From a recent interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register:
Pentin: What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
Cardinal Burke: Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
Pentin: In a conflict between ecclesial authority and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which one is binding on the believer and who has the authority to determine this?
Cardinal Burke: What’s binding is the Tradition. Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition. I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if “even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”
Pentin: If the Pope were to teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what would be the consequences?
Cardinal Burke: It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.
The full interview:
The full interview:
Cardinal Raymond Burke
(2014 photo CNA/Joaquín Peiró Pérez)
Vatican |
Nov. 15, 2016
Cardinal Burke on Amoris Laetitia Dubia: ‘Tremendous Division’ Warrants Action
In an exclusive Register interview,
he elaborates about why four cardinals were impelled to seek clarity
about the papal exhortation’s controversial elements.
Four cardinals asked Pope Francis five dubia questions, or “doubts,” about the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) in a bid to clear up ambiguities and confusion surrounding the text. On Nov. 14, they went public with their request, after they learned that the Holy Father had decided not to respond to their questions.
In this exclusive interview with the Register, Cardinal Raymond Burke, patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, explains in more detail the cardinals’ aims; why the publication of their letter should be seen as an act of charity, unity and pastoral concern, rather than as a political action; and what the next steps will be, if the Holy Father continues to refuse to respond.
Your Eminence, what do you aim to achieve by this initiative?
The initiative is aimed at one thing only, namely the good of the Church, which, right now, is suffering from a tremendous confusion on at least these five points. There are a number of other questions as well, but these five critical points have to do with irreformable moral principles. So we, as cardinals, judged it our responsibility to request a clarification with regard to these questions, in order to put an end to this spread of confusion that is actually leading people into error.
Are you hearing this concern about confusion a lot?
Everywhere I go I hear it. Priests are divided from one another, priests from bishops, bishops among themselves. There’s a tremendous division that has set in in the Church, and that is not the way of the Church. That is why we settle on these fundamental moral questions which unify us.
Why is Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia of such particular concern?
Because it has been the font of all of these confused discussions. Even diocesan directives are confused and in error. We have one set of directives in one diocese; for instance, saying that priests are free in the confessional, if they judge it necessary, to permit a person who is living in an adulterous union and continues to do so to have access to the sacraments — whereas, in another diocese, in accord with what the Church’s practice has always been, a priest is able to grant such permission to those who make the firm purpose of amendment to live chastely within a marriage, namely as brother and sister, and to only receive the sacraments in a place where there would be no question of scandal. This really has to be addressed. But then there are the further questions in the dubia apart from that particular question of the divorced and remarried, which deal with the term “instrinsic evil,” with the state of sin and with the correct notion of conscience.
Without the clarification you are seeking, are you saying, therefore, that this and other teaching in Amoris Laetitia go against the law of non-contradiction (which states that something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time when dealing with the same context)?
Of course, because, for instance, if you take the marriage issue, the Church teaches that marriage is indissoluble, in accord with the word of Christ, “He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” Therefore, if you are divorced, you may not enter a marital relationship with another person unless the indissoluble bond to which you are bound is declared to be null, to be nonexistent. But if we say, well, in certain cases, a person living in an irregular marriage union can receive holy Communion, then one of two things has to be the case: Either marriage really is not indissoluble — as for instance, in the kind of “enlightenment theory” of Cardinal [Walter] Kasper, who holds that marriage is an ideal to which we cannot realistically hold people. In such a case, we have lost the sense of the grace of the sacrament, which enables the married to live the truth of their marriage covenant — or holy Communion is not communion with the Body and Blood of Christ. Of course, neither of those two is possible. They contradict the constant teachings of the Church from the beginning and, therefore, cannot be true.
Some will see this initiative through a political lens and criticize it as a “conservative vs. liberal” move, something you and the other signatories reject. What is your response to such an accusation?
Our response is simply this: We are not taking some kind of position within the Church, like a political decision, for instance. The Pharisees accused Jesus of coming down on one side of a debate between the experts in Jewish Law, but Jesus did not do that at all. He appealed to the order that God placed in nature from the moment of creation. He said Moses let you divorce because of your hardness of heart, but it was not this way from the beginning. So we are simply setting forth what the Church has always taught and practiced in asking these five questions that address the Church’s constant teaching and practice. The answers to these questions provide an essential interpretative tool for Amoris Laetitia. They have to be set forth publicly because so many people are saying: “We’re confused, and we don’t understand why the cardinals or someone in authority doesn’t speak up and help us.”
It’s a pastoral duty?
That’s right, and I can assure you that I know all of the cardinals involved, and this has been something we’ve undertaken with the greatest sense of our responsibility as bishops and cardinals. But it has also been undertaken with the greatest respect for the Petrine Office, because if the Petrine Office does not uphold these fundamental principles of doctrine and discipline, then, practically speaking, division has entered into the Church, which is contrary to our very nature.
And the Petrine ministry, too, whose primary purpose is unity?
Yes, as the Second Vatican Council says, the Pope is the foundation of the unity of the bishops and of all the faithful. This idea, for instance, that the Pope should be some kind of innovator, who is leading a revolution in the Church or something similar, is completely foreign to the Office of Peter. The Pope is a great servant of the truths of the faith, as they’ve been handed down in an unbroken line from the time of the apostles.
Is this why you emphasize that what you are doing is an act of charity and justice?
Absolutely. We have this responsibility before the people for whom we are bishops, and an even greater responsibility as cardinals, who are the chief advisers to the Pope. For us to remain silent about these fundamental doubts, which have arisen as a result of the text of Amoris Laetitia, would, on our part, be a grave lack of charity toward the Pope and a grave lack in fulfilling the duties of our own office in the Church.
Some might argue that you are only four cardinals, among whom you’re the only one who is not retired, and this is not very representative of the entire Church. In that case, they might ask: Why should the Pope listen and respond to you?
Well, numbers aren’t the issue. The issue is the truth. In the trial of St. Thomas More, someone told him that most of the English bishops had accepted the king’s order, but he said that may be true, but the saints in heaven did not accept it. That’s the point here. I would think that even though other cardinals did not sign this, they would share the same concern. But that doesn’t bother me. Even if we were one, two or three, if it’s a question of something that’s true and is essential to the salvation of souls, then it needs to be said.
What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
In a conflict between ecclesial authority and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which one is binding on the believer and who has the authority to determine this?
What’s binding is the Tradition. Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition. I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if “even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”
If the Pope were to teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what would be the consequences?
It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.
In this exclusive interview with the Register, Cardinal Raymond Burke, patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, explains in more detail the cardinals’ aims; why the publication of their letter should be seen as an act of charity, unity and pastoral concern, rather than as a political action; and what the next steps will be, if the Holy Father continues to refuse to respond.
Your Eminence, what do you aim to achieve by this initiative?
The initiative is aimed at one thing only, namely the good of the Church, which, right now, is suffering from a tremendous confusion on at least these five points. There are a number of other questions as well, but these five critical points have to do with irreformable moral principles. So we, as cardinals, judged it our responsibility to request a clarification with regard to these questions, in order to put an end to this spread of confusion that is actually leading people into error.
Are you hearing this concern about confusion a lot?
Everywhere I go I hear it. Priests are divided from one another, priests from bishops, bishops among themselves. There’s a tremendous division that has set in in the Church, and that is not the way of the Church. That is why we settle on these fundamental moral questions which unify us.
Why is Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia of such particular concern?
Because it has been the font of all of these confused discussions. Even diocesan directives are confused and in error. We have one set of directives in one diocese; for instance, saying that priests are free in the confessional, if they judge it necessary, to permit a person who is living in an adulterous union and continues to do so to have access to the sacraments — whereas, in another diocese, in accord with what the Church’s practice has always been, a priest is able to grant such permission to those who make the firm purpose of amendment to live chastely within a marriage, namely as brother and sister, and to only receive the sacraments in a place where there would be no question of scandal. This really has to be addressed. But then there are the further questions in the dubia apart from that particular question of the divorced and remarried, which deal with the term “instrinsic evil,” with the state of sin and with the correct notion of conscience.
Without the clarification you are seeking, are you saying, therefore, that this and other teaching in Amoris Laetitia go against the law of non-contradiction (which states that something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time when dealing with the same context)?
Of course, because, for instance, if you take the marriage issue, the Church teaches that marriage is indissoluble, in accord with the word of Christ, “He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” Therefore, if you are divorced, you may not enter a marital relationship with another person unless the indissoluble bond to which you are bound is declared to be null, to be nonexistent. But if we say, well, in certain cases, a person living in an irregular marriage union can receive holy Communion, then one of two things has to be the case: Either marriage really is not indissoluble — as for instance, in the kind of “enlightenment theory” of Cardinal [Walter] Kasper, who holds that marriage is an ideal to which we cannot realistically hold people. In such a case, we have lost the sense of the grace of the sacrament, which enables the married to live the truth of their marriage covenant — or holy Communion is not communion with the Body and Blood of Christ. Of course, neither of those two is possible. They contradict the constant teachings of the Church from the beginning and, therefore, cannot be true.
Some will see this initiative through a political lens and criticize it as a “conservative vs. liberal” move, something you and the other signatories reject. What is your response to such an accusation?
Our response is simply this: We are not taking some kind of position within the Church, like a political decision, for instance. The Pharisees accused Jesus of coming down on one side of a debate between the experts in Jewish Law, but Jesus did not do that at all. He appealed to the order that God placed in nature from the moment of creation. He said Moses let you divorce because of your hardness of heart, but it was not this way from the beginning. So we are simply setting forth what the Church has always taught and practiced in asking these five questions that address the Church’s constant teaching and practice. The answers to these questions provide an essential interpretative tool for Amoris Laetitia. They have to be set forth publicly because so many people are saying: “We’re confused, and we don’t understand why the cardinals or someone in authority doesn’t speak up and help us.”
It’s a pastoral duty?
That’s right, and I can assure you that I know all of the cardinals involved, and this has been something we’ve undertaken with the greatest sense of our responsibility as bishops and cardinals. But it has also been undertaken with the greatest respect for the Petrine Office, because if the Petrine Office does not uphold these fundamental principles of doctrine and discipline, then, practically speaking, division has entered into the Church, which is contrary to our very nature.
And the Petrine ministry, too, whose primary purpose is unity?
Yes, as the Second Vatican Council says, the Pope is the foundation of the unity of the bishops and of all the faithful. This idea, for instance, that the Pope should be some kind of innovator, who is leading a revolution in the Church or something similar, is completely foreign to the Office of Peter. The Pope is a great servant of the truths of the faith, as they’ve been handed down in an unbroken line from the time of the apostles.
Is this why you emphasize that what you are doing is an act of charity and justice?
Absolutely. We have this responsibility before the people for whom we are bishops, and an even greater responsibility as cardinals, who are the chief advisers to the Pope. For us to remain silent about these fundamental doubts, which have arisen as a result of the text of Amoris Laetitia, would, on our part, be a grave lack of charity toward the Pope and a grave lack in fulfilling the duties of our own office in the Church.
Some might argue that you are only four cardinals, among whom you’re the only one who is not retired, and this is not very representative of the entire Church. In that case, they might ask: Why should the Pope listen and respond to you?
Well, numbers aren’t the issue. The issue is the truth. In the trial of St. Thomas More, someone told him that most of the English bishops had accepted the king’s order, but he said that may be true, but the saints in heaven did not accept it. That’s the point here. I would think that even though other cardinals did not sign this, they would share the same concern. But that doesn’t bother me. Even if we were one, two or three, if it’s a question of something that’s true and is essential to the salvation of souls, then it needs to be said.
What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
In a conflict between ecclesial authority and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which one is binding on the believer and who has the authority to determine this?
What’s binding is the Tradition. Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition. I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if “even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”
If the Pope were to teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what would be the consequences?
It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.
Edward Pentin is the Register’s Rome correspondent.
15 comments:
We already know what's going to happen: The pope will ignore any "formal correction" from these cardinals and, since they are but a few in number, he will count on the majority of Catholics, including the other Cardinal and bishops, to dismiss Burke and the other three as "irrelevant rigid old fogies" who want to "rob the Church of her joy in favor of enforcing mere rules" or something along those lines.
The sad thing is, most Catholics will blindly follow the crowd. So many decades of laxity and poor teaching have left us ripe for the picking and we are under the illusion that any doctrine of the Church is passé if enough people disregard it. Just look at the way so many Catholic vote.
With regard to this diocese, I can almost guarantee that the majority of priests would simply ignore such a correction. It would take them out of their comfort zone to do otherwise.
Wow wow wow! Talk about having steel ones. And of course I mean the spinal vertebrates!
Finally a prelate who cares about the souls of the "sheep" enough to risk loosing everything for the sake of the Gospel.
Francis needs to really really understand that just because he is pope does not mean he can change defined Church Teaching. It has been famously reported that Francis said "the pope can make that which is white, black and that which is black, white". Of course nothing could be further from the truth. He duty is to preserve and protect the Faith not to change it. He can't say that there is good in an objectively evil act, because it is heresy.
Why will Francis not answer the cardinals? If he really believes all the nonsense like fornication is really a marriage, and adulterers don't have to amend their lives and can receive communion, and Protestants can receive communion etc. why not come out plainly and say it. He is the pope. Why not be a man instead of using stealth and intrigue to cause chaos. Be a man! Say yes when you mean yes and no when you mean no! I guess most Jesuits aren't up on the art of manliness these days and that explains a lot.
The Holy Father's love of the poor, and his advocacy of simple living, probably should have been the hallmarks of a successful papacy. Such emphases would also have softened the minds and hearts of some enemies of the Church. Why, then, has he confused his papacy by adopting this militant ambiguity regarding family life, and a belligerent tone towards liturgical piety?
A schism led by cardinals is not a realistic possibility, but perhaps some splinter groups led by priests or, God forbid, a bishop, could emerge.
Dialogue,
Because he is a doubleknit dinosaur, hopelessly mired in the 1960s. He has no grasp of the new realities. The Novus Ordo Church is on life support. In Europe, it is almost non-existent. Young traditionalists are preserving the Faith and he should wake up and smell the coffee. I pray for him daily.
I do not think a schism is possible from the right, mainly because a schism from the left is already in full bloom. Unity has been broken/dangerously weakened ever since the reform of the reform was rejected by liberals, a position most recently reiterated by the Holy Father himself. If any one would like to delve into the details of this schism it has been already fully analyzed in IOTA UNUM (by Romano Amerio). Schism has been the elephant in the room for several decades now only until recently the orthodox prelates have been too polite to call a spade a spade. Even now the four cardinals only imply the scope of the problem.
It is not to cynical to assume that the supposed reconciliation gambit with the SSPX is a Trajan horse to keep the orthodox Catholics focused on a fake gift until the term of AL fully embedded in everyday Catholic practice while the adulteration of Sacred Tradition continues unabated.
Anon-1
TJM,
Surely he should wake up and smell the mate.
I know which side of the schism I will be on ... I am sticking with the traditional teaching of the Church and I can't see that any faithful Catholic can do otherwise. I will just seek out those priests that do follow Church teaching.
This statement by Cardinal Burke and the other three clearly shows that there is no such thing as a pastoral take on the teachings of the Church. It is all or nothing. "Remaining in the Truth of Christ" says it all.
How says Mark Thomas now who has blithely continued on that AL was orthodox and did not break with Church teaching? Mark Thomas can hardly call these four cardinals traditionalists either.
Jan
My dream for the modern Church: Burke, Schneider, or Ranjith is one day elected pope and takes the name of Pius XIII. Said Pius XIII abrogates the Novus Ordo and re-establishes the 1962 Missal as the "ordinary" form of Mass but allows the current expanded lectionary along with the 1962 lectionary in a 4 year cycle. Approved vernacular translations of said lectionary and the changing prayers are allowed as the only options in an otherwise (once-again) standardized liturgy (with all of its rules) for the Roman Rite. . .
Jan, you need to attack orthodox bishops, rather than yours truly, as I have reported that which one bishop after another has said in regard to Amoris Laetitia. The bishops of Poland, Costa Rica, Alberta, Cardinal Sarah, Cardinal Müller, Archbishop Chaput, Cardinal DiNardo, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone...I could fill this space with the names of Cardinals and bishops who have pronounced AL orthodox.
Cardinal Burke declared that Amoris Laetitia was orthodox. He denounced people who said otherwise. On April 11, 2016 A.D., Cardinal Burke insisted that Amoris Laetitia was in line with Church teaching. He added the following:
Cardinal Burke: "The secular media and even some Catholic media are describing the recently issued post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, “Love in the Family,” as a revolution in the Church, as a radical departure from the teaching and practice of the Church, up to now, regarding marriage and the family.
"Such a view of the document is both a source of wonder and confusion to the faithful and potentially a source of scandal, not only for the faithful but for others of goodwill who look to Christ and his Church to teach and reflect in practice the truth regarding marriage and its fruit, family life, the first cell of the life of the Church and of every society."
Cardinal Burke has been all over the board in regard to Amoris Laetitia.
================================================
-- AL is orthodox.
-- AL leads people into grave errors.
================================================
-- People who challenge AL spread confusion and are a source of scandal within and without the Church.
-- People who challenge AL perform a holy service to the Church.
=================================================
-- People who challenge AL interfere with Pope Francis in regard to the "preservation and growth of faith and morals and in the observance and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline and to consider questions pertaining to the activity of the Church in the world."
-- People who challenge AL actually do Pope Francis a favor...even to the dire point of setting Pope Francis straight via a "formal act of correction."
=================================================
So...Cardinal Burke, what are we to believe? Is AL orthodox as you insisted? Do people who challenge AL sow confusion and scandal as you claimed?
I stand with His Holiness Pope Francis. I have confidence in his orthodoxy as the Holy People of God affirm Pope Francis' orthodox via their commemoration of him during the Divine Liturgy. That constitutes holy and powerful testimony.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jan said..."I know which side of the schism I will be on ... I am sticking with the traditional teaching of the Church and I can't see that any faithful Catholic can do otherwise. I will just seek out those priests that do follow Church teaching."
That is good news. Jan, that means that you will seek priests who are in communion with the Vicar of Christ, Bishop of Rome — Pope Francis. Very good.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas, if AL is orthodox why hasn't Francis responded to the letter from the cardinals? If AL was orthodox as you contend then there would be no need for a letter seeking clarification to be written.
It seems to me Mark Thomas that you are about to be caught on the wrong side of a schism. While the rest of us have said for a long time that "The emperor has no clothes", some people like yourself seek to perpetuate an illusion ...
Jan
Jan,
The reason Pope Francis won't respond is two-fold: 1) he lacks the intellectual heft; and 2) he is a liberal and "being a liberal, means never having to say you're sorry."
Jan, seeking a clarification does not mean that AL is unorthodox. The seeking of clarifications have long been part of the process within the Church.
Why hasn't His Holiness Pope Francis responded to the dubia? Has Pope Francis answered that question publicly? If not, then I am not the person to ask.
How could I be caught on the wrong side of a schism? Should a schism occur during his Pontificate, I will remain in communion with Pope Francis. I pray that God always leads me to remain in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Jan, as long as I remain in communion with the vicar of Christ, please explain as to how I could be on the wrong side of the schism?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
TJM, the reason Pope Francis hasn't responded is because if he does not uphold Catholic teaching then he is likely to be declared a heretic and lose his papal office. This is what is behind the letter and he knows it. That is why he has skirted around the whole issue - neither confirming nor denying. I believe he will be declared a heretic. The liberals will branch off with him at their head. It's quite possible that Benedict will return to head the smaller Church he spoke of or maybe there will be a papal election held among the remaining faithful Princes of the Church - the seat of the Church for a time may not be Rome as has occurred in the past.
Mark Thomas has admitted that he will continue to follow Francis like a lemming even if he is declared a heretic and loses his office. Good luck to you, Mark, because you will no longer be in the Catholic Church and that will be down to your pride because you will not admit to being wrong ...
Jan
Jan, I certainly hope Francis will see reason and accept the admonition. I don't understand Mark Thomas' papalotry, particularly in light of Francis' arrogance and lack of mercy and charity towards faithful Catholics.
Post a Comment