An excerpt of a new video interview with Cardinal Burke surfaced yesterday. He spoke with France2 television. One segment of the interview was particularly interesting to synod-watchers. Lacking an official translation, several people have provided their own. Among those whom I’ve spoken with, the one provided by the SSPX is said to be the best of these:
We present here some extracts of Cardinal Raymond Burke’s comments given during an interview conducted by Lionel Feuerstein, Karine Comazzi, Patrice Brugeres, Nicolas Berthelos and Claire Aubinais for the “13H15 le dimanche” episode of French Television channel, France2.
The complete interview will be broadcasted on Sunday, February 8 on FranceTV.info.
Cardinal Burke: I cannot accept that Communion can be given to a person in an irregular union because it is adultery. On the question of people of the same sex, this has nothing to do with marriage. This is an affliction suffered by some people whereby they are attracted against nature sexually to people of the same sex.
Question: If perchance the pope will persist in this direction, what will you do?
Cardinal Burke: I shall resist, I can do nothing else. There is no doubt that it is a difficult time; this is clear, this is clear.
Question: Painful?
Cardinal Burke: Yes.
Question: Worrisome?
Cardinal Burke: Yes.
Question: In your opinion, can we say today that the Catholic Church as an institution is threatened?
Cardinal Burke: The Lord has assured us, as He has assured St. Peter in the Gospel, that the powers of evil will not prevail, “non praevalebunt” as we say in Latin, that the forces of evil will not have victory over the Church.
Question of the end: Is the Pope still your friend?
Cardinal Burke (with a smile): I would not want to make the pope an enemy for sure. That is fine for now. [from the context: “That is enough for this interview”].
Why does this matter?
Look at the history of Burke’s remarks. He made waves last October with his comments about the “harm” done by the pope’s lack of clarity on the most troubling issues of the synod. As the controversy over his comments grew, he quickly released a statement clarifying that he was not taking aim at Pope Francis.
Later that month, he observed that “there is a strong sense that the Church is like a ship without a helm.” But he went on to say in the same interview:
“I fully respect the Petrine ministry and I do not wish it to seem like I am speaking out against the Pope. I would like to be a master of the faith, with all my weaknesses, telling a truth that many currently perceive. They are feeling a bit sea sick because they feel the Church’s ship has lost its bearings. We need to set aside the reason for this disorientation because we have not lost our bearings. We have the enduring tradition of the Church, its teachings, the liturgy, its morality. The catechism remains the same.”
“The Pope rightly speaks of the need to go out to the peripheries,” the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura said. “The people have responded very warmly to this. But we cannot go to the peripheries empty-handed. We go with the Word of God, with the Sacraments, with the virtuous life of the Holy Spirit. I am not saying the Pope does this, but there is a risk of the encounter with culture being misinterpreted. Faith cannot adapt to culture but , must call to it to convert. We are a counter-cultural movement, not a popular one.”
Burke has always been careful in his analysis. He goes out of his way to be deferential to the pope. Even when it seems that he is being critical, he has demonstrated appropriate restraint and circumspection.
For him to now say that he will resist if the situation warrants is, in my opinion, a significant escalation in rhetoric. It means, at the very least, that he anticipates that just such a situation is at least possible. It is also the first time we’ve seen any member of the episcopacy say this much. (Bishop Schneider had made comments along similar lines, though less direct, in his own analysis of the synod in an interview last November.)
In his own analysis today, Fr. Zuhlsdorf writes:
What do we do when legitimate authority gets something important wrong?
We respectfully resist legitimate authority.
Pope Francis does or doesn’t do, A, B or C. He doesn’t, for example, wear proper pontifical garb, as tradition and decorum require, in the proper moments. I think that is wrong. However, while this is important, I don’t think it is important enough to resist him. His not putting on this or that vestment is not enough to merit resistance.
However, what if Pope Francis were to say that the divorced and civilly remarried without declaration of nullity could be admitted to Holy Communion, without any other clarifications?
I have in mind a well-known text by Jesuit St. Robert Bellarmine (+1612), Doctor of the Church, in his work De Romano Pontifice:
“Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.”
Do I think that Pope Francis would do something so grave as to merit resistance? I don’t think so. I pray not.
This is a time when faithful Catholics seem to be walking on eggshells. There is a palpable tension between concerned faithful who believe it is important to point out the dangerous and unprecedented nature of what has already transpired (and will likely continue) during the ongoing Synod on Marriage and Family, and those who believe that we must simply trust in the Holy Spirit and the indefectibility of the Church. We seem unable, as a group, to discern appropriate action in the face of so much division and confusion.
To give an example: at the end of last month, we posted a link to the “Filial Appeal to Pope Francis” on our Facebook page. This appeal is a petition — now with over 73,000 signatures — which respectfully and simply states:
Your Holiness, in light of information published on the last Synod, we note with anguish that, for millions of faithful Catholics, the beacon seems to have dimmed in face of the onslaught of lifestyles spread by anti-Christian lobbies. In fact we see widespread confusion arising from the possibility that a breach has been opened within the Church that would accept adultery—by permitting divorced and then civilly remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion—and would virtually accept even homosexual unions when such practices are categorically condemned as being contrary to Divine and natural law.
Paradoxically, our hope stems from this confusion.
Truly, in these circumstances, a word from Your Holiness is the only way to clarify the growing confusion amongst the faithful. It would prevent the very teaching of Jesus Christ from being watered-down and would dispel the darkness looming over our children’s future should that beacon no longer light their way.
Holy Father, we implore You to say this word. We do so with a heart devoted to all that You are and represent. We do so with the certainty that Your word will never disassociate pastoral practice from the teaching bequeathed by Jesus Christ and his vicars—as this would only add to the confusion. Indeed Jesus taught us very clearly that there must be coherence between life and truth (cf. John 14:6-7); and He also warned us that the only way not to fall is to practice His doctrine. (cf. Matt. 7:24-27)
It seemed reasonable enough that we encourage the faithful to write to Pope Francis, who has made clear that he is a pope “of the people.” He has asked to hear our voice. It seems fitting, therefore, to reach out to him, to ask him to quell the growing concern by affirming that come what may, he will safeguard the traditional teaching of the Church – not only in doctrine, but in practice. Still, we received a comment not long thereafter from a concerned reader:
“You cannot possibly be insinuating that our Holy Father would deviate from Church teaching when led by the Holy Spirit?”
This sentiment has been echoed elsewhere. We have heard from others who have faced incredulity at circulating the petition. And to be fair, under normal circumstances, such incredulity would be warranted. This is the razor’s edge we all walk. This is why Burke’s language of “resistance” is so striking.
Yet with the revelation from Cardinal Baldisseri that it was Pope Francis who approved the mid-synod relatio, and who made the decision that the most troubling language contained therein be retained for further discussion, we can only say that we must not exclude the possibility that resistance could be necessary. Like Fr. Zuhlsdorf, we hope and pray that it will not be so. Like Cardinal Burke, we admit that in such a situation, we can “do nothing else.”
We have an obligation to stand for our faith. To be vigilant. Even now, momentum towards October is beginning to build. More people will be led astray by careless distortions of Christ’s teaching in the media, even if nothing changes. So, we must reiterate the truths of the faith on the issues being considered by the synod. We must pray for the Holy Father and for those others who are involved in the synod. And we should especially pray for the conversion of those who have sought to use this as an opportunity to drive forward an agenda that distorts and undermines our Holy Faith – and has done great damage already.
Our Lord will not fail us, it’s true. But as “good soldiers of Christ,” we have a role to play as well. Let us see to it that we do not fail Him, either.
Update (2/9/2015): Rorate Caeli has the translation of the full Burke interview, which aired yesterday, right here.
This article reminds of the clueless liberal who was astonished that Nixon won re-election because “nobody she knew” voted for him.
The vast majority of your average mass-going Catholics agree with the Pope on these issues. Heck, a huge number of them practice contraception, cohabitate before marriage, etc.
Imagine the scenario in September when up to a million people come out for the Pope’s mass in Philadelphia. What will you have, a couple hundred holding signs in opposition? You’ll look like the crazy Westboro baptist people.
Luke 6:22. The road to heaven isn’t a popularity contest.
For the sake of argument, let’s say you are right. I’m still wondering how you expect this to play out. Cardinal Burke “resists” how? He is not in any position of authority. I guess he could give a speech and say he won’t give communion to the divorced and remarried but what practical effect would any of that have?
If you’re looking for a historical example:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/athanasius-contra-mundum-the-courage-to-act-alone
But that goes back to my original point. Cardinal Burke may be popular among conservative bloggers but I don’t think he is with his fellow Bishops and Cardinals and certainly not with the 80 percent plus of contracepting Catholics. I guess time will tell if he turns out to be a new Athanasius or a new Luther.
Well, we know he can’t be Luther. Luther wanted to change the timeless teaching of the Church. Burke wants to preserve it.
And he’s not alone. There are a couple of others. We’ve seen Bishop Schneider step forward. We’ve heard from two of the bishops in Poland. I expect there are more we simply haven’t heard from yet.
But Kasper, Forte, Marx, et. al., are the ones who have support from the majority of Catholics who don’t follow Church teaching on sexual morality. This is a decisive time in Catholic history.
I stand corrected. You’re right that the analogy with Luther was poor. A better analogy would be with Archbishop Lefebvre. The Archbishop certainly believed he was standing with the timeless teaching of the Church. And, in my opinion, made a strong case that Church teaching on say religious liberty was changed at Vatican II.
As for it being a decisive time in Catholic history, on that I am in complete agreement.
As the effects of the “spirit of Vatican II” has ” continued its death spiral, I am finding Archbishop Lefebvre very prescient as to our current situation. 1,962 years of traditon was junked in one ambiguous council, leading us to what we now face. I am sure many Catholics of the day thought the same of St. Athanasius. While some have gone the sede route, the SSPX has never disavowed The sitting Pontiff. They merely teach and adhere to what all Catholics were taught and believed until 1,965.
If an Athanasius will be needed—and pray that it will not be needed—it will likely not be Cardinal Burke. Athanasius of Alexandria, Don John of Austria, and St. Catherine of Siena were under-30s. As for Pope Francis, he supported the Slovakia referendum that not enough Catholics showed up to make pass. “God writes straight with crooked lines. OnePeterFive might find itself defending the pope against the liberals: Is the world falling out of love with Pope Francis? Francis is not the great liberal reformer that many have been waiting for.
What would you or any of you say to this?
“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.” — St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”).
I would ask St. Catherine, “What did you say to Pope Gregory?”
I was reading some of her letters to the Pope. I have been very distressed about what is happening now with Catholics and Pope Francis, this was a great comfort for me. 🙂
Do you think St. Catherine would sign the Filial Appeal to His Holiness Pope Francis on the Future of the Family? (See also Personalities who have signed.) What else would she do? Or would she think that Pope Francis does not need what she gave Pope Gregory XI? Oh, I know we are not saints! Show me the St. Catherine who is advising Pope Francis, and I’ll support her.
Magister, “Between One Synod and Another, the Battle Continues”
I, too, am wondering what the “resistance” will entail. Assume arguendo that the pope were to change the Church’s uninterrupted discipline in this regard. Cardinal Burke makes a public statement that the pope is in error and he won’t follow him on this point. Exactly what effect will that have on anything, practically speaking? The majority of bishops are going to follow the pope. And what of the laity? Of what does our resistance consist? The Sunday after the pope changes the Church’s discipline, the lay person goes to Mass and sees his/her parish priest give Holy Communion to a divorced and remarried person. Then what?
If this becomes necessary, there will be no lack of suggestions. But doesn’t one already see it? We have lesbians living together who are Eucharistic Ministers. Half the parents at my daughter’s Catholic school were divorced. I expect some of them remarried and receive communion.
To put your mind at ease, you almost certainly see divorced and remarried people receiving Holy Communion every week as things stand right now.
As many others have pointed out, the Holy Father has repeatedly hinted at a “solution” that would follow in the footsteps of innovations like altar girls and communion in the hand: the perennial doctrine will remain unchanged, but pastors will be explicitly granted the discretion to use “internal forum” considerations to waive the communion discipline for civilly remarried couples. This will sound to almost everyone as a nice, merciful way to cut the Gordian Knot surrounding this (entirely fabricated) “problem”.
On one hand, this would merely constitute formal approval for what is already common practice among many pastors in today’s Church. On the other hand, it would disastrously undermine the doctrinal basis for Matrimony, Eucharist, and Penance, and remove all bases for denying Communion to anyone.
So we “resisters” will be faced (as Willard points out) with an innovation that is applauded by almost everyone, both inside and outside the Church–the Patheo$ bloggers will adore it!–but that will catastrophically undermine the sacramental and doctrinal basis of the Church’s authority.
We ordinary lay Catholics have many powerful spiritual weapons at our disposal, but we will be going against the world, much of the hierarchy, a great many of our priests, and the overwhelming majority of our fellow Catholics. We will, at most times, feel no larger than a mustard seed. Perhaps some of our remaining orthodox bishops will lead us, or perhaps we’ll be on our own. Pray for discernment!
That they are Mass-going doesn’t make them faithful if they are living in deliberate
opposition to Church teaching. And if Pope Francis *does* try to
legitimize sin because “the vast majority of your average mass-going Catholics agree…on these issues” then I trust the promise Jesus made to protect us from evil will be kept. I don’t know how. I cannot imagine what I will do (except to resist), but I trust His promise and that’s all I need.
Well…
…and…
“Truth is not determined by a majority vote.” – Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
If one would say, “I do not accept this,” the only possible answer is, “This is a fact; if you go to Hell by your own fault, little will it matter whether you accepted it or not”. — Fr. Leonardo Castellani
You’ll look like the crazy Westboro baptist people.
The number of American Catholics who hold the Church’s teachings on divorce is considerably larger than the Westboro Baptist Church, to put it mildly.
The alternative is to face the prospect that the Pope has the power to overturn a constant teaching of the Church, based on the clear words of Christ. If this can be done, all of its claims are called into question. And if that is the case, the entire project is a fraud, one we should have nothing to do with.
It can’t be done, but it could appear that it has been done. “The heresy captured most of the episcopacy, and even Pope Liberius was badgered into signing a semi-Arian formula.” From one of the articles cited by Mr. Skojek: Athanasius Contra Mundum: The Courage to Act Alone
“[T]he whole world groaned and marveled to find itself Arian.” – St. Jerome
So we’ve been here before – or have we? Arianism was on all evidence more popular with the episcopate than the laity, at least inside the Empire. Today, support for Church moral teachings among the laity is a lot more than the Westboro Baptist Church membership rolls, but it’s also true that a majority of the laity dissent from some or nearly all of these teachings. If somehow Francis were to “overturn” one of these teachings he would find a lot of lay cheering, especially in the First World.
Well – history never fully repeats itself though it hits some of the same notes. And it is of limited comfort on some days that the outlook must have seemed rather bleak to a Chalcedonian Christian in, say, the 350’s.
Some say a schsim is looming. I say it’s already here. We’re just waiting to find out in what manner it concretizes itself.
The future is also never what is expected, but there’s usually time for a good read: Soloviev’s “Short Tale of the Antichrist”
Two quotes by Planck:
“New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonelythought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.”
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Now assuming what is tenable, that the heresy is old and promoted by old men, a least two things may differentiate our time from the time of Athanasius and make the fight against heresy more difficult. One is that the old men are living longer, and another is that democracy makes the world slower to recognize and embrace truth.
Nevertheless, though their task may be more difficult, young men and women are appearing who could use our support.
That’s a great story, but it’s hard to find on the web. Do you have a link to it?
The Soloviev? The link is behind the title. If something else, let me know. I’m being called to dinner.
If only…
We can’t turn back the clock, but if only proper catechesis had been given in homilies all these decades, the laity would have some idea of what Church teaching *is* and this crisis, too, would find more support with the episcopate than the laity.
You are right on. There has been virtually no real catechesis in the last 40 odd years or 50 maybe. I like to put it this way……..this is ‘The Perfect Storm’ in the Church of Christ. Lord have MERCY on us.
The “semi-Arian formula” is described elsewhere as something intermediate between the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed. Like the Apostle’s Creed, it did not contain any actual heresies; the problem was the implied backing away from the Nicene Creed. Of course all this was well known when the dogma of papal infallibility was defined, but a knowledge of the history helps explain what that dogma does and does not mean.
Not sure what you are saying—that today one can be a semi-Arian and still Catholic?
I’m saying that there is a difference between an inadequate statement of the truth and a false statement. It’s like saying, “Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a priest.” That is a true statement, but because much more can be said about him, it might be taken as implying something false — that he is not the Pope, or even that he is not the bishop. Liberius did not deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, but by soft-pedalling the issue, it might have seemed to others that this was what he meant to imply. That in itself should be adequate reason to reject the nonsense that the Petrine office is a game of charades, with the faithful expected to guess what the Pope really means but has not said based on unexplained symbolic actions.
So one cannot be a semi-Arian and still be Catholic? I think I agree with you, so far as I can follow you; but I’m doubtful whether you agree with me at all. In any case, my purpose for quoting was not to state a fact about Pope Liberius, but to indicate what someone thought about Pope Liberius—that something that may not have been done may seem to someone to have been done.
To me, arguing from history is like arguing from the Bible, so I don’t argue from history.
That depends on what you mean by “being a Catholic”. In a sense, every baptised person is ontologically a Catholic. Certainly becoming a semi-Arian does not “un-baptise” anyone.
Worse still: what do you mean by “be[ing] a semi-Arian”? Properly speaking, I don’t think “semi-Arian” is a noun the way “Catholic” is. Suffice it to say that a Catholic who rejects the dogmas on the nature of Christ and the Trinity in order to adhere to a semi-Arian formula is a heretic and not in a state of grace. However, not every formula acceptable to such heretics is wrong. If it were, every Catholic who gives or even participates in a prayer acceptable to Protestants and Jews would be a heretic. No; we can use the Psalms even though they are not in the New Testament.
As for arguments from history, if someone were to say that no German can be Pope, one could argue against that position by canon law and other Church documents, but that would probably be less convincing than pointing out Pope Benedict XVI in history.
Thank you! I guess that’s why I never argue from history.
Please explain “that’s why”.
I don’t know if I can explain it to your satisfaction. All the reasons are based on my own limitations.
The main reason is incompetence. Following Burckhardt, I read history to make me “wise forever” rather than “clever for the next”—whatever. So I love to quote the historian Jacques Barzun, but for his wisdom rather than to prove a point. I would do the latter badly.
Another reason is the grounds on which I discover my own beliefs. I probably like Martin Mosebach because I follow Coventry Patmore: “The only evidence to which the Church appeals is self-evidence. To the sane and simple mind all serviceable truth is self-evident, on being simply asserted. The Gospel of Christ is merely ‘good news.'” I don’t know if what Patmore says is true in general. It is true for me. When faced with something important on which people disagree, I have little confidence in anything else.
A third reason is that I almost always get a bad taste when people argue from history. For me, aside from facts everybody agrees with, history is partial and subject to endless views and revision. I like that about history; arguing that history “says” or “proves” goes against my taste. Historians seem to me less pleasant when arguing; I suppose to them it’s fun. (Is semi-Arian an adjective or a noun?)
There are other reasons, based on other limitations, but since we two apparently cannot look at a simple sentence in the same way, I may have already given three too many. Nevertheless, I love your replies (not just to me) and learn from them, even though while going through them I can say to myself, “Yes, yes, yes” and at the end say, “Huh?”
It appears you and I think too differently from each other to easily understand each other. Let me give one more try.
First, I’d like to distinguish two kinds of “arguments from history”. The first is really suggestive at best. I find Chesterton’s picture quite compelling of the Church careening through history, always seemingly in mortal peril from the spirit of first one age and then another but never entirely succumbing. Obviously not everyone will agree. It is a suggestive argument, but by no means a rigorous proof.
On the other hand, there are certain broad events that no reasonable person can deny. There may be disagreement on whether the Crusades were justified, but it would be hard to maintain that the First Crusade simply never took place. There may be disagreement on whether it was a wise expenditure of time, labor, and treasure to send astronauts to the moon, but no reasonable person denies that astronauts were sent to the moon. There may be disagreement on what the Holocaust tells us about man or about God, or about how it might have been prevented, but there is sadly too much evidence to deny that the Holocaust did take place.
These broad historical facts establish some things as being really possible. We know a man can fly a plane faster than the speed of sound because this has been done in history — many times, in fact. We know a Pope can resign because a few of them actually have. We know a Pope can be weak and ineffective or worldly and corrupt because there are Popes who are universally admitted to have been weak or worldly. Pope Liberius was weak. He was weak, but he was not a heretic. His historical example shows that Popes may not always be heroic, but it does not show that they can formally teach heresy — even when the pressures on them to do so are the strongest.
As for the difference between Catholic being a noun and semi-Arian not being a noun, what I meant is that the Church is real and lasts forever. Heresies are at least somewhat unreal and do not last forever.
I give my two mites. Others give more. I admire them.
Yeah, because the immutable nature of objective Truth should always be determined by the whims of the current age. And we see that all through Scripture….. never. Anywhere.
Brilliant!
“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
– G.K.Chesterton
I am growing in admiration of this wonderful and brave Cardinal. I often get hurt after the slightest criticism but only God knows the amount of pain and grief that Cardinal Burke must be receiving for his loyalty to Truth.
Truth is not based on a majority vote. Nor can it ever be contradicted. May the Lord keep and preserve this man of God and bring him to life everlasting
With Pope Francis, the figure of the real Holy Father and that of the mythical “next Pope” — the imaginary one who will ordain women as priests, give his blessing to contraception, abortion, and “gay marriage”, etc. — have merged. The Francis of the past and present makes statements, though at times ill-advised, can still be squared with orthodox Catholicism. But the Francis of six months hence!!! Those who believe what they see in tea leaves foresee him becoming the “next Pope”.
“Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”
For most of us, it is healthier to go back and read the writings of Popes dead for at least a century. If God speaks through Popes, He spoke through them as much as through Francis, and if He doesn’t, Francis is not worth reading anyhow. But with the Popes of a century ago, there has been enough time for their writings to be properly analysed, including both the context and the consequences. Those who are afraid that Francis will endorse Marxism can at least be confident that Leo XIII will not, even though they may also grumble at him for not fully supporting Reaganism. It’s a place to start for those of us whose faith needs to be supplemented with a little sight.
I am a Catholic whose married was annulled. I am now married. Prior to annulment, I was your average run of the mill Catholic who was received Holy Eucharist because I was not cohabitating or “remarried” or the like. I was a divorced woman raising two children and living with a man. The decision to seek annulment came after many years of living in this state. During this time, I went through a lot of ups and downs and my faith developed and grew stronger. After many years, I wanted to know what God thought of my situation, of the mess I had made and I sought annulment, completely at peace with whatever the Tribunal decided.. I wasn’t seeking annulment for the sake of anything else but to understand; for God through His Church to decide what to do with me. The Tribunal did grant the annulment (a very painful process – but good pain) and in time, I came to marry. The issues and considerations raised by the synod have given rise to much distress in my being. The Truth of the Faith is the Truth – it cannot be watered down. God gave me the grace for many years to live as I was and will continue to do so, no matter the state of my life, provided that I turn to Him with sincere repentance and trust. Throughout my conversion, I came to more fully know and appreciate the Gift I had been given in the Eucharist and being able to receive it “worthily” (that is, according to Church teaching), was of utmost importance – more important than anything. That hasn’t changed. I understand the “emotions” behind the proposed laxity in the rules, but I think that, in doing so, we are not allowing room for grace, for God to do His Work within individual hearts. The pain of not receiving Eucharist because one is living outside of the Truth is not simply a punishment, but a way of bringing one back to her senses as to what is truly important and long lasting. With God, nothing is impossible yet He never violates His Word, so we as the Bride must cling to Him accordingly. Should the synod decide to do so to allow “remarried” Catholics to receive Eucharist, well then those who are in authority must resist or do themselves and their flock grave harm.
God Bless you, Laura! You have chosen the right path and May Our Lord make you a great Saint!
You are an example to be followed, Laura.
God bless!.
Thank you, Jacobi. We learn from each other, huh? That is the great thing about this site, bringing clarity and Truth and the ability for us to support and lift each other up. Admonish when needed, too. This website (and its founders/moderators) is a God-send.
It means a great deal to know that our readers find solace here. We all need a safe place to find what is lost, and to discuss what has become difficult.
I very much agree, Steve.
“Be sure to add nothing to the cross which God has sent to a soul. It is heavy enough; its weight is well calculated; do not added a single ounce to it.”— Père Lamy
Thank you. Oh, Consolatrix….thank you very much.
With all due respect, Laura, why should we believe that your annulment wasn’t fundamentally fraudulent – as so many of them are – and that you are therefore (at least according to Catholic lights) in an objectively adulterous and sinful situation in your current marriage?
This is the root of the problem, you see – the very concept of annulment is fundamentally duplicitous, enabling Catholics falsely to embrace the delusion that what WAS in fact a real marriage is not.
What is so unacceptable about the present situation in the Catholic Church is the pervasive dishonesty of it all. It makes the Catholic Church into an object of mockery for most outside it of whatever belief system – and rightly so.
Who is “we”?
Why should all in the Church believe this? Many don’t – and with good reason. The fraudulent nature of much of the annulment machinery is obvious to anyone upon close inspection.
Pope John Paul II himself memorably remonstrated with the Roman Rota about the ubiquity of this type of fraud in American annulment tribunals at one point in the 1980s, if I remember correctly.
Sheila Rauch-Kennedy, who married into the Kennedy family, wrote a pretty good book exposing the basic nature of the whole charade based on her personal experience with it in the Archdiocese of Boston a few years back.
All in the Church should believe this of Laura Y. because the Church says so and also in charity to her. “Be sure to add nothing to the cross which God has sent to a soul. It is heavy enough; its weight is well calculated; do not added a single ounce to it.”— Père Lamy
Note my comment to her above. She insists on the Church taking a hard line with others even though it has taken a soft line with her. Thus, she fails to extend to others the type of charity that she herself has received – both from the Church, and from other commenters on this site. I do not think it is uncharitable of me to point out the rather glaring inconsistency that is involved.
How do I know that the Church took a soft line with her? because she freely consented to marry, and she had sex while married. For any reasonable person, that is sufficient to demonstrate that she was married – end of story. Everything else is just playing a shell-game – “Now you see the marriage – now you don’t.” To that extent, the charity she was shown in the marriage tribunal was in fact a false charity.
Pope John Paul II himself was very critical of the American annulment tribunal process in the 1980s, and I daresay that he himself would have denied Laura J. an annulment, and insisted that her first marriage was real. In other words, he was a hardliner – which is merely what moral and intellectual consistency demands.
You judge a specific case according general observations. You haven’t reviewed Laura Y.’s case as a canon lawyer might and decided that the decision reached was unjustified. It’s uncharitable to say, many get away with it, therefore you got away with it. Even if you say: but come to my country, where it’s legal.
As to Laura Y.’s being a hypocrite, she isn’t. She isn’t being easy on herself and hard on others. She followed the rules and wants the rules to remain, because of the importance of marriage. She thinks the Church will be harmed if the rules are thrown out or radically revised. This isn’t hypocritical. (Laura Y., if I misstate your position, please say so.)
And Nestorian Christian, if I’ve misstated your position regarding Laura Y., please also say so. But I will not argue with you about which Church is the One True Fold.
In case you missed it, I have asserted repeatedly that the whole enterprise is fundamentally fraudulent.
Thus, it doesn’t matter what canon lawyers say – if Laura Y. freely consented to her first marriage, then that is that – her marriage was in fact real even according to the Catholic reckoning of things. That is all that one needs to know.
All talk of psychological impediments after the fact that are used as a basis for construing Laura Y.’s free consent as something other than what it was is just a fraudulent rationalizations. Laura Y. may have been immature, foolish, superficial, driven by lust, or blinded by any number of other delusions at the time that she chose to marry.
None of those details matter – her decision to marry was still free, and whatever intellectual gyrations her canon lawyers go through to reconstrue these things as psychological impediments to her freedom are just so many false rationalizations.
The canon lawyers in marriage tribunals were happy to serve such rationalizations to her on a platter, so as to sophistically remove the element of moral accountability that Laura Y. needs to take for making her poor decision. They were happy also to offer Laura Y. the fraudulent conclusion from these sophistries that her marriage was a mirage.
I’ll say this again, too: Pope John Paul II was also highly critical of intellectually shady practices that were pervasive in American marriage tribunals, and it is highly likely that he, too, would have concluded that the canon lawyers’ evaluation of Laura Y.’s case was a sham and a charade, if he were made personally familiar with all the facts.
There is an honest way out of her dilemma for Laura Y., which involves recognizing the falsehood of the Catholic Church, and the merciful provision of Jesus for the ending of a marriage in grave cases, as entailed in his making exceptions for cases of “porneia,” and a fortiori for anything equally or more severe than “porneia.”
If you destroy a person’s faith, you are responsible to Jesus for her soul. Yes?
The Nestorian Church, in accord with the views of a majority of Eastern Fathers well into the 6th century (both Greek and Syriac), affirms the ultimate universality of human salvation. So I have no concerns over the fate of Laura Y’s eternal soul. Jesus loves her, as he loves all human beings, so she will be saved.
This view is also sound biblically, as the greek word “aionos” denotes an extended period of indefinite duration, where the duration, whether finite or infinite, is specified by the context. The Greek-speaking Fathers understood that the use of “aionos” in connection with post-mortem punishment was always to be understood as being limited in duration. Thus hell, while real, is essentially purgatorial, as that term is understood in the Catholic context.
Thank you, Nestorian Christian. Is Satan also saved? My dog Anne? Are there limits to Jesus’s love?
Your dog Anne? Depends if she did not consent Pluto’s attack.:-)
The Nestorian Church, in accord with the views of a majority of Eastern Fathers well into the 6th century (both Greek and Syriac), affirms the ultimate universality of human salvation.
Well, if you’re going to marinate in Christological heresy, you might as well jump with both feet into soteriological ones as well. Such an understanding of hell makes a mockery of the 70+ references to hell by Christ in the New Testament, the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and most of the Church Fathers (yes, including most Eastern Church Fathers).
Why? Everybody gets to heaven anyway, don’t they? So the EZ way to get out of any marriage is to commit adultery? I wish Jesus were as straightworward with his teaching as you are. By claiming to be against divorce, by falsely saying its impossible, Jesus sure spread a lot of confusion. Until you straightened it out anyway. I can’t wait to ge to the Nestorian site and tell all the Nestorians about the Catholic faith.
I did read what you wrote. Did I misrepresent your views? Is Laura Y. a hypocrite?
Laura Y. has entangled herself into a fundamentally duplicitous system in gaining credit for her claim that her first marriage never existed The rules she followed are a sham. She claims she was never married, but she was.
Unless she affirms for us that she was coerced into her first marriage, and that there was no element of free will on her part whatsoever, then the concrete reality of her first marriage is absolutely manifest. No false religious tradition, invented by human beings to try to salvage an utterly false claim to infallibility by means of deploying deceit on a grand scale, can change this basic fact.
Having benefited from a duplicitous system in receiving mercy, she is in no position to claim to deny that mercy to others from her fundamentally compromised position, based on an alleged adherence to high principle. She cannot be permitted to do this even if she embraces the duplicity of the Catholic annulment system, and the way she benefited from it, in good faith.
Too many people have suffered for too long under the yoke of an allegedly principled adherence to the moral ideal of indissolubility, when that principled adherence is demonstrably a sham, for her not to be called out on this. If she had wanted to be spared this, then she should have never posted her views in the first place.
I give quite a lot of latitude to commenters. But this is too much. Get. Off. My. Website.
In case anyone lurking is curious, there is a fairly long list of canonical impediments to marriage that are not exactly new. Any of these would be grounds for annulment.
Laura, you have submitted yourself in good conscience to the judgment of the Church. Please don’t let comments like those you have been subjected to here take your peace. I’m sorry for the complete lack of charity and the rash judgment shown towards you here. I’m leaving the comments just to make clear the sort of thing I won’t tolerate here.
She thought she was talking to Catholics. She didn’t anticipate that there’d be a Nestorian Christian attacking her.
I give a wide latitude to commenters, but “Nestorian Christian” has crossed the line here and has been removed from the conversation.
Laura has already said that she submitted herself to the judgment of the Church on this matter. She needn’t explain anything to any of us. I’m a bit stunned at the demands in the preceding comment.
For the record, there’s a fairly long list of canonical impediments to valid marriage outside of coercion, and they’re not all innovations. Most of them are quite old.
I apologize, Laura. You’re welcome here, and you’ve been more honest and open with us about something so deeply personal than you had any obligation to be.
This has been quite a lively conversation. I do not claim to have the knowledge, insight or education that others have demonstrated here. What I do know and can most truthfully speak of from both observance and experience is the mercy of God and my need for that mercy on a constant basis. I have told the truth here and, for the sake of my family, cannot and will not go into details. Even if I could, I fear that wouldn’t satisfy…… I understood that when I posted as I did, I could expect some push back because there is suspicion surrounding the annulment process due to both ignorance of the process as well as abuse. And honestly, I am not surprised by some of the palpable anger. God gives us anger so that we can courageously fight for the good. But how do we know that we are truly on the side of goodness? How do we know when our anger is justified? Nestorian, I do not expect you or anyone else to put your faith in me or anything I say. I am a sinner and without Christ, I am nothing. And it is in Him that I put my trust and it is He Who established the Church. Funny, He could have put it the hands of angels, but He didn’t. He put it in the hands of mankind. I do take particular issue with one thing that Nestorian said: that I do not extend the charity I received to others in this regard, particularly when Nestorian has used several posts to label me a liar, a hypocrite, a cheat and other “niceties.” Even when we think we are on the side of the Lord, we can still falter – and often falter very badly. Hence, our need to stay close to Christ and His Church and work out our salvation with fear and trembling. I apologize to Steve Skojec that this whole thing took such a detour. Yours is an excellent website and we’ll be supporting you in the days to come.
Nestorian, I appreciate the frankness of your challenge. You cannot know whether I am a fraud or not. No one can. I cannot even know that with full certainty. Only God fully knows my heart. I am not going to defend myself here for I am a sinner and really there is no defense for me. What I can do is tell you that marriage requires both full consent and the marital act to be valid. To be sacramental, it must be approved by and done within the Church. If full consent and/or the marital act are missing, it cannot be truly valid nor sacramental. I can tell you that there are cases when one or both are not present. The annulment process was by no means quick, easy, or without challenge. It was a most difficult and painful experience…a refining fire. The Church did not look for loopholes or to “make it happen” for me. I think that unless one has been through this process, there can be misconceptions about it. In addition, there have been annulments granted in both past and recent history which have cast a very dark shadow on the whole thing. Prior to and during the annulment, I begged for discernment, that His Will be done and I was open to whatever the decision was. I did not possess an agenda (to the very best of my knowledge) nor did I seek to make a mockery of the Church. If I did, I pray my eyes are opened before my death so that I may atone. I did my very utmost in discernment and trusting in God’s Will. Yes, I am aware that many see and hear my story and they believe it to be a bunch of bunk. I must accept that as part of my own cross. We all have our crosses to follow. The experience I have had has enabled me to see this situation in a broader context than most…I have much sympathy and empathy for those who find themselves “outside” because of choices. I, too, have been there. Yet, I also know that validating adultery is not the answer. It is not kind and will lead many to perdition The point I was trying to make in my original post is that the Church cannot make decisions about reception of the Eucharist based upon being “nice” and “kind” and cannot invalidate one sacrament for another. I think many of our bishops and cardinals are putting “man” before God in this regard. Once one does go through divorce/annulment, there can never be wholeness (not while on this earth) because of the unifying nature of marriage. To sanction reception of the Eucharist while one is in the state of adultery will only lead those further away from God. I pray that the Church will stand firm in upholding the Truth. Thank you again and I do ask for your prayers.
Your two posts bring tears to my eyes.
Praise the Lord for He is good. His love is everlasting.
You freely chose to get married, did you not? How does that not amount to “full consent?” It seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. By any reasonable reckoning, you are living in adultery according to the Catholic standard.
I find the fraudulent nature of the whole thing infuriating. It goes back to the fact that the Catholic Church is not the True Church, and has in fact erred many times in its allegedly infallible dogmas – including on marriage. However, rather than honestly admit to this, the doctrinal authorities prefer to perpetuate a pervasively deceitful policy of upholding the false as true that goes back well over 1000 years.
I should also add that, as far as true Christianity is concerned, you are probably not currently in an adulterous relationship. Christ clearly admitted to exceptions in grave cases when he TWICE made an exception for “porneia” in discussing the binding nature of marriage, as the Evangelist and Apostle Matthew – who was probably there on both occasions – faithfully records. That has been the consistent position of the Nestorian Church – which I firmly believe to be the True Church.
But the Catholic Church cannot admit to this basic biblical truth, as that would entail conceding that it is not in fact the True Church, and has erred in doctrinal matters after all.
Having said what I just said above, I will also say that I find it
rather shameless that you insist that the Catholic Church take a hard
line on the issue of divorce and remarriage when it clearly took a
rather soft line with you.
Maybe you are not a hypocrite, but you certainly give the appearance of being one.
I would suggest to you that you free yourself from the gordian knots your are tied into by virtue of being in your situation as a Catholic by giving serious consideration to the possibility that the True Church is in fact one of the Eastern Churches – all of which allow for divorce and remarriage.
There are three doctrinally distinct options extant: Eastern Orthodoxy; Oriental Orthodoxy (commonly mislabeled “Monophysite”); and the Church of the East (commonly called Nestorian, which is also a mislabeling).
The facts of history are on their side, believe me. I have been researching the matter for 20 years.
Having said what I just said below, I will also say that I find it rather shameless that you insist that the Catholic Church take a hard line on the issue of divorce and remarriage when it clearly took a rather soft line with you.
We are in the midst of the Passion of the Church, and, as a good and Holy Priest has told me…”remain immovable; immobile.” Prayer, penance, sacrifices, mortifications…not only for ourselves, but for those sinners, who have no one praying for them. Read good books about the saints. Read about approved revelations of our Blessed Mother, Queen of Heaven–She tells us what to do!
Oh dear. Perhaps Avignon may be willing to renew the lease. Just think of the economic windfall to the local community in sales of gold, ermine, and silk (let alone cilice).
Joseph Shaw, Why talk about ‘resisting the Pope’?
Is OnePeterFive , the authors and commenters as a whole, against Pope Francis?
That is a troll-like question.
Speaking only for myself, I am against heresy and lies…those things that all Catholics should be against. The struggle is not against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers…Ephesians 6:12.
It is not a troll-like question, it is a sincere question. Some Catholic sites are mainly against Pope Francis and others are not. I was asking to find out the general thinking on this site.
Reading the articles and comments might help you.
I did and it was a bit confusing, thanks.
I would say the One Peter Five is a consciousness-raising rather than a rabble-rousing site, pro-Church—not anti-Francis—but critical of some of the pope’s words and actions. The majority of articles are not about the pope. Most of the people here are conservative, like you, but in the comments there is some variety of opinion, most of it reasonable, not knee-jerk. One thing I like is that comments are not deleted (so far as I know). See the founder’s statement About OnePeterFive.
Thank you for this answer. It was very helpful 🙂
Obviously you have not read the other articles. Perhaps it is high time you do.
Actually I have read several of them. I asked my question because I had a very serious reason for asking. I don’t like what is happening with Catholics. From what I am seeing there seems to be almost a schism- it seems to grow worse by the day.
I get that impression too. We all need to pray for the Church but at the same trust in the Lord’s promise that He is with us always.
The rules of the church are largely man made and interpreted by man. I find with as many members of the christian religion I find as many opinions available. I find if I have a question i go back to the first ten rules given us. It serves me well.
Grampa
In which case, the Sixth Commandment should reinforce Cdl. Burke’s concern.
It is the only backing he requires. for authority and conscience.
Grampa