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

[LongingSoul]

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.

Since I am one of those so called by you ‘liberal’ Catholics (which is more strange than ever since I believe every single teaching of the Church and daily follow Christ with my cross) we are not defending your strawman that the Holy Father can change doctrine…we are defending his god given authority to lead the Church with the guarantee that he is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error regarding faith and morals issues. He has assured us that we are safe to fearlessly explore with open hearts and minds for the ever wonderful surprises that God has for our faith. We are countering those voices who want control of the Catholic Churchs power for themselves retaining all hold on the power to judge and condemn and marginalise others.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

LS, you make it sound as if his mind is made up. Do you know something we don’t?

 

[LongingSoul]

LS, you make it sound as if his mind is made up. Do you know something we don’t?

I think it is obvious to everyone that he really, really, really wants those issues put there for theological exploration in the interests of a better way ministering to those in these situations. Is that what you mean? Why else would he personally insist them being included in the synod without the two thirds majority?

 

[Seraphignatius]

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.

Do you realize how offensive it is to compare the divorced and remarried (or anyone else living in public, grave, and manifest sin) to the mentally ill? The Church has never taught that the mentally ill (or the possessed for that matter) must be in anyway culpable for their condition. Even if there were some half pagan local customs which stigmatized such people, it was never the Church per se doing so. I’m interested in seeing:
I. Sources for your claims regarding the treatment of the addicted and the mentally ill, so we can see exactly what you’re talking about.

II. Your explanation on how the two types of situations are in anyway comparable.

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’.

There is so much wrong with this that I don’t know where to begin. Let me start by saying that the two types of situations are not remotely equivalent. To admit to holy communion those who persist in public, grave, manifest sin is to bring down the lords chastisement on us who admit and on those scandalously admitted. I suggest you read 1 Cor V: 1-13 and 1 cor XI: 23-34

This is nothing like Jesus saying “Do you also wish to go away?”

I never claimed that Jesus said anything of the sort to the sick or the possessed. He healed the former and delivered the latter.

Pope Francis wants this discussion with a passion and has ensured it for the synod even though the two thirds majority wasn’t reached.

I certainly can’t agree with his actions there; if he was going to put those passages in the final document regardless of the outcome, one wonders why he put it to a vote. It is, of course, my prerogative as a faithful son of the Church to disagree with the wisdom or objective goodness of his public actions, but it is his prerogative as supreme governor of the Church to take those actions whether they be right or wrong.

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…

God’s providence is absolute; it is beyond our power as his creatures to work against Jesus.

stop suggesting that all of us faithful sons and daughters of the Church who support Pope Francis, are rejecting Jesus.

I am rather amused by irony here. You are spuriously (one might say calumniously) claiming that I have calumniated you. I am not saying that the pope, the clergy, the posters on this thread, or you specifically have rejected Jesus. I am saying that those who put away their wife and marry another commit adultery, and that by this adultery they put the barrier of grave sin between themselves and Jesus. This is nothing but the faith divinely revealed to the apostles and transmitted to us.

 

[livingwordunity]

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

Everyone is already invited to come to Mass. Even non-Catholic and non-Christians are welcome to attend a Catholic Mass. The only thing we ask is that people not receive Holy Communion if either they are not a Catholic or if they are a Catholic but in a state of mortal sin. And even if someone is in a state of mortal sin no one would stop them from receiving Holy Communion unless they were to go up and announce that they are in a state of mortal sin.

 

[livingwordunity]

Do you mean that the sinful relationship you were in ended… and then you were free to receive Communion. Your legitimacy wasn’t a result of change of heart… but change of circumstance?

Irrelevant. The point is I had no problem with refraining from receiving Holy Communion when I knew that I was living in sin. The reason why I would not go up to receive the Eucharist while living in sin is because I believe that Holy Communion is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus, and I did not want to be judged by God for profaning His Body and Blood. I continue to struggle with other kinds of sin. And, for the same reason I just explained, I refrain from receiving Holy Communion at the times when I know I’m guilty of mortal sin and haven’t yet gone to Confession. The Church teaches what She does about Holy Communion for our good so that we won’t heap sin upon sin by profaning the Body and Blood of our Lord.

 

[Ender]

Pope Francis wants this discussion with a passion…

Be specific, what “discussion” has the pope said he wants to have? And cite where he said it. You are implying that what he wants is to discuss reversing the doctrines that now prohibit the divorced and remarried from receiving communion. I seriously doubt that that is his intention. Is that what you think he wants discussed?

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.

If the pope supported the repudiation of doctrine then there would be every reason to suggest he is leading us astray. Since it is highly unlikely that he will lead us astray it is equally unlikely that what he wants from the synod is a discussion about how doctrine can be either reversed or sidestepped. What he is asking for is not what you believe it to be.

Ender

 

[ThankUJP2]

If I assume that the conservatism being spoken of is not political, then it is inevitable that any move is away from conservatism, including any doctrinal development (like the Assumption of Mary). Every Ecumenical Council needed an element of movement. Conservative theology ( to conserve the status quo) limits the degree to which the Church can grow. This is a good thing when the growth is toward error. However, to much can leave the Church stagnant and ineffective.

I agree completely.

My response to over_the_hill assumed that his reference to “conservative elements of the hierarchy” (which he wanted the Church to move away from) pertained to Bishops which he viewed as conservative, and not traditions…

 

[LongingSoul]

Do you realize how offensive it is to compare the divorced and remarried (or anyone else living in public, grave, and manifest sin) to the mentally ill? The Church has never taught that the mentally ill (or the possessed for that matter) must be in anyway culpable for their condition. Even if there were some half pagan local customs which stigmatized such people, it was never the Church per se doing so. I’m interested in seeing:
I. Sources for your claims regarding the treatment of the addicted and the mentally ill, so we can see exactly what you’re talking about.

II. Your explanation on how the two types of situations are in anyway comparable.

An example. There was a time Canon Law listed suicide as a barrier to a Catholic funeral and burial. There was some recognition that a mental disturbance could mitigate a persons culpability, but our understanding of the scope of mental illnesses in the past was quite limited and left to the Priests own judgement. Today we consider all suicides as having an aspect of mental illness and no one is refused Catholic burial.

Likewise in the past the concept of ‘valid’ marriage was very strictly interpreted with no recognition of emotional maturity or psychological maturity being considered in declarations of nullity. Those things have come to light with the growth in understanding the human being. The former Card. Ratzinger in previous discussions on this subject, has raised the element of ‘faith’ maturity as possibly also being a barrier to the valid marriage. This does seem quite feasible considering the way society is less supportive of the tribal faith community. The young are especially encouraged to be independent of family and faith culture in their outlook on life. How do we know that this is not a further nuanced aspect of what constitutes valid marriage, that is calling to be explored? That’s just one thought I’m having.

There is so much wrong with this that I don’t know where to begin. Let me start by saying that the two types of situations are not remotely equivalent. To admit to holy communion those who persist in public, grave, manifest sin is to bring down the lords chastisement on us who admit and on those scandalously admitted. I suggest you read 1 Cor V: 1-13 and 1 cor XI: 23-34

Again, there has never been a suggestion from Pope Francis that the general rule will be changing. Mortal sin will always be a barrier to receiving Holy Communion. What is being addressed is the type of situation where while there is no official recognition of a previous faith deficiency, the evidence of life lived seems to be indicating such was the case? Who knows if that is where the discussions will head.

I am rather amused by irony here. You are spuriously (one might say calumniously) claiming that I have calumniated you. I am not saying that the pope, the clergy, the posters on this thread, or you specifically have rejected Jesus. I am saying that those who put away their wife and marry another commit adultery, and that by this adultery they put the barrier of grave sin between themselves and Jesus. This is nothing but the faith divinely revealed to the apostles and transmitted to us.

Not everyone who “put(s) away their wife and marry another commit adultery”. The Church over time has recognised different aspects that have prevented first marriages being valid. That growth in understanding of human physical, psychological, emotional and faith maturity… will no doubt increase the scope of our ability to understand what constitutes the true meaning of sacramental marriage. We haven’t as yet reached the ultimate understanding of the person and life in general to definitively declare we now know it all and the Church can finish up her explorations of anything.

 

[JimG]

An example. There was a time Canon Law listed suicide as a barrier to a Catholic funeral and burial. There was some recognition that a mental disturbance could mitigate a persons culpability, but our understanding of the scope of mental illnesses in the past was quite limited and left to the Priests own judgement. Today we consider all suicides as having an aspect of mental illness and no one is refused Catholic burial.

Likewise in the past the concept of ‘valid’ marriage was very strictly interpreted with no recognition of emotional maturity or psychological maturity being considered in declarations of nullity. Those things have come to light with the growth in understanding the human being. The former Card. Ratzinger in previous discussions on this subject, has raised the element of ‘faith’ maturity as possibly also being a barrier to the valid marriage. This does seem quite feasible considering the way society is less supportive of the tribal faith community. The young are especially encouraged to be independent of family and faith culture in their outlook on life. How do we know that this is not a further nuanced aspect of what constitutes valid marriage, that is calling to be explored? That’s just one thought I’m having.

Again, there has never been a suggestion from Pope Francis that the general rule will be changing. Mortal sin will always be a barrier to receiving Holy Communion. What is being addressed is the type of situation where while there is no official recognition of a previous faith deficiency, the evidence of life lived seems to be indicating such was the case? Who knows if that is where the discussions will head.

Not everyone who “put(s) away their wife and marry another commit adultery”. **The Church over time has recognised different aspects that have prevented first marriages being valid. ** That growth in understanding of human physical, psychological, emotional and faith maturity… will no doubt increase the scope of our ability to understand what constitutes the true meaning of sacramental marriage. We haven’t as yet reached the ultimate understanding of the person and life in general to definitively declare we now know it all and the Church can finish up her explorations of anything.

Yes, the Church has over time recognized different aspects that have prevented first marriages from being valid.

That is the key point. If the Synod is to examine the factors which might prevent a first marriage from being valid, that is an avenue worth exploring.

But that is not what I have heard from those who have been wishing to explore communion for the divorced and remarried. What I have heard is that they wish to find a way to accomplish the goal of communion for the divorced and remarried without even examining the validity of the first marriage.

By all means, let them explore whether and how first marriages might not have been valid. That is the issue. Culpability is a non-issue. Culpability or lack therof does not in itself change the status of a first marriage. The status of the first marriage, and by extension, thke status of the subsequent marriage, is what must be examined.

 

[LongingSoul]

Irrelevant. The point is I had no problem with refraining from receiving Holy Communion when I knew that I was living in sin. The reason why I would not go up to receive the Eucharist while living in sin is because I believe that Holy Communion is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus, and I did not want to be judged by God for profaning His Body and Blood. I continue to struggle with other kinds of sin. And, for the same reason I just explained, I refrain from receiving Holy Communion at the times when I know I’m guilty of mortal sin and haven’t yet gone to Confession. The Church teaches what She does about Holy Communion for our good so that we won’t heap sin upon sin by profaning the Body and Blood of our Lord.

Something to think about is that this issue has been opened to theological examination by the clergy itself with the support of Pope Francis. Pope Francis has previously said that he is open to the surprises of God and that’s seen over and over through Church history. Lots of things that seem closed to any deeper understanding by one generation… have proved by the natural growth of human understanding… to be illuminated in surprising ways. A great sign genuine conversion as a result of the glorious mercy of God in someones life… is the intense desire to give to others in the same generous way. Wouldn’t it be just awesome if by the honest and open explorations of the Church synod under Pope Francis… a new truth were illuminated that both taught the faithful something… and brought the mercy of God to a new level of understanding by the joy of those suffering faithful? Wouldn’t that be fantastic?

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, the Church has over time recognized different aspects that have prevented first marriages from being valid.

That is the key point. If the Synod is to examine the factors which might prevent a first marriage from being valid, that is an avenue worth exploring.

But that is not what I have heard from those who have been wishing to explore communion for the divorced and remarried. What I have heard is that they wish to find a way to accomplish the goal of communion for the divorced and remarried without even examining the validity of the first marriage.

By all means, let them explore whether and how first marriages might not have been valid. That is the issue. Culpability is a non-issue. Culpability or lack therof does not in itself change the status of a first marriage. The status of the first marriage, and by extension, thke status of the subsequent marriage, is what must be examined.

I see this same resistance in the pro Capital punishment crowd. The argument is that unless the Church can explain the justice in abolishing capital punishment in clear detail that I understand in my own brain… then no ‘merciful looking’ position can be held.

Many times in the history of the Church, the merciful position cries out for a faith response, and the theological justifications catch up in time. That’s what faith is.

 

[livingwordunity]

Something to think about is that this issue has been opened to theological examination by the clergy itself with the support of Pope Francis. Pope Francis has previously said that he is open to the surprises of God and that’s seen over and over through Church history. Lots of things that seem closed to any deeper understanding by one generation… have proved by the natural growth of human understanding… to be illuminated in surprising ways. A great sign genuine conversion as a result of the glorious mercy of God in someones life… is the intense desire to give to others in the same generous way. Wouldn’t it be just awesome if by the honest and open explorations of the Church synod under Pope Francis… a new truth were illuminated that both taught the faithful something… and brought the mercy of God to a new level of understanding by the joy of those suffering faithful? Wouldn’t that be fantastic?

Do you believe that God talks directly to Pope Francis and that God has told the Pope something new?

 

[Seraphignatius]

Not everyone who “put(s) away their wife and marry another commit adultery”. The Church over time has recognised different aspects that have prevented first marriages being valid. That growth in understanding of human physical, psychological, emotional and faith maturity… will no doubt increase the scope of our ability to understand what constitutes the true meaning of sacramental marriage. We haven’t as yet reached the ultimate understanding of the person and life in general to definitively declare we now know it all and the Church can finish up her explorations of anything.

On the Contrary:
Luke XVI:18:

Every man who puts away his wife and marries another is an adulterer, and he too is an adulterer, that marries a woman who has been put away.

I answer: There is nothing especially new about regarding some sacraments as having been invalid; just look at the Donatist controversy. We aren’t worried over proposed new grounds for annulling a marriage; we are worried over talk of quickie annulments and admitting unrepentant cohabiting “married couples” falsely so called, to communion. No one is objecting to the discussion of suggestions that don’t blatantly violate church teaching.

Regarding your mention of suicides:
I. The refusal of Christian burial was a warning to others who might consider such actions rather than an attempt at punishing the dead.

II. We don’t believe that, “all suicides as [have] an aspect of mental illness”, or at least we don’t believe that all people who commit suicide are impeded from moral culpability by mental illness. The looseness with which we tend to define mental illness these days makes it almost tautology to say that it is the cause of every suicide.

 

[LongingSoul]

Do you believe that God talks directly to Pope Francis and that God has told the Pope something new?

I believe that the default as a Catholic is to trust in the guidance and special authority of the Pope. If he is shown by the body of Cardinals and theologians along with the living Saints esteemed by the sensus fidelium to be a non pope… I’ll treat his words with a grain of salt also.

 

[LongingSoul]

On the Contrary:

I answer: There is nothing especially new about regarding some sacraments as having been invalid; just look at the Donatist controversy. We aren’t worried over proposed new grounds for annulling a marriage; we are worried over talk of quickie annulments and admitting unrepentant cohabiting “married couples” falsely so called, to communion. No one is objecting to the discussion of suggestions that don’t blatantly violate church teaching.

My opinion is that what is being addressed is exactly the validity aspect, however to test faith maturity cannot be done with the type of formulas we would test physical, mental, emotional maturity. It’s never going to be something that could be codified into the official annulment process. Faith is a very fundamental element of a person, that is demonstrated in the life lived, discerned at a different level to the more human aspects of a person. As I say, that is just a thought that strikes me.

Regarding your mention of suicides:
I. The refusal of Christian burial was a warning to others who might consider such actions rather than an attempt at punishing the dead.

II. We don’t believe that, “all suicides as [have] an aspect of mental illness”, or at least we don’t believe that all people who commit suicide are impeded from moral culpability by mental illness. The looseness with which we tend to define mental illness these days makes it almost tautology to say that it is the cause of every suicide.

What the ever growing knowledge of mental illness shows us is that we haven’t yet reached a place of complete definitive understanding of the human mind and sentient experience. The Church reflects that position by not refusing any suicide a Catholic funeral and burial. It’s something left to the mercy of God.

 

[Seraphignatius]

:nope:
Some people give me the impression that they believe god was incarnated 267 times: the second person once as Jesus, and the 3rd person 266 times as pope.

The pope does not necessarily enjoy any special charism besides that implied by the office, namely infallibility under the conditions described in the First Vatican Council. He is a man with warts and all, and sometimes his ideas are bad. We have been blessed by an extraordinary run of comparatively solid popes, including a few saints, through the 20th century, but such periods, and such popes, are the exception not the rule.

P.S. I am not saying that pope Francis has bad Ideas generally, only that his being pope doesn’t prevent it in the least.

 

[livingwordunity]

:nope:
Some people give me the impression that they believe god was incarnated 267 times: the second person once as Jesus, and the 3rd person 266 times as pope.

The pope does not necessarily enjoy any special Charism besides that implied by the office. He is a man with warts and all, and sometimes his ideas are bad. We have been blessed by an extraordinary run of comparatively solid popes, including a few saints, through the 20th century, but such periods, and such popes, are the exception not the rule.

And Jesus implies in the gospel of Matthew that leadership within the Church will be corrupt just before His Second Coming.

“For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.”

• Matthew 24:24

Disclaimer: I’m not calling Pope Francis corrupt. I’m just pointing out that Church leadership is not immune to the possibility of corruption and error. And the Pope is only infallible under specific special circumstances which means that he is fallible at all other times.

 

[Seraphignatius]

My opinion is that what is being addressed is exactly the validity aspect, however to test faith maturity cannot be done with the type of formulas we would test physical, mental, emotional maturity. It’s never going to be something that could be codified into the official annulment process.

Then it should never be used as grounds for admitting the divorced and supposedly remarried to the sacraments.

 

[ProVobis]

Why else would he personally insist them being included in the synod without the two thirds majority?

I don’t know. Is that his criteria for making his decision final?