1. Welcome to Mother of God Forums - A place dedicated to the Mother of God. Please feel free to join us in prayer and sharing. Please Register to start posting.
    Dismiss Notice

Cardinal Burke: we will make ‘formal act of correction’ if Pope doesn’t issue Amoris clarification

Discussion in 'Pope Francis' started by BrianK, Nov 16, 2016.

  1. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    He must have some insider information. My guess is that it's related to the current crisis of Faith, beginning from the very top of the Church hierarchy.
     
    ComeSoon! likes this.
  2. padraig

    padraig New Member

    We will maybe keep the forum open but give internal Church matters a rest till after Christmas. :)

    I think actually events are fast moving beyond us and the Cardinals and Bishops will be doing a lot of talking themselves. So I am going to freeze threads on internal Church matters. We can get back to this after Christmas.


     
    Booklady, bflocatholic and Carmel333 like this.
  3. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member

    ncregister.com

    Cardinal Burke Addresses the ‘Dubia’ One Year After Their Publication

    Edward Pentin

    12-15 minutes

    Cardinal Walter Brandmüller and Cardinal Raymond Burke pictured at a Pontifical High Mass in St. Peter's basilica to mark the 10th anniversary of Summorum Pontificum, Sept. 16, 2017. (Edward Pentin photo)

    In wishing to honor two recently deceased cardinals, the American Cardinal makes a final plea to the Holy Father for clarity, saying the “grave” situation is “continually worsening” and that it is “urgent” the Pope “confirm his brothers in the faith.”

    One year to the day since the dubia were made public, Cardinal Raymond Burke has made a final plea to the Holy Father to clarify key aspects of his moral teaching, saying the gravity of the situation is “continually worsening.”

    In a Nov. 14 interview with the National Catholic Register, Cardinal Burke said he was turning again “to the Holy Father and to the whole Church” to emphasize “how urgent it is that, in exercising the ministry he has received from the Lord, the Pope should confirm his brothers in the faith with a clear expression of the teaching regarding both Christian morality and the meaning of the Church’s sacramental practice.”

    On Sept. 19 last year, Cardinal Burke along with Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, and recently deceased Cardinals Joachim Meisner and Carlo Caffarra, signed the dubia to the Pope. They made the initiative public on Nov. 14, 2016 when it became clear the Holy Father would not respond.

    Aimed at clarifying disputed passages of Chapter 8 of his post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, the five-question dubia — an ancient and customary practice aimed at clarifying areas of doctrine — sought to ascertain, among other matters, whether previous Church teaching forbidding civilly “remarried” divorcees engaging in sexual relations to receive the Sacraments remained in force.

    Since Amoris Laetitia was published in April 2016, some bishops’ conferences, drawing on the exhortation, have said certain civilly remarried divorcees can now receive the Sacraments depending on their personal circumstances, while others, basing their position on the Church’s perennial teaching, say they cannot.

    “The concern was and is to determine precisely what the Pope wanted to teach as Successor of Peter,” Cardinal Burke said.

    “Far from diminishing the importance of our questions,” the current situation only makes them “still more pressing,” he added.

    He also made it clear in this fresh interview that he intends to honor the two deceased Cardinals by underlining the position of the dubia signatories and by giving a summary of the situation.

    Your Eminence, at what stage are we since you, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, and the two recently deceased cardinals, Carlo Caffarra and Joachim Meisner, made the dubia public a year ago this week?

    One year after the publication of the dubia on Amoris Laetitia, which have not received any response from the Holy Father, we observe an increasing confusion about the ways of interpreting the Apostolic Exhortation. Hence our concern for the Church’s situation and for her mission in the world becomes ever more urgent. I, of course, remain in regular communication with Cardinal Walter Brandmüller regarding these gravest of matters. Both of us remain in profound union with the two late Cardinals Joachim Meisner and Carlo Caffarra, who have passed away in the course of the last months. Thus, I once again present the gravity of the situation which is continually worsening.

    Much has been said about the dangers of the ambiguous nature of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, stressing that it is open to much interpretation. Why is clarity so important?

    Clarity in teaching does not imply any rigidity, which would impede people from walking on the Gospel path, but, on the contrary, clarity provides the light necessary for accompanying families on the way of Christian discipleship. It is obscurity that keeps us from seeing the path and that hinders the evangelizing action of the Church, as Jesus says, “Night comes, when no one can work” (Jn 9:4).

    Could you explain more about the current situation in light of the dubia?

    The current situation, far from diminishing the importance of the dubia or questions, makes them still more pressing. It is not at all – as some have suggested – a matter of an “affected ignorance,” which poses doubts only because it is unwilling to accept a given teaching. Rather, the concern was and is to determine precisely what the Pope wanted to teach as Successor of Peter. Thus, the questions arise from the recognition of the Petrine office that Pope Francis has received from the Lord for the purpose of confirming his brothers in the faith. The Magisterium is God’s gift to the Church to provide clarity on issues that regard the deposit of the faith. By their very nature, affirmations that lack this clarity cannot be qualified expressions of the magisterium.

    Why is it so dangerous in your view for there to be differing interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, particularly over the pastoral approach of those living in irregular unions, and specifically over civilly remarried divorcees not living in continence and receiving Holy Communion?

    It is evident that some of Amoris Laetitia’s indications regarding essential aspects of the faith and of the practice of the Christian life have received various interpretations that are divergent and at times incompatible with each other. This incontestable fact confirms that these indications are ambivalent, permitting a variety of readings, many of which are in contrast to Catholic doctrine. The questions we Cardinals have raised thus regard what exactly the Holy Father has taught and how his teaching harmonizes with the deposit of the faith, given that the magisterium “is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed” (Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, n. 10).
     
    Mac, gracia and SgCatholic like this.
  4. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member

    Con't

    Hasn’t the Pope made clear where he stands, through his letter to Argentine bishops in which he said there is “
    no other interpretation” than the guidelines those bishops issued — guidelines which left open the possibility of some sexually-active unmarried couples receiving the Holy Eucharist?

    Contrary to what some have claimed, we cannot consider the Pope’s letter to the bishops of the region of Buenos Aires, written shortly before receiving the dubia and containing comments on the bishops’ pastoral guidelines, an adequate response to the questions posed. On the one hand, these guidelines can be interpreted in different ways; on the other, it is not clear that this letter is a magisterial text, in which the Pope intended to speak to the universal Church as the Successor of Peter. The fact that the letter first became known because it had been leaked to the press – and was only later made public by the Holy See – raises a reasonable doubt about the Holy Father’s intention to direct it to the universal Church. In addition, it would turn out to be quite astonishing – and contrary to Pope Francis’ explicitly formulated desire to leave the concrete application of Amoris Laetitia to the bishops of each country (cf. AL 3) – that now he should impose on the universal Church what are only the concrete directives of a particular region. And shouldn’t the different dispositions promulgated by various bishops in their dioceses from Philadelphia to Malta then all be considered invalid? A teaching that is not sufficiently determined with respect to its authority and its effective content cannot cast into doubt the clarity of the Church’s constant teaching which, in any case, remains always normative.

    Are you also concerned that, by some bishops’ conferences allowing certain remarried divorcees living more uxorio (having sexual relations) to receive Holy Communion without a firm purpose of amendment, they are contradicting previous papal teaching, in particular Pope St. John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation, Familiaris Consortio?

    Yes, the dubia or questions remain open. Those who assert that the discipline taught by Familiaris Consortio 84 has changed contradict each other when it comes to explaining the reasons and the consequences. Some go as far as to say that the divorced in a new union, who continue to live more uxorio, do not find themselves in an objective state of mortal sin (citing in support AL 303); others deny this interpretation (citing in support AL 305), yet completely leave it up to the judgment of conscience to determine the criteria of access to the sacraments. It seems that the goal of the interpreters is to arrive, in whatever way, at a change in discipline, while the reasons they adduce to this end are of no importance. Nor do they show any concern about how much they put into danger essential matters of the deposit of faith.

    What tangible effect has this mix of interpretations had?

    This hermeneutical confusion has already produced a sad result. In fact, the ambiguity regarding a concrete point of the pastoral care of the family has led some to propose a paradigm shift regarding the Church’s entire moral practice, the foundations of which have been authoritatively taught by Saint John Paul II in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor.

    Indeed a process has been put into motion that is subversive of essential parts of the Tradition. Concerning Christian morality, some claim that absolute moral norms need to be relativized and that a subjective, self-referential conscience needs to be given an – ultimately equivocal – primacy in matters touching morals. What is at stake, therefore, is in no way secondary to the kerygma or basic gospel message. We are speaking about whether or not a person’s encounter with Christ can, by the grace of God, give form to the path of the Christian life so that it may be in harmony with the Creator’s wise design. To understand how far-reaching these proposed changes are, it is enough to think of what would happen if this reasoning were to be applied to other cases, such as that of a medical doctor performing abortions, of a politician belonging to a ring of corruption, of a suffering person deciding to make a request for assisted suicide...

    Some have said the most pernicious effect of all of this is that it represents an attack on the Sacraments as well as the Church’s moral teaching. How is this so?

    Over and above the moral debate, the sense of the ecclesial sacramental practice is increasingly eroding in the Church, especially when it comes to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. The decisive criterion for admission to the sacraments has always been the coherence of a person’s way of life with the teachings of Jesus. If instead the decisive criterion were now to become the absence of a person’s subjective culpability – as some interpreters of Amoris Laetitia have suggested – would this not change the very nature of the sacraments? In fact, the sacraments are not private encounters with God, nor are they means of social integration into a community. Rather, they are visible and effective signs of our incorporation into Christ and His Church, in and by which the Church publicly professes and actuates her faith. Thus by turning a person’s subjective diminished culpability or lack of culpability into the decisive criterion for the admission to the sacraments, one would endanger the very regula fidei, the rule of faith, which the sacraments proclaim and actuate not only by words but also by visible gestures. How could the Church continue to be the universal sacrament of salvation if the meaning of the sacraments were to be emptied of its content?

    Despite you and many others, including over 250 academics and priests who have signed a filial correction, clearly having very serious misgivings about the effects of these passages in Amoris Laetitia, and because you have so far received no response from the Holy Father, are you here making a final plea to him?

    Yes, for these grave reasons, one year after rendering public the dubia, I again turn to the Holy Father and to the whole Church, emphasizing how urgent it is that, in exercising the ministry he has received from the Lord, the Pope should confirm his brothers in the faith with a clear expression of the teaching regarding both Christian morality and the meaning of the Church’s sacramental practice.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
  5. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member

    onepeterfive.com
    Remaining Dubia Cardinals Take the Next Step Toward Formal Correction
    10-13 minutes
    One year ago today, on November 14, 2016, four cardinals took formal step of publishing a set of five dubia — inquiries about doubtful theological propositions — that they had issued directly to Pope Francis two months earlier. The dubia pertained to the pastoral guidelines for divorced and “remarried” Catholics living more uxorio (engaging in sexual relations) as outlined in the pope’s magnum opus, the 264-page, nearly 60,000 word post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL). Today, after an intervening year without a single response or audience granted — a year in which two of the four dubia cardinals have died — Cardinal Burke in a new interview indicated that the pope’s silence is an insufficient response to the grave confusion and concern his exhortation has caused.

    In a November 14 interview with the National Catholic Register, Cardinal Burke made a “final plea” to Pope Francis, citing the “continually worsening” gravity of the situation that has followed in the wake of the exhortation.

    Burke says that the concern of the dubia cardinals has always been “to determine precisely what the Pope wanted to teach as Successor of Peter”, and he reiterated his initial analysis of the document, saying that “By their very nature, affirmations that lack this clarity cannot be qualified expressions of the magisterium.” Burke continues:

    It is evident that some of Amoris Laetitia’s indications regarding essential aspects of the faith and of the practice of the Christian life have received various interpretations that are divergent and at times incompatible with each other. This incontestable fact confirms that these indications are ambivalent, permitting a variety of readings, many of which are in contrast to Catholic doctrine. The questions we Cardinals have raised thus regard what exactly the Holy Father has taught and how his teaching harmonizes with the deposit of the faith, given that the magisterium “is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed” (Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, n. 10).

    Seemingly referring to Professor Josef Seifert’s analysis that the logical consequence of the application of certain principles suggested in AL would be a destruction of the entire edifice of Catholic moral teaching, Burke said that “To understand how far-reaching these proposed changes are, it is enough to think of what would happen if this reasoning were to be applied to other cases, such as that of a medical doctor performing abortions, of a politician belonging to a ring of corruption, of a suffering person deciding to make a request for assisted suicide…”

    Saying that the “sense of the ecclesial sacramental practice is increasingly eroding in the Church,” Burke admitted that he was making, as interviewer Edward Pentin asked him, a “final plea” to the pope, perhaps signaling that the next step would not simply be another warning:

    Yes, for these grave reasons, one year after rendering public the dubia, I again turn to the Holy Father and to the whole Church, emphasizing how urgent it is that, in exercising the ministry he has received from the Lord, the Pope should confirm his brothers in the faith with a clear expression of the teaching regarding both Christian morality and the meaning of the Church’s sacramental practice.

    Since its publication in April 2016 as a reflection upon two synods on marriage and family held in 2014 and 2015 respectively, AL has stirred up more controversy among theologians, bishops, and pastors than any papal action in living memory.
     
    Mac and gracia like this.
  6. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member

    Con't

    Many milestones have taken place since AL first made its public debut last year — too many to count. Among the most significant, in chronological order:

    • On June 29, 2016, an international group of 45 Catholic theologians, pastors, and scholars issued a letter and theological analysis to the college of cardinals pertaining to Amoris Laetitia. The signatories outlined 19 theological censures — 11 of which were labeled as heretical — based on a “natural reading” of AL. On July 26, 2016, their document and the letter with their signatures was published after being leaked to the press, presumably by one of the recipients.
    • On September 19th, 2016 — ten days after the pope’s letter affirming the sacrilegious interpretation of Amoris Laetitia by the bishops of the Buenos Aires region — four Catholic cardinals — Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner — sent a letter to the pope noting “grave disorientation and great confusion of many faithful regarding extremely important matters for the life of the Church”. The letter included five dubia — the formal method by which theologians and prelates can seek clarifications on matters of Church teaching from Rome.
    • On November 14th, 2016, after receiving no response from the pope, the four “dubia cardinals” published their letter, including the five dubia pertaining to Amoris Laetitia’s various propositions.
    • On December 7, 2016, Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana, Kazakhstan — one of the most outspoken orthodox voices in the Church — claimed in an interview with a French television station that of the dubia remained unanswered there was “not only a risk of schism” but that “a certain type of schism already exists in the Church”. “We are witnessing today,” Bishop Schneider said, “a bizarre form of schism. Externally, numerous ecclesiastics safeguard formal unity with the pope, at times for the good of their own careers or out of a kind of papolatry. And at the same time they have broken ties with Christ, the Truth, and with Christ, the true Head of the Church.”
    • On December 13, 2016, I outlined the five simple one-word answers that could put an end to the dubia controversy once and for all.
    • On December 19, 2016, Cardinal Burke — the most prominent dubia cardinal in the English speaking world, said in an interview with Lisa Bourne of LifeSiteNews that the dubia “have to have a response because they have to do with the very foundations of the moral life and of the Church’s constant teaching with regard to good and evil”. Asked about the timeline for a proposed “formal correction” of the pope in the absence of a response to the dubia, Burke indicated that should such an action become necessary, it would most likely take place some time after Epiphany in 2017.
    • Also On December 19, 2016, Cardinal Burke explained in an interview with Catholic World Report that there was a scriptural basis for rebuking a pope (Gal 2:11) and indicated that there were more prelates than the four cardinals who supported the dubia. When asked if it were possible for the pope to “separate himself from communion with the Church” through “schism or heresy,” Burke responded, “If a pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen.”
    • On December 24, 2016, the major German newspaper Der Spiegel published an article in which it was claimed that among a “very small circle” of people close to the pope, Francis explained that it was possible he would “enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.”
    • On January 11, 2017, John F. Salza, co-author of the book True or False Pope, outlined in an article for The Remnant (later reprinted at 1P5) what might happen, juridically speaking, if Pope Francis were to continue to refuse to answer the dubia.
    • On January 17, 2017, three of the Kazakhstani Bishops — Tomash Peta, Metropolitan Archbishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Karaganda, and Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana — issued a joint statement requesting prayers from the faithful that Pope Francis would “confirm the unchanging praxis of the Church with regard to the truth of the indissolubility of marriage.” The bishops gave specific examples of how Amoris Laetitia contains “pastoral guidelines” which contradicted “in practice” certain “truths and doctrines that the Catholic Church has continually taught as being sure.”
    • On March 25, 2017, Cardinal Burke gave a talk at a parish in Springfield, Virginia, in which he spoke of the spread of a very “harmful confusion in the Church” and the need for the dubia to be answered. Asked what would happen if the pope failed to respond, Cardinal Burke said, “we simply will have to correct the situation, again, in a respectful way, that simply can say that, to draw the response to the questions from the constant teachings of the Church and to make that known for the good of souls.”
    • On June 8, 2017, the Polish Bishops’ Conference completed its general assembly, whereupon their spokesman, Pawel Rytel-Andrianik, said that “the teaching of the Church with regard to Holy Communion for those people who live in non-sacramental relationships ‘has not changed’ after the papal document Amoris Laetitia.”
    • On June 19, 2017, veteran Vatican-watcher Sandro Magister published a letter from dubia Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, written on April 25th, 2017, in which he requested “that a papal audience be granted so that they might discuss the dubia which have not yet been answered.” At the date of the publication of the letter, two months had passed with, again, no response from the pope to the request for an audience.
    • On July 5, 2017, Cardinal Joachim Meisner, one of the four dubia cardinals, passed away while on holiday in Bad Füssing, Germany at the age of 83. At the time of his passing, no response to the request for an audience was yet received. In a message read at Meisner’s funeral, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI reminded those who were mourning his friend that “The Lord does not abandon His Church.”
    • On September 6, 2017, almost two months to the day from the passing of Cardinal Meisner, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, another of the four dubia cardinals, passed away at the age of 79. No message from the pope emeritus was read at the funeral of Caffarra.
    • On September 12, 2017, Gabriel Ariza of the Spanish-language publication Infovaticana revealed that the late Cardinal Caffarra had confirmed just months before his death that he knew the dubia cardinals were being “monitored” and that they “had their communications tapped” and could “do little more than seek some form of more secure communication.”
    Since September, things on the dubia front had been relatively quiet. The absence of a formal correction in October — marking the 100th anniversary of the final Fatima apparition — left many Catholics wondering if action would be taken at all. Today’s revelation, however, makes clear that the dubia effort — as well as the formal correction that necessarily was to follow — is on track and moving forward.

    This post has been updated.

    [​IMG]
     
    SgCatholic and gracia like this.
  7. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    I am glad the dubia Cardinals are taking their time and doing things in an orderly fashion because now it can never be said that they did not give the Pope every opportunity to say clearly to the faithful what he wants to teach. Though I understand and sympathize with everyone's frustration as we sit here and wait, it seems things are drawing to a close. We just need to be watchful a short while longer...

    The sheer number of people who are only asking for clarity on the Pope's intent has been increasing steadily and the pressure is mounting. So far the answer has simply been a wall of silence from the Vatican. No audiences granted to the 4 Cardinals. No answers to the questions that abound. The response, in the immortal words of Khan Noonien Singh, has been "Let them eat static!"

     
    AED likes this.
  8. BrianK

    BrianK Resident Kook, Crank, Curmudgeon - & Mod Staff Member

    onepeterfive.com
    Cardinal Burke's "Final Plea" to Pope Francis: Our Take
    8-10 minutes
    Yesterday afternoon, I received word through one of my sources that something would be coming today, at long last, in the ongoing and seemingly never-ending process that would move things in the direction of the highly-anticipated “formal correction” of the pope. I was told that it would not be the formal correction itself, but something preliminary to it. There was no clear indicator of just what, exactly, was to be expected, or when the formal correction itself would follow. Only that a statement of some kind would be issued today, November 14, 2017, exactly one year since the publication of the original five dubia on Amoris Laetitia.

    When Edward Pentin’s new interview with Cardinal Burke was published today at 3PM Rome time, we had our answer. Not only was it not the formal correction, it did not even mention those words. Our summary of the document this morning included a list of important post-exhortation milestones over the past year along the path to this moment, but it is clear that this path, such as it is, continues to wind forward — for how long, nobody seems to know — into the future.

    In the interview, Cardinal Burke conveys, though somewhat mildly, that things have grown untenable. He uses terms like “increasing confusion” and “gravest of matters” and “the gravity of the situation, which is continually worsening.” As he did when AL was first published, Burke insists — standing in contradiction to a number of papal defenders — that the exhortation is non-magisterial. “The magisterium,” he says, “is God’s gift to the Church to provide clarity on issues that regard the deposit of the faith. By their very nature, affirmations that lack this clarity cannot be qualified expressions of the magisterium.” He speaks of the damage being done to teaching and sacraments, of a proposed “paradigm shift regarding the Church’s entire moral practice”, and of subversion of “essential parts of the Tradition”. He speaks of the moral implications of the reasoning deployed in the so-called pastoral care recommended in AL, asking “what would happen if this reasoning were to be applied to other cases, such as that of a medical doctor performing abortions, of a politician belonging to a ring of corruption, of a suffering person deciding to make a request for assisted suicide”?

    In the end, he makes a “final plea” that the pope “confirm his brothers in the faith with a clear expression of the teaching regarding both Christian morality and the meaning of the Church’s sacramental practice”.

    But if the plea is actually final, then what might we expect next? What would be the consequence of the pope ignoring yet another plea, as he has done so many times before?

    It seems certain that Cardinal Burke — along with those who are supporting his efforts — wants to make certain that he has given the pope every possible chance to fix what he is breaking. But with no clear indication of the repercussions of failing to do so, it remains impossible to determine what incentive the pope has to even pay this “final plea” any attention at all.

    This interview, if it is indeed a final warning, should perhaps have been labeled as such. Saying “Please stop” hasn’t worked as a strategy before now, and the urgency — is there a sense of urgency behind the calm restatement of the problem? — demands more. The time for deference and patience, I fear, has passed. The faithful are seeing the man on the Throne of St. Peter flouting divinely-revealed teaching and the safeguards of his divinely-assisted office — and getting away with it. And it is making many Catholics feel tempted to wonder: If Christ’s promises to the Church can be so easily broken, can any of what we believe can really be trusted?

    In that sense, the pope isn’t the only one responsible for “the gravity of the situation, which is continually worsening.” The cardinals and bishops who have delayed taking action until now are, in their own unintentional way, intensifying the scandalization of the faithful. What the pope is doing is wrong, the laity think, but when even the faithful and orthodox shepherds of the Church fail to properly address it, does that mean we have been abandoned?

    And while these doubts about the Church’s indefectibility are being daily introduced into the minds of the faithful, bishops around the world continue to move forward with their own subjective interpretations of what Amoris Laetitia means for their flocks — all of which will have to be unwound once the Church regains her senses. Today, at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2017 General Assembly meeting, the agenda item of a “renewed pastoral plan on marriage and family life in light of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation on ‘the Joy of Love’, Amoris Laetitia” was brought to the table by Bishop Richard Malone, who serves on the USCCB Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth. (For those who would like to hear the commentary themselves, you can follow it on video beginning here.)

    [​IMG]
    Bishop Barron speaks about “seizing” the narrative on Amoris Laetitia away from the Catholic “blogosphere”

    In the ensuing discussion, popular Catholic speaker Bishop Robert Barron lamented, “I just think it’s really been a tragedy that the reception of this document [Amoris Laetitia] has been so poor in our country. If you do a web search of Amoris Laetitia, you get a mountain of literature, but it’s all about a particular chapter and even a particular footnote within that chapter. As important as that question is, I think it’s led to a overlooking of this really extraordinarily rich document, so I think it’s good for us to seize control of that process, because I think we’ve been positioned by an awful lot of people in the blogosphere who are forcing people to read this document in a particular way.”

    “An awful lot of people in the blogosphere”? I wonder who he might be referring to. “Forcing people”? With what, our incredible mind powers? “Seize control”? He actually went on to mention the word “seize” — which, if we want to talk about force, means to “take hold of suddenly and forcibly” — two more times in his brief comments.

    I didn’t have the patience to listen to more of the discussion.

    The firing of Professor Seifert. The shaming of Professor Stark. The firing of Fr. Thomas Weinandy. The campaign of sustained ad hominems against the dubia cardinals as well as every theologian, priest, and layman who supports the work of authentic criticism of the exhortation. The Vatican-promoted heterodox interpretations of the exhortation itself, along with Vatican-promoted articles to give cover to these interpretations through an intentional obfuscation of Church teaching and the parameters of Magisterial authority. The “climate of fear” at the Vatican, where any criticism is reported and people suspected of opposing the official agenda are monitored in ways reminiscent of the techniques of the KGB. The entire apparatus of the Dictatorship of Mercy. It is in these things where the true force in the matter lies. The only reason that the orthodox counter-narrative has been able to bubble up to the top at all is because those of us who care about the truth are relentless in our pursuit of it — and because God has blessed those efforts. But there is only so much we can do, and we’re all exhausted by being constantly outnumbered and isolated.

    This is why, Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller, if you should happen to read this, you should know that time is of the essence. Perhaps you do. I continue to hear whispers that the formal correction itself is not far behind. But the question after that will be the same as now: then what? What happens when every effort is ignored? How will we move forward from here?

    Will an imperfect council be called? Will the pope be declared to have deposed himself through pertinacious and obdurate heresy? Will a new conclave be assembled among the tiny remnant of the faithful bishops? Will we once again have two rival claimants to the Petrine See?

    Or will it be something completely different?

    Everyone wants to know what to expect. Everyone is wondering, and frustrated. Everyone is speculating on how difficult things might become, but nobody I’m hearing from seems to think that they will be worse than they are now. An uncomfortable certainty is far preferable to the interminable continuation of uncertainty and doubt.

    Something has to give. Please, Lord, let it give soon. Grant the successors of your apostles the courage and wisdom to see this through and begin the work of restoring the Church.

    [​IMG]
     
    HeavenlyHosts, AED, Dolours and 3 others like this.
  9. Praetorian

    Praetorian Powers

    I despise this argument. I have heard it before from other people.
    "Well it's only just one chapter really. Even just one footnote."

    Such a sad and ridiculous attempt at dismissal from an otherwise intelligent man.

    If I have an entire table full of food before me and only one broccoli stalk is poisoned, then yes I am going to pay an unusual amount of attention to that broccoli stalk.
     
    HeavenlyHosts, AED, sterph and 6 others like this.
  10. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    I'm sick and tired hearing people praising Amoris Laetitia as some kind of masterpiece. Even to my unscholarly eyes and mind, the writing style was more Barbara Cartland than the Evangelists.
     
    BrianK likes this.
  11. sterph

    sterph Principalities

    I actually pray more intently when I read about the latest Vatican problem. To not know wouldn't help me.
     
  12. AED

    AED Powers

    I am dismayed by Bishop Barron and it saddens me to say it. I used to be a fan.
     
    Jonah likes this.
  13. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Yes, so did I. I get the impression he is lost and wandering. Prayers.
     
    HeavenlyHosts and AED like this.
  14. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    Maybe he fancies being a Cardinal. His all dogs go to Heaven approach to salvation should at least spare him a posting on some remote island away from the movers and shakers.
     
    Dean and AED like this.
  15. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Yes he is well marked for the Scarlet..and more.
     
  16. Dolours

    Dolours Powers

    Is he another chosen by the "holy" spirit to start campaigning before the seat is vacant? A new "Tradition" perhaps? If so, will the campaign team call themselves the Washington Jihadis - all in the spirit of the hermeneutics of continuity of course?
     
  17. davidtlig

    davidtlig Powers

    “Here is the deviation in which Amoris Laetitia’s critics fall”

    Philosopher Buttiglione continues his “friendly” discussion with those who attack the Pope, “The exhortation is traditional doctrine, there are cases in which remarried divorcees can be admitted to sacraments”

    [​IMG]

    Pubblicato il 20/11/2017

    ANDREA TORNIELLI
    VATICAN CITY

    “There are some cases in which the remarried divorcees can be considered in God’s grace. It seems a shocking novelty but it is a rock-hard traditional doctrine. The critics have given rise to a new deviation in Amoris Laetitia: ethical objectivism”. Philosopher Rocco Buttiglione, friend of John Paul II and author of the book in defense of Francis’ exhortation on marriage and family that includes the preface of Cardinal Gerhard Luwig Müller, continues from the pages of Vatican Insider his “friendly” discussion with those who criticize the current Pontiff. By highlighting the “deviation” in which many of Amoris Laetitia’s opponents risk falling.

    Cardinal Müller’s preface to your book was greeted with embarrassment by the the Pope’s most vivid critics, who after a few days tried to diminish what the cardinal had written - through for example, stilted titles such as “Never spoke of exceptions on communion with the remarried” - Yet, as the text shows - Müller had given examples of possibilities for admission. How do you comment?

    “I believe that, thanks to my book and Cardinal Müller’s preface, for the first-time critics have been forced to respond and cannot deny one point: there are mitigating circumstances in which a mortal sin (a sin that would otherwise be mortal) becomes a lighter sin, a venial sin. There are therefore some cases in which remarried divorcees can (through their confessor and after an adequate spiritual discernment) be considered in God’s grace and therefore deserving of receiving the sacraments. It seems a shocking novelty, but it is a doctrine entirely - I dare say hard-rock - traditional”.

    Some people say that these cases are few....


    The Pope does not say that these cases are many and will probably be very few in certain contexts and much more numerous in certain others. The mitigating circumstances are in fact the lack of full knowledge and deliberate consent. In a society that is entirely evangelized, it can be assumed that those who do not have full knowledge of the characteristics of Christian marriage are very few or none. In a society undergoing evangelization, these cases will be more numerous. What about a largely de-Christianized society? I would not really know. Even if the cases were very few, the incriminated steps of Amoris Laetitia would be perfectly orthodox and, those who accused the Pope of heresy would be at very serious fault: slander, schism and heresy. Unless, as I hope and believe, they should not be given the mitigating effects of the lack of full knowledge and deliberate consent.

    You have known Müller well for a long time: what is the meaning of the words he wrote in the preface to your book?


    Cardinal Müller is a great theologian, certainly among the greatest of the generation who did not participate directly in the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. There were misunderstandings and difficulties in his relationship with the Curia and also with the Holy Father, and he was not renewed as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Many dissidents hoped he would have led them on the path towards the schism. With the preface to my book, the cardinal offers us a pro veritate opinion on the orthodoxy of the doctrine of Amoris Laetitia. However, there is obviously also something more: at a time when the Pontiff is attacked on the ground of Christian faith and morals, Müller, as a Catholic and as a cardinal, feels the duty to intervene to defend him (notwithstanding any true or presumed personal misunderstandings and differences). He wrote a monumental work on the Pope, which is also a great testimony of love for the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church. Even if it were true that Cardinal Müller disagrees with some aspects of the Pope’s pastoral line, this would not take anything away from the value of his testimony: one can disagree and be faithful. Faithful dissent is a richness; accusations of heresy, slander, appeals to the schism, fanaticism that erodes the fundamental attitude of trust and esteem, due to the Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, is something completely different”.

    You continue to argue that Amoris Laetitia represents a development of Familiaris consortio and not a break with the exhortation of John Paul II. Why?

    There is a common theological basis: the acceptance of the distinction between mortal sin and venial sin, the acknowledgment that, for there to be a mortal sin, it is necessary full knowledge and deliberate consent; the acknowledgment that the social situations in which a person lives can powerfully hinder the full recognition of truth and lead to do evil without fully realizing it or, it might even limit and compress the freedom to do good... All these things are found in Familiaris Consortio (and in Reconciliatio et paenitentia) before being in Amoris Laetitia. On this common basis, there are two different disciplinary choices. St. John Paul II, in order to defend the conscience of the faithful people and especially that of the little ones, the conscience of the indissolubility of marriage forbids that remarried divorcees may receive communion, unless they separate or commit themselves to renouncing to sexual intercourse. He does not say that in their case there can be no subjective mitigating factors, he does not deny that in some cases they may be in God’s grace. He simply says that the objective scandal they are giving is too great for them to be admitted to the sacraments. Pope Francis instead says that they must be admitted to penance like all other sinners. Let them go to the confessor, confess their sins, expose their mitigating circumstances, if they have them, and the confessor will give them acquittal, if there are the conditions to give it. Pope Francis probably believes that, at least in some societies, the consciousness of the indissolubility of marriage has already been lost in the popular conscience and that it is now useless to “close the stable because the oxen have already escaped”. Now it’s time to go and look for them, there where they have lost themselves and take them back to the house of the Lord. The same theology, two different disciplinary choices but, in reality, a single pastoral line”.

    Did different contexts in which the two documents were written play a role?


    The critics of Pope Francis do not remember what the context in which Familiaris Consortio is set. Before Familiaris Consortio, the remarried divorcees were practically excommunicated. They were excluded from participation in the life of the Church, objects of criticism and condemnation only. Familiaris consortio (and the new Code of Canon Law) rules out the excommunication, invites them to attend Sunday mass, to baptize their children and give them a Christian education, and to participate in the life of the community. The famous paragraph 84 of Familiaris Consortio (the one that contains the prohibition of communion) sets a limit on this path. Amoris Laetitia continues the process of reintegration of the remarried divorcees into the life of the Church. For this reason, we say that, despite the disciplinary diversity, there is a profound pastoral line unity between Saint John Paul II and Francis. Does this mean that remarried divorcees are no longer sinners and that adultery is no longer a sin? No, simply now divorcees who have remarried are no longer “extraordinary” sinners, excluded from confession. They are “ordinary” sinners who can go to confession, say their mitigating circumstances (if they have them) and, “in some cases” (few or many, we don’t know), receive absolution”.

    continued.....
     
  18. davidtlig

    davidtlig Powers

    continued....

    Why do you think that the most debated question, that of the possibility, in some cases, after a penitential path and discernment, of administering the sacraments to remarried divorcees, has been relegated only to a note in the document of Francis?

    I believe that the reason is that the Pope did not intend to dictate a general rule. There are so many different contexts and situations in the world today that it is not possible to dictate a disciplinary rule that applies uniformly to everyone. The Pope wanted, in my opinion, only to invite the episcopates and individual bishops to assume their responsibilities. In contexts of solid Christianity, it would probably make sense to maintain a rigid attitude, which may seem without mercy but originates from the mercy for the little ones, the needy, the defenseless who could be misled. In “liquid” contexts in which the banks of the old structures are now broken, a rigid defense does not make sense, it is necessary to go and look for the people where they are, within their existential condition. To baptized who have not been evangelized it will first be necessary to propose the love of Christ. The time will then come to clarify and untangle their marriage situations. Here, the risk of scandal will be minimal because the sensitivity to this value has been lost and must be re-formed.

    Why is Amoris Laetitia accused of approaching the situation from an ethical point of view?

    “The ethics of the situation says that no behavior is totally good or bad. Ethically speaking, all behaviors are good or bad according to the circumstances; the conscience of the subject and their intention determine the moral value of the act.

    St. John Paul II, taking up a long tradition that dates back at least to St. Thomas Aquinas, said that there are acts that are intrinsically evil, regardless the intention of the subject agent. There is an intention which is necessarily immanent to the act and which is distinct from the intention of the subject agent. In conclusion: subjective intention does not make a bad act good.

    Neither Saint Thomas nor Saint John Paul II, however, have ever intended to deny that the subjective side of the action - the knowledge and freedom that converge in the subject’s intention - enter to determine the level of responsibility of the subject for their action. A great friend of John Paul II (and of mine) Tadeusz Styczeń used to say “innocens sed nocens”: one can be subjectively innocent but objectively do the wrong thing and thus do harm to themselves and others. For this reason, Don Giussani used to say: do not be afraid to judge actions and say what is good and what is bad; never dare to judge people because only God knows the heart of people and can measure their level of responsibility (God and, tentatively, the subjects themselves and the confessor to whom they entrust themselves)”.

    The most vivid critics of the current Pontiff accuse him of favoring subjectivism...

    “It seems to me that the critics of Amoris Laetitia have given rise to a new deviation emerges, parallel and opposite to the ethics of the situation and to subjectivism in ethics. This new deviation is ethical objectivism. Just as subjectivism (the ethics of the situation) sees only the subjective side of action, that is, the intention of the subject, so objectivism sees only the objective side of action, that is, the more or less grave matter. Catholic ethics is realistic. Realism sees both the subjective and the objective side of the action, and therefore assesses both the grave matter and the full knowledge and deliberate consent. As Dante Alighieri teaches, the opposite of an error is not the truth, but the opposite error. Truth is the narrow path between two errors of the opposite sign”.

    Why did you choose for your book the title “Friendly answers to Amoris Laetitia’s critics? What does “friendly” mean in this case?


    “Many of the critics are my friends. Josef Seifert is a life-time friend with whom I have shared many battles and a great work in the field of philosophy, in which he has made some important contributions. I have known Roberto de Mattei for forty years, when we were together in the Institute of History and Politics of the University of Rome, he was assistant to Saitta and I of Del Noce. I defended him when, as vice-president of the CNR, he was attacked for his positions on evolution. I have tried to keep the controversy within the limits of respect, mutual recognition of good faith, the spirit of seeking truth and I am grateful to them for trying to follow the same rule.”

    De Mattei claims that you have introduced, with your writings on Amoris Laetitia, a threefold distinction of sins: venial, grave and mortal. How do you respond?


    “I explain in my book that not all grave sins by reason of their matter are mortal. If, in fact, there is no full knowledge and deliberate consent, they can be “downsized” to venial sins. De Mattei opposes me with a text of Reconciliatio et paenitentia that rejects the threefold distinction, proposed by some, between venial, grave and mortal sins. Here are the words of Saint John Paul II: “threefold distinction of sins, classifying them as venial, grave and mortal. This threefold distinction might illustrate the fact that there is a scale of seriousness among grave sins. But it still remains true that the essential and decisive distinction is between sin which destroys charity and sin which does not kill the supernatural life: There is no middle way between life and death... Hence, in the church’s doctrine and pastoral action, grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin” (Reconciliatio et paenitentia, n. 17). The difficulty was soon resolved. I do not propose to include a third category in addition to those of mortal and venial sin. All sins are venial or mortal, as rightly said by John Paul II. I simply say that grave sins by reason of their matter can become venial when there is a lack of full knowledge and deliberate consent. There is no contrast with Reconciliatio et paenitentia”.

    Professor, why, after having been engaged in other fields for several years, have you returned to work on philosophy and theology?

    “When the attack on Pope Francis began, they tried to oppose him St. John Paul. Those who attacked him tried to present themselves as defenders of the spiritual heritage of Karol Wojtyla. So I asked myself: what would Saint John Paul II say if he were in our midst. And I answered: he would say “follow the Pope”. In reality, the vast majority of those who today attack Pope Francis have been - and continue to be - also against Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, John XXIII. The Council is actually in question. They try to represent John Paul II as if he were the Pope of an anti-conciliar conservative reaction. They are trying to take possession of his memory.

    I have been close to him, he was my life’s great friend, I believe I can and must give a true witness: John Paul II was the great Pope of the Council and its accomplishment. Also regarding the so-called anthropological turning point in moral theology, he did not reject it, but rather interpreted it by bringing it back within the great tradition of the Church, which is precisely the tradition of realism. That realism that can take into account in a balanced way all the factors of life, the objective side as well as the subjective side of the action. I went back to work on these things to defend the memory of my friend, to return him a little bit of that great deal that I - like everyone else – have received from him”.

    http://www.lastampa.it/2017/11/20/v...itics-fall-9g1HyVV5sXCTGt9uc53prJ/pagina.html
     
  19. padraig

    padraig New Member

    I don't think it is a matter of , 'Attacking' the Pope. People like Cardinal Sarah and Burke seem to me very,very deferential and humble and obedient. They are not Rottweillers. It is uncharitable to make them out to be attack dogs. They strike me as frankly saintly.

    I wish I were more like them in virtue
     
    Praetorian and garabandal like this.
  20. garabandal

    garabandal Powers


    Does this mean that remarried divorcees are no longer sinners and that adultery is no longer a sin? No, simply now divorcees who have remarried are no longer “extraordinary” sinners, excluded from confession. They are “ordinary” sinners who can go to confession, say their mitigating circumstances (if they have them) and, “in some cases” (few or many, we don’t know), receive absolution”. Rocco Buttiglione.

    What we are witnessing here is semantics. A play on words. The downgrading of adulterous behaviour to a venial sin.

    Let's take his rationale further.

    With his rationale sodomites and pedophiles are welcome to communion as they can find mitigating circumstances for their behavior. What is their mantra?

    Oh we were born that way!

    Contrast this with the words of the Gospel.

    Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, even against your own brothers!Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts nor theives, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the Kingdom of God.

    Thou shalt not commit adultery!
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2017 at 7:19 PM

Share This Page