

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.
Edward Pentin is the Register’s Rome correspondent.
This gets at the reality that there is a schism already. Praise Jesus for these fine Cardinals.
If Tim Kaine is a Catholic, then being a Catholic is meaningless
‘“We do not need to be afraid of questions and doubts because they are the beginning of a path of knowledge and going deeper; one who does not ask questions cannot progress either in knowledge or in faith,” the pope said Nov. 23 at his weekly general audience.’
From https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/11/20/pope-francis-calls-abortion-horrendous-crime-grave-sin/
‘Francis also said he has an “allergy to adulators,” insisting he prefers criticism to praise.
“To adulate someone is also to use them for your own purposes, whether hidden or visible, but in order to obtain something for yourself,” he said.
“Critics speak badly of me, and I deserve it, because I’m a sinner,” he said. “That doesn’t worry me.”’
Why not READ “Amorous Laetitiae,” paragraph 350 to 352. You’ll see that Pope Francis wants everyone to take the road of “compassion”—-like the Pharisees who followed Moses! (Deut. 24:1ff)....Whereas, Our Lord, Jesus Christ had this to say: “Moses allowed a man to write a certificates of divorce, and to put her away.” But, JESUS said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore GOD has joined together, let no man put asunder….Whoeever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. Again, these are the words of Our LORD, JESUS CHRIST in the Gospel of Mark 10:4-12. (Also, see Matt. 19:3-9) This matter will be settled by the College of Cardinals with the Pope—-and it will be in accordance with the WORD of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Here is what I think of the dubbia. (It might spare the Holy Father some work)
To the first of the dubbia: No, the conditions mentioned by FC still apply; AL simply tells us that a full discernment and pastoral accompaniment the situation should ripen step by step so that in a world in which things are not black and white, but need discernment, the discernment can ripen, and there is, as a result, greater security and greater benefit to souls through the pastoral process, also in the case when one discerns that sacraments should not be given (or should not be given as yet in any case). What AL says about mitigating factors that open a path to the sacraments does apply to the divorced and remarried, analogically, but does not remove the conditions of repentence mentioned by John Paul II, which express the very essence of repentence.
To the second dubbia: Yes.
To the third dubbia: The affirmation is analytically, obviously true, but does not erase the distinction between the mortal sin and a situation in which the matter of grave sin is present but not all the constituents of grave sin. When AL speaks of the combination of objective situation of sin with mitigating circumstances, it is clear that there objective situation of sin is not meant simply as state of habitual grave sin.
To the fourth: AL speaks of mitigating circumstances in a general sense, and not in a sense which brings into question the moral doctrine that circumstances cannot justify a moral act which is intrinsically wrong. AL speaks of mitigating circumstances which illuminate the present state of the soul. (In order to discern and judge correctly one must discern and accompany so that one can know the whole story of the person in an adequate way.)
To the fifth: VS is misread here. VS does not condemn the idea that conscience is creative, it condemns the idea that a “creative interpretation” of conscience can justify one’s rejection of God’s precepts. But as Our Lord says The Truth shall make you free, and therefore conscience is a benefit to the human person and is a participation in the creative benevolence of God.
These 4 Cardinals are saying, “Houston, we have a problem.” And what are the symptoms of those problems? First of all it is Cardinal Ferrell getting in the face of the faithful Archbishop Chaput for his interpretation of AL. Then it is Cardinal Cupich defending unworthy Communion by persons in “irregular unions”, and other persons including pro-abortion Protestant Governor of Illinois receiving communion at a funeral over which Cupich presided, prompting a rebuke by Bp Paprocki:
Bp. Paprocki wrote that “[it] is important to set the record straight,” and that, contrary to Cupich’s claims, “Canon 916 directs those ‘conscious of grave sin’ to refrain from receiving Holy Communion.”
Individuals must form their consciences in accord with Church teaching. Conscience assesses how a person’s concrete action in a given situation accords with Church teaching — not to determine whether one agrees with or accepts Church teaching in the first place.
The bishop went on to clarify that Canon 915 mandates clergy to withhold Communion from manifest, public, grave sinners. This includes those joined in invalid, non-sacramental marriages, considered adultery in Catholic teaching. Refusing Communion to such people is not about “assessing personal worthiness,” Paprocki explains, but rather meant to protect the Sacrament from sacrilege as well as prevent the harm of scandal “caused by someone’s public conduct that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.” Link:http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/springfield-bishop-rebukes-abp.-blase-cupich-his-notion-of-conscience
Carl: I’ve done enough tussling with guys like you to have grown bored with it—posters who constantly say, “I wish somebody would explain to me…(etc)” when it already HAS been explained to them and they’ve simply ignored the explanation. Don’t pretend to have an open mind when you don’t. You want the explanation—read the dubia! Oh, of course—you HAVE read it, and rather than elucidate the points in question, you just respond, “it says nothing!” Well, it says a lot more than your posts, which are nothing but filibuster. And Don Ralph—you’re sick of political conservatives trying to take over the Church? Well, I’m sick of political liberals like you trying to take it over, so I guess we’re even!
“So tired of seeing political conservative trying to take over the church.”
Perhaps you are in the wrong church.
The Catholic Church and Catholic political conservatives:
Believe life begins at conception and should be protected through natural death.
Believe marriage is a holy union, sanctioned by God between one man and one woman.
Believe divorce is a last resort and is only considered in the case of infidelity. Even then, reconciliation should be pursued if possible.
Believe man was created to work and there is dignity that comes from work.
Man has no authority to change the scriptures to match the godless culture. Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.
How refreshing it is to hear clarity from a Church leader again.
is there a diffuclty in making moral stands in the world when the Vatican and the Catholic church has much pornographic art?
even programs on EWTN flash art that has nudity. that art would seem to make morals stands not so strong
Larry: I am going to the root of the problem, not running around it. The root of the problem is the question of what this discussion should be about. The critics of AL say that that it should be about the ambiguity and shodiness of AL:Francis, they say, is ambiguous and equivocal regarding the permanence of marriage and the sin of adultery. They say that this ambiguuity is at the essence of the Kasper/Francis proposal. They simply assume the charge they are making, not giving evidence of it and not examining the words of Francis carefully. If you want me to examine the texts of AL, I can do that with you. I go the root of the problem by asking the question if this Kasper Proposal ever existed in the sense they are assuming it to exist: Did Kasper+Francis ever propose a mere careless subjectivistic approach to the sacraments, or are they advocating a more pastoral approach, and thus a more authentic one, based in truth and in the authentic Christian conception of what pastoral care is all about, and one that furthers the good of souls (which in no sense goes against what was said eloquently by John Paul II, and which does not go against the Tradition, but does go against the rigorist and superfical interpretation of John Paul II and Tradition.) I am not going to assume what the critics of AL assume. I challenge their assumption and I think I have every right to do so. If they can show me that Pope Francis is ambiguous, I will be the first one to join them and to ask the Holy Father for clarification, showing that I am a person of conviction and not the sychophant that my trolls imagine me to be. What I am affirming is that the charge of ambiguity is baseless. And since I hold that the charge is baseless, I do not feel myself obliged to join the chorus of those who are saying “Enough Ambiguity!” Reasonable?
“. . . historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.”
Could anyone please supply historical details, either in support or against, on what incident(s) Cardinal Burke is referring to here? Or could someone supply a reference(s) we could use to look up any historical incidents Cardinal Burke is referring to?
Thanks very much.
Francis is understanding but Burke is purposefully “forcing an interpretation” upon the encyclical. The encyclical is not erroneous but the “forced interpretation” is erroneous. Fragile people of weak faith cling to the law. Burke should go into seclusion and study Matthew 23:13-36. Burke is causing scandal.
So tired of seeing political conservative trying to take over the church. Cardinal Burke is about as believable and honorable as Trump.
27
* “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth.
28
m Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing.
No Carl, the pope must buckle before the pattern of Church tradition and discipline. He is not a free agent any more than any of us are free agents. It is the responsibility of this individual to answer when his pronouncements do not measure up to the tradition of the Church and the pronouncement of the Magisterium which existed before his pontificate. He is not clarifying. He is not delving deeper. He seems to be undermining a host of dogmatic and doctrinal presuppositions which are virtually timeless.
That is not his job. If he and his sycophants perceive that to be their job, he need to be corrected without ambiguity. If the correction is not taken, he need find himself and his clique a new safe-space.
Clerical clap-trap does not work on those of us who are not low-info, uncatechised and who have lived in the milieu of religious life where such verbal acrobatics are recognized for what they are. A mask. A mask for the canonization of personal notions in service of hubris and a bad conscience.
Scandal will earn the millstone.
What a sad, sad, sad state of affairs…. Yet Cardinal Burke and other Bishops have a serious obligation to bring this matter to the attention of Pope Francis. (What the Pope has written is contrary to the Gospel (Matt. 5:32 and 19:9) and the Letter of St. Paul (1 Corinthians, 6:9-11,15-20) THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS MATTER AND THE CARDINALS AND BISHOPS WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH POPE FRANCIS RE.THIS, IF POPE FRANCIS DOES NOT PUBLICLY REVOKE WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN/DONE.
No exception to honor to the Pope. No exception to honor thy Father and Mother.
Yes, common sense recognizes far too many “Catholic” parents of today were part of the free for all sex generation, birth control, and liberal age of alcohol, drug abuse, borrowing money to exist, wars of revenge and hate, murder, malice to the poor. We have the most failed generation ever today as leaders in the United States, recognizing God will have to apologize to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, when the United States of today is recognized.
Cardinal Burke defines his failure in failing to stand against crisis issues as slave trade of humans, slave wages that dominate the US workers, debt slavery that is now dominate in the USA to the workers who the debt lies on the backs of. The malice and slaughter of the poorest of the poor by the USA is an atrocity of epic proportions. Malice to Catholic people in South and Central America and Mexico and Haiti leaves every US assumed Catholic leader in total shame in sin they should not ever expect God to forgive them for, as the malice to our Sisters and Brothers the Islamic.
If that doesn’t prove the stance, or ignorance of Bishop Burke, then we can only plead stupidity to God on our judged moment.
Carl Kuss, LC: Your post is 338 words worth of empty platitudes in which you do not address a single concern of the dubia. You don’t refute the cardinals’ arguments. You don’t explain your own slurs. At least there is meaning in the cardinals’ letter, as opposed to your pseudo-profound garbage.
AM is not an encyclical. It is a Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation. I believe it is one of the more powerful teaching declarations a Pope can make because it is made in concert with the bishops. I recommend everyone go on line and read it. Also read Pope Benedict’s exhortation on the Eucharist, Sacramentum Caritatis for a contrast in focus, if not in substance, to what Francis has said. No wishy washy vague stuff in Benedict’s writings!
Kudos to the four Cardinals who have the common sense to ask for clarification..Lawlessness is what is abounding when one diocese can say one thing and another something entirely different. The Catholic Church is Universal…the same in every diocese in every country around the world. Let us not fall victim of those who stir up unnecessary doubt and confusion. This is from Satan, not from God. Jesus knows everything….why is it important to change what Jesus has set forth?
Question: Amoris Laetitia is or is not an Encyclical?...Is it just a letter that can be dismissed? If the Pope is firm on what he says, then there should be no problem responding. This lack of response is truly worrisome!
God, come to our aid. Lord, make haste to help us.
The Pope does not answer the questions because he sees them not as real questions, but expressions of stubbornness and rebelliousness. The authors already seem to have all the answers they want They are rigid. The Pope must buckle before their pattern of expectations, he is not allowed to answer on his own terms but only on theirs. Amoris Laetitia is said not to be “clear” because it does not play their game. Cardinal Burke says now that he is ready to make a formal correction against the Pope. He is taking on airs of Grand Inquisitor and Super-Pope. It is a power-play. The Pope MUST respond or else. With humble people one can speak humbly, but with this kind of uprising one must think carefully about how one responds. That to me is understandable. But the Pope has responded in the Avvenire interview where he speaks about legalism and rigorism. I have also used these categories in speaking about this matter and people tell me “don’t get personal and judgmental”; but really it is not that. These are the categories that one must use. Speaking about legalism and rigorism is the forthright response and the Pope is forthright. People may not like it, but that is another question. Therefore pray for the Holy Father and the Church and for the Holy Father’s enemies as well. The rigorism of the Cardinals in their treatment of the Vicar of Christ is a good image of the rigoris that their point of view would impose on the shepherds of the Church. The rigorist pastor or confessor puts ultimatums and pressurizes people to be “virtuous,” to buckle, because he does not have the patience, the charity and the fortitude to enter into the rhythym of God and await the moment of grace. He knows everything from the outset and does not dare to look people in the face. He misrepresents the Good Shepherd and misrepresents the face of God. He is the one with a doctrinal problem, and no minor one.
Lyle, Cardinal Burke is no fool! He is a preeminent expert on the laws of the Church and former head of the Church’s highest court. Either cannon law means something or it does not. We cannot have practice which fails to follow the law or which ignores it at the whim of any local bishop. There is also a question as to whether or not Pope Francis truly followed the guidance of the bishops at the synod on the family or he chose to ignore the majority and go with those who stood against historical Church teaching and practice dating back 2 millennia. The ink is not yet dry on Sacramentum Caritatis. I hope that you would read it. This is a matter of Pope Francis disrespecting the teachings and practices of those who have preceded him. This could destroy the papacy because if he does not respect something that a Pope wrote less than 10 years ago those who follow him cannot be expected to follow what he has taught. We have bishop turning against bishop on this basis.
This interview is truly disturbing! The fact this document is tremendously confusing filtering down to the pews. Academics and cardinals alike have publicly expressed doubts. The Holy Father chooses not to respond. Why? Is Pope Francis confused between authentic mercy in working with the Church and erroneous mercy centered in the self? Is the Pope working through a thoughtful corrective response to the errors of the document? Or is the Holy Father lacking humility to enter into a dialogue with those offering doubts to the document? There is a certain irony to this situation, in that Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict always entered a dialogue and Francis who claims to be “open” is irate over the doubts! For the sake of the unity of Holy Mother Church, Pope Francis must dine on humble pie and provide the answers to the doubts. If he cannot then his pronouncements will ring hollow. What a shame!
Cardinal Burke needs to educate himself to the mere reality of its better to appear the fool, then to open ones mouth an dispel all doubt.
You shall not commit adultery, applies to youth and children to the act of sex, premarital sex. Honor ones Father and Mother recognizes many a parent FAIL to enforce or teach the Commandment of Honor ones Father and Mother in fact of they did not honor their Father and Mother. Parents cannot teach to honor ones Father and Mother, like Cardinal Burke in his foolish ways fails to honor the Pope, who he by example fails to Honor others themselves. Failure of honor to Fathers, Mothers and Pope is merely the United States Assumed Catholic leadership way.
If we taught honor to those we are to honor by our example without exception, we would have less fools in not teaching others to be fools by our example.
Carl, Yes it does get complicated because it hinges on the validity of the first marriage. The Church has had a process for that for some time. I think you missed the other point though. There is a movement to legitimize divorce in the name of mercy. Apparently Christ never saw it that way:
Matthew 19:8
8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
It might be correct to give the person involved some time for discernment, to come to their own conclusion, so to speak but, in the end, there are criteria in Cannon Law which determine whether or not that first marriage was valid or not valid.
Looks like the 6th and 9th Commandments are, ultimately, negotiable from Diocese to Diocese all over the world! LORD, HELP US! Come to the aid of YOUR CHURCH!
Jim: I accept the teaching of the Lord that he who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. That affirmation concerns an act. But what I said regarded a class of people, a sociological category, the divorced and remarried, and not per se the act of which our Lord speaks. That is why the issue gets more complicated, and there is need of discernment, and everything cannot be reduced to a rule. But the Pope’s critics are so certain that the Pope has said, somehow, that adultery now can be considered to be okay. This is their axiom; yet it is a false axiom. The Pope has not said what his critics think he has said. Sure he is speaking of the divorced and remarried, but another factor has entered in: mitigating circumstances+God’s grace. The Pope’s critics say nothing changes. The Pope says something changes and the road to the sacraments has been opened.
Pretending (or being deceived into believing) that what Christ taught hasn’t been interpreted correctly by the church because we want more members to join the church, or “members” to feel better about being in it despite their failing to die to themselves, is not what we need or what will work to bring salvation to those in the pews.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, comes to mind.
A scary thought when the stakes could not be higher and the flock being led astray, and astray for many being forever in Hell.
@Magis, the “reformation” indeed is not over.
We witness daily the abandonment of the true nature of Holy Mass, the Blessed Sacrament, the Communion of Saints, the debasement of the Papacy and ecclesial responsibility.
The demonic revolt continues, as it will until the end of time and the coming of our Lord, Jesus Christ, in victory.
But will He find any faith on the earth?
Reformation?
More accurately a metamorphosis into stench
Magis: “Burke and his fellows, mostly canon lawyer types, live in a world of their own so “far from the madding crowd.” They have no idea of the real world lived by the 99% of Catholics (not all Roman) around the world.”
Then 99% of Catholics better get right with God and fast! Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Mr Peter Huntingdon Bewers: “But, some people may have married badly and realize that the person they married is not that same person to day and wish they could Re Marry to a more suitable Life Partner and Re Marry. Should they spend the rest of their life un happy ?”
I am not the same person I was the day I got married. Neither is my wife. And this has nothing to do with divorce. In addition Jesus said nothing about getting divorced based upon “happiness”. That is absurd. As a husband I am commanded to love my wife and lay my life down for her, even as Christ laid His life down for the Church. Ephesians 5:25. A wife is commanded to reverence and submit to her own husband. Ephesians 5:22,33
Burke and his fellows, mostly canon lawyer types, live in a world of their own so “far from the madding crowd.” They have no idea of the real world lived by the 99% of Catholics (not all Roman) around the world. The Reformation is not over!
I am not sure exactly what Pope Francis has said , but it has certainly got people,s reaction. First of all we are in The Year of Mercy. ending tomorrow 20th of November.
There is a report that many people have gone to confession that possibly have not gone for a very long time , so that is good, many people find staying out of Sin is not easy , but to be able to go to confession is a lovely way to use one of the most beautiful sacraments our Church has , it is a very great pity people are either shy,r have stayed away so long they find it very hard to go.
Now Marriage , I fully believe in the Churches teaching , which comes from Jesus himself, What ever God has joined together let no man put asunder . also the Commandment on Love. How could you carry that out by divorcing your Wife ? you may wish for a change ? but it is not right and the damage it has done to Children is un- repairable.
But, some people may have married badly and realize that the person they married is not that same person to day and wish they could Re Marry to a more suitable Life Partner and Re Marry. Should they spend the rest of their life un happy ?
These questions are not easy to answer , also the Beauty of NOT being able to receive The Blessed Sacrament would be very painful. Marriage annulment is possibly not easy to obtain, and you also have to take into account the huge number of people who are living together un married because they see the huge civil cost of divorce , this is a situation which must also be of great concern for our Catholic Church ? Pope Francis is in my opinion a truly Great Pope who will do a lot of good for our Church , which is first of all a place of Love and Forgiveness, and we also have a great deal of Lapsation so to address, so to get our people to return to the love of God is our first duty.
“In the first place it is not obvious that a divorced and remarried couple is committing adultery.” Really???
Matthew 19:8-10
8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
What’s not obvious about that???
Some speak of “mercy” but Christ doesn’t speak of it that way. He speaks of “hardness of the heart” when he applies it to allowing divorce.
Yes, there have been Popes who “taught error” in past Centuries….There have even been “Anti-Popes!” Also, normally, the “Pope’s theologian” writes Papal Documents. One would assume the Pope reads the document before he signs it, but who knows what Pope Francis does. The fact is: “Amourous Laetitiae” has “false teaching” re. divorce and re-marriage; it is contrary to the New Testament and the Official Teaching of the Catholic Church. I thought this matter had been corrected, but evidently not. THIS IS A BIG DEAL FOLKS; PRAY FOR POPE FRANCIS.
The problem here is that no amount of subjective tweaking can change an objective fact.
If a man for example is in a valid sacramental marriage with a woman and then civilly divorces her they are still married in the eyes of the church. Civil divorce does not sever the marriage bonds of a valid sacramental marriage. The Church’s presumption about catholic marriage is that the marriage is always considered valid unless proven otherwise. That is where the church tribunal comes in. If the man were to seek an annulment it would be up to the tribunal and not the man’s subjective conscience, to determine if there is a valid sacramental marriage or if there was a defect and there never was a marriage in the first place.
The one, single and only way a valid catholic sacramental marriage ends is with the death of one of the spouses. Canon law and church teaching deals with this objective reality.
If the man (without an decree of nullity) then attempts to form a union or civilly “marry” another woman he commits adultery because he is already married to the first woman. This “marriage” is not valid in the eyes of the church. And if they persist in such a union while having sexual relations they are in an OBJECTIVE state of mortal sin. The catechism states they are in a situation of public and permanent adultery, regardless of their Subjective experience or what their consciences are saying to them. Thus because of the Objective situation they are not permitted to receive Holy communion.
What Pope Francis and Cardinal Kasper and their ilk are attempting to do is to eat away at that “presumption of validity” that the church has always held. Francis has helped this along with his comments that most marriages are invalid and his streamlining of the annulment process, which was already in the USA in my opinion, to ready to handout annulments to people. They are trying to undermine the presumption that catholic sacramental marriages are valid unless proven otherwise by a church tribunal. This is only going to harm families and family integrity even more.
See Catechism of the Catholic Church number 1650.
See also here: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2012/01/03/divorced-catholics-and-the-eucharist/
Can the Pope be challenged? Read the scriptures. Paul challenged Peter’s hypocrisy.
Ephesians 2
Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
Carl Kuss, you show your bias. Fidelity to Christ is not “rigorism”. If some is in a second marriage when the first COULD be annulled, they should be helped to overcome whatever obstacles keep them from resolving that issue but for those who have a valid first marriage, the answer is not condoning adultery. That is heretical. If the issue is that priests are hearing people’s story, telling them the teaching and the solution in the eyes of the Church, and the couple is unwilling to follow that teaching, the issue is not compassion. Hopefully the pastor is clear that their immortal soul is worth more than their earthly comfort. If priests are being asked to accept sinful relations because people feel so bad God expects more and the Pope has decided he won’t help them grow but will cave to their self pity or selfishness, then we have apostasy. Many people are divorced through no fault of their own. Many people have been groomed to homosexuality since childhood. None of that can’t be overcome by God’s grace. Anything else is a lie. All that complexity, even the person being a victim, has been permitted by God. Our faith is about bearing the cross for love of Christ. It is opposed to rejecting the cross because it isn’t easy. “He who will not take up his cross cannot be my disciple.”. Finally, the role of conscience definitely needs to be clarified. A conscience has to be properly formed in accordance with the true faith. Look at the saints and you will see that what is going on now is a rejection of all that made them holy and of the faith they passed on.
Is there or isn’t there confusion? Duh!!!
Karl Kuss states that Trump is more Pro-Life than Clinton.
In fact Clinton has no claim to any degree of Pro-Life, she supports death to the baby from conception to birth.
Karl calls this clarification, “guilt tripping”, when in fact it is clarity.
Clarity is what the four Cardinals are calling for, a defense against confusion.
Church teaching is clear, If you are divorced, without an Annulment and having sex with anybody but your wife, Don’t present yourself to receive Holy Communion. Our beloved Pope’s letter has led many to believe there are exceptions.
Karl’s arguments remind me of the Democratic Party agenda to call Good evil, and Evil good, to state there is no definite Good or Evil. Certain things are Good and certain things Evil, while there is gray area in others. Sex outside Marriage is Evil.
There is also rigorism in the argument that you had to vote for Trump, because he is pro-life. And this rigorism resembles that of the position of the Four Cardinals. Note: I am not saying that there was no good argument to vote for Trump on account of his being (more) pro-life than Hillary. What I am objecting to is the guilt-tripping, name-calling, arm twisting argument that you had to vote for Trump for that reason, that you had no right to make your own general appraisal of the two candidates, that there was one issue and that’s it. This latter rigorism involves putting people into boxes, and confusing labels with contents and appearance with reality. The same may be said with regard to the divorced and remarried. All the divorced and remarried are not necessarily in mortal sin. All that one has to do to realize that this is true is think the thing through clearly and carefully and open one’s eyes to concrete reality. I suggest that one go back and listen to the interview of Raymond Arroyo with Cardinal Kasper. Kasper keeps telling him that there really is no such thing as the Kasper proposal. The only thing he did was to insist that pastors take into account the complexity of reality when they are realizing the work proper to them, the work of the good shepherd. That’s all. Kasper is not a liberal theologian, but a good theologian. That is also what Pope Francis says about him. But there is a whole crowd of people who have stopped paying any serious attention to the Pope’s teaching, it seems.
Jim: The quotation from Sacramentum Caritatis is very good. Pope Benedict speaks of the Church encouraging those divorced and remarried people who for legitimate reasons cannot separate to live in friendship as brother and sister and so to have the possibility of returning to the sacraments. The key word is encouraging. Encouraging people to live according to God’s will is good pastoral practice and it presupposes a pastoral process. What is wrong is the idea that a priest must immediately jump in and present everyone the ultimatum: either stop committing adultery, or you will get no communion! In the first place it is not obvious that a divorced and remarried couple is committing adultery. God’s grace may be already entering into the situation. God’s grace may be part of the reality one is dealing with, and then the pastor must ask himself: how do I collaborate with what God is doing. And one may be unfairly centering everything on sexual relations, when that may not be the issue. (Jesus does not reduce adultery to sexual relations outside of marriage; there is also the question of the heart. And when Jesus condemns the man who leaves his wife to marry another as an adulterer he is not simply saying that he is an adulterer because he has sex with someone who is not one’s wife: Jesus is saying something profound and not something that is a) judgmental or b) merely trivially true. Living in friendship as brother and sister means something more than abstaining from sex, not less; it implies overcoming concupiscence) Secondly the priest/pastor has the responsibility to speak at the appropriate moment when his words will be understood correctly; he has to look for the right moment and to create the proper conditions. It is a process and sometimes one must wait and pray and accompany. But as soon as the crack opens and God’s grace enters, a path to the sacraments has opened, and one has only to get from point a to point b and there is no need to present an ultimatums as if God’s grace were not at work. To do so would be to damage souls.
Thank God for men speaking boldly and challenging the confusion created by the current “pope”.
God is not the author of confusion.
Pray for Cardinal Burke and the other bold leaders willingly to speak the truth.
It is the Truth that sets us free.
Clarification is needed, but not of the doctrine of Amoris Laetitia, which is clear enough: All of the principles remain intact. The sacraments are holy. One ought to examine oneself before receiving communion. The role of the pastor is underlined. The role of conscience is underlined. The whole doctrine about mortal sin is maintained. It is just that there is no one single rule which tells you concretely who can receive communion and who cannot, as if this were something which can be determined by a purely exterior criterion, and without looking at concrete reality, and ignoring the working of grace in the soul. That people are not used to looking at this issue in the way Amoris Laetitia describes it is not the fault of Amoris Laetitia. Pope Francis does not change an iota of Catholic doctrine. He does develop it. He asks us to more mature in our thinking.
I am so sorry to see this serious matter that contradicts the words of St. Paul, and ultimately, Out Lord Jesus Christ, Himself. I wonder who the “Papal Theologian” was that Pope Francis called on to write the Draft of “Amorous Laetitiae” which he, Pope Francis—-I assume—-read, and then affixed his Papal Signature? In any case, doesn’t the document have to be withdrawn and the error publicaly renounced by Rome? This is not an insignificant matter!
There is also rigorism in the argument that you had to vote for Trump, because he is pro-life. And this rigorism resembles that of the position of the Four Cardinals. Note: I am not saying that there was no good argument to vote for Trump on account of his being (more) pro-life than Hillary. What I am objecting to is the guilt-tripping, name-calling, arm twisting argument that you had to vote for Trump for that reason, that you had no right to make your own general appraisal of the two candidates, that there was one issue and that’s it. This latter rigorism involves putting people into boxes, and confusing labels with contents and appearance with reality. The same may be said with regard to the divorced and remarried. All the divorced and remarried are not necessarily in mortal sin. All that one has to do to realize that this is true is think the thing through clearly and carefully and open one’s eyes to concrete reality. I suggest that one go back and listen to the interview of Raymond Arroyo with Cardinal Kasper. Kasper keeps telling him that there really is no such thing as the Kasper proposal. The only thing he did was to insist that pastors take into account the complexity of reality when they are realizing the work proper to them, the work of the good shepherd. That’s all. Kasper is not a liberal theologian, but a good theologian. That is also what Pope Francis says about him. But there is a whole crowd of people who have stopped paying any serious attention to the Pope’s teaching, it seems.
Cardinal Burke has done all he could to avoid taking this path but the catastrophic pontificate of Francis has left him little opportunity. The Curia has become more, not less, corrupt; the clericalism has reach heights not seen in many years as bishops scramble to show themselves obedient to Francis’ geopolitical gobblydegook in order to advance along the career path (Blaise Cupich being pointman to decide who is appointed bishop in the US??? ridiculous)....
Cardinal Burke is right when he said tremendous division warrants action. People wonder whether such a view apply to Burke himself who whom the very first day appear to be extremely hostile to the current pontiff. He became so nasty after being removed from his position. Is this an act of trying to bring unity back to the Church or a revenge against those who discipline him for being too rigid to the point of causing damage to the whole Church? The US just finishes with its election and Trump a bully wins. Does Burke want to follow the suit by becoming so bully to the point of causing division himself? He should be ashamed of himself. I knew him when he was still in Saint Louis. You can ask the priests and the people there. They will tell you what they truly think of such a power thirsting figure.
One more comment. This talk of second marriages staying under the same roof but promising to live as brother and sister is scandalous to me. I know the argument is “for the sake of the children”, but the first spouse can live with the person as a brother or sister and those children will see the true faith lived. Or the second family can suffer the consequences that may well save their souls. The second relationship is scandalous on its face. If we are so imprudent that we would do that then we should be sheltering homeless women in rectories or having nuns live there. But we don’t because we know that we AVOID the near occasion of sin and we don’t willingly and knowingly create scandal. What scripture did someone try to use to justify this cockeyed notion?
Christine’s comment about the polygamists in Africa and Maureen’s comment about people not expecting to divorce bring up a basic point that people in general don’t understand who we are in relation to God or the concept of God. They cannot imagine a greater good than the one they believe in or that exists in the material world. How could a God who is LOVE ask me to leave one of my two wives? How could a God who is LOVE ask me to stay single after I have been refused an annulment? We would rather forget the brevity of life and the infinity of eternity. We tend to think God thinks like a human. We lack the faith that makes miracles possible. There is such a wisdom in the teaching of God when it is understood as it deals with human nature. The Ten Commandments are for our peace and harmony. The laws and teaching passed on by Christ are for the same reason and to permit a close union to God. When we suffer we want it to stop. We don’t seem to believe it is redemptive or deserved ( there are no sinless people and none who can ever atone for their own sin apart from Christ) or part of God’s plan or something He can use to bring about a greater good. Christ embraced His cross and was silent in the face of the scourging and ridicule and questioning. He hung for three hours before gaping enemies without ever an unkind word. That radical obedience, by a man, was what restored us to God’s grace. While I understand the call for great charity and tenderness with each other, it is anathema to me to deny sin as sin and call it charity to go along with it. Gradualness can only start with the desire to overcome the sin, not by abetting it. We are more than our sex life and our passions.
May God bless Cardinal Burke and the other three cardinals for their courage in defending the Catholic Faith. We need to pray for them. Thank God that Cardinal Burke makes it clear that if Pope Francis does not act, they will take action. It is about time, because if action is not taking because Pope Francis does not uphold orthodoxy, the enormous damage that Pope Francis has already done will continue to propagate with disastrous consequences for the Body of Christ. I can only hope that I am wrong, but I have the feeling that Pope Francis will either ignore these four cardinals, or he will not respond in a positive way. Moreover, I expect the Modernists that have gained so much power during his pontificate to oppose and attack these courageous cardinals. It is hard to believe that Pope Francis and the Modernists will change their way, but again, I hope and pray that I am wrong.
Carl Kuss, when has that NOT been the rule of the church? What you said, was more ambiguous and confusing than what the Cardinals are asking of the Pope. Either you are living in adultery or you are not. How can black become white and white black? The commandment against adultery and Jesus’ words in the Gospels are what they are or suddenly have no force or meaning? That IS what the Cardinals want from Pope Francis. It can’t be both.
What cardinal Burke, the other bishops, and many of us are requesting is that Pope Francis quit the confusion and announce his intentions plainly, not in a tiny footnote or a private letter to a bishops’ conference, but openly to all and with manly clarity. State the facts, state your intentions, and stop speaking in the darkness, so that Catholics don’t have to creep around like investigative journalists, trying to figure out what on earth their pope actually means. That’s step one. Once the truth is known, and if the pope openly intends to contradict Church teaching and practice, then we can determine what is the next appropriate step. But all of this papal/Vatican obfuscating drives us crazy. For Pete’s sake, be men about it and fess up!
As an example, a man who declares the worthiness to receive Holy Communion is “A matter of conscience”:
Link: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/abp-cupich-conscience-decides-whether-divorced-remarried-and-homosexual-cou
Is about to be installed as a Cardinal. Apparently this man also believes that the morality of homosexual acts are simply a “matter of conscience.” What next people? Abortion as a “matter of individual conscience”?
If you don’t believe Francis has caused immense divisions in the Church contrast what Cupich has said with what Archbishop Chaput declares:
Link: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-chaput-virtuous-communities-are-needed-to-fix-our-broken-sexual
But a source indicates Chaput is under attack from within the Vatican because of what he has said:
Link:https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/popes-new-point-man-on-family-rips-abp.-chaputs-amoris-guidelines-on-commun
“The Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage
29. If the Eucharist expresses the irrevocable nature of God’s love in Christ for his Church, we can then understand why it implies, with regard to the sacrament of Matrimony, that indissolubility to which all true love necessarily aspires. (91) There was good reason for the pastoral attention that the Synod gave to the painful situations experienced by some of the faithful who, having celebrated the sacrament of Matrimony, then divorced and remarried. This represents a complex and troubling pastoral problem, a real scourge for contemporary society, and one which increasingly affects the Catholic community as well. The Church’s pastors, out of love for the truth, are obliged to discern different situations carefully, in order to be able to offer appropriate spiritual guidance to the faithful involved.(92) The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church’s practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk 10:2- 12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist. Yet the divorced and remarried continue to belong to the Church, which accompanies them with special concern and encourages them to live as fully as possible the Christian life through regular participation at Mass, albeit without receiving communion, listening to the word of God, eucharistic adoration, prayer, participation in the life of the community, honest dialogue with a priest or spiritual director, dedication to the life of charity, works of penance, and commitment to the education of their children.
When legitimate doubts exist about the validity of the prior sacramental marriage, the necessary investigation must be carried out to establish if these are well-founded. Consequently there is a need to ensure, in full respect for canon law (93), the presence of local ecclesiastical tribunals, their pastoral character, and their correct and prompt functioning (94). Each Diocese should have a sufficient number of persons with the necessary preparation, so that the ecclesiastical tribunals can operate in an expeditious manner. I repeat that “it is a grave obligation to bring the Church’s institutional activity in her tribunals ever closer to the faithful” (95). At the same time, pastoral care must not be understood as if it were somehow in conflict with the law. Rather, one should begin by assuming that the fundamental point of encounter between the law and pastoral care is love for the truth: truth is never something purely abstract, but “a real part of the human and Christian journey of every member of the faithful” (96). Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not declared and objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God’s law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the Church’s established and approved practice in this regard. This path, if it is to be possible and fruitful, must be supported by pastors and by adequate ecclesial initiatives, nor can it ever involve the blessing of these relations, lest confusion arise among the faithful concerning the value of marriage (97).”
Sacramentum Caritatis #29 Pope Benedict XVI
In his lack of clarity Pope Francis has created division and confusion in the Church. He has allowed what Pope Benedict and the bishops declared in Sacramentum Caritatis and what St John Paul declared in Familiaris Consortio (22 (November 1981), to, in practice, be trashed. In consequence, others may feel free to discard what he has or what any other Pope has taught in concert with the bishops, thus destroying the legitimacy of the magisterium.
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.
Cardinal Burke’s suggestion (see above) that he would take corrective action against the Supreme Pontiff, because Cardinal Burke now has issues with Amoris Laetitia, which Cardinal Burke originally defended back in April as not contradicting the perennial teaching of the Church is bizarre. Is Cardinal Burke on a power-trip?
Pray for CDR Burke!
A lone shepherd, we are blessed to have him. God does no abandon us!
Join his prayers! All saints pray for him!
“Who are we to say someone isn’t worthy of receiving Him?” “We” are not the ones saying it. St. Paul says it, and he must have gotten the teaching from the original Apostles who must have gotten it from Christ. Those who eat the Body of Christ without believing it is the Body of Christ, or while being in a state of serious sin, eat and drink judgment unto themselves. Who are “we” to vacate the Word of God in the Scriptures?
What is so wrong about asking for a clarification on this document? It IS confusing, and intentionally meant to be ambiguous. We are now seeing various Bishops provide different interpretations of certain passages of the document. When there are vastly different interpretations, which will drive and formulate vastly different practices, then we have created confusion. For those who object to this request for clarification, I need to ask the simply question - why do you object to such a clarification? (Dig, dig! as Pope Francis would say). Clarifying statements on ambiguous statements are a good thing, and would serve the Church well. It is the failure to clarify that is damning.
God will reward those that are faithful not happy. I have a friend that crave for Communion, but she respected it so, that going every Sunday to church, she did not dare to receive Jesus until she finally got her husband of years to marry in the church. Who said life here is
easy. Who said this, Peter or Our Lord? “Take up your cross and follow me” then with HIM his burden and yoke will be bearable and sanctifying.
Our dear Pope Francis is bringing division even in my family. My kids (now ranging 33 to 50 yrs) loved JPII growing up, etc now they put P Francis’ dubious and unfaithful teachings against me,their mom that taught them their Cathechism , prayers etc and now they even say they like Pope Francis better than JPII.
IT IS ALL SO DIVISIVE AND POLITICAL Because if doctrine and practices or TRADITION can be change depending who is Pope, then we have a politicians and political parties running Jesus Christ church.
This needs to stop with the H Spirit’s help ASAP. We appreciate Mr Pinto’s inside reporting.
@Maureen: Jesus said it that’s the whole point. A person who validly marries in the catholic church is married for life until death do you part. If a person civilly divorces their spouse and civilly “marries” another person then they are now committing adultery, because they are still married to the first spouse. According to canon law you are in an objective state of mortal sin. Civil divorce does not break the marriage bond. Only a church marriage tribunal can determine whether or not a sacramental marriage was valid or invalid. It is not up to the spouses to determine this.
There is clarity, but there is also pseudo-clarity. I think that what these four cardinals are asking for is pseudo-clarity. They want the Pope to pronounce in favor of the rule: divorced and remarried people may not receive communion unless they (agree to) live as brother and sister (abstain from sexual relations). But this never has been the rule of the Church, although they are sure it has been. What Pope Francis is saying is that rules are not everything, that one has to look at concrete reality, and one has to take into account the working of grace, and the graduality of the via caritatis. Pope John Paul II does talk about the exceptional case of those who agree to live as brother and sister. But it is an exception, and not the rule. It presuppses a pastoral and penitential process. It presupposes that life is not black and white. It presupposes the graudal working of grace. It presupposes that rules are not everything. It is not rigorism, but its opposite.
The education field now improving in different area./ It will effect in their community too.
Maureen’s comment touched me; she is right that no one in their right mind sets out to have a failed marriage. But all those who have suffered this great pain should make inquiries into whether they would be eligible for an annulment. Many who might be never look into this possibility. But, in a universal church, the question of permitting divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive the sacraments is not the only one. In Africa, for example, missionaries have been confronted with polygamist cultures. In one case, a man had married two sisters whom he loved equally. All three asked to be received as Catholics. They were taught that a Catholic marriage was between one man and one woman, such that the man would have to choose one of the sisters as his wife and the other would have to become as a sister to him. For family, cultural, and economic reasons, they all rejected this solution. Should the Church have set aside Christ’s teachings because these three people loved each other? And then, what about two people of the same sex who love each other and have sexual relations together? Should the Church set aside Christ’s teachings on mariage because of their profound feelings for each other? And what about the Church’s teachings about chastity before mariage? Should they be modifiable according to circumstances? Jesus invites us to follow Him. He did not promise us a pain-free, easy life on earth. Look at His own life! But He promised to be our Love, our Light, and our Consolation if we choose to follow Him.
Jim, thanks for the excellent posts.
Trying to create a false dichotomy between laws and mercy is intellectually juvenile. The laws of the Church are how mercy is applied. Unfortunately, those advocating for clarity and consistency of praxis are slandered as being unmerciful, rigid, modern-day Pharisees. The irony, of course, is how judgmental, rigid, and unmerciful such views are. So much for the dialogue and reflection that we get lectured about.
Maureen and Justmaybe, Christ was clear He does NOT feel as you feel. The reason being is NO marriage between Christians has to fail because Christians choose love. Real love. The kind that looks for the spiritual and corporal well being of the other. And because there is a third person in that marriage: Christ. And nothing is impossible with Him. Those who say their marriage can’t work are really saying they are not willing to love anymore or do what needs to be done (which may mean separating until someone gets help but still being faithful to them or may mean living closer to poverty etc.) People may not be bad or evil but their choices may be. Christ was clear that God thinks the two people He joined shall NOT be separated. Imagine if all the energy that was put into letting everyone divorce were put into helping people live their faith and understand why God said what He said! Imagine how many children would see the faith and love lived in their parents! I know there are people who refuse to believe the Church teaching on this but for them there is probably an annulment since they fraudulently entered into the marriage. You are mistaken there is no room for movement, but it is in a direction you don’t seem willing to consider - helping people actually live the faith they profess. That is not being dogmatic. THAT is being pastoral. It is NOT pastoral to help them deny their sin nor their true faith. And justmaybe, Christ does expect us to look with eyes of love on each other but He does not expect us to be complicit in denial, much less in sin. There IS a difference. If someone struggles with a relationship, we are to listen and build up but those who would say, “Walk away,” are teaching apostasy. They are calling God a liar and impotent. Christ warned the road is narrow and few are those who find it. Broad is the road to destruction. The “anything goes as long as we smile while we do it and act like we are nice”, is the broad road. We are warned that we will take up a cross and we are warned that the blessed are those who mourn and who suffer persecution for Christ’s sake. God will order our lives if we allow Him. Our job is Christ’s job: humility, obedience, love. Hard to divorce if you are following those three.
MAUREEN, while you say you “don’t need any lessons or comments about church teachings,” in fact, you do. WHY? Because you are confused. Your perspective is that the Church’s focus on MORAL LAW, rather than MERCY is worrisome. What you fail to understand is that it is NOT MERCY, when a priest lies to someone living in objective grave sin and tells them ‘you’re ok.’
St. Matthew 9:12-13 - “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. Go and LEARN the meaning of the words, ‘I desire MERCY, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but SINNERS to REPENTANCE.” These are the words of Jesus, the only hope of salvation that you have, and that we all have. Jesus says mercy is what we need, but it requires repentance. Mercy requires the sinner to change his mind about his sin, and likewise, change his sinful behavior.
So, please don’t resist learning from Jesus where you are in error concerning mercy. Don’t resist Jesus’ offer to apply His healing to your life and others’ lives, including all who persist in grave sin - He calls us to repentance.
“I just need to say that I worry about a church that is so concentrated on laws instead of mercy.”
Maureen, the Christian life is not primarily about a happiness that comes from the satisfaction of our personal needs. Its a deeper happiness that comes from conforming to the will of God. What is the will of God in any particular situation might be somewhat difficult to determine, but it doesn’t have to be determined immediately. It will indeed be determined far more swiftly if we live according to the Gospel and the Commandments.
We are truly free when we are free of our enslavement to sin, our personal notions, and adopt the wisdom of our Lord, Jesus Christ. We aren’t exempt from the difficulties that come from conforming to Christ, nor are we to be deprived of the joy that comes from taking up our cross, yoked WITH Him.
Clarification is clearly needed. That’s an incontrovertible fact. The pastor of the Church needs to feed his sheep not with ambiguity but clarity. His lack of quick clarification is endemic of the Catholic Church’s teachings on faith in morals in general. Case in point…the number of American Catholics voting for pro abortion candidates is an abomination.. Now our leader is a prime contributor…..sad….
I find many of the comments made here to be dogmatic, with little room for movement. I do believe most people enter into marriage hoping it will last a lifetime. Sometimes this is not the case and it is best to end the marriage. That does not make people evil or bad, or unworthy of participating in the sacraments. I truly believe that Jesus would rather people, who are good and faith filled, but who unfortunately have had a failed marriage and found another person to love, still be able to receive Him. Who are we to say someone isn’t worthy of receiving Him? I don’t need any lessons or comments about church teachings, etc. I just need to say that I worry about a church that is so concentrated on laws instead of mercy.
Has there ever, really, been an example of a pope “teaching error” in the history of the Catholic Church.
Joe, There have been allegations for sure, brought out by Clinton surrogates very late in the election season. But even those allegations did not include rape. The essence of rape Joe, is that it forces someone to violate their conscience by coerced participation in something the victim finds morally reprehensible. You might consider that when it comes to President Obama who would not take “No” for an answer from the Little Sisters of the Poor. There is no evidence Donald Trump raped anyone. There is irrefutable evidence that Obama raped the consciences of The Little Sisters of the Poor and others.
THANK GOD for CARDINAL BURKE!
You other bishops and cardinals faithful to the Church’s teaching - STOP sulking in the shadows, waiting for God to act - God is waiting for you to act! Don’t leave Cardinal Burke and others in the cold on their own, join the battle for the TRUTH! This will not go away until the Church fixes this, with or without the Pope, as the Pope wishes.
Joe, Are you saying the good Cardinal advocated for Bill Clinton? Allegations Joe! Allegations- and it shows how sour you are on the election results. Too bad! So sad! Let me play my miniature violin for you!
Thank God for these Cardinals.
Thank God for NCR.
Thank God for Edward Pentin.
I have to admit, this ‘change of teaching’ that the Pope was supporting was really starting to affect my faith in the Catholic Church. I asked myself, how can something that was a mortal sin yesterday, be no sin today. God does not change as Jesus constantly emphasized.
Sadly, we are human and in our lives, we don’t see the big picture. As the laity couldn’t see the end of the Arian heresy, or in fact, the many other heresies during the life the Roman Catholic Church. Likewise, in my little mind and heart, I couldn’t see how the Cardinals could sit back and watch while Jesus very words were being trampled on. Of course, I pray that this will be worked out but I fear it is just the tip of the iceburg.
But we can rest assured, there are brave Cardinals willing to put their head on the Francis chopping block in order to preserve the faith. These men sacrifice themselves in order to protect the flock, but God will bless them for their efforts.
We can’t afford to be naïve about what is going on here. This is about “communion for the divorced and remarried” only on the surface level. The issues at stake are much deeper and graver. There is an attempt underway to completely overturn Catholic teaching on faith and morals at the very core. The progressives absolutely despise the teaching of the Church, reaffirmed by St. John Paul the Great in Veritatis Splendor, which holds that there are actions that are always evil and gravely sinful, no matter what. They hate the idea of absolutes. The progressives literally hate Vertiatis Splendor. When it came out, there was much wailing and nashing of teeth on the Left and it was derided as essentially a resurrection of Pope St. Pius X’s Oath Against Modernism.
Pope Francis and his supporters says it all the time - that anyone who says there are things that are always wrong is a Pharisee, is “rigid”, has a heart that is incapable of love, is not pastoral, and may be mentally imbalanced. They constantly re-affirm that there is no “black and white” and that everything is “grey” and depends upon the circumstances. They have picked the most sympathetic case - that of the divorced and remarried - as the vehicle to overturn this teaching - but it extends literally to everything. This is why the dubia a specifically framed to address the issue in terms of the teaching of Vertiatis Splendor. This is why Pope Francis just decapitated the St. John Paul II Institute and installed men at its head who oppose everything St. John Paul the Great stood for concerning faith and morals, and particularly despise Veritatis Splendor. Note that Veritatis Splendor, while explicitly pertinent to the issues at hand, was not cited in Amoris Laetitia - as though it didn’t exist.
1. Amoris Laetitia has not been amended or changed since its release.
2. Cardinal Burke originally defended Amoris Laetitia.
3. The fact that only 4 Cardinals signed this petition, clearly indicates that the majority of Cardinals and Bishops in the Catholic Church have no problem understanding that Amoris Laetitia does not contradict Church teaching.
4. Is Cardinal Burke questioning the competency of the Pope and the Synod of Bishops?
THE HOLY SPIRIT HAS ARRIVED!
NCR, thank you for this informative post. May God bless these Cardinals and gives other Cardinals and Bishops the holy courage to help souls by clear Church teaching!
Thank you NCR!
Thank you Mr.Pentin!
Your courage is a blessing for us
The request for clarification should be welcomed by all. The intent is to keep the faithful in the right way as from the comments, the need arose from the interpretation or implementation of the teaching. Cardinal Burke is not being divisive. If the message was not clear to all due to the language resulting in various differing interpretations, then all he is asking is to clarify the language so that it is clear and definitive and one for all. he is being a faithful servant.
Years ago I worked in a factory. There was a rather cynical saying that occasionally went about the factory floor, with regard to products made with faults and the prevailing attitude about them from the management. “If the gauge don’t fit, change the gauge”.
It seems to me that what is going on [albeit overwhelming predominant] within our church, and within society at large with rare exception, is the very same thing. It’s the theology and philosophy of the “Cheshire Cat”; to the extent the “the words mean what I want them to mean”.
Those throwing mud at the Cardinals seeking clarification from Pope Francis reveal themselves to be entirely and tragically ignorant of the role of bishops and cardinals in the life of the Church. Equating this crisis to a simple political battle can debase the gift of Christ that the Church is. Nevertheless, there is a certain irony in one commenter comparing Cardinal Burke to Joseph McCarthy (St. Athanasius is the more accurate comparison). The crisis the United States was facing in the post-war period could well be mirrored in that which we are experiencing in the Church today. Secular materialism does not play by the Decalogue. It plays dirty. Real dirty. It poses as savior, garbs itself in the vesture of altruism, and seduces the useful idiots. It employs the profile of the sanctimonious sporting a grand superiority complex, abusing power while pandering to the “hungry” masses promising them a counterfeit utopia. The grossly uncatechised serve as the perfect ground for a reconstructed Catholicism.
Regard the recently produced “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” by Stephen and Richard Payne (Arcadia Films)] highlights the inroads made during the fifties by secular materialism via Saul Alinsky and his comrades, as well as the op-ed by Roberto de Mattei provided by Rorate Caeli – “With Democrats’ loss in the US, Francis becomes the leader of the Global Left,” with the strapline “After Trump’s victory, has Pope Francis become the leader of the international left?
We have a very big problem on our hands.
Pretty funny stuff coming from a man who advocated for a racist, adulterous, rapist for president. Situational ethics!
1 Corinthians 11:28-32 “28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[a] 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.” If Francis teaches another teaching saying those in mortal sin, living in mortal sin are to take Communion he is teaching a false teaching.
St. Francis De Sales (d. 1622), who also lived at the time of Bellarmine and Suarez, refers to both hypothetical opinions mentioned above, as well as the necessity of the Church taking the appropriate action:
“Under the ancient Law, the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested with the pontifical robe and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric” [Acts 1]. (2)
People who keep horses have to deal with the health issue of a plant to which horses can become addicted, which causes lockjaw and eventually, death. (Star Thistle came into North America from Siberia, it is thought in shipments of Siberian Buckwheat. When horses find it in hay, they crave eating it, it causes them to be unable to drink, causing terminal dehydration.)
Analogously, the Lord God, the Holy Spirit, in some mysterious way limits a sitting Pontiff from officially teaching error in matters of faith and morals. If said Pontiff intends to act in contravention of this protection, he may produce from locked jaws, incoherent phonemes from the sides of his mouth on pretext of which dissident associates can use their fatal freedom to promote heterodox propositions which the Pontiff himself can’t pronounce.
The innocent just have no recourse against these careful calculations, every move just ratchets them tighter into the trap click by click. But when open persecution erupts, the dissidents will have long fled, while the innocents remain to take the consequences.
Cathy asks:
“Question: Cardinal Burke’s opinion of Amoris Laetitia back in April, (see link above) contradict his current concerns about the same document. How can he assert that the document does not reflect a change or departure from Church teaching back in April, and then become concerned a few months later about the same document?”
In September 2016, the Pope praised the bishops of Argentina for their pastoral guidelines for implementation of Amoris Laetitia.
“Pope Francis stated in the letter that ‘there is no other interpretation’ of Amoris Laetitia other than that contained in the document drafted by the bishops of Buenos Aires, a text which, according to the Osservatore Romano report, leaves open the possibility in some cases of the acceptance of sexually-active unmarried couples receiving the Holy Eucharist.”
“... the Argentine bishops’ document contradict[s] the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1994 document that calls such a norm ‘impossible’ and which the Pontifical Council for Legislative texts called a “scandal” that does ‘objective harm to the ecclesial communion.; “
- See more at: http://aleteia.org/2016/09/13/vatican-confirms-pope-francis-letter-to-argentine-bishops-on-amoris-laetitia-is-authentic”
In reply to Cathy’s question as to why Cardinal Burke said in April that it did not reflect a change from Church teaching is because reading it in the eyes of Tradition what is ambiguous must be seen in that light. What has caused a change or departure from Tradition is the “interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia, given by mainly German bishops and Cardinals, that is in opposition to Tradition. Their interpretation has spread and is causing division between priests and their bishops, between bishops themselves and the laity waiting for clear answers. I hope this helps, because it’s the best I can make of the situation myself.
Papal encyclicals are not guaranteed infallibility of teaching. However, the solemn doctrines of the Church, based on Tradition, are guaranteed infallibility and require the assent and obedience of Catholics.
Church authority exists in order to preserve and present the truth of the Gospel, not vice versa.
The truth of the Gospel can not be changed. Not even by a pope.
A love of truth is essential for salvation (2 Thessalonians 2:10).
@ Will - The Pope doesn’t lead the Church. Christ does. The Pope is just a steward, not a King. This one thinks he’s the King, however. Burke would never in a million years declare himself the leader of a new, by definition false Church (by definition because ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia). Burke is not setting himself against the Pope; rather, he is defending the Petrine ministry itself.
@ Cathy - There is no inconsistency in Burke’s earlier stance and this current one. What he was saying in April is that it is impossible that an apostolic exhortation could in fact constitute a revolution, a departure from the Church’s constant teaching. What he is saying now is that after months and months of people (including many, many bishops around the world) treating AL as a revolution in doctrine, which, again, it cannot be since this is impossible, there is a very serious need for clarity from the Pope, to correct things that AL cannot be saying. If AL is saying these things, then the Pope would be preaching open heresy, directly contrary to the explicit words of Christ on marriage, and the constant teaching of the Church on the Eucharist and on the object as primary to every moral action. If by ‘inconsistency,’ you mean ‘If Burke believed the text to be heretical, why didn’t he just say so in April?’, the answer is that Burke (despite the press he gets) is not actually against the Pope, and is trying desperately to give him the benefit of any doubt there may be (although frankly the text of AL leaves no doubt at all as to the Pope’s answers to the five dubia).
@ justmaybe - Your comparison to McCarthy is nonsense. You try to paint a picture where Burke is self-righteously trying to weed out ‘true’ Catholics like himself from ‘false’ Catholics, in some kind of a witch hunt. This is a ridiculous, poisonous lie. If Burke is conducting a witch hunt, where are his supposed victims? Who is he picking on or intimidating? By what means can he intimidate, when Pope Francis is incomparably more influential than he is, both in terms of his role as Peter and his status as a media darling? Burke is not attacking anyone: not the Pope, and certainly not ‘false’ Catholics. He is fulfilling the utterly serious responsibility he has as a bishop (and more generally, as a baptised Christian) to preach the Gospel. Some of the claims currently being made on the basis of AL are openly contrary to the Gospel, and Francis gives every indication that this is exactly how he wants the document interpreted. Burke is not attacking anyone. He is proclaiming the Gospel out of season (i.e., when no one wants to hear it). If anyone is maligned, it is Burke himself. Francis is the golden boy who can do no wrong in the eyes of the media; Burke is depicted even in Catholic media as a Pharisee, unmerciful and judgmental. But this is a calumny.
The papal document Amoris Laetitia has caused great confusion because it is written in typical Bergoglian nebulous style. It is a great movement forward for the cardinals to seek clarification of what the document is actually saying. What is most relevant in what Cardianl Burke stated is where he makes the point that ecclesial authority is always in service to the perennial Tradition of the Church. That is not how AL is being interpreted by many priests and bishops. They are assuming change in Church doctrine and leading Catholics astray. Clarification is needed and if the Pope ignores or stonewalls, the road is open for the Cardinals to rebuke him and state the true and perennial teaching of the Church.
A general procedural question for Mr. Pentin. Is there a particular time frame when the Pope has to respond to this five dubia questions? In the past have Popes replied to this type of formal questioning? Is there something in the Code of Canon law that requires the Pope to reply to this? Thanks for your excellent reporting. I am a Protestant who is interested in joining the Catholic Church and just curious how these things work as I am trying to discern what to do. Thanks.
Cardinal Burke has proven to be a champion of orthodoxy in these troubled times within the Church. I pray that the Holy Father acts appropriately to dispel the confusion he has created and preserve doctrinal truth.
Thank you, Cardinal Burke and thank you to the three other Cardinals joining you in this very difficult process. I, for one, am so grateful that this step is being taken although it is very sad that such a step must be taken. It seems to me that the question revolves around Veritas - Truth. Is truth universal? Is it eternal? Is the Church one? Or do we have an existence where truth depends on the environment and/or the location and/or personal opinion (conscience)? I thought modernism had been declared a heresy. Throw in elements of relativism and secularism as well. The Church’s teachings on intrinsic evil and prudential decisions seem to be getting lost in so many parts of the Church, today, as well. Confusion does reign and, I am sorry to say, that this confusion in the Church has been increasing for quite some time - before Francis - it seems that Francis is the culmination of this trend. He (Francis) appears to be taking it and running with it. Thank you and the other Cardinals for the courage and strength to step up and react.
@justmaybe: I myself wrote to Cardinal Burke last June and urged him to speak out on the errors of Amoris laetitia. There were four co-signers on my letter. I know people who spoke to him at meetings and others who have written to him. I have no doubt he heard from many people.
The Cardinals are not setting themselves up as self-authorizing scorekeepers. They are relying on the constant teaching and practice of the Church. If the Pope can show us they are wrong about that, let him do it.
I am very grateful for our current and recent Popes, all very holy men. I also see how courageous and lonely is the position of Cardinal Burke in this matter. I appreciate that Pope’s are not perfect, and if Francis desires his teaching to be understood and accepted he ought to be willing to address the concerns brought up.
The clarification of these 5 questions are essential to a true understanding of Church Teaching on the matter of divorce and remarriage.
Without this clear understating any instruction of The One True Faith is impossible as TRUTH is the foundation upon which our faith is built.
Nobody, including The Pope, can change what Christ taught. The world view held and taught by Cdl. Kasper and the influence he and his cohorts have played on bringing this confusion into The Church through the Pope is a deplorable situation and certainly needs to be addressed.
The evil one uses division to take control of any thing he desires and he desires control of The Catholic Church. He is not far from reaching the fulfillment of his desire, but it will be a hollow achievement even if he does appear to succeed in having control over The Institutional Church. The One True Church can never be under anybody but God Himself.
The question for me is how to remain part of The Church under such confusion as I no longer respect or feel obliged to obey what The Pope says any more.
Cardinal Burke and his three friends seem to be the only one who are confused. Perhaps they are the ones creating the confusion??? Burke is definetely a scandal inthe Church.
God bless Cardinal Burke and the other three Cardinals! He sees with absolute clarity the dangers to the Church and the Truth that God bestowed on Her, with the promulgation of Amoris Laetitia. Cannot the dangers be clearly seen? Catholics, wake up!!
God bless Cardinal Burke for staying on offense and protecting the sheep, no matter the cost. Pray for him.
So—we are to eliminate Christ’s commandment and 2000 years of teaching and support Pope Francis while he tries to decentralize the church?? It is beyond me how ANYONE, a Catholic, no less, cannot see this for what it is.
To Cathy: Because the note was unclear, could have been taken the right way or the wrong way… until Pope Francis added to the confusion Please read:https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/09/14/a-bizarre-papal-move/
To will. Sad you won’t pick Jesus’ Church instead.
God bless you Cardinal Burke for being a faithful servant to our church.
Defending or proclaiming the truth nowadays has become the task of an infinite minority. It is often done at an expensive and sacrificial cost. No wonder only one active cardinal is willing to go that far.
May the Lord protects and rewards these men and more importantly may He preserves the unity of His Chruch.
“Sounds like we might have to pick one church or another. I am choosing the one led by Pope Francis.”
And that, will is precisely the problem.
If you read the Gospel you might pick the Church of Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholic Church.
Note well the following from the Dogmatic Constitution “Pastor aeternus” of Vatican I (1869-70) – “The Holy Spirit was not given to the Roman Pontiffs so that they might disclose new doctrine, but so that they might guard and set forth the Deposit of Faith handed down from the Apostles.”
Fifty-five years of fraudulent or simply unavailable catechesis well prepared us for the present harvest. Apologetics not calibrated to the current catastrophe, recourse to wishful thinking and sporting rose colored glasses does not provide any thinking and observant Roman Catholic a rationale to drink from the trough before us.
The fortitude, discretion and measure Cardinal Burke brings to this genuine crisis is at once startling and inconceivable.
God reward this man.
Abundantly.
Sounds like we might have to pick one church or another. I am choosing the one led by Pope Francis.
‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church
REGISTER EXCLUSIVE: Cardinal Burke says a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, ‘by its very nature, does not propose new doctrine and discipline, but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.’
CARDINAL RAYMOND 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,...
It is also a disservice to the nature of the document as the fruit of the Synod of Bishops, a meeting of bishops representing the universal Church “to assist the Roman pontiff with their counsel in 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” (Canon 342). In other words, it would be a contradiction of the work of the Synod of Bishops to set in motion confusion regarding what the Church teaches, safeguards and fosters by her discipline.
Question: Cardinal Burke’s opinion of Amoris Laetitia back in April, (see link above) contradict his current concerns about the same document. How can he assert that the document does not reflect a change or departure from Church teaching back in April, and then become concerned a few months later about the same document?
We have Bishop’s who are telling people divorced and civilly remarried that it is up to the individual conscience as to whether they are worthy of Holy Communion. That’s a great departure from what the Church has always taught. It is a source of great division in the Church because other bishops are teaching that it cannot be. This is a Church divided upon itself. It cannot be! Each bishop is not a “tiny Pope” free to do what he wants or we have no Roman Catholic Church.
Mark 3:23-25
23 Summoning them, he began to speak to them in parables, “How can Satan drive out Satan?
24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
What did St Thomas Moore die for except the unity and truth of the Church which is the unity and truth of the Holy Spirit?
Not all differences represent “division.” That’s an unnecessary (though not unintended) scare word. It values authority and uniformity over unity. And lovers know that’s not the way authentic loving works.
Cardinal Burke more and more sounds like Joe McCarthy to me, valuing homogenization of “our kind of people,” and, in McCarthy-like lexicons, calling fellow Catholics “inauthentic,” “disloyal,” or “unfaithful.” (CINOs in today’s Catholic McCarthyism). It’s like Cardinal Burke thinks of himself as the official scorekeeper, empowered to determine “errors.”
When it comes to understanding love and loving, terms like “binding authority” turn away more than they beckon.
And maybe I don’t worship with, live with, or hang out with Cardinal Burke’s kind of Catholics,clergy or laity, but I have real doubts about his claim that “So many people are saying ‘Were confused, and we don’t understand why the cardinals or someone in authority doesn’t speak up and help us’.” I know of NO Catholics who ever have sought to be educated by cardinals on Amoris Laetitia. I know of zero Catholics who ever have said, “Why doesn’t Cardinal Burke set the Pope straight?”