreement over doctrine how could everyone be considered orthodox?
Really? You don’t consider that the doctrines on the family are settled? What determines whether a doctrine should or should not be up for debate?
I haven’t read all that much about this, but I’m willing to bet that most of what Pope Francis is alleged to have said is just that, an allegation, and that there is a great deal more being inferred than is justified.
Ender
L
livingwordunity
Guest
I used to be living in sin. When I was I refrained from receiving Holy Communion. I didn’t blame the Church for the situation that I knew I got myself into. The sinful relationship that I was in ended, and then I was able to go to Confession and then receive Holy Communion. Refraining from receiving Holy Communion at the times when we know we shouldn’t go up for it means that we believe that the Eucharist we receive is truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord instead of just bread and wine. If the Church ever said that it makes no difference the Church would cease to be Catholic and would become just another of the thousands of Protestant denominations. It would be no more than an imitation of Anglicanism.
G
gilliam
Guest
I think his point is that if you change a pastoral approach you are changing doctrine. I don’t know if that is true or not in all cases. I think it may be looking at things like a canon lawyer vs looking at thinks like a pastor. But I think that is his point in the interview in the OP.
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. And I disagree with that. We can’t ignore over 1/2 of the population who consider themselves Catholic. They would like to somehow participate in the Church and maybe the answer of: ‘after you have been celibate for a year or two, call the rectory and make an appointment and I will hear your confession’ is not the right approach. [may be an exaggeration, but that is how many look at it]
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 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.
M
McCall1981
Guest
His most recent comments on it are relatively encouraging.
As Sandro Magister says:“The latest also throws quite a damper on the expectations for change in the area of marriage, expectations Pope Francis has called “desmesuradas,” disproportionate.”
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351008?eng=y
Q: “What do you expect from the synod? Do you believe that too many expectations have been created among suffering couples, among the divorced and remarried, among homosexuals, going farther than you think you will go? Will the divorced and remarried to be able to receive communion? And how much acceptance will be extended to homosexuals?”
A: “I believe that there are disproportionate expectations. …] The family is in crisis. How can the life of the Church integrate “replay” families? This means those of a second union that sometimes turn out to be phenomenal, while the first were unsuccessful. How can they be re-integrated? They should go to church. Then comes the simplification and they say: “Ah, they will give communion to the divorced.” This doesn’t resolve anything. What the Church wants is for you to be integrated in the life of the Church. But there are some who say: “No, I want to receive communion and that’s it.” A badge, a decoration. No. You must reintegrate yourself. There are seven things that, according to the current law, persons in second unions cannot do. I don’t remember all of them, but one of them is being a godparent at a baptism. Why? And what testimony can he give his godchild? That of saying: “Look, dear, in my life I have made a mistake. Now I am in this situation. I am Catholic. The principles are these. I am doing this and I accompany you.” A true witness. …] If they believe, even if they are living in a situation that is defined as irregular and they accept this and know what the Church thinks about this condition, it is not an impediment. When we talk about integrating we mean all of this. And afterward to accompany the interior processes. …] Moreover, we have a very serious problem which is that of the ideological colonization of the family. This is why I talked about this in the Philippines, because it is a very serious problem. The Africans complain about this a great deal. And also in Latin America. And it happened to me once. I was the witness of a case of this kind with an education minister concerning the teaching of “gender” theory, which is something that is pulverizing the family. This is why I believe that the synod will produce things that are very clear, very rapid, that will help in this family crisis that is all-encompassing.”
L
livingwordunity
Guest
It’s possible that a change in a pastoral approach can amount to an unofficial change in doctrine. If the Church says that it doesn’t matter if people receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin it would contradict what St. Paul taught about the conditions for receiving Holy Communion. It would cast doubt on the Real Presence, and it would also make people doubt the necessity for going to Confession. Plus, it says in Scripture that the Devil entered into Judas Iscariot at the very point that he received Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin.
G
gilliam
Guest
It is possible, but is it always the case? I think Cardinal Burke’s point was that it was always the case. I don’t know if that is true. I know you can change how you teach doctrine (that happens all the time, and IMHO, that is a change in a pastoral approach) so my unprofessional answer would be he is wrong. There are cases where you can change a pastoral approach without changing doctrine. But I am not a theologian and I don’t claim to be. That is why I leave this sort of thing up to the Magistarium and the Holy Father.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Did he really say that every kind of change in pastoral teaching is a change in doctrine? I didn’t see that he did.
G
gilliam
Guest
Somehow I don’t see the bishops saying that.
It is possible that they would say something like the local bishop can look at a situation and make a determination that the first marriage was not binding; so there is no ongoing sin involved (in other words, give an annulment locally without all the fancy paperwork now required.) Or something like that. But I really don’t know what kinds of solutions they will eventually come up with (or not.) Anyway, I see nothing wrong with them discussing it.
P
ProVobis
Guest
It would seem that way.
That’s why I hold the utmost respect for those who hold themselves back from receiving.
- Status