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

[LongingSoul]

Me to Longing Soul…except, my one stumbling block - that I do not believe that LGBTQ individuals are disordered. It’s so frustrating to be referred to as a heretic because of not following Church teachings on one social issue.

Maybe the use of ‘disordered’ will be addressed in the course of the synods discussions around the language used in reference to homosexuality? The CCC says that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’ and that ‘The inclination is objectively disordered’ … so the Church has been careful not to tar the person per se with the disordered label. As our understanding of the human experience grows, the language and attitudes inevitably grow more reflective of that also. That seems to be the good goal of the synod.

 

[Hans_W]

Maybe the use of ‘disordered’ will be addressed in the course of the synods discussions around the language used in reference to homosexuality? The CCC says that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’ and that ‘The inclination is objectively disordered’ … so the Church has been careful not to tar the person per se with the disordered label. As our understanding of the human experience grows, the language and attitudes inevitably grow more reflective of that also. That seems to be the good goal of the synod.

Yes, that language - and attitude - needs to change. It is just a matter of time.

 

[ProVobis]

As our understanding of the human experience grows, the language and attitudes inevitably grow more reflective of that also. That seems to be the good goal of the synod.

Right. Good luck doing that in several hundred vernaculars.

 

[Maxirad]

MODERATOR NOTE

Cardinal Burke is a controversial figure and discussions here in the past concerning what he has written and said have deviated from CAF rules on charity.

Why has Cardinal Burke been a particularly controversial figure?

 

[pnewton]

Why has Cardinal Burke been a particularly controversial figure?

I prefer to give the Cardinal the benefit of the doubt as to his reasons for giving this type outside of the Church. Whether it was prudent or not, helpful or not, I am sure he had the best intentions. Obviously though such action is going to produce controversy, as some will agree with him, some will disagree.

Here at CAF, all those leaders who choose the public forum, such as this interview, attract the same type of polarization. I personally think we are better served to recognize the strengths and contributions of both sides of issues, such as this synod is presenting, and then accept that the God will work through this process as He sees fit. Sure, the whole process is fraught with human frailties and we can continue to look at the limitations the Holy Spirit has with human will, but this is nothing new. God has 2000 years experience with dealing with humanity in the Church.

 

[Brendan]

Maybe the use of ‘disordered’ will be addressed in the course of the synods discussions around the language used in reference to homosexuality? .

I suppose that they could clarify what that term means, in that is uses very accurate, but highly philosophical terms.

It’s a ‘fancy’ way of stating that homosexual desires, by their nature, are desirous of a goal that is always wrong to achieve. That acting on a homosexual desire will ever be anything other than a moral wrong.

The term is correct, what needs to be done then is to find a way of stating that in a more understandable language.

 

[LongingSoul]

I suppose that they could clarify what that term means, in that is uses very accurate, but highly philosophical terms.

It’s a ‘fancy’ way of stating that homosexual desires, by their nature, are desirous of a goal that is always wrong to achieve. That acting on a homosexual desire will ever be anything other than a moral wrong.

The term is correct, what needs to be done then is to find a way of stating that in a more understandable language.

My sense is that the language will be more open to understanding what homosexual desires mean in the big picture. Maybe they are actually an expression of the higher self and love for God? At the moment we seem to regard homosexuality as a physical or psychological disability that reduces a persons capacity for fulfillment and happiness if you are Catholic. Is that the full story of this condition though? I’ve read the mystical poems of St John of the Cross and to the atheist it would sound like an expression of homosexual love. However, we know them to be an expression of non sexual brotherly devotion and commitment to Christ. The concept of true brotherhood has taken such a beating since being tarred by sexual abuse… not just the Christian Brotherhood, but the whole concept of the deep relationship one man to another in a spiritual quest.

Just some thoughts on the relationship between homosexuality and the concept of spiritual brotherhood.

 

[livingwordunity]

“confusion spreading among Catholics ‘in an alarming way’”

This is true. What else explains why it seems that the majority of western Catholics think that the essentials of the Catholic faith can or must change? We know this not just from polls of western Catholics but also from how most have consistently voted for political candidates who are champions of moral and faith related positions that are the absolute opposite of what the Church teaches.

 

[TMC]

I see little or no confusion among Catholics. I see a few Catholics (mostly on line) who are upset or disappointed that the Church is even discussing certain issues. I don’t see Catholics in real life that are confused.

 

[LongingSoul]

I see little or no confusion among Catholics. I see a few Catholics (mostly on line) who are upset or disappointed that the Church is even discussing certain issues. I don’t see Catholics in real life that are confused.

I agree. In real life, most Catholics seem excited about the new Popes no nonsense determination to bring greater clarity and meaning to the Churchs teachings.

 

[livingwordunity]

I see little or no confusion among Catholics. I see a few Catholics (mostly on line) who are upset or disappointed that the Church is even discussing certain issues. I don’t see Catholics in real life that are confused.

So, for example, you don’t see the contradiction in how most western Catholics are going with the culture in claiming that abortion is a right while the Church says that abortion is murder?

 

[TMC]

So, for example, you don’t see the contradiction in how most western Catholics are going with the culture in claiming that abortion is a right while the Church says that abortion is murder?

Cardinal Burke was not talking about abortion. In any event, contradiction is not confusion. Catholics are not confused about the Church’s teaching on abortion.

 

[livingwordunity]

Cardinal Burke was not talking about abortion. In any event, contradiction is not confusion. Catholics are not confused about the Church’s teaching on abortion.

Whether he was or not, the fact is that there is confusion among Catholics. The Catholics who are claiming that abortion is a right are either ignorant and confused, or they are in open rebellion against the Church.

 

[TMC]

Whether he was or not, the fact is that there is confusion among Catholics. The Catholics who are claiming that abortion is a right are either ignorant and confused, or they are in open rebellion against the Church.

They are neither ignorant nor confused. They disagree with the Church’s teaching, but they are not confused about what it is.

But, as you know, that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which is about the assertion that the Pope opening a conversation on how to deal with the remarried and other family situations is confusing Catholics. I don’t see any confusion.

 

[pnewton]

While I do not see a great deal of “confusion,” what controversy I do see comes from two sources. Both situations arise from reading one’s own opinions are desires into what is said. Those who hold impossible heterodox opinions on such things as abortion, contraception, homosexual marriage, etc., will take see what they want to see often enough, simply because the want to. On the other hand, it is possible for those that hold orthodox opinions to take statements from one clergy man, and because it is orthodox, take it as the only orthodox position, when in fact in many areas there is a range of opinion as to what is orthodox. In the example of civil divorce and communion, not all leaders of the Church agree as to exactly where doctrine ends and discipline begins. They all pretty much agree on the vast majority of the issue as to what is doctrine and what is not, but the few things they disagree on allow for more than one orthodox opinion.

 

[McCall1981]

They are neither ignorant nor confused. They disagree with the Church’s teaching, but they are not confused about what it is.

But, as you know, that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which is about the assertion that the Pope opening a conversation on how to deal with the remarried and other family situations is confusing Catholics. I don’t see any confusion.

At the moment there are Catholics (and non-Catholics) advocating the idea that people who are divorced and remarried, without an annulment, should be allowed to receive communion.

This is in contradiction to what the Church teaches, which means that advocating this idea implies confusion. Not confusion in the sense that they don’t understand what the Church teaches, but confusion in the sense that they have a misunderstanding of the nature of marriage and/or a misunderstanding of the nature of the Eucharist.

IMO, this is what Card Burke is saying.

 

[livingwordunity]

Not confusion in the sense that they don’t understand what the Church teaches, but confusion in the sense that they have a misunderstanding of the nature of marriage and/or a misunderstanding of the nature of the Eucharist.

Exactly!

 

[TMC]

At the moment there are Catholics (and non-Catholics) advocating the idea that people who are divorced and remarried, without an annulment, should be allowed to receive communion.

This is in contradiction to what the Church teaches, which means that advocating this idea implies confusion. Not confusion in the sense that they don’t understand what the Church teaches, but confusion in the sense that they have a misunderstanding of the nature of marriage and/or a misunderstanding of the nature of the Eucharist.

IMO, this is what Card Burke is saying.

OK, an interesting definition of the word “confusion.” I agree that many Catholics, including both high ranking clergy and laypeople, are advocating finding a way to welcome the remarried back to full communion. I also agree that others, including both high ranking clergy and laypeople, are advocating against such a conversation. I don’t find that to be “confusion,” as both groups understand exactly what the Church teaches, and also understand the import of their positions. They disagree, but they are not “confused.”

 

[jeannetherese]

At the moment we seem to regard homosexuality as a physical or psychological disability that reduces a persons capacity for fulfillment and happiness if you are Catholic. /QUOTE]

I’m not sure where the church is stating this. Do you have a quote from the catechism or an authoritative church document to this effect?

 

[LongingSoul]

LongingSoul;12877109:

At the moment we seem to regard homosexuality as a physical or psychological disability that reduces a persons capacity for fulfillment and happiness if you are Catholic.

I’m not sure where the church is stating this. Do you have a quote from the catechism or an authoritative church document to this effect?

The Church addresses it as a ‘disorder’ but ‘we’ as in those of us trying to uphold the natural and biblical objection to homosexuality in practice with charity… are tending to view it as a disability that prevents human fulfillment. That’s why it will be good to have the Church reflect a more rich understanding or more realistic practical approach to homosexuals if it possibly can through theological examination of the issue.