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

[ProVobis]

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.

Good clarification of the word “confusion.” Not understanding and misunderstanding are two different things.

 

[pnewton]

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.

I think the most anyone in the Church has said is that such a one might be able to receive communion in such a situation, as in, it might be possible to determine that someone is not in a state of mortal sin, that is, adultery.

We already have similar situation, such as living together as brother and sister, and of course, the couple that eventual does receive the annulment were also not in a state of mortal sin before the annulment was complete.

 

[Brendan]

My sense is that the language will be more open to understanding what homosexual desires mean in the big picture.

The Church already has the correct understanding of what homosexual desires are, the the object of the desire, the goal of the desire, is never in accord with the desires of God.

The challenge for the Synod will be to transform that knowledge into a means to support those who reject the inclinations and thus live according to the Will of God, and to bring about the repentance of those who fall victim to such desire and to assist them in recognizing the Truth that God has imparted to the Church.

A big task, assuredly, but not beyond the power of the Spirit

Maybe they are actually an expression of the higher self and love for God?

That which is not ordered towards good cannot be so. And the teachings of the Catechism are true. The can be made more understandable, but will not be changed.

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.

No, that is certainly NOT true, a persons happiness if forever tied to their doing God’s Will. A person with homosexual desiers id]s called never to act on those desires. The true happiness of the person, their fulfillment would be greatest if they accept and embraced such a calling.

Remember the words of Christ, “Not my will, but yours, be done”. That is equally true for every Catholic, and the source of happiness for every 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.

The key to understanding, is the very word you mentioned, “Brotherhood”. Brotherhood is fraternal love, archtypified by the love of Christ for each of us. The love emulates that of Christ sot can never be sexual

 

[McCall1981]

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.”

I don’t think he’s saying the confusion is between the two sides, or that either side is incapable of understanding what the Church says. I think his point is that, since some Catholics are advocating for something that contradicts what the Church already teaches, it necessarily means that those Catholics have confusion somewhere in their line of thinking.

A separate issue is that there are also a lot of people with low information out there that truly don’t have any idea what the Church teaches, and these people are easily confused as well.

 

[jeannetherese]

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.

I’m not sure how this works with our Magisterium; in what way does homosexuality prevent human fulfillment?

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m not sure how this works with our Magisterium; in what way does homosexuality prevent human fulfillment?

My speculation probably doesn’t warrant this depth of examination really. I’m just reflecting on how we see homosexuals as having limited options for sexual fulfillment. Basically it involves choosing to go the path of a traditional marriage against the inclination. Or to remain chaste for life and suck it up.

For heterosexual people there is of course the chance of never finding a mate or of getting into a loveless marriage and being limited by those circumstances in relationship fulfillment… but there remains the possibility still that life circumstances could change naturally.

The Church through her loving language has always been a comfort and consolation to people suffering the worst torments. Many people here would be overjoyed to just say to homosexuals ‘it’s a sin to act on it. You have to suck it up and live chaste and get on with it or you’ll go to hell’. The power of language and its capacity for Gods consolation is one of the most lovely things about the Church. I remember reading Teresa Avilas Interior Castle when I was 35 years old and experiencing for the first time in my life, the God who was Teresa’s lover. My appreciation of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit was so enriched by her personal account of her love.

I find what’s going on with Pope Francis and his goals for the synod to be exciting and courageous for all the above reasons.

 

[Brendan]

My speculation probably doesn’t warrant this depth of examination really. I’m just reflecting on how we see homosexuals as having limited options for sexual fulfillment. Basically it involves choosing to go the path of a traditional marriage against the inclination. Or to remain chaste for life and suck it up…

What would be our message to pedophiles then? They, like all of us, have a cross to bear. If sexual fulfillment is to be a priority of the Church, what accommodations should be made for them.

Is life about sexual fulfillment, or is it about serving God and doing His Will on Earth? For which were we created?

Personal fulfillment only comes with doing God’s Will. As Augustine noted “Our heart was restless until it rested in You”

And Augustine has reason to know, he had a sexually fulfilling life, prior to His conversion. But that life was not what God had intented for him, a chaste one was. And once Augustine came to truly discover and embrace it, THAT was when his heart was content

That is the teaching of the Church, and rightly so, for it is the only true means to personal happiness on Earth.

 

[Tigg]

I think the most anyone in the Church has said is that such a one might be able to receive communion in such a situation, as in, it might be possible to determine that someone is not in a state of mortal sin, that is, adultery.
.

This has been discussed by the bishops as they debate and no doubt will be addressed in October. The big sticking point is that there is no getting around Divine Law which teaches the first marriage is always assumed valid until declared otherwise. Since sexual relations in the second “marriage” are contrary to the fundamentals of church teaching, it will certainly be a real challenge for them to redefine the grave sin of adultery.

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.

**Cardinal Caffarra

Anyone denying there is confusion is the one confused. Those who understand teaching can clearly see the problems and are alarmed; the remarried who are ignorant are believing things that are not true because they want an out to their problem. I believe it’s even worse than we thought!

 

[Tigg]

The Church through her loving language has always been a comfort and consolation to people suffering the worst torments. Many people here would be overjoyed to just say to homosexuals ‘it’s a sin to act on it. You have to suck it up and live chaste and get on with it or you’ll go to hell’. The power of language and its capacity for Gods consolation is one of the most lovely things about the Church.

Although I do not have it at my fingertips, I’m sure you know that in one of the church documents, it states that the condition of homosexuality is **not **neutral. Why is true charity so misunderstood when by its very nature, its intent is for the advancement of the soul? Should we be patronizing and console those in mortal danger? Authentic charity speaks truth because that is what is the most beneficent.

 

[Tigg]

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.

I’m curious as to what you might be suggesting.

 

[TMC]

I don’t think he’s saying the confusion is between the two sides, or that either side is incapable of understanding what the Church says. I think his point is that, since some Catholics are advocating for something that contradicts what the Church already teaches, it necessarily means that those Catholics have confusion somewhere in their line of thinking.

A separate issue is that there are also a lot of people with low information out there that truly don’t have any idea what the Church teaches, and these people are easily confused as well.

If that is what he means, then I respectfully disagree. The Church and its leaders have both a right and an obligation to consider what the Church teaches and whether those teachings need to be adjusted in any way. That is not a source of confusion.

 

[sallybutler]

I think the most anyone in the Church has said is that such a one might be able to receive communion in such a situation, as in, it might be possible to determine that someone is not in a state of mortal sin, that is, adultery.

We already have similar situation, such as living together as brother and sister, and of course, the couple that eventual does receive the annulment were also not in a state of mortal sin before the annulment was complete.

The main confusion I have seen is that people think that getting a divorce means you can’t receive communion. My understanding is that as long as you don’t remarry, you can continue to receive communion.

By saying divorce and remarriage, as opposed to remarriage without an annullment, many people think it is an either/or situation instead of an and situation. Language can lead to misunderstandings.

 

[ProVobis]

The main confusion I have seen is that people think that getting a divorce means you can’t receive communion. My understanding is that as long as you don’t remarry, you can continue to receive communion.

Actually, it extends to cohabitation as well.

 

[sallybutler]

Actually, it extends to cohabitation as well.

True. But isn’t that is an issue whether the co-habitors were married before or not?

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m curious as to what you might be suggesting.

I’m suggesting that as Pope Francis has asked of the synod, it will be good to see how a more loving or meaningful language to relate to those who have this disorder, might be developed within the synodal process. I’m not a trained theologian so all I can do is make amateur observations and speculations based on my lifetime of Catholic reading and practice. One thing I am most adamant about is that the authority of the Pope to guide and lead the Church and his protection of error in his teachings on faith and morals… is a most highly significant tenet of my faith.

 

[McCall1981]

If that is what he means, then I respectfully disagree. The Church and its leaders have both a right and an obligation to consider what the Church teaches and whether those teachings need to be adjusted in any way. That is not a source of confusion.

Well, I obviously can’t claim to speak for him or anything, but I certainly think that is what he is saying, and if so, I fully agree with him.

If by “what the Church teaches” you mean disciplines, then yes, they can make adjustments. But if you mean doctrine, the Church and it’s leaders cannot make “adjustments”. Doctrine develops only in the sense that the Church can further clarify what it already teaches, but it can’t make “adjustments” that contradict what it already teaches.

As Card Burke says, the issue of remarried people without an annulment receiving communion is doctrinal since it concerns the sacraments of marriage and the Eucharist.

 

[ProVobis]

True. But isn’t that is an issue whether the co-habitors were married before or not?

There are a lot of permutations possible but I think you know the “rules” of receiving communion. I just brought up cohabitation as going forward I think that will be more of an issue, seeing fewer and fewer marriages inside the Church per Cara stats.

 

[TMC]

Well, I obviously can’t claim to speak for him or anything, but I certainly think that is what he is saying, and if so, I fully agree with him.

If by “what the Church teaches” you mean disciplines, then yes, they can make adjustments. But if you mean doctrine, the Church and it’s leaders cannot make “adjustments”. Doctrine develops only in the sense that the Church can further clarify what it already teaches, but it can’t make “adjustments” that contradict what it already teaches.

As Card Burke says, the issue of remarried people without an annulment receiving communion is doctrinal since it concerns the sacraments of marriage and the Eucharist.

You can draw semantic lines around certain issues, but the fact is that Church teaching evolves and changes, and has since the very beginning. Whether Church teaching on this point changes, and how, remains to be seen. Personally, I believe change is coming. Given that those opening the conversation are at the very top of the hierarchy, I have some confidence that they are aware of what they are doing, and how this works.

 

[PTL]

Romans 1:24-28

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

The Bible’s teaching is very clear. There is no confusion.

 

[McCall1981]

You can draw semantic lines around certain issues, but the fact is that Church teaching evolves and changes, and has since the very beginning. Whether Church teaching on this point changes, and how, remains to be seen. Personally, I believe change is coming. Given that those opening the conversation are at the very top of the hierarchy, I have some confidence that they are aware of what they are doing, and how this works.

Again, if by “Church teaching” you mean disciplines and things like that, then yes, those have changed. But if you mean doctrines, then no, doctrines have never changed in a way that contradicts what came before.

I don’t like getting into predicting what will happen, but doctrinally speaking, the very top of the hierarchy would be the CDF and the Pope. Given that the CDF continues to flatly say no, and the Pope has now distanced himself, or whatever you want to call it, I don’t agree with your assessment (at least as of right now).

I do think there might be change in regards to the annulment process, and/or related disciplines, like godparents, etc.