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

[McCall1981]

To those who might call us Pharisees and inundated with legalism, here are some thoughts I love - don’t they speak to the heart and also the truth?

Beautiful quote

 

[ProVobis]

And then what? The Church bars access to the Eucharist to anyone with children as it is evidence of “fornication” outside a valid marriage?

Don’t know. I’m more worried about access to confession. I think you indicated you did as well.

 

[Brendan]

And then what? The Church bars access to the Eucharist to anyone with children as it is evidence of “fornication” outside a valid marriage?

No, if anyone sins, the Church places the simple requirement that they repent, confess their sin and have the intention of not commiting sin again.

That applies to everyone.

The Church’s mission will always be to minister to souls.

Exactly, see above

Somehow she will have to find a way to adapt that mission to reality by reaching out to people where they’re at, or become irrelevant herself. We are already well down that path, alas. I’m not sure circling the wagons to keep the riff-raff out will be an effective long-term solution.

No keeping out of riff-raf,f Quite the Church has an obligation, for the salvation of souls, to point out what acts are contray to God and to bring about the repentance from sin.

Yes, we reach out to all, and then bring them into a life that is lived according to the commandments of God.

A great example is Christ and the rich young man. Christ reached out the young man, and having many posssions was not sinful of itself.

Christ presented what was required, to forgo attachments to things not of Christ. They young man then had the choice, to give up what was harmful to his spiritual wellbeing or to walk away.

The Church can do no differently than Christ. Christ did not water down what was required, perhaps the man would have stayed if Christ simply told him he could keep the house, but the fine clothes and chariot had to go. Or maybe only having a banquet only once a week, not every other day would have been enough.

Should Christ have adapted the teachings to accommodate rich men who did not wish to give up material attachments? Did He not care about their salvation as well?

 

[Brendan]

Don’t know. I’m more worried about access to confession. I think you indicated you did as well.

We discussed this earlier in the thread. Confession is certainly open. There has to be a desire to regularize the marriage. To forgo the marital act until an annulment is obtained.

There has to be a recognition that attempting the marital act in such situations is grave matter and to a commitment to avoid it.

That is due to the nature of the Sacrament itself, the matter of the Sacrament is the sins. If they are hidden and not offered, it then becomes a simulation of a Sacrament, a sin of itself, and of greater gravitiy.

So do we change the teaching on the Sacrament of Reconciliation, so that penitence of one’s sins is no longer required, and the deliberate withholding of sin is not a violation of the Sacrament

 

[Tigg]

So do we change the teaching on the Sacrament of Reconciliation, so that penitence of one’s sins is no longer required, and the deliberate withholding of sin is not a violation of the Sacrament

Yes - we’ve asked this before as well - did Card Kaspar address this in any way in his proposal to clear up this confusion? There is a third sacrament involved as well - that of the Anointing of the Sick.
Card De Paolis has put a footnote in his document on the divorced and civilly remarried:

Also in regard to the Anointing of the Sick, the provisions of Canon 1007 should be recalled, according to which this sacrament is not to be conferred upon those who persevere obstinately in manifest grave sin. This canon is similar to 915 which requires ministers to refuse the Eucharist to those who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.” The faithful in such a case cannot fruitfully receive the sacraments whereby the Church entrusts the sick to the Lord to relieve and save them (Can. 998.)

 

[OraLabora]

Yes - we’ve asked this before as well - did Card Kaspar address this in any way in his proposal to clear up this confusion? There is a third sacrament involved as well - that of the Anointing of the Sick.
Card De Paolis has put a footnote in his document on the divorced and civilly remarried:

The bit on the anointing of the sick is very worrying. On the surface it seems to suggest that a repentant murderer can have a deathbed conversion but someone divorced and remarried cannot.

Pray tell that the Church won’t withhold sacramental grace to someone on their deathbed… or should I read it to mean that this applies to someone on their deathbed who refuses to express contrition for their irregular marital status but that someone truly sorry can receive the anointing?

Clearly the Holy Father is right in wanting these issues discussed to clear up such confusion.

 

[ProVobis]

The bit on the anointing of the sick is very worrying. On the surface it seems to suggest that a repentant murderer can have a deathbed conversion but someone divorced and remarried cannot.

Pray tell that the Church won’t withhold sacramental grace to someone on their deathbed… or should I read it to mean that this applies to someone on their deathbed who refuses to express contrition for their irregular marital status but that someone truly sorry can receive the anointing?

I have never heard this to be the case. Danger of death is an exception to many things in Canon Law. Even gives suspended priests faculties.

 

[OraLabora]

I have never heard this to be the case. Danger of death is an exception to many things in Canon Law. Even gives suspended priests faculties.

I know, that’s why I was alarmed at the paragraph that Tigg quoted. I figure I have to be missing something there.

 

[Ender]

The bit on the anointing of the sick is very worrying. On the surface it seems to suggest that a repentant murderer can have a deathbed conversion but someone divorced and remarried cannot.

Pray tell that the Church won’t withhold sacramental grace to someone on their deathbed… or should I read it to mean that this applies to someone on their deathbed who refuses to express contrition for their irregular marital status but that someone truly sorry can receive the anointing?

Clearly the Holy Father is right in wanting these issues discussed to clear up such confusion.

Where is the confusion? It has always been taught that forgiveness requires repentance, and repentance includes contrition. Without contrition no one can be forgiven. If the murderer is truly contrite he may be forgiven. If the person who was remarried is not, then forgiveness is not available. It isn’t that this is confusing, but that it seems harsh, and we would like an exception.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

or should I read it to mean that this applies to someone on their deathbed who refuses to express contrition for their irregular marital status but that someone truly sorry can receive the anointing?

That teaching is already clear, those who repent of their sins, especially grave manifest sins, are fully welcome to the Sacraments.

Those who persist cannot be absolved, as there would be no matter for the Sacrament

The resolution to live a brother and sister ( or in the deathbed) the contrition for having failed to live as brother and sister, is already accepted as means to the Sacraments ( Familaris Consortio)

FYI, you seem to have quite a few of these questions, I would suggest that you read that wonderful, pastor document from Pope St. John Paul II

 

[Brendan]

Here is Pope St John Paul II, Familaris Consortio #84

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.”

 

[Tigg]

I know, that’s why I was alarmed at the paragraph that Tigg quoted. I figure I have to be missing something there.

Canon 1007 excludes the giving of the sacrament of [The Anointing of the Sick] to those who are manifestly unrepentant. If the person is still conscious the way to the state of grace is through the Sacrament of Penance, not through Anointing of the Sick. Having repented, they can then be anointed. If the sick person is unconscious and is known to have obstinately persisted in grave sin up to the point of losing consciousness, with no sign of repentance, they cannot be anointed. However, this is a high bar for denying the sacrament. Such a person who showed even an implicit sign of repentance (e.g. “please call the priest”), could be anointed. Another person who while not an obstinate sinner was nonetheless in the state of grave sin, but who had manifested an habitual desire to die a Catholic, could be anointed, even if he became unconscious in the very act of sinning. The basis of the different treatment is a prudent judgment that given their habitual frame of mind the person would repent if he could.

From the EWTN library (toward the bottom)

ewtn.com/expert/answers/anointing_of_the_sick.htm

Sorry, Ora, but maybe this will help us see that everything begins with repentance for having turned one’s back on God…and the reason we are so concerned with the “theorems” being discussed.

 

[LongingSoul]

Sorry, Ora, but maybe this will help us see that everything begins with repentance for having turned one’s back on God…and the reason we are so concerned with the “theorems” being discussed.

The letter of the law certainly seems to exclude all but holy few from anointing but the pastoral reality is not like that. Priests working on the ground are aware that conditions like alcoholism for example can severely impact on a persons ability to be prepared appropriately for anointing. I never heard of my uncle the Priest ever refusing a family or friends request for the anointing of a dying person despite his being the go to ‘anointer’ for the homeless and general wretched in the country town he is in at the moment. I think it would benefit you to really talk to the Priests who live among the riff raff and generously live the pastoral reality of our faith.

 

[McCall1981]

The letter of the law certainly seems to exclude all but holy few from anointing but the pastoral reality is not like that. Priests working on the ground are aware that conditions like alcoholism for example can severely impact on a persons ability to be prepared appropriately for anointing. I never heard of my uncle the Priest ever refusing a family or friends request for the anointing of a dying person despite his being the go to ‘anointer’ for the homeless and general wretched in the country town he is in at the moment. I think it would benefit you to really talk to the Priests who live among the riff raff and generously live the pastoral reality of our faith.

Oh, please. The letter of the law says that anyone that “shows even an implicit sign of repentance” can be anointed. Only those that are “manifestly unrepentant” can’t be. That’s about as low of a bar as could possibly be set.

 

[Brendan]

The letter of the law says that anyone that “shows even an implicit sign of repentance” can be anointed. Only those that are “manifestly unrepentant” can’t be. That’s about as low of a bar as could possibly be set.

That was kind of my take as well, the ‘holy few’ that these Sacraments are reserved for would be those that show even the smallest level of repentance of their sins.

Which is right and proper, without that, there can be no absolution.

 

[J_Peterson]

To those who might call us Pharisees and inundated with legalism, here are some thoughts I love - don’t they speak to the heart and also the truth?

This is off topic so I appologize, but thanks for that quote. I spent about five minutes reading about Jean Daniélou and I am intrigued. Sounds like a facinating guy. I’m looking forward to reading him.

 

[LongingSoul]

That was kind of my take as well, the ‘holy few’ that these Sacraments are reserved for would be those that show even the smallest level of repentance of their sins.

Which is right and proper, without that, there can be no absolution.

On the ground, in the trenches of life, ‘manifestly unrepentant’ basically means being hostile to the Church teachings based on some understanding or even misunderstanding of it. Having contrition does not always manifest as “repentance for having turned one’s back on God” as strictly defined by your standards. Many Catholics not adequately catechized haven’t got the ability to either say or comprehend the spirit of, the act of contrition. Contrition can manifest as suffering and the desire for inner peace and that is evidence enough for most Priests who come to anoint.

 

[jeannetherese]

On the ground, in the trenches of life, ‘manifestly unrepentant’ basically means being hostile to the Church teachings based on some understanding or even misunderstanding of it. ** Having contrition does not always manifest as “repentance for having turned one’s back on God” as strictly defined by your standards. Many Catholics not adequately catechized haven’t got the ability to either say or comprehend the spirit of, the act of contrition. Contrition can manifest as suffering and the desire for inner peace and that is evidence enough for most Priests** who come to anoint.

Hello Longing Soul,
Do you have documentation for either of your statements which I have bolded? With what authority do you speak for most priests who come to anoint?
Thanks and may God bless you.
jt

 

[Brendan]

On the ground, in the trenches of life, ‘manifestly unrepentant’ basically means being hostile to the Church teachings based on some understanding or even misunderstanding of it. Having contrition does not always manifest as “repentance for having turned one’s back on God” as strictly defined by your standards. Many Catholics not adequately catechized haven’t got the ability to either say or comprehend the spirit of, the act of contrition. Contrition can manifest as suffering and the desire for inner peace and that is evidence enough for most Priests who come to anoint.

I think we are in agreement, which is why your statement

The letter of the law certainly seems to exclude all but holy few from anointing

So where did you get that the letter stated that only a ‘holy few’ can be anointed.

Especially when this was provided for your PRIOR to your statement

Such a person who showed even an implicit sign of repentance (e.g. “please call the priest”), could be anointed

So the words “please call a priest” are considered by the Church to be sufficient repentance to justify anointing.

So where, exactly, do you get that there is a restriction to just a holy few?

 

[LongingSoul]

I think we are in agreement, which is why your statement

So where did you get that the letter stated that only a ‘holy few’ can be anointed.

Especially when this was provided for your PRIOR to your statement

So the words “please call a priest” are considered by the Church to be sufficient repentance to justify anointing.

So where, exactly, do you get that there is a restriction to just a holy few?

The case of anointing of the sick was brought up as one of the sacraments barred to divorce/remarrieds with the quote from a Card. … “Also in regard to the Anointing of the Sick, the provisions of Canon 1007 should be recalled, according to which this sacrament is not to be conferred upon those who persevere obstinately in manifest grave sin. This canon is similar to 915 which requires ministers to refuse the Eucharist to those who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.” The faithful in such a case cannot fruitfully receive the sacraments whereby the Church entrusts the sick to the Lord to relieve and save them (Can. 998.)”

It was implied that divorced/remarrieds who aren’t fully reconciled to Church teaching, can’t be repentant. I’m saying that in reality, Priests give people a lot of ‘leeway’ considering that many are or were poorly catechised when they made life choices that can’t be easily resolved.