What Cardinal Burke really said about 'resisting' Pope Francis

[_Abyssinia]

Yes

I am not sure I 100% understand you, but anyway I was reading about this before and the reality is there just are cases where is not enough evidence and the person can not get that annulment. I feel sympathy for these people, but that is just the reality.

 

[Ender]

I would add to Sirach’s scenario that these couples are couples who by their lives demonstrate the fruits of the holy love that the Sacrament of marriage indicates. They have embraced the faith with genuine maturity participating in parish life and the Mass, raising their offspring in the Faith and being alive in Christ in their marriage. The couples being addressed by this issue are those now living the faith.

Your conditions go to the state of the remarried individual in the present, but the real issue goes to the state of first marriage. The only real question is: was the first marriage valid? If it was valid then can anything done subsequently change that, and if the validity of the first marriage cannot be affected by subsequent actions, then what relevance is there in the fact that they are now model Catholics? When all is said and done, either people can divorce from a valid marriage and remarry or they can’t, and if we say that they can what does this mean regarding Jesus’ assertion that such an action constituted adultery?

Ender

 

[ProVobis]

They have embraced the faith with genuine maturity participating in parish life and the Mass, raising their offspring in the Faith and being alive in Christ in their marriage.

Raising the offspring aside, how can they be embracing their faith totally by being involved in a marriage performed outside the Church?

 

[Sirach2]

Here is the article I mentioned, but I am omitting the link and the Administrator’s name.

Now, having been in that place – of following all those encouragements, but being apart from the sacraments – here are a few things that happened:

• The priest in our local parish refused to have us “in his church”.
• The “community” (in another parish, of course) held us at arms length because of our “differences” from them. In other words, we weren’t “real Catholics”, just sinners in a pew that were tolerated, but not embraced.
• After a long and painful effort to obtain an annulment, and despite the “agreement” of the Tribunal’s office that the evidence showed just grounds, the “letter of the law” said “No!”. I could appeal that to Rome (but good luck with both affording that and getting it resolved in my lifetime!)
• Despite our best efforts to explain it, when our daughter found that we were barred from sacramental Confession and Communion, the child developed an irrational fear of Confession, and ultimately, a disdain for the Church – not to mention deciding that her parents were misguided idiots who held onto superstition.
• The advice from the diocese was to seek resolution through “internal forum”. Our pastor acknowledged that every indication was that this current union could be embraced as sacramental, and that the previous one could not. So we received the sacraments, presuming they were “worthily” received.
• Rome said (afterward) that such recourse was invalid. (Oops…Domine non sum dignus!)
• We were told that we could “right” the situation by obtaining a civil divorce (thereby destroying the family we had now built, and subjecting our child to such brokenness.)
• We were transferred out of state, and discussed the situation with our new pastor, who responded, “We don’t “do” bureaucratic annulments here. Just follow your conscience.” That created a chasm between spouses, with one on either side of the divide, engendering incredible stress levels over whether or not we “should” receive the sacraments.

Thankfully, my husband and I continued to seek His mercy, but so many simply don’t, as the attitude toward them is so often negative, and the process is daunting.

Being consigned as a “back pew Catholic” who can observe but not participate in the sacraments has a lot of problems. Apart from the obvious which creates a “second class Catholic”, bear in mind that one cannot go to Confession, so becomes hardened. Thus it becomes “natural” to simply “shrug off” wrongdoing instead of seeking God’s grace to overcome inclinations, instead of receiving the pastoral advice needed to grow spiritually. What pastoral “care” is that?

I also wonder about the concept of “living together as brother and sister” on the very grounds the tribunal assesses to determine if the current relationship is sacramental. How can it demonstrate matrimonial grace under those circumstances? If the current relationship is “sacramental”, then the two become one flesh and cleave to one another. No one ever explains that to a couple in terms of complete (meaning nuances as well as intimate contact) celibacy, so how are they to understand it?

In a terrible irony, a priest can sin, then ask, “Lord, wash away my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin,” and be spiritually empowered to confect the greatest miracle in all eternity. But the individuals who mistakenly stepped into a bad situation and then into a good one – one which bears good fruit for the world, even – cannot be cleansed without a paper from presumably impartial strangers in the diocese, via a process that is naturally affected by human imperfection.

The problem is so multi-faceted! It is indeed correct that a sacramental marriage should never be set aside, so the question comes down to: what makes it sacramental? Can one actually say that because a person “seems” to have had the correct disposition on the day of a ceremony, that brutalizing a spouse, or committing serial adultery is part of being sacramental? Or (as in my case) because insufficient witness statements (from my ex’s side) fail to either support or counter the claim, the application is denied, leaving the “sacrament” intact. Really?

One can’t be “un-baptized”; neither can they be made to be “un-married”. The attempts of the hierarchy to protect the sacrament are certainly laudable; but somewhere in there needs to be a better system of restoring people to grace. As Jesus made clear to us, giving abundant grace to the world is the Father’s most ardent desire. So how will we be instruments of His grace?

 

[Corki]

I meant no disrespect, but Lapey, but you are only a step above a layman, without the advanced studies of a bishop or cardinal.

Whether you meant it or not, that was very disrespectful both to deacons and to laymen. There is no “step above” a layman. A person is either ordained or not ordained. A deacon is ordained.

But, besides that, bishops are generalists by necessity. They usually have advanced degrees but those are just as likely to be in Old Testament studies or Eschatology as in Canon Law or Sacramental Theology. The subject matter experts, those with relevant “advanced studies” are almost always laymen.

 

[SWolf]

Here is the article I mentioned, but I am omitting the link and the Administrator’s name.

*]After a long and painful effort to obtain an annulment, and despite the “agreement” of the Tribunal’s office that the evidence showed just grounds, the “letter of the law” said “No!”. I could appeal that to Rome (but good luck with both affording that and getting it resolved in my lifetime!)

More details needed.

 

[Sirach2]

Whether you meant it or not, that was very disrespectful both to deacons and to laymen. There is no “step above” a layman. A person is either ordained or not ordained. A deacon is ordained.

:bowdown2:
However, he and laypersons do not have the grace of Office for deciding this issue, so while many hold private opinions based on private study and/or training, they are not the going to be invested with the grace to anticipate the outcome of the synod. Do you feel better now?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Here is the article I mentioned, but I am omitting the link and the Administrator’s name.

Now, having been in that place – of following all those encouragements, but being apart from the sacraments – here are a few things that happened:

• The priest in our local parish refused to have us “in his church”.
• The “community” (in another parish, of course) held us at arms length because of our “differences” from them. In other words, we weren’t “real Catholics”, just sinners in a pew that were tolerated, but not embraced.
• After a long and painful effort to obtain an annulment, and despite the “agreement” of the Tribunal’s office that the evidence showed just grounds, the “letter of the law” said “No!”. I could appeal that to Rome (but good luck with both affording that and getting it resolved in my lifetime!)
• Despite our best efforts to explain it, when our daughter found that we were barred from sacramental Confession and Communion, the child developed an irrational fear of Confession, and ultimately, a disdain for the Church – not to mention deciding that her parents were misguided idiots who held onto superstition.
• The advice from the diocese was to seek resolution through “internal forum”. Our pastor acknowledged that every indication was that this current union could be embraced as sacramental, and that the previous one could not. So we received the sacraments, presuming they were “worthily” received.
• Rome said (afterward) that such recourse was invalid. (Oops…Domine non sum dignus!)
• We were told that we could “right” the situation by obtaining a civil divorce (thereby destroying the family we had now built, and subjecting our child to such brokenness.)
• We were transferred out of state, and discussed the situation with our new pastor, who responded, “We don’t “do” bureaucratic annulments here. Just follow your conscience.” That created a chasm between spouses, with one on either side of the divide, engendering incredible stress levels over whether or not we “should” receive the sacraments.

Thankfully, my husband and I continued to seek His mercy, but so many simply don’t, as the attitude toward them is so often negative, and the process is daunting.

Being consigned as a “back pew Catholic” who can observe but not participate in the sacraments has a lot of problems. Apart from the obvious which creates a “second class Catholic”, bear in mind that one cannot go to Confession, so becomes hardened. Thus it becomes “natural” to simply “shrug off” wrongdoing instead of seeking God’s grace to overcome inclinations, instead of receiving the pastoral advice needed to grow spiritually. What pastoral “care” is that?

I also wonder about the concept of “living together as brother and sister” on the very grounds the tribunal assesses to determine if the current relationship is sacramental. How can it demonstrate matrimonial grace under those circumstances? If the current relationship is “sacramental”, then the two become one flesh and cleave to one another. No one ever explains that to a couple in terms of complete (meaning nuances as well as intimate contact) celibacy, so how are they to understand it?

In a terrible irony, a priest can sin, then ask, “Lord, wash away my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin,” and be spiritually empowered to confect the greatest miracle in all eternity. But the individuals who mistakenly stepped into a bad situation and then into a good one – one which bears good fruit for the world, even – cannot be cleansed without a paper from presumably impartial strangers in the diocese, via a process that is naturally affected by human imperfection.

The problem is so multi-faceted! It is indeed correct that a sacramental marriage should never be set aside, so the question comes down to: what makes it sacramental? Can one actually say that because a person “seems” to have had the correct disposition on the day of a ceremony, that brutalizing a spouse, or committing serial adultery is part of being sacramental? Or (as in my case) because insufficient witness statements (from my ex’s side) fail to either support or counter the claim, the application is denied, leaving the “sacrament” intact. Really?

One can’t be “un-baptized”; neither can they be made to be “un-married”. The attempts of the hierarchy to protect the sacrament are certainly laudable; but somewhere in there needs to be a better system of restoring people to grace. As Jesus made clear to us, giving abundant grace to the world is the Father’s most ardent desire. So how will we be instruments of His grace?

Presumably she is not going to Confession because she is not living with her spouse as brother and sister, and that is a choice that she has made. Still, she should not be made to feel like an outcast, she and her husband should be called to further conversion so to speak, to live as brother and sister. This may be very difficult for them, but with the help of the Church that could hopefully happen, and that is a reason why they shouldn’t be made to feel like outsiders so to speak, because if that happens they may get a hardened heart, and grow even further from changing their situation.

 

[Sirach2]

More details needed.

They were not provided, but it does give insight into the struggles and problems spouses in this situation have encountered. It affects even the children, which is something Kasper addressed specifically.

 

[SWolf]

:bowdown2:
However, he and laypersons do not have the grace of Office for deciding this issue, so while many hold private opinions based on private study and/or training, they are not the going to be invested with the grace to anticipate the outcome of the synod. Do you feel better now?

Is every pastoral decision decided upon on a synod the right decision?

If not, then why can’t people, whether Deacons, laypersons, or even Cardinals, have a valid opinion on the matter?

 

[Sirach2]

Is every pastoral decision decided upon on a synod the right decision?

If not, then why can’t people, whether Deacons, laypersons, or even Cardinals, have a valid opinion on the matter?

Opinions are fine. However, when they are dogmatized without awaiting further development, it creates problems for those who are willing to wait. It is imprudent to speculate and pose that as an absolute, IOW. Meanwhile, until or unless there is a change, we need to abide by what is currently in place by the Church.

 

[SWolf]

They were not provided, but it does give insight into the struggles and problems spouses in this situation have encountered. It affects even the children, which is something Kasper addressed specifically.

The parents can still go to confession.
The parents can still take communion after a valid confession.

This reminds of a scene in Graham Greene’s The Heart of the Matter"

A miracle may still happen. Even Father Rank may for once find the word, the right word. . . . Kneeling in the space of an upturned coffin he said, “Since my last confession I have committed adultery.”

“How many times?”

*'I don’t know, Father, many times."

“Are you married?”

“Yes.” He remembered that evening when Father Rank had nearly broken down beforehim, admitting his failure to help. . . . Was he, even while he was struggling to re- tain the complete anonymity of the Confessional, remem- bering it too? He wanted to say, “Help me, Father. Con- vince me that I would do right to abandon her to Bagster. Make me believe in the mercy of God,” but he knelt si- lently waiting: he was unaware of the slightest tremor of hope. Father Rank said, “Is it one woman?”

“Yes.”

“You must avoid seeing her. Is that possible?”

He shook his head.

“If you must see her, you must never be alone with her. Do you promise to do that, promise God, not me?” He thought: How foolish it was of me to expect the magic word. This is the formula used so many times on so many people. Presumably people promised and went away and came back and confessed again. Did they really believe they were going to try? He thought: I am cheating human beings every day I live, I am not going to try to cheat my- self or God. He replied, "It would be no good my promis- ing that. Father/’

"You must promise. You can’t desire the end without desiring the means/’

Ah, but one can, he thought, one can: one can desire the peace of victory without desiring the ravaged towns.

Father Rank said, “I don’t need to tell you surely that there’s nothing automatic in the Confessional or in Absolu- tion. It depends on your state of mind whether you are forgiven. It’s no good coming and kneeling here unpre- pared. Before you come here you must know the wrong you’ve done.”

“I do know that.”

“And you must have a real purpose of amendment. We are told to forgive our brother seventy times seven and we needn’t fear that God will be any less forgiving than we
are, but nobody can begin to forgive the uncontrite. It’s better to sin seventy times and repent each time than sin once and never repent.” He could see Father Rank’s hand
go up to wipe the sweat out of his eyes: it was like a gesture of weariness. He thought: What is the good of keeping him in this discomfort? He’s right, of course, he’s right. I was a fool to imagine that somehow in this airless box I would find a conviction. . . . He said, “I think I was wrong to come, Father.”

"I don’t want to refuse you absolution, but I think if you would just go away and turn things over in your mind, you’d come back in a better frame of mind/’

“Yes, Father.”

“I will pray for you.”

 

[Corki]

Is every pastoral decision decided upon on a synod the right decision?

No, in fact the synod doesn’t decide anything at all. It discusses, examines and sometimes recommends. The Pope then decides what to do with the results.

If not, then why can’t people, whether Deacons, laypersons, or even Cardinals, have a valid opinion on the matter?

 

[Ender]

There is an excellent description of the annulment process in the National Catholic Review. Now I know what some of you are thinking, but the description seems first rate; it is only the last paragraph that contains what you would expect to find in the NCR. I think the article provides some valuable insight into what the annulment process is all about, as does this this explanation of what an annulment is.

Based on these two documents, here are some points that seemed significant to me:

An annulment occurs when *“a Church tribunal (a Catholic church court) declares that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union.” *That is, the validity of the marriage is determined by the conditions existing at the time the marriage took place. “When a marriage ends in divorce, the annulment process tries to look inside the marriage to see what may have been missing from the very beginning.”

These are the five relevant conditions for a valid ***Catholic ***marriage. The absence of any one of them is sufficient to invalidate the marriage:
(1) the spouses are free to marry;
(2) they freely exchange their consent;
(3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children;
(4) they intend the good of each other; and
(5) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.

Neither reference cited the conditions necessary for a non-Catholic marriage to be considered valid but I’m going to guess it is the first four listed above.

The Church presumes that marriages are valid and lifelong.
*The Catholic Church respects all marriages and presumes that they are valid.

*It seems the first thing to be concluded from all this is that the moral uprightness of the couple in the second marriage is irrelevant in determining the validity of the first marriage.

Ender

 

[Ender]

However, he and laypersons do not have the grace of Office for deciding this issue, so while many hold private opinions based on private study and/or training, they are not the going to be invested with the grace to anticipate the outcome of the synod.

Individual bishops are not endowed with that grace either, or we should never see bishops on opposite sides of these issues, which we most assuredly do. That grace applies only to the accuracy of the final decision, not to all the individuals involved in making it. Either an argument is valid or it isn’t, and there is nothing to prevent a bishop from being wrong or a blog poster from being right.

Ender

 

[Oneofthewomen]

(snipped for space)
These are the five relevant conditions for a valid ***Catholic ***marriage. The absence of any one of them is sufficient to invalidate the marriage:
*
(3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children;
*

This, to me, is the crux of the whole issue. In the US, in my experience, most people, even Catholics, do not look at marriage as “forever” anymore, think that “open marriages” are OK, and that not having children is an “acceptable life-style choice”

If, for a Sacrament to be valid, one needs form, matter & intent, and since it is the couple that confers the Sacrament, I would guess, again from my experience, that 95% of the Catholic weddings I have been to do not meet this criteria.

 

[Lapey]

And yet they occur. So what should be done when the tribunal declares they don’t have enough evidence to rule on the validity of the prior marriage and such evidence is not obtainable?

The tribunal will err on the side a validity.

 

[Lapey]

I meant no disrespect, but Lapey, but you are only a step above a layman, without the advanced studies of a bishop or cardinal. Nor do you have the grace of office belonging to the magisterium in order to ascertain what the synod may determine. Your knowledge is limited to your own training and studies.

Do you truly believe, as I do, that God is guiding the synod, and all of these intricate, troubling issues will be fully debated and decided upon? It may come to naught or it may bring forth a completely new ruling. Prudence would demand that our speculative opinions be put in a drawer for now until the matter is resolved by those entrusted with the office and commission to explore it.

Exactly!

My “just above laymen’s” prediction, it won’t change. As has been stated, and restated, truth does not change. A oerfect example was mentioned aalready, burth control. The vast majority thought it should and would change, the Church teaching i mean, but it did not.

Another more emotional topic, ordination of women. It nave has been done and never will, because it cannot be changed.

 

[Sirach2]

My “just above laymen’s” prediction, it won’t change. As has been stated, and restated, truth does not change. A oerfect example was mentioned aalready, burth control. The vast majority thought it should and would change, the Church teaching i mean, but it did not.

Another more emotional topic, ordination of women. It nave has been done and never will, because it cannot be changed.

And my “layman’s” prediction is that, while it may not change the indissolubility of marriage, there may be pastoral applications of this unchangeable truth. I guess we’ll touch back in October, huh?

And since the natives are beginning to circle the wagons, I should have trusted my inner warning and abandoned this thread here. So I’ll simply repeat, “We need to pray for the participants and Pope Francis to resolve these difficult issues in accord with what they perceive is God’s holy will in our time and culture.” :sad_bye:

 

[Lapey]

:bowdown2:
However, he and laypersons do not have the grace of Office for deciding this issue, so while many hold private opinions based on private study and/or training, they are not the going to be invested with the grace to anticipate the outcome of the synod. Do you feel better now?

I believe this is where your confusion lies. Members of the hierarchy are given sacramental grace to the level of their office, i agree. As an individual, none have a special grace to decide matters of faith and morals, only the Holy Father has that duty. The rest basically teach what has been handed to them. Furthermore, the Pope cannot go contrary to doctrine and/or dogma. The issue of communion redreadiness where grave sin is concerned has been settled since the Apostolic times, so has marriage and re-marriage.

Me stating what i know from my training is not me deciding things above my pay grade, it is an ordained memer if the hehierarchy stating the truth about the subject. You can reject this message but you cannot change tge truth in which it comes simply because other higher ranking members disagree with that truth as well.