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

[Brendan]

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 agree completely, as I mentioned earlier, the mention of homosexual attraction being intrinsically disordered is too often taken to mean to apply to the person, not the attraction. And even then, too many do not have the philosophical understanding of what ‘ordered’ means, let alone a ‘disorder’

So having a clearer way of stating the Church’s teachings is definitely a good thing.

But the teachings will be the same, no Synod invitee has indicated that any change in that regard is desired, or even possible.

 

[sps49]

I agree completely, as I mentioned earlier, the mention of homosexual attraction being intrinsically disordered is too often taken to mean to apply to the person, not the attraction. And even then, too many do not have the philosophical understanding of what ‘ordered’ means, let alone a ‘disorder’

So having a clearer way of stating the Church’s teachings is definitely a good thing.

But the teachings will be the same, no Synod invitee has indicated that any change in that regard is desired, or even possible.

Considering that the people who are making the most hay out of the current language are well educated and well prepared (a valid assumption since they do have the chops to access the media for the purpose of hay-making), one must wonder if they desire a “clearer” language, or a substantial change in the language. Since most have access to sources of information to help them understand what the words mean, their origin, and common and technical use, what else do you suppose they want done, as regards the language?

 

[TMC]

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.

I think that the distinction between doctrine and discipline, like the distinction between evolution and change, is mostly a semantic construct that depends on the perspective with which each is viewed.

For example, Church teaching has indubitably changed on usury. One can say that the Church still believes that imposing excessive or oppressive financial burdens is sinful, it is just that the Church has evolved its understanding that all interest is sinful to an understanding that only excessive interest is forbidden. That is easy to see and understanding post-hoc. But before the change, few (if anyone) would agree that allowing interest to be charged was anything but a complete change in a Church doctrine. There are many other examples – I am sure you are familiar with the usual list.

I believe that a change will be made in the way the Church deals with the remarried. It will be introduced as a change in discipline, a change in pastoral practice, and so forth. But it will be a real change; which is a good thing (at least in my view).

 

[Brendan]

Considering that the people who are making the most hay out of the current language are well educated and well prepared (a valid assumption since they do have the chops to access the media for the purpose of hay-making), …

From what I see when people discuss it, they do not see the word ‘disordered’ , they do not think in Thomistic terms of what it means for something to be ordered towards something else.

They think in medical terms, which granted, have the same root, but the Church is speaking in Thomistic terms that even most educated people have not learned.

 

[sps49]

From what I see when people discuss it, they do not see the word ‘disordered’ , they do not think in Thomistic terms of what it means for something to be ordered towards something else.

They think in medical terms, which granted, have the same root, but the Church is speaking in Thomistic terms that even most educated people have not learned.

I have a friend who is a theologian, and I had to ask him what some of the words he used meant, when I asked him questions. There is a universe of technical terms that resemble ordinary language, but whose meanings are much more precise. That is a basic skill, to ask questions if you are not sure, right? My point, as you have tipped to, is that the drivers in the debate know better than (presumably) to leap to conclusions designed to ratchet up the rhetoric.

 

[ProVobis]

For example, Church teaching has indubitably changed on usury. One can say that the Church still believes that imposing excessive or oppressive financial burdens is sinful, it is just that the Church has evolved its understanding that all interest is sinful to an understanding that only excessive interest is forbidden. That is easy to see and understanding post-hoc.

Not that easy. What’s excessive?

It seems like if you were to just go with the cost of doing business and take risk into account, that would be more accepted from an ethical business perspective. But that’s my opinion.

Point is one needs to define exactly what is doctrine and practice in Italian, in French, in US English, in Vietnamese, etc. If things aren’t in synch that itself would be confusing.

 

[McCall1981]

**I think that the distinction between doctrine and discipline, like the distinction between evolution and change, is mostly a semantic construct that depends on the perspective with which each is viewed. **

For example, Church teaching has indubitably changed on usury. One can say that the Church still believes that imposing excessive or oppressive financial burdens is sinful, it is just that the Church has evolved its understanding that all interest is sinful to an understanding that only excessive interest is forbidden. That is easy to see and understanding post-hoc. But before the change, few (if anyone) would agree that allowing interest to be charged was anything but a complete change in a Church doctrine. There are many other examples – I am sure you are familiar with the usual list.

I believe that a change will be made in the way the Church deals with the remarried. It will be introduced as a change in discipline, a change in pastoral practice, and so forth. But it will be a real change; which is a good thing (at least in my view).

Well, if you’re starting with the assumption that there is no real distinction between doctrine and discipline, or that the Church has, for all practical purposes, changed doctrines in the past, I don’t really know what to say other than that simply isn’t what the Church believes about itself

As the CDF, Card Muller, Card Burke and many others have been at pains to point out, there can be no separation of doctrine and practice in the way you seem to be suggesting; it would be, as Card Muller put it, “a subtle Christological heresy”.

There are plenty of changes that can be made regarding the remarried. But giving communion to those who are remarried without an annulment cannot be one of them without contradicting the indissolubility of marriage and/or the nature of the Eucharist (which are doctrine).

I thank God that Francis and Card Muller’s recent comments make it seem like, as least as of right now, it is looking less likely that it will actually happen

 

[pnewton]

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.

Divine law does not teach this. A declaration of nullity does not nullify a marriage. It is a recognition that the marriage was *always *invalid. Thus, if the second civil marriage was valid, then it was always, objectively, the only valid marriage and thus not a state of adultery.

Does this really matter? I don’t know. I am not part of the big debate. I just know that it is data that what looks like a state of mortal sin may not be a state of mortal sin, and the parties involved may know this.

PS - Such a situation like this could never happen with those who were* already *Catholic as the second marriage would of necessity be invalid for failure to follow Catholic form of marriage or receive a dispensation from same.

 

[pnewton]

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.

This is one area that not every one in the Church has agreed is strictly doctrinal. If it were, then there could be no consideration of change in the matter.

 

[OraLabora]

There are plenty of changes that can be made regarding the remarried. But giving communion to those who are remarried without an annulment cannot be one of them without contradicting the indissolubility of marriage and/or the nature of the Eucharist (which are doctrine).

One may argue that the doctrine of the nature and culpability for sin, and thus the sacrament of reconciliation, are also involved. And that the application of this doctrine recognizes that habitual mortal sin may involve reduced culpability. This is already clearly spelled out for the sin of masturbation for instance, in the CCC. One can thus argue that there appears to be a logical inconsistency here if we state that this particular sin is somehow exempt from the normal laws governing the assessment of culpability. I’m sure I’m not the only one to spot this inconsistency though I readily admit I am way above my pay grade here. I do think the Holy Father was quite right to ask that this be on the table at the Synod. Of course it’s not surprising that there’s an apparent logical inconsistency. Doctrine may be God-given, but praxis is tainted by the foibles of humans emanating from Original Sin.

It may thus be possible to have room to examine this in the confessional. First however, the divorced and remarried who, for reasons entirely of their own, choose to remain in a conjugal relationship, will have to be admitted to the sacrament of reconciliation, which currently they are not unless they undertake to live as brother and sister.

The things that are not on the table are doctrine, which I thinkeveryone agrees with:

-A valid marriage is indissoluble
-A declaration of nullity means there never was a valid marriage in the first place
-It is gravely sinful to approach the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin.

What some of us don’t agree with, or need clarified is that:

-A continued conjugal relationship, in certain circumstances, while grave matter, does not automatically infer mortal culpability. If it does, then those arguing that point need to explain to the laity why this is the case, in clear terms we can understand. It’s not only the “liberals” that are sowing confusion. So far the explanations from the conservatives on the issue have appeared illogical and confusing to some of us.

Therefore it would seem to me that a first step would be to allow a case-by-case evaluation in the confessional, which would require a change of praxis by first even allowing the divorced and remarried access to that sacrament even if they continue in their conjugal relationship. It can then be assessed if, for instance, “force of acquired habit” reduces the culpability for the conjugal relationship to venial, particularly in the case of someone who bore no or very minimal fault for the original divorce (abandonment, abuse, etc.) and long-standing successful second civil marriage.

I thus don’t fear (unlike many here it appears) that this issue be discussed openly, and why I am somewhat taken aback by the posturing of cardinals and bishops who seem afraid of an honest examination of the question on the table. The Holy Father has asked for an open and honest discussion from all sides in the issue. Let us thus let them get on with the task! If my suspicions about the logical inconsistency are proved wrong by the Magisterium (and not by anyone on this forum… sorry, but I’ll wait for the outcome of the Synod to have my question answered by those most qualified to answer it, and am not interested in arguing the point), then I will do as any Benedictine oblate would do, submit in humble obedience, and pray that these marital circumstances never befall me.

 

[pnewton]

I’m sure I’m not the only one to spot this inconsistency though I readily admit I am way under my pay grade here.

I have noted pretty much everything you said, and am of pretty much of the same mind as you state in your whole post. But if there is one thing I am in uber-agreement with, is that this will all be addressed well above my pay grade as well.

I would give applause for such a great post, but really, most of the time we do that, aren’t we really patting ourselves on the back for having the same opinion! In other words, “brilliantly put because it agrees with me!”

 

[OraLabora]

I have noted pretty much everything you said, and am of pretty much of the same mind as you state in your whole post. But if there is one thing I am in uber-agreement with, is that this will all be addressed well above my pay grade as well.

I would give applause for such a great post, but really, most of the time we do that, aren’t we really patting ourselves on the back for having the same opinion! In other words, “brilliantly put because it agrees with me!”

Yes the mutual self-congratulatory committee, well acquainted with that . I actually spotted a logical inconsistency in my post, I meant “I am way under the required pay grade for those kinds of decisions”.

 

[ProVobis]

And that the application of this doctrine recognizes that habitual mortal sin may involve reduced culpability.

But there is also the issue of scandal, or bad example. Is this practice the one you want kids and neighbors to see as okay and follow as Catholics? Though there very well be reduced culpability such as with drunkenness and the like, there is still responsibility for the act that can’t be shirked. Confession and communion are indeed important but one can’t see them as ends in themselves.

 

[TMC]

Not that easy. What’s excessive?

It seems like if you were to just go with the cost of doing business and take risk into account, that would be more accepted from an ethical business perspective. But that’s my opinion.

Point is one needs to define exactly what is doctrine and practice in Italian, in French, in US English, in Vietnamese, etc. If things aren’t in synch that itself would be confusing.

I agree that it is not easy to determine the current boundaries of the doctrine on charging interest. My point is that the old doctrine was very clear - no interest allowed. There is no question that teaching has changed, as have other teachings.

 

[TMC]

Well, if you’re starting with the assumption that there is no real distinction between doctrine and discipline, or that the Church has, for all practical purposes, changed doctrines in the past, I don’t really know what to say other than **that simply isn’t what the Church believes about itself **

As the CDF, Card Muller, Card Burke and many others have been at pains to point out, there can be no separation of doctrine and practice in the way you seem to be suggesting; it would be, as Card Muller put it, “a subtle Christological heresy”.

There are plenty of changes that can be made regarding the remarried. But giving communion to those who are remarried without an annulment cannot be one of them without contradicting the indissolubility of marriage and/or the nature of the Eucharist (which are doctrine).

I thank God that Francis and Card Muller’s recent comments make it seem like, as least as of right now, it is looking less likely that it will actually happen

It certainly is not what the Church teaches about itself.

My point is that whether something is viewed as able to be changed usually depends on whether it has been changed. 200 years ago, what Catholic would have believed that today’s doctrine on EENS would be possible? 21st century Catholics view today’s EENS doctrine as a growth and evolution of prior EENS doctrine. A 19th century Catholic would view today’s doctrine as a contradiction of the EENS doctrine of that time.

Something similar can (and I believe will) happen with this teaching. The Church will evolve and change the teaching. In retrospect, we will be able to see how the new teaching in really a growth and evolution of the old teaching, even if its hard to imagine now. Just as has happened many times before.

 

[LongingSoul]

I thus don’t fear (unlike many here it appears) that this issue be discussed openly, and why I am somewhat taken aback by the posturing of cardinals and bishops who seem afraid of an honest examination of the question on the table. The Holy Father has asked for an open and honest discussion from all sides in the issue. Let us thus let them get on with the task! If my suspicions about the logical inconsistency are proved wrong by the Magisterium (and not by anyone on this forum… sorry, but I’ll wait for the outcome of the Synod to have my question answered by those most qualified to answer it, and am not interested in arguing the point), then I will do as any Benedictine oblate would do, submit in humble obedience, and pray that these marital circumstances never befall me.

My sentiments also and as a devotee of the Ignatian Way and spirituality, I’ll submit in humble obedience also to the guidance of Pope Francis informed by the synod discussions and the Holy Spirit. Great post, OraLabora!

 

[ProVobis]

My point is that whether something is viewed as able to be changed usually depends on whether it has been changed. 200 years ago, what Catholic would have believed that today’s doctrine on EENS would be possible? 21st century Catholics view today’s EENS doctrine as a growth and evolution of prior EENS doctrine. A 19th century Catholic would view today’s doctrine as a contradiction of the EENS doctrine of that time.

If there is one thing I learned from BrJR, it is this. Heresy does not make one a heretic. (Apostasy is different.) We are not responsible for the actions of our parents and ancestors who perhaps were heretics or apostates. They would have had the problems and perhaps EENS applied to them. If anything the “Ecclesia” has grown to accommodate all our brothers through ecumenism but I wouldn’t say the doctrine has changed.

 

[ProVobis]

I would give applause for such a great post, but really, most of the time we do that, aren’t we really patting ourselves on the back for having the same opinion! In other words, “brilliantly put because it agrees with me!”

I think I am guilty of doing that too.

 

[McCall1981]

One may argue that the doctrine of the nature and culpability for sin, and thus the sacrament of reconciliation, are also involved. And that the application of this doctrine recognizes that habitual mortal sin may involve reduced culpability. This is already clearly spelled out for the sin of masturbation for instance, in the CCC. One can thus argue that there appears to be a logical inconsistency here if we state that this particular sin is somehow exempt from the normal laws governing the assessment of culpability. I’m sure I’m not the only one to spot this inconsistency though I readily admit I am way above my pay grade here. I do think the Holy Father was quite right to ask that this be on the table at the Synod. Of course it’s not surprising that there’s an apparent logical inconsistency. Doctrine may be God-given, but praxis is tainted by the foibles of humans emanating from Original Sin.

It may thus be possible to have room to examine this in the confessional. First however, the divorced and remarried who, for reasons entirely of their own, choose to remain in a conjugal relationship, will have to be admitted to the sacrament of reconciliation, which currently they are not unless they undertake to live as brother and sister.

The things that are not on the table are doctrine, which I thinkeveryone agrees with:

-A valid marriage is indissoluble
-A declaration of nullity means there never was a valid marriage in the first place
-It is gravely sinful to approach the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin.

**What some of us don’t agree with, or need clarified is that:

-A continued conjugal relationship, in certain circumstances, while grave matter, does not automatically infer mortal culpability. If it does, then those arguing that point need to explain to the laity why this is the case, in clear terms we can understand. It’s not only the “liberals” that are sowing confusion. So far the explanations from the conservatives on the issue have appeared illogical and confusing to some of us.**

Therefore it would seem to me that a first step would be to allow a case-by-case evaluation in the confessional, which would require a change of praxis by first even allowing the divorced and remarried access to that sacrament even if they continue in their conjugal relationship. It can then be assessed if, for instance, “force of acquired habit” reduces the culpability for the conjugal relationship to venial, particularly in the case of someone who bore no or very minimal fault for the original divorce (abandonment, abuse, etc.) and long-standing successful second civil marriage.

I thus don’t fear (unlike many here it appears) that this issue be discussed openly, and why I am somewhat taken aback by the posturing of cardinals and bishops who seem afraid of an honest examination of the question on the table. The Holy Father has asked for an open and honest discussion from all sides in the issue. Let us thus let them get on with the task! If my suspicions about the logical inconsistency are proved wrong by the Magisterium (and not by anyone on this forum… sorry, but I’ll wait for the outcome of the Synod to have my question answered by those most qualified to answer it, and am not interested in arguing the point), then I will do as any Benedictine oblate would do, submit in humble obedience, and pray that these marital circumstances never befall me.

To the first part of the bold: The whole problem (and the point of what I, and Card Burke, Muller, etc are saying) is that the indissoluability of marriage, and the sinfulness of approaching the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin are on the table. The prospect of a practice that contradicts them necessarily puts them on the table. You may disagree with that, but that’s the whole point the other side is making.

To the second part of the bold: This exact question was already examined by the Synod of Bishops in 1980, and in Familiaris Consortio. Given that this has already been explained in clear terms, it seems to me that the burden of explanation should fall firmly on those who advocate change. Why should the “conservatives” have to defend something the Church already taught, in the very recent past? Shouldn’t “humble obedience” entail obedience to Familiaris Consortio",the teachings of JPII etc, given that those already are the teachings of the Church on this exact question?

Please see the interview I will post below this with Fr. Granados, he makes the points I’m trying to make much better than I do, and as the Vice president of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in Rome, and consultor to the secretary general of the synod, he is certainly of the “pay grade” you mention.

 

[McCall1981]

It certainly is not what the Church teaches about itself.

My point is that whether something is viewed as able to be changed usually depends on whether it has been changed. 200 years ago, what Catholic would have believed that today’s doctrine on EENS would be possible? 21st century Catholics view today’s EENS doctrine as a growth and evolution of prior EENS doctrine. A 19th century Catholic would view today’s doctrine as a contradiction of the EENS doctrine of that time.

Something similar can (and I believe will) happen with this teaching. The Church will evolve and change the teaching. In retrospect, we will be able to see how the new teaching in really a growth and evolution of the old teaching, even if its hard to imagine now. Just as has happened many times before.

And what I’m saying is that the bolded above is certainly not what the Church teaches or believes about itself.

Doctrine is not provisional. Nor is it known in retrospect. Nor is it ever reversed or made into something new.

Or, as Card Pell said “Doctrine does develop, we understand truth more deeply, but there are no doctrinal back-flips in Catholic history"

cnsblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/cardinal-pell-promises-no-doctrinal-backflips-at-next-family-synod/

For a good explanation of the nature of doctrine, and in particular how it relates to this specific issue, please see the interview with Fr. Granados I’m posting below this.