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

[Tigg]

It’s a pity that hardness of hearts won’t allow us to consider looking at how we can help people who admit “yes, we made a mess of things, now we have found Christ, and we want the Church to help us grow closer to Him”. It boggles the mind that some think that there is no redemption from past mistakes in this one particular instance unless black-and-white solutions are rigidly applied to very grey circumstances.

The hardness of hearts of which you speak is, in and of itself, judgmental toward those who champion teaching. We are not unkind, nor unloving in any way to uphold truth as the Church has always taught it.

In response to the charge that is being directed toward those who hold firm, instead of judging them as being hard and cold and unmerciful one might think of this consideration:

14…“Amid reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as we have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: “**Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks …(12) To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe.” **

~Pope Leo XIII Sapientiae Christianae~

 

[ProVobis]

You and ProVobis misread what we meant by obedience, we did not say it was an “obedience issue”. We meant that WE would assent to the Magisterium’s decision on this, in humble obedience; I continue to assent to the current teaching even though I suggest reasons why it may need to change; after all the Holy Father has opened the door to at least discussing the issue. Will you assent, should the Magisterium and Holy Father decide differently from what you believe?

Not the way I see it. I’ve been taught that communion isn’t allowed unless one is properly disposed. A bishop may ask a politician, for example, not to receive (this actually has happened) and he will not be properly disposed. If one breaks his fast, he is not properly disposed. Some cultures feel even if they’ve just had sex with their wives, they are not properly disposed. Even if the Vatican rules that one who is remarried is not in the state of mortal sin because of culpability issues, that still doesn’t necessarily make one properly disposed. Maybe what we need is to have someone define exactly what the doctrine is. Then whatever they decide may make some sense to us and we can all “humbly obey,” whatever that means.

 

[Tigg]

The force for examination of this issue has not come from the divorced/remarried ‘demanding the Eucharist on their own terms’. It is actually coming from the clergy and theologians.

That there is a contingent within the Magisterium that wants this re-visited is not being disputed. That they are trying to work toward helping those outside the church is a given. However, the disobedient themselves by their sheer numbers and the fact that some are committing sacrilege - also that families are being destroyed by the culture is, I believe, the impetus for this synod.

 

[ProVobis]

Is that marriage and family really a filthy, sinful, adultery only fit for the fires of hell? When something as beautiful as a living faith and conversion has grown out of a supposedly intrinsically evil plot of soil… what might that be indicating to us.

Just because movies and society have now glorified remarriages inter alia, should that change our moral code?

 

[TMC]

You are of course free to believe that this is really what is going in the Church, but as I keep saying, this is not what the Church teaches or believes about itself. Your entire line of thought here is operating under the assumed premise that the Church is not what it claims to be.

And who knows? Perhaps you are right, but if you are, it would mean that A) the Church is presenting itself falsely, and B) that it is a man-made institution that is making things up as it goes along.

I don’t agree that either 1 or 2 is a required conclusion of my line of thought. The Church is in a constant state of development. That is undeniable - at least without denying the Church’s own history. How the Church describes that development to the world is of little moment to me. I am merely describing how I see it, not condemning it.

 

[TMC]

Maybe then we should define what exactly the doctrine is. I don’t think anyone knows. We can start by asking is communion an end in itself and is sacramental reception of the Eucharist the only type of communion with others.

The Church itself has been wary of setting bright lines and clear divisions. So what exactly is doctrine on the Eucharist? What doctrine is immutable and what is subject to interpretation? What is merely discipline or practice? I am not sure there are clean lines there. The Church does not seem to want clean lines on everything. For example, as I am sure you know, the Church has always declined to provide a list of which teachings are infallible.

Personally, I think that is prudent, and deliberate, to allow the Church the flexibility to change what needs to be changed. I understand that not everyone sees it that way.

To answer your direct question, I do not see the Eucharist as an end in itself, or as the only route communion with others (or God). I am not sure that impacts my opinion on whether the sacrament should be available to the remarried, however.

 

[ProVobis]

The Church is in a constant state of development. That is undeniable - at least without denying the Church’s own history. How the Church describes that development to the world is of little moment to me. I am merely describing how I see it, not condemning it.

It’s unfortunate Church history and previous councils are not taught much these days. Even if they read the documents of Vatican II, that would be an improvement IMO.

 

[McCall1981]

(Ora Labora, I don’t really know how to separate out parts of quotes multiple posts,so I’ve copy/pasted parts of your posts in order to respond)

Ora Labora: But consider this: the woman undergoing multiple abortions has access to the confessional even if she has trouble breaking her “habit” of illicit sex. The divorced and remarried do not unless they resolve to immediately separate or live as brother and sister, neither of which may be particularly easy or possible at that particular moment in their family’s history. Thus, they are cut off from the very sacramental grace that could help them perhaps do better at configuring their lives to Christ’s while awaiting the outcome of their annulment hearing(s). The Church currently teaches that they have to stop now, cold-turkey, if they want to even have access to the confessional. Not everyone has the ability to do that, especially without the help of sacramental grace. It appears to me to be a classic catch-22 situation, which does as the Holy Father said, turn the Eucharist into a prize for the perfect (which none of us are) rather than a medicine for the illness of sin that afflicts us all.

**McCall: Everyone has the same level of “access” to the confessional. Access to the confessional simply requires that the person intend to stop committing their sin. That goes for any sin, be it abortion, adultery, etc, etc. Everyone faces difficulties in resolving to stop their sins, and all sins present difficulties in stopping in one way or another.

What you are asking for is that the one particular sin of adultery in the case of remarriage be treated differently. To everyone else, for every other say, the Church says “you must resolve not to do this anymore, then you can confess and be forgiven”. You are asking the Church to say, “in the instance of remarriage, one does not need to make this resolution right now”.

Your reasons for making this exception sre that it may not be “easy” or “possible” in their current situation, and that they are cut off from sacramental grace which could help them, but that goes for everyone, and for every other sin as well. It’s not easy to resolve to stop any sin. It may not be possible for many people to stop their respective sins right now. That doesn’t change the Church’s teaching on any other sin, it’s simply the reality of Catholicism. People struggling to give up the sin of adultery in remarriage need support and love, not permission, in the exact same way that any other person, giving up any sin, needs love and support, not permission.**

Ora Labora: He does not address the issue of culpability. He is implicitly assuming that all instances of sinful conjugal relations for the divorced and remarried are automatically mortal. This goes against the Church’s own teaching that while gravity is objective, culpability through either ignorance or incomplete control of the will, is subjective. He is discussing things from the point-of-view of high theology, without considering the reality of very wounded people hungering for Christ and wanting His help but having it refused (sacramentally). He is unable to even through empathy, “walk a mile in their shoes”. Next he does not consider that each case may be viewed on individual merit; I don’t think anyone in this discussion, is suggesting that the divorced and remarried be admitted to the Eucharist in all circumstances, for all. We are saying that each case, each degree of culpability, needs to be examined individually, as Cardinal Tagle has suggested. This has to happen in the confessional, and that has to start with first unlocking the door of the confessional for the divorced and remarried. This is what I am saying needs examination by the Synod. What is needed, is a better pastoral approach. I think everyone can agree with that.

**McCall: The “Reduced culpability” thing doesn’t matter one way or the other, because either way it is only applicable within the brother/sister scenario. Reduced culpability doesn’t preemptively give the person permission to sin in the future, it is a retroactive determination of whether a sin was mortal or not.

At the beginning of the process you propose, either the person is required to resolve not commit the sin anymore, or they are not required to do so.

If they are required to resolve not to commit the sin anymore, then we enter the brother/sister situation that the Church already provides. In this scenario, they either follow through on their resolution by not committing the sin, in which case everything is fine anyway.

Or they do not follow through, slip up and commit the sin again. In that case, they admit their sin, and again firmly resolve not to commit the sin again, the same as anyone else slipping up with any other sin. The confessor could make the determination, according to circumstances, that this sin was mortal or not, but the reason they can make this determination in the first place is precisely because the person is already in the brother/sister scenario, they have already made the resolution to stop committing the sin.

Whether they slip up along the way, and whether the slip up is mortal or not, is essentially irrelevant to our discussion here, because it is just normal sin/confession.

Rather, what you seem to be implying is that reduced culpability could preemptively remove the need for resolving not to commit the sin in the first place, or that it could preemptively make a future sin venal rather than mortal. That understanding of reduced culpability is what is problematic.**

 

[McCall1981]

Ora Labora: It’s a pity that hardness of hearts won’t allow us to consider looking at how we can help people who admit “yes, we made a mess of things, now we have found Christ, and we want the Church to help us grow closer to Him”. It boggles the mind that some think that there is no redemption from past mistakes in this one particular instance unless black-and-white solutions are rigidly applied to very grey circumstances.

**McCall: Card Muller says: “The only possibility is to return to the first, legitimate union, or to live in the second union as brother and sister: that is the Church’s position, in agreement with the will of Jesus. I would add that it is always possible to try and obtain an annulment from an ecclesiastical tribunal.”

My guess would be that if anyone here said this same thing, you would accuse us of having “hard hearts”. But if the head of the CDF, is saying something you would consider to be of hard heart, perhaps that should be an indication that you might want to rethink some of your assumptions.**

 

[LongingSoul]

Just because movies and society have now glorified remarriages inter alia, should that change our moral code?

There’s no suggestion that the basic moral code should change. I mean marriage requires permanence and fidelity to be the human and divine institution its called to be by nature and God.

Going back to the then Cardinal Ratzingers comments on the issue… in the past, the institution was supported by the culture and at a time when the majority of marriages lasted a lifetime, the fact was that divorcing was both socially taboo and personally debilitating. Marriage served a really important natural and cultural service that could be appreciated by all involved. In the past, a person with a weak faith was still able to value the role of marriage because of the cultural conditions.

Culturally today with the strong emphasis on personal happiness and independence and our capacity to achieve that, people aren’t culturally conditioned to value marriage over happiness and independence. So there are many more people born and raised Catholic, entering into sacramental marriages, without understanding or the requisite faith. Over time, the meaning of ‘valid’ marriage has had to change to include more than just valid form and valid matter. Now there is even more question around a true valid marriage because of the cultural effect on peoples ability to understand its natural and divine roots.

The fact is that people often come to appreciate the roots of true marriage through the experience of it and that leads them into the arms of the Church where we long for belonging by virtue of the grace in our life experiences. Strangely this process reminds me of the making of yogurt or beer. Most products can be manufactured by following man made processes… but some products have to mature internally and can only be observed and tested as good after that internal process has come to maturation.

 

[OraLabora]

There’s no suggestion that the basic moral code should change. I mean marriage requires permanence and fidelity to be the human and divine institution its called to be by nature and God.

Going back to the then Cardinal Ratzingers comments on the issue… in the past, the institution was supported by the culture and at a time when the majority of marriages lasted a lifetime, the fact was that divorcing was both socially taboo and personally debilitating. Marriage served a really important natural and cultural service that could be appreciated by all involved. In the past, a person with a weak faith was still able to value the role of marriage because of the cultural conditions.

Culturally today with the strong emphasis on personal happiness and independence and our capacity to achieve that, people aren’t culturally conditioned to value marriage over happiness and independence. So there are many more people born and raised Catholic, entering into sacramental marriages, without understanding or the requisite faith. Over time, the meaning of ‘valid’ marriage has had to change to include more than just valid form and valid matter. Now there is even more question around a true valid marriage because of the cultural effect on peoples ability to understand its natural and divine roots.

The fact is that people often come to appreciate the roots of true marriage through the experience of it and that leads them into the arms of the Church where we long for belonging by virtue of the grace in our life experiences. Strangely this process reminds me of the making of yogurt or beer. Most products can be manufactured by following man made processes… but some products have to mature internally and can only be observed and tested as good after that internal process has come to maturation.

 

[McCall1981]

I don’t agree that either 1 or 2 is a required conclusion of my line of thought. The Church is in a constant state of development. That is undeniable - at least without denying the Church’s own history. How the Church describes that development to the world is of little moment to me. I am merely describing how I see it, not condemning it.

“The Church develops” is an ambiguous phrase. Disciplines and administrative rules etc change, fine.

But the Church, clearly and unambiguously, states that it’s doctrines do not change. Whether you can, or can’t, understand which teachings are doctrine doesn’t matter, the Church says they are there in objective reality.

If, as you say, the Church can potentially change anything, then when the Church says “we have infallible Truths that cannot change”, it must be either incorrect or lying.

 

[OraLabora]

My guess would be that if anyone here said this same thing, you would accuse us of having “hard hearts”. But if the head of the CDF, is saying something you would consider to be of hard heart, perhaps that should be an indication that you might want to rethink some of your assumptions.

I can only answer with the words of the Holy Father himself:

1. The Church is called to be the house of the Father, with doors always wide open. One concrete sign of such openness is that our church doors should always be open, so that if someone, moved by the Spirit, comes there looking for God, he or she will not find a closed door. There are other doors that should not be closed either. Everyone can share in some way in the life of the Church; everyone can be part of the community, nor should the doors of the sacraments be closed for simply any reason. This is especially true of the sacrament which is itself “the door”: baptism. The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.[51] These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness. Frequently, we act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators. But the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems.

1. If the whole Church takes up this missionary impulse, she has to go forth to everyone without exception. But to whom should she go first? When we read the Gospel we find a clear indication: not so much our friends and wealthy neighbours, but above all the poor and the sick, those who are usually despised and overlooked, “those who cannot repay you” (Lk 14:14). There can be no room for doubt or for explanations which weaken so clear a message. Today and always, “the poor are the privileged recipients of the Gospel”,[52] and the fact that it is freely preached to them is a sign of the kingdom that Jesus came to establish. We have to state, without mincing words, that there is an inseparable bond between our faith and the poor. May we never abandon them.

1. Let us go forth, then, let us go forth to offer everyone the life of Jesus Christ. Here I repeat for the entire Church what I have often said to the priests and laity of Buenos Aires: I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security. I do not want a Church concerned with being at the centre and which then ends by being caught up in a web of obsessions and procedures. If something should rightly disturb us and trouble our consciences, it is the fact that so many of our brothers and sisters are living without the strength, light and consolation born of friendship with Jesus Christ, without a community of faith to support them, without meaning and a goal in life.More than by fear of going astray, my hope is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe, while at our door people are starving and Jesus does not tire of saying to us: “Give them something to eat” (Mk 6:37).

(my bold) from Evangelii Gaudium, by Pope Francis

What more can I say?

 

[ProVobis]

The fact is that people often come to appreciate the roots of true marriage through the experience of it …

I won’t dispute that. But where do we draw the line? At one remarriage? At two remarriages? After each novelty wears off, it seems that we are faced with the same dilemma, albeit with a different partner, who’s probably facing the same struggles with personal relationships. Maybe some of us just aren’t called into the married state but try to force it anyway.

 

[Brant]

I have read the majority of these posts, and thought about my response. While, the Pope is indeed in a the highest and authorative position within the Church, he is still a man. A man who, by God, has been given free will. I’m sorry, not even the Pope is excused from error. God certainly may guide the Pope in his decisions but he isn’t a puppet and God doesn’t have his hand up his back manipulating everything he says and does. God doesn’t work that way. So to say that the Pope is excused from his actions regarding giving policies,etc in my opinion is rather arrogant. The Pope still must answer to God and no human is perfect and we all make mistakes including the Pope and we aren’t excused from those mistakes.

Now, I am very fond of Pope Francis, and I will say by his actions and his overwhelming faith is what drew me back to the Catholic Church. I had rather lost interest due to the actions of certain Popes who in my opinion were just putting on a show and enjoying there glorified position. Regardless, I commend Pope Francis for exploring issues, for taking a stand and challenging policies and the way the Church in the path has treated individuals.

In conclusion. Regardless of who the Pope is, I will always place faith in God, for he alone is perfect.

 

[ProVobis]

Now, I am very fond of Pope Francis, and I will say by his actions and his overwhelming faith is what drew me back to the Catholic Church. I had rather lost interest due to the actions of certain Popes who in my opinion were just putting on a show and enjoying there glorified position. Regardless, I commend Pope Francis for exploring issues, for taking a stand and challenging policies and the way the Church in the path has treated individuals.

I don’t think it’s fair to characterize previous Popes that way. They all had to deal with hard and serious issues. I just wonder if perhaps Pope Francis, being a champion of the more unfortunate members of society (the poor, hungry, homeless, sick), isn’t somehow being manipulated by those who are pressing for their own self-serving agenda. Where is the concern for children in the matter of communion for the remarrieds, for example?

 

[OraLabora]

Where is the concern for children in the matter of communion for the remarrieds, for example?

Which children? Those of the first union, or of the second? How do you weigh the needs of those in (for argument’s sake) a long lost first union, and those of a long-lasting stable second union? Would separation or destabilization of the second union somehow right the problems of those of the first? Or would it just add the children of the second union to the list of problems society is left with? What if children of both unions are living and well-cared for in the second union due to abandonment of a spouse from the first but a good-hearted second spouse considering the children of the first union as his or her own?

Our social problems have caused messy problems for the Church to solve that she could not predict when divorce was something exceedingly rare and very taboo! There are no easy answers. Somehow the Church has to pick through the ruins of our society and find the best path forward that will serve the children (which implicitly means preserving the second union if it produced children), while at the same time bringing the couple (and their children) closer to Christ.

This is precisely why we need an (open and honest) Synod on the issue.

 

[McCall1981]

I can only answer with the words of the Holy Father himself:

(my bold) from Evangelii Gaudium, by Pope Francis

What more can I say?

Well, the above is a vague (I don’t mean vague in a negative way, just that it’s non-specific) call to try to include the excluded in the life of the Church. Fine.

The CDF, under Francis of course, issued a specific and official response, after the last Synod (and after Evangelii Gaudium for that matter) to this specific question:

[Responsum] To the Question of a French Priest: “Can a confessor grant absolution to a penitent who, having been religiously married, has contracted a second union following divorce?”

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responded on October 22, 2014:

"We cannot exclude a priori the remarried divorced faithful from a penitential process that would lead to a sacramental reconciliation with God and, therefore, also to Eucharistic communion. Pope John Paul II, in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (n. 84) envisaged such a possibility and detailed its conditions: ‘Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’.’ (cf. also Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, n. 29)

The penitential process to be undertaken must take into consideration the following elements:

1 – Verify**] the validity of the religious marriage in the respect of truth, all the while avoiding giving the impression of a kind of ‘Catholic divorce’.

2 – See eventually if the persons, with the aid of grace, can separate from their new partners and reconcile with those from whom they had separated.

3 – Invite remarried divorced persons who, for serious reasons (for instance, children), cannot separate from their partner to live as ‘brother and sister’.

In any event, absolution cannot be granted if not under the condition of being assured of true contrition, that is, ‘a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future’ (Council of Trent, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, c. 4). In this line, a remarried divorcee cannot be validly absolved if he does not take the firm resolution of not ‘sinning for the future’ and therefore of abstaining from the acts proper to spouses, by doing in this sense all that is within his power."

Luis F. Ladaria, SJ
Titular Archbishop of Thibica,
Secretary

So, what are we to make of this? I mean, it’s one thing to argue over the interpretation of a vague statement, but isn’t it quite another to discount a specific statement from the CDF?

 

[ProVobis]

Which children?

Those who are scandalized. To worry only about one own culpability is doing a grave injustice to the children IMO. They are very much influenced by home life.

I believe the Pope made big-time mention of children this morning, not necessarily those who are scandalized.

 

[kozlosap]

If you were the CEO of Microsoft and one of your many vice presidents was continually appearing in the press touting how much better the iPad is compared to the Surface 3, what would you do? Without a doubt, the VP would be canned. Papa Francis is interested in being more inclusive, not being part of a good old boys club that is dismissive of the Gospels yet stands firm on dogma without charity. The Holy Spirit did his job quite well in March of 2013!