What Cardinal Burke really said about 'resisting' Pope Francis

[Lapey]

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:

Your own comments contradict each other. If marriage is indisoluable, how can there be cases where sacramental marriage is not permanent?

There cannt be. Pastoral care comes in here, to assist those who find themselves in these situations, not declare a route around the cross but help in carrying that cross.

 

[gilliam]

A lot of speculation going on here.

The pope hasn’t made any decisions nor has he declared any new doctrines.

Patience is a virtue, murmuring isn’t

 

[Lapey]

A lot of speculation going on here.

The pope hasn’t made any decisions nor has he declared any new doctrines.

Patience is a virtue, murmuring isn’t

How true are your words!

 

[LongingSoul]

I understand the concerns and the desire to allow “God’s Mercy” to bring these situations into full communion; but is it false mercy? I say yes, with Church doctrine to back it up. In each and every scenario that has been brought up there were situations with options for the involved parties. Since it didn’t work out, for whatever reason, now in their hearts they know better than the results of the Church, so the Church is being asked to make “exceptions”.

Do I have it figured out? I hate to sound cold, but there are certain truths about our salvation that are not left to our feelings. When we get an answer that is not what we want or feel we are deserving, we must pray for the grace to accept the answer, not ask the church to change the answer.

To put it in simple terms, until the first marriage is declared invalid, or a spouse dies, the person is not available to marry so there can be no second. if there is a civil second marriage then there is scandal or the appearance of scandal because the person was not free to marry. The only way to “make this right” and be admitted to the sacraments is to declare nullity of the first, or get out of the second. If there is physical relations in the second, there is grave sin, fornication. A person may not realize this or believe this, which could cause a reduced level of culpability, but there is still grace sin. Ignorance does not change the grave matter or free will.

If I am so drunk that I cannot know what I am doing and can’t remember it, and kill someone with a hand gun have in my pocket, there is grave sin. My state of “knowing what I am doing” doesn’t matter as to whether it is grave sin. What it does affect is my culpability; to what level will I be held accountable to this sin by God.

Regarding the example of your last paragraph, as a Church and as a world, we also share in the gift of mercy in that in the legal realm, crimes can be lessened or mitigated by certain circumstances and conditions when it come to sentencing. Also, the Church allows such a person to confess and be absolved with a penance that doesn’t involve completely fixing the mess they have created. No one can bring a person back to life after being killed and we are not expected to take on that victims responsibilities to perhaps his family for the rest of our lives. So that situation doesn’t really apply to this where a person is not even permitted to confess unless they fix what was broke.

What strikes me as most important about this whole thing, is that Pope Francis himself invited the question to the table. He specifically asked that people involved resist both the desire for false compassion *AND *the hostile inflexibility that just closes up, with their fingers in their ears saying ‘nothing can ever change. Nope, nadda, nine. La la la la la’.

The Pope is open to something possible to help us mere mortals address this wound in our midst and it is a wound. It astounds and confuses me why we as foot soldiers can be so adamant in the face of the Popes openness and faith, to deny that there is anything we can receive from the Holy Spirit through the workings of the Church. It also amazes me that there isn’t more natural compassion for those in situations barred from the sacraments when we are so very aware of the great privilege of being able to be in full communion with our Mother Church. By the grace of God, I have never drifted too far from my Mother Churchs apron strings like most of us invested in this discussion I am assuming, but still I see my position not as coming from my own strength, but from Gods grace. There but for the grace of God go I. I imagine that this is what leads the Pope and other clergy to be open with faith in the face of the suffering souls here. It is not natural to adopt the rigid attitude of ‘let them eat cake’ and ‘do the crime do the time’ and leave my sight now.

The Church and the Pope no less have deemed this issue open to the work of the Holy Spirit and so should we. When it is closed by the Church again for her continuing pilgrimage, then we should close it too and follow.

 

[Lapey]

Regarding the example of your last paragraph, as a Church and as a world, we also share in the gift of mercy in that in the legal realm, crimes can be lessened or mitigated by certain circumstances and conditions when it come to sentencing. Also, the Church allows such a person to confess and be absolved with a penance that doesn’t involve completely fixing the mess they have created. No one can bring a person back to life after being killed and we are not expected to take on that victims responsibilities to perhaps his family for the rest of our lives. So that situation doesn’t really apply to this where a person is not even permitted to confess unless they fix what was broke.

What strikes me as most important about this whole thing, is that Pope Francis himself invited the question to the table. He specifically asked that people involved resist both the desire for false compassion *AND *the hostile inflexibility that just closes up, with their fingers in their ears saying ‘nothing can ever change. Nope, nadda, nine. La la la la la’.

The Pope is open to something possible to help us mere mortals address this wound in our midst and it is a wound. It astounds and confuses me why we as foot soldiers can be so adamant in the face of the Popes openness and faith, to deny that there is anything we can receive from the Holy Spirit through the workings of the Church. It also amazes me that there isn’t more natural compassion for those in situations barred from the sacraments when we are so very aware of the great privilege of being able to be in full communion with our Mother Church. By the grace of God, I have never drifted too far from my Mother Churchs apron strings like most of us invested in this discussion I am assuming, but still I see my position not as coming from my own strength, but from Gods grace. There but for the grace of God go I. I imagine that this is what leads the Pope and other clergy to be open with faith in the face of the suffering souls here. It is not natural to adopt the rigid attitude of ‘let them eat cake’ and ‘do the crime do the time’ and leave my sight now.

The Church and the Pope no less have deemed this issue open to the work of the Holy Spirit and so should we. When it is closed by the Church again for her continuing pilgrimage, then we should close it too and follow.

What astounds me is that all you see in my posts is lack of understanding and lack of care or lack of compassion for those in this situation. What saddens me even more is you see this as the Pope being open to changing what he cannot change.

What can be changed is factors which can help the faithful when found in these situations; i.e. streamlined annulment processes, actively including folks (who cannot rectify the situations for whatever reason) in parish life in spite of the fact that they cannot receive the sacraments, broad level catechesis on the sacrament of matrimony for all people. I think this is our leading cause of divorce, people do not believe that marriage is what it is. This is one of the largest crisis to inflict the Church, the sacrament of matrimony is not understood by most Catholics who do go to church, much less the ones who do not.

The Holy Spirit will not lead the Church into untruth, or error. The Holy Spirit will lead the Church into ways to better help folks in these situations.

 

[LongingSoul]

What astounds me is that all you see in my posts is lack of understanding and lack of care or lack of compassion for those in this situation. What saddens me even more is you see this as the Pope being open to changing what he cannot change.

What can be changed is factors which can help the faithful when found in these situations; i.e. streamlined annulment processes, actively including folks (who cannot rectify the situations for whatever reason) in parish life in spite of the fact that they cannot receive the sacraments, broad level catechesis on the sacrament of matrimony for all people. I think this is our leading cause of divorce, people do not believe that marriage is what it is. This is one of the largest crisis to inflict the Church, the sacrament of matrimony is not understood by most Catholics who do go to church, much less the ones who do not.

The Holy Spirit will not lead the Church into untruth, or error. The Holy Spirit will lead the Church into ways to better help folks in these situations.

I don’t see this as the “Pope being open to changing what he cannot change.” I’m definitely not as educated or holy as the Pope so I couldn’t possibly know all the intricacies that he is aware of in asking for this question to be addressed.

What I do celebrate in his decision to examine it at synod, is the beauty of hope. Have you not ever experienced some situation in your life that seemed absolutely closed to any possibility of redress? There are different approaches to such a scenario. One can be resigned to it and adjust your mentality to the doom. Or one can accept it but with hope of what the unforeseen God can do. There have been studies done on the brains of people with terminal illness that can actually identify the effects of hope on the pathology of the body.

We don’t have all definitive knowledge about anything that renders everything closed for all time. I’ve spent a couple of tedious years debating one character here who adamantly says that the death penalty can never be abolished by law according to Catholic teaching, and spends year after year trying to reconcile in himself the Churchs forceful calls for its abolition!

It’s one thing spending ones life trying to shut down conversation and dwell in the comfort of doom. “Resignation to the end, always the end” as Gotye croons. It’s a whole other world to accept what is limited to us in our circumstances, while still remaining hopeful of the possibilities of Gods benevolent love.

 

[otjm]

You may know many people in that situation, but they must be in a minority of those seeking annulments who have that difficulty, since the number of those seeking annulments and get them is very high, at least in America.

When the new Code of Canon law came out, there were significant changes as to the grounds for a decree of nullity, as they included issues of psychology, among other issues, which had never been considered before.

At the same time, the Code changed after No Fault divorce became the law (starting in 1969 in California).

As a result, there was a backlog of cases of divorce, and the result was what appeared to be a high number of decrees of nullity over a period of time. It is assumed that the level of decrees is very high; however I have only been able to find one study investigating decrees of nullity as measured against divorce decrees, and that is by CARA - Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.

According to CARA research, noted every five years, in 1985 there were 60,691 decrees of nullity; in 1990 the peak number of 72,308, and then descending each 5 year report with 57,018 in 1995, to 26,025 in 2010 and 25,088 in 2011 (the last year noted).

However, CARA asked other questions. The report of the other questions showed that about 7% of all divorced Catholics had received a decree of nullity, and about 8% had at least started the process, and either withdrew or failed to follow through with seeking the decree, or the tribunal determined that there was not enough evidence to grant one.

Which leaves 85% of divorced Catholics never having sought a decree.

There have been many who have said there are way too many decrees of nullity; but that statement is made based on their perception of only the raw numbers of decrees granted.

Taken out of context, the numbers seem huge; put into context, it appears that we have a very large number of Catholics who have not addressed the core issue of their first (and often only) marriage.

The US accounts for 49% of all decrees; Poland is second at 6.4%; Brazil at 5.6% and Italy at 5.1%. However, there are a multitude of issues at play in those differences, starting with different laws of divorce.

So as to your comment, a little less than half of those who seek a decree of nullity receive it, and coupled with that are a whole list of other issues, including the massive failure of catechesis starting in the early 70’s, the secularization of society and its impact on Catholics, and the “falling away” if you will, from Church practices (e.g. attending Mass on a regular basis).

 

[Sirach2]

What strikes me as most important about this whole thing, is that Pope Francis himself invited the question to the table. He specifically asked that people involved resist both the desire for false compassion *AND *the hostile inflexibility that just closes up, with their fingers in their ears saying ‘nothing can ever change. Nope, nadda, nine. La la la la la’.

The Pope is open to something possible to help us mere mortals address this wound in our midst and it is a wound. It astounds and confuses me why we as foot soldiers can be so adamant in the face of the Pope’s openness and faith, to deny that there is anything we can receive from the Holy Spirit through the workings of the Church. It also amazes me that there isn’t more natural compassion for those in situations barred from the sacraments when we are so very aware of the great privilege of being able to be in full communion with our Mother Church. By the grace of God, I have never drifted too far from my Mother Church’s apron strings like most of us invested in this discussion I am assuming, but still I see my position not as coming from my own strength, but from God’s grace. There but for the grace of God go I. I imagine that this is what leads the Pope and other clergy to be open with faith in the face of the suffering souls here.** It is not natural to adopt the rigid attitude of ‘let them eat cake’ and ‘do the crime do the time’ and leave my sight now.**

The Church and the Pope no less have deemed this issue open to the work of the Holy Spirit and so should we. When it is closed by the Church again for her continuing pilgrimage, then we should close it too and follow.

Absolutely Spirit-anointed!

“Just as from the heavens the rain and snow come down and do not return there till they have watered the earth, making it** fertile and fruitful**, giving seed to the one who sows and bread to the one who eats, So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; It shall not return to me empty, but shall do what pleases me, achieving the end for which I sent it.” (Is. 55:10)

 

[Denise1957]

Absolutely Spirit-anointed!

“Just as from the heavens the rain and snow come down and do not return there till they have watered the earth, making it** fertile and fruitful**, giving seed to the one who sows and bread to the one who eats, So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; It shall not return to me empty, but shall do what pleases me, achieving the end for which I sent it.” (Is. 55:10)

What does “Spirit-anionted” mean, anyway?

How would the Holy Spirit change what Our Lord Himself taught? Jesus said that he would send the Holy Spirit, to teach all truth. The Holy Spirit does not contradict what Jesus Himself taught.

 

[ProVobis]

How would the Holy Spirit change what Our Lord Himself taught? Jesus said that he would send the Holy Spirit, to teach all truth. The Holy Spirit does not contradict what Jesus Himself taught.

Right. As God has both a permissive will and a positive will, I would dare say it’s not the positive will which would contradict what Jesus Himself taught.

 

[Sirach2]

How would the Holy Spirit change what Our Lord Himself taught? Jesus said that he would send the Holy Spirit, to teach all truth. The Holy Spirit does not contradict what Jesus Himself taught.

Since you have already presupposed the answer, why are you asking the question?
Read L.S.'s post again. She said nothing about contradicting what Jesus taught. Neither did my reply address that.

 

[Denise1957]

Since you have already presupposed the answer, why are you asking the question?
Read L.S.'s post again. She said nothing about contradicting what Jesus taught. Neither did my reply address that.

The questions (both of them) were not for L.S., but for you (sorry if that wasn’t clear).

 

[Lapey]

I don’t see this as the “Pope being open to changing what he cannot change.” I’m definitely not as educated or holy as the Pope so I couldn’t possibly know all the intricacies that he is aware of in asking for this question to be addressed.

I do not believe anyone, except for those who would hope the teachings on these issues change, have said the Holy Father is changing what he cannot change. Those who would have him and the synod Cardinals allow for the divorced and re-married to receive the sacraments are stating that the unchangeable is being changed.

I have not stated any such thing.

What I do celebrate in his decision to examine it at synod, is the beauty of hope. Have you not ever experienced some situation in your life that seemed absolutely closed to any possibility of redress? There are different approaches to such a scenario. One can be resigned to it and adjust your mentality to the doom. Or one can accept it but with hope of what the unforeseen God can do. There have been studies done on the brains of people with terminal illness that can actually identify the effects of hope on the pathology of the body.

There is always greater healing in the acceptance of the heavenly and the want and desire to be with God rather than a simply humanly cure. All you see is me stating that if I can’t cure the cancer then I am sentencing a person to a life with no hope. So either I restate an untruth, “you will be cured without getting rid of the ailment” and therefore give a person hope that they will be able to continue in the state of life and have hope, or I state the truth, which in your mind and opinion brings despair and no hope.

You are forgetting the third and only real option, to repent and believe in the Gospel. This is the only real hope, Jesus Christ; and as the book of Hebrews reminds us, “He is the same today, yesterday and forever.”

Understanding truth, accepting it as the only choice, then forming one’s conscience is the only way to hope and eternal life. It cannot be found in begging for acceptance in the sin of our lives.

We don’t have all definitive knowledge about anything that renders everything closed for all time. I’ve spent a couple of tedious years debating one character here who adamantly says that the death penalty can never be abolished by law according to Catholic teaching, and spends year after year trying to reconcile in himself the Churchs forceful calls for its abolition!

A truth is a truth, it does not change in time. Jesus taught that remarriage is adultery, that has not and cannot change. It doesn’t matter whether a person in this situation knows this or agrees, it is still grave matter and possibly grave sin on the person’s soul.

It’s one thing spending ones life trying to shut down conversation and dwell in the comfort of doom. “Resignation to the end, always the end” as Gotye croons. It’s a whole other world to accept what is limited to us in our circumstances, while still remaining hopeful of the possibilities of Gods benevolent love.

God’s benevolent love is so strong that He will allow us to choose with our free will to follow Him, or follow the world; even to the point of being lost for eternity.

I wish those who disagree with these truths which have been passed down to us by our leaders of the past would be able to recognize the true sincerity and love that those who stand up for the truth do so with. I kind of take offense to the tone that you and Sirach2 take when those of us who would defend Church teaching are somehow unfeeling or possibly just plain mean. That is the tone of your response, I was going to ignore it but since Sirach2 jumped on board again I have no choice.

As has been stated, there is no “spirit” in hoping for truth to change, at least not the Spirit of God. There is in fact the spirit of the netherworld; if the devil can convince those in these situations to remain there and wait for the Church to change, he may indeed gain a soul. I for one will stand with what has been handed on to me by my leaders and not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. (Hebrews 13:9)

 

[Lapey]

Absolutely Spirit-anointed!

“Just as from the heavens the rain and snow come down and do not return there till they have watered the earth, making it** fertile and fruitful**, giving seed to the one who sows and bread to the one who eats, So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; It shall not return to me empty, but shall do what pleases me, achieving the end for which I sent it.” (Is. 55:10)

Let me ask you, do you believe those who believe and say the the truth cannot and will not change, meaning the synod will not make sweeping changes, are less caring than you ans LS? Do you really believe I am cold and rigidly hold on to laws over people?

 

[Denise1957]

Right. As God has both a permissive will and a positive will, I would dare say it’s not the positive will which would contradict what Jesus Himself taught.

Do you mean to say that God’s permissive will could contradict what Jesus taught? I don’t quite understand. Perhaps you could explain further.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Following this thread is almost maddening. :hypno:

What are people who are against the Synod looking at this issue so afraid of?

As far as I can tell, no one wants to change the rules, we just want to make sure that the people who are affected most by this are having the rules properly applied.

Yes, I believe that marriage is forever, but sadly, many do not, including many Catholics.
It is all part of our crazy “me-me-me” society, and the lack of proper catechesis over that last 5 decades.

As I said a couple of pages ago, to be a valid Sacrament you have to have form, matter & intent. And since it’s the couple who confer the Sacrament, if the ***intent ***to do what the Church does is not there, then the Sacrament is not valid.

In my experience, 90% of the people I know who have been married in the Church have done so because that was what was expected by their families, and they always dreamed of the “big church wedding”, not because they believed what the Church taught about marriage. They just wanted their “special day” to be as special as possible.

I think that Pope Francis knows this, and this is why he called the Synod. The Holy Spirit will guide us through this, and in the end I am confident that doctrine will not change. I am also confident that some disciplines and procedures may change, and that it will be to keep with the “spirit” of the law, not the “letter” of the law. And that is the teaching of Jesus.

 

[estesbob]

Do you mean to say that God’s permissive will could contradict what Jesus taught? I don’t quite understand. Perhaps you could explain further.

We are talking past each other. The question is not will the Church suddenly allow for divorce? The answer is an emphatic no. The question is will they change the way annulments are granted and/or the information that is required to get one?

 

[Lapey]

Following this thread is almost maddening. :hypno:

What are people who are against the Synod looking at this issue so afraid of?

As far as I can tell, no one wants to change the rules, we just want to make sure that the people who are affected most by this are having the rules properly applied.

Yes, I believe that marriage is forever, but sadly, many do not, including many Catholics.
It is all part of our crazy “me-me-me” society, and the lack of proper catechesis over that last 5 decades.

As I said a couple of pages ago, to be a valid Sacrament you have to have form, matter & intent. And since it’s the couple who confer the Sacrament, if the ***intent ***to do what the Church does is not there, then the Sacrament is not valid.

In my experience, 90% of the people I know who have been married in the Church have done so because that was what was expected by their families, and they always dreamed of the “big church wedding”, not because they believed what the Church taught about marriage. They just wanted their “special day” to be as special as possible.

I think that Pope Francis knows this, and this is why he called the Synod. The Holy Spirit will guide us through this, and in the end I am confident that doctrine will not change. I am also confident that some disciplines and procedures may change, and that it will be to keep with the “spirit” of the law, not the “letter” of the law. And that is the teaching of Jesus.

Nowhere will you find a post by me or anyone saying there shouldn’t be a synod on the family, where do you see that??? Why would you think I’m afraid of tge synod? Personally I think its a perfect opportunity for reforms of the annulment process, not to change the requirements or guidelines, just make it easier to go through the process. Also, much teaching needs to be done, this is the best way to start that process. Most don’t seek the annulment, thats a problem.

Also, ways to keep people in those situations involved and a living part of parishes, even though they cannot partake of the sacraments.

There is much that i pray will be done. None will do what some are suggest, change truth. Divorced and remarried will notarbitrarily now be welcomed to the sacraments. That is settled since Jesus Himself taught it.

 

[Sirach2]

Nowhere will you find a post by me or anyone saying there shouldn’t be a synod on the family,** where do you see that**???

There is much that i pray will be done. **None will do what some are suggest, change truth. **

I ask that you do the same thing, find a post where “some” suggest that truth be changed. Otherwise, we have no basis for discussion, if you prefer to paint “some” with that brush.

 

[Denise1957]

We are talking past each other. The question is not will the Church suddenly allow for divorce? The answer is an emphatic no. The question is will they change the way annulments are granted and/or the information that is required to get one?

The Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura is the highest authority in the Church, next to the Pope. The former head of the Apostolic Signatura (from 2008-2014) has stated that the streamlining of the annulment process wouldn’t work. It’s naturally a long process, and the streamlining of it would affect doctrinal integrity. I assume that the head of the Apostolic Signatura would know more about the annulment process than almost anyone, since the Apostolic Signatura oversees the various tribunals. If you like, I can try to find the interview in which the former head states the specific reasons why the streamlining of annulments won’t work.