Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

Cardinal Burke quoted: “I will resist….”

February 9th, 2015, Promulgated by Hopefull

I hardly know what to think on this matter.  Nothing I received in my Catholic education prepares me for such a scenario.  I greatly admire Cardinal Burke, and I am very concerned about the path being taken by Cardinal Kasper, the Synod, and what seems to be Pope Francis’s concurrence.  But, what is the guideline for how we are to act?  Where is the line between sin and conscience?  Looking for input and discussion.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-i-will-resist-the-pope-should-he-contravene-doctrine?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=340687e78d-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-340687e78d-326215702

Tags: , ,

|

43 Responses to “Cardinal Burke quoted: “I will resist….””

  1. avatar militia says:

    Full transcript and other relevant information can be found on http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

  2. avatar gaudium says:

    We must all pray, pray, and pray. Everyone should take every opportunity to witness to the Sacrament of Marriage by their lives and encourage it by their words. In all things, charity.

  3. avatar raymondfrice says:

    Arrogant cardinal, arrogant petition!!!

    Cardinal Burke’s being sent to his new assignment was the Vatican’s way of saying,” SHUT UP”!!

  4. avatar Eliza10 says:

    I honestly don’t think he is arrogant. I think there is a polarizing way of reporting this. I think Cardinal Burke is admirably stalwart and that wonderful dependable quality in him makes it useful for people to use him as a pawn in their polarizing game.

    Because, see, Cardinal Burke is talking about “irregular unions” while the rest of the article is referring to “people who have divorced and remarried and therefore should not take communion.” Well, everyone knows someone like that! My husband and I have divorced and remarried, and we take communion! But we are in a “regular union”, according to the Church. But if one reads the article can appear as if there are NO divorced and remarrieds who are allowed to take communion!

    What is never explained in these articles is that many of these people in remarriages who are in “irregular unions” simply have refused to seek annulments, which in many cases, because of so many lost and broken souls in our world, would be granted. And I have seen cases where remarrying persons do not seek annulment because polarizing persons and/or attitudes WITHIN the Church have encouraged them NOT to seek annulments, that they are FINE and should not NEED to. This is the fault of poor teaching and misteaching IMO. Like we see SO MUCH of in the DOR! (What a job our Bishop has! He needs our constant prayer!).

    So these Catholics, so pitifully uncatechized, simply do not not seek to know what the Church has to say about their first marriages. And they do not know that an annulment means that here on earth and in all of HEAVEN, that first marriage NEVER WAS. Yes, so, for my husband and I, what looked to all the world exactly like marriages were NOT, and what looks like a second marraige, for both of us, in the eyes of the Church and therefore Heaven, is in fact a FIRST marraige.

    This reality is not explained in that article. To the uncatechized reading the article trying to figure out what the argument is about, it looks like Catholic hierarchy like Cardinal Burke think that anyone who is remarried is in an irregular union. Doesn’t it?

    And SO MANY people think that divorced people can’t take communion! Ignorants and troublemakers make it out to be that the church is saying that that really nice couple in that nice blended family you see at Church are being treated unfairly by some merciless Church hierarchy and intolerant doctrines that should be done away with. And they back it up with sound bites from stalwart mean like Burke to make them sound like “arrogants” or what have you. In no way. Cardinal Burke is a heoric man, so much more a man than any of us run across in a lifetime.

    But yet I am going to dare to say he could answer these questions better!

    Asked, ““If, perchance, the pope will persist in this direction, what will you do?” Cardinal Burke replied, “I shall resist, I can do nothing else.””

    He should not have answered this hypothetical question. To me, it seems disloyal to imply that in the end the Pope will do a wrong thing, so he should not have acknowledged the possibility of such a scenario. He should show his trust in the Holy Spirit and presume that in the end the Pope guide our Chruch to do the right thing. Even in the face of confusing actions, like his startling reassignment. IMO, the answer to the question put to Cardinal Burke is simply, “The Pope will do the right thing.”

    Even saying, ““There is no doubt that it is a difficult time; this is clear, this is clear.”” and that The Cardinal agreed “that “the situation is “painful” and “worrisome”.”
    is not helpful.

    I would say to Cardinal Burke that difficulties and worrisome situations are a call to rejoice because we are called to greater trust.

    Sometimes I think that Pope Francis is trying to make sure all these dissident voices get heard – even though we already know what they are saying and have the answer, they still need to be officially heard. Perhaps he thinks the ensuing debate will put the truth on the table in the end, and lead to a cure of the ignorance that misleads so many. Because I do believe that the evil ones who prowl throughout the world use their intelligence to promote all kinds of false doctrines, desiring to do damage to the Church and to souls, but God means to turn it into good. And He is able.

  5. avatar BGP says:

    “Arrogant cardinal”

    How do you figure? He was asked a hypothetical question, albeit one which some are very worried will come to pass in October.
    There are in fact limits to Papal power and if a pope commands someone to do something sinful (like give communion to someone in a state of objective persistent sin such as living in an unrepentant adulterous relationship) we are not only permitted but obligated to disobey the pope in that scenario.

  6. avatar JLo says:

    I agree, BGP: I find no arrogance; rather, the man answered the question.
    As to Pope Francis, it is my great hope that he just never digested that “discretion of speech is more than eloquence” and so our fears are unfounded. At least that’s my fervent prayer… may it never come to the split that must follow a trashing, circumventing, apostasy of a tenet, whatever to call it!, of the Faith. +JMJ

  7. avatar militia says:

    Thank you, Eliza 10; your answer was candid, thoughtful and helpful, unlike the arrogant name calling by Mr. Frice. Generally, I would agree with Eliza 10’s mention that it is better not to answer hypothetical questions, but it is becoming a matter far less hypothetical than it was even a few months ago. Perhaps Cardinal Burke is helping us to not ignore what is happening, to prayerfully consider what we individually might be called to do?

  8. avatar BGP says:

    In the actual article Hopeful asks the question of “Where is the line between sin and conscience?” I presume she is asking, when are we justified in disobeying a pope?
    Of course a lot of the role of the papacy was clarified at Vatican I thats the place to go for official teaching.

    My understanding is as follows.
    We must obey the pope when he is exercising his legitimate governing authority, even if he is proposing something that seems imprudent, we are talking about papal governing of practice. (Example- if theoretically the pope demanded that all Catholics drive 5 mph below the speed limit you can disobey because it’s outside his authority. If he commanded all Catholics to not fast on good Friday you would need to obey even though it seem a horrible idea.).

    We must accept his teaching and submit our understanding under certain circumstances (ex cathedra declarations for example). We are in no way required to adopt his personal opinions or his private theological musings.

    If he commands something sinful he must be disobeyed in the matter.
    It is permissible for persons to suggest alternatives to the pope if things he is doing are imprudent. Admonish the sinner applies as well even if the pope is the sinner being admonished.
    Gal2:11 “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”

  9. avatar raymondfrice says:

    Gal2:11 “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”

    Never, on this blog, was this phrase used to describe a situation with Pope Benedict.
    And of course I would never put myself in the same league with ST Paul.
    Why is it so often we say the pope is infallible when we agree with him and often that he is not or some other splitting of hairs when we disagree with him??

    Often our comments reveal more of our psychology then our theology! LOL

  10. avatar BGP says:

    rayfrice,

    I didn’t use it to describe Pope Francis, or any other specific pope.

    My second comment lays down my understanding of the Churches teaching of the parameters of papal authority, (in an attemt to adress the question asked by the person calling themselves “hopeful”) it’s not a commentary on Pope Francis or any other specific scenario.

    Go read Gal 2:11 in context. If Pope Benedict had committed some scandalizing sin I would have condemned the sin. It would have been appropriate to admonish some of those Renaissance popes for filling the Vatican apartments with concubines. I fully accept the authority of Pope Francis and if he ever speaks from the chair I will submit my mind and will as I must.

  11. avatar gaudium says:

    The Pope is infallible but we need to watch out for creeping infallibilism. Not every stray comment the pope makes is infallible. Now, we all must give the pope our respect as well as the benefit of the doubt. Pope Francis is accustomed to being outspoken and to speaking off the cuff. He has had to clarify his comments quite a few times and will, I imagine, become more cautious when he realizes that everything the pope says has enormous weight in the public’s eye and is often interpreted as Church teaching. I imagine that his inner circle of advisers has had to speak very bluntly to him in private when he has made a quick comment about an issue. For example, his recent comments about spanking. The other extreme we have to watch out for is the tendency to dismiss significant things the pope says unless they are infallibly taught. And example of this would be the women’s ordination question. John Paul II had to use very, very strong language in order to get even many bishops to stop promoting women’s ordination.

  12. avatar jherforth says:

    I highly doubt Pope will not be making any statements ex cathedra so the whole infallibility thing is a really non-issue. The issue is around the statements made that allow for confusion of well established moral teachings. The fact that Pope Benedict XVI kept the lid on this confusion (for the most part) and Pope Francis doesn’t seem to lift a finger to quell the confusion… Actually, wait. Now that I think about this a bit more, the fact that those [bishops] that carried these opinions but didn’t bring them out into the open as forcefully says a lot about the power (for a lack of an appropriate word) and respect that Pope Emeritus carried with the Petrine office, while these forces bring mass confusion to the Catholic “faithful” now under Pope Francis. This, I believe, will be Pope Francis’ legacy.

    Is Pope Francis a bad Pope? Certainly not, those that haven’t read a least a little about the Papacy know that we’ve had some REALLY tough times and the pretty bad Popes. If the trajectory that Pope Francis seems to be on doesn’t change, I have a feeling that the next century will look at Pope Francis as but another man that was a Pope. It’s still only twoish years in, we have a ways to go to really know what is going to happen. I pray that he has a plan and that it truly is an inspired one that will help save more souls. This is were Cardinal Burke comes in. As pointed out, he is commenting on a purely hypothetical question. If the scenario were to play out I would hope that he would resist, and by resisting he would speak out about the matter in a way that would remain faithful to the magisterium. That doesn’t mean he would enter into schism and if you think that’s a possibility, respectfully, you’re delusional.

    We also have to be honest, those “faithful” [Catholic in name only] that were not following Catholic teaching weren’t following Catholic teaching under Pope Benedict either. The difference is that they feel that they can dance in the streets about it under Pope Francis and that is the crux of the matter.

  13. avatar raymondfrice says:

    Militia

    “unlike the arrogant name calling by Mr. Frice.”

    Name is Mr. Rice!!

    ta ta ta ! no personal ad hominem attacks!!

  14. avatar JLo says:

    And while we’re discussing using labels on people… jherforth, respectfully, please consider that maybe writing that someone’s opinion, someone’s fear, not in your personal thinking wheelhouse is “delusional” can hardly be “respectfully” said. I think Diane and the others wish for discussion, but without the personal attacks, points made without withering comments. After all, aside from what we have in the Church as dogma and in Scripture as taught by the Church, all else is human opinion anyway. Let’s make that word “respectfully” mean what it says. You most likely did not mean it that way, but it was as if you delivered the back of your hand in a slap to those who have such a fear… and I have friends who would be on the receiving end. Lastly, your dismissal of in-name-only Catholics also fails to see that many of them are hardly “dancing in the streets”. Maybe some are, but don’t we all know such people who are in real pain? What does it gain to make dismissive statements about them.

    BTW, just for clarity, I do not see schism in the wind; that’s not why I wrote this. I do see confusion snowballing, and that means lost souls, so brainstorming and exchanging information is good. Calling each other names wastes time and is below us, below the purpose of this website… IMO and I pray respecfully delivered, because that is how I meant to say it. 🙂
    +JMJ

  15. avatar BigE says:

    Even though I don’t agree with his very conservative theology – I do strongly believe in Cardinal Burke’s right (and duty) to express himself and his make known his opinions. It is only through this type of discussion and discernment that our Church can grow. So just as I don’t want progressive/liberal ideas silenced – neither do I want conservative/orthodox ideas silenced. Silencing either side is not good for the Church. They all need to be heard and then I’ll trust in the Holy Spirit to sort it all out.

  16. avatar Scott W. says:

    For once I agree with BigE. As leaders of the faithful, the faithful have a right to know exactly where they stand.

  17. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Ray,

    The letter “F” is right below the letter “R” on the keyboard. Perhaps the mistake was a typo.

  18. avatar annonymouse says:

    Dear BigE – since you’re relatively new to the faith and your catechesis seems to me to have, shall we say, left something to be desired, allow me to enlighten you as to Cardinal Burke’s “conservative theology” – for there’s a word for that – it’s called “Catholicism.”

    All snark aside, pray tell exactly which theological beliefs/teachings of the Cardinal are in error, in your opinion?

  19. avatar annonymouse says:

    And now that I have read the remainder of your post, we have found yet another point of disagreement. I think Cardinal Burke is wonderful but also think he’s gone away over the line in his public criticism of Pope Francis, remarks very unbecoming of a “prince of the Church.” His remarks not only undermine respect for the Petrine ministry, they may also prove to have been counter-productive as, politically, they may push the Holy Father in the opposite direction. Cardinal Burke is, by his outspokenness, showing the same sort of hubris the Holy Father is showing by opening settled questions of the Faith (founded on the words of Christ and St. Paul) to debate.

  20. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    I also disagree with BigE’s proposal, “you dissent, I dissent, we all dissent together”. Cardinal Burke is saying, “I will obey God rather than men” which is something quite different from progressive dissent. If sticking by God and His Truth comes off as disrespectful towards man, then so be it.

  21. avatar BigE says:

    @annonymouse
    Ahhh…..I’ve missed you.
    My catechesis was/is fine thank you. In fact, I’ll offer you a little free catechesis since you seemed to have confused some terms —> dogma/doctrine is not same as theology.
    Now, putting my snark aside, in answer to your question: I found his theological belief “that the church has become too feminized” to be both ironic and misguided.

  22. avatar BigE says:

    @ben
    Since when did discussion become dissent?
    And what Burke is saying is that he will obey what he believes God is saying. Big difference. He is not the final authority for all.

  23. avatar annonymouse says:

    e-
    And your frame of reference for concluding that statement of Cardinal Burke’s to be misguided is what, exactly? He’s been in the Church a lot longer than you, so perhaps he has a frame of reference (I.e. Before it was as feminized as it is now) that you don’t have? I go to Church and often see Father and seven female extraordinary ministers up there, along with three female altar servers. I hope you won’t argue with me that our entire culture suffers from a crisis of masculinity – our entire culture has become too feminized, including the Church. We have lost the meaning of what it means to “be a man.”

    But I have led this thread astray. Back on point, I think you still fail to grasp (or embrace)many things about our Church, including when we are free to dissent, and when we are obliged to give our full intellectual assent to her teachings.

    And in the case of Cardinal Burke, he certainly has the right and perhaps obligation to make his thoughts known to the Holy Father, but there is no obligation to do so publicly, which serves only to undermine the papal office.

  24. avatar gaudium says:

    It seems that folks on both “sides” of this discussion might need to consider that the Cardinal simply said that he would resist. Please give him the benefit of the doubt. “Resist” can mean anything from his having a quiet, personal conversation with the Pope to fire bombing the Vatican. He did not say he would protest, denounce, disobey, condemn, etc. Perhaps if he knew the question was coming, he would have answered with more precision. A three word answer seems indicative of the Cardinal’s being caught off guard. Let’s not try to read more into his response than we should.

  25. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    BigE,

    Since when did discussion become dissent?

    Discussion is dissent when it questions established truths.

    And what Burke is saying is that he will obey what he believes God is saying. Big difference. He is not the final authority for all.

    You’re right he isn’t – and he doesn’t claim to be. Cardinal Burke is simply acknowledging Scripture and 2000 years of tradition as authoritative… and the previous 2 popes already tackled these “questions” head-on and spoke authoritatively on these topics.

    Mouse,

    there is no obligation to do so publicly, which serves only to undermine the papal office.

    The midterm relatio was despicable as was the whole message of the synod. If good churchmen don’t speak out, then the world is worse off. Mouse, during the Arian heresy would you have found it disrespectful to say that Jesus was consubstantial with the Father? The quote from Cardinal Burke in Petition for papal statement confirming Catholic doctrine on marriage is fitting

    Cardinal Burke’s Appeal to All Catholics

    In an age filled with confusion — as can be seen with gender theory – we need the teaching of the Church on marriage. But we are being pushed in the opposite direction to admit divorced and remarried Catholics to the Eucharist. And this is without even mentioning the obsession to make easier the procedures to annul the marital bond….

    I am therefore very worried. And I call upon all Catholics whether laymen, priests or bishops to get involved — from now until the upcoming Synodal Assembly — in order to highlight the truth on marriage.

    (Excerpt from an interview granted in Rome to Jean-Marie Guénois – Le Figaro Magazine, 19 December 2014 issue, p. 46)

    For more – see Feser’s “Nudge nudge, wink wink”

  26. avatar BigE says:

    @annonymouse
    Yes, I found the Cardinal’s statement to personally be both ironic and misguided.
    Ironic that “Mother” Church, who is the “Bride of Christ” – is too feminine.
    And misguided in claiming that a church who doesn’t have a single women in a position of authority is too feminine.
    It had me scratching my head and smiling at the absurdity of it all.
    Now I’ll let you have the last word…..

  27. avatar JLo says:

    Thank you, Ben, for such faithful and clear view of the Faith. Others just know not what they’re saying, and that’s the best we can believe when reading the stuff they write, absolute misunderstandings in so many areas surrounding discussion of the Church. Just those pullouts you chose and your comments on them are so instructive that my prayer is that such people read them and re-read them, ponder and pray on just those, and LEARN! God bless. +JMJ

  28. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    The fact that the “Church of Nice” (I’m not a big Voris fan, but I love that phrase) has become too feminized is evident by its lack of success in encouraging young men to answer the call to the priesthood. I’ve had young men come to my door to share with me their passionate concern about fracking and the damage it is doing. I’ve had Mormons come in the cold and snow to tell me about their faith (which is based on obviously false facts). I’ve had Protestants get all excited when I tell them I’m Catholic because of their desire to passionately share their faith with me (and get me on their team). I’ve worked with young men who passionately believe in atheism. They spend their free time reading books about it and trying to convince others about it. And yet the only encounter outside of the parish setting I’ve had with young men who are Catholics is ones who quickly let you know that they think the Church better change and get with the times. These aren’t men who are passionate about the faith. It doesn’t mean anything to them – it’s just the culture they came from (kind of like being Irish or Italian). Many of them have gone entirely through the Catholic school system and can’t tell me what a mortal sin is. It’s not that they are passionately Catholic and that they have good ideas for the Church. It’s that they’ve rejected the silly, sentimental, childish, feminine version of Catholicism that they were raised in… and unfortunately they often don’t realize that they’ve never encountered authentic Catholicism in all its glory.

    The reason that young men aren’t attracted to the “Church of nice” is because it lacks conviction in its fundamental beliefs. Man is fallen and in need of a savior. That savior came as a real person 2000 years ago and died for us. If we don’t live in accord with the grace given to us, we will go to Hell. He is the only way to heaven. To live in accord with His grace means to give our lives over to Him. Giving him a sliver isn’t enough. Hell is a real place and people go there. Being a “good citizen” doesn’t get one to heaven. Our faith isn’t about feeling good – it isn’t based on sentimentalism. It has a rich intellectual tradition that has mostly been ignored in the recent past. We pretend that it can’t stand up to the modern mind. We sell our tradition short. To quote Feser from the article I linked above:

    How have things gotten to this point? There are in my view two main factors. The first is what I have identified elsewhere as the chief cause of the collapse of Catholic apologetics, dogmatic and moral theology, and catechesis: the abandonment of Scholasticism. Thomists and other Scholastic theologians and philosophers, and the churchmen of earlier generations who were given a Scholastic intellectual formation, emphasized precision in thought, precision in language, precision in argumentation, precision in doctrinal and public statements, and extreme caution about novel theses and formulations which might undermine the credibility of the Church’s claim to preserve and apply doctrine, and not manufacture or mutate it. Say what you will about the (purported) limitations of Scholastic theology and philosophy, there was, in the days when Scholasticism held sway, never any doubt about exactly what a statement from a bishop or from the Vatican meant and about exactly how it squared with Catholic tradition.

    Simply put – young men are idealists. They desire to believe in something. We all do, but often older folks have given up thinking that there really is anything worth believing in. “Just come to Church, don’t ask too many questions, and go through the motions like the rest of us do”, we tell them (not directly, but with our behavior). The old people then, listening to the youngins I mentioned above, think “we better soften are teachings or they’ll leave entirely”. But that’s exactly the opposite of what we should do. We shouldn’t give in – we should convince. We should educate – we should show them what true faith really is by exposing them to our rich tradition (liturgical, intellectual, spiritual, etc).

    The lack of conviction is evident across the board – in the way we ignore our Catholic traditions and heritage. In the way we fail to mimic the lives of the Saints. In the way we assist at Mass and our complete lack of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. Any young man can spot in 2 seconds that the majority of the people at the parish must not actually take this thing seriously. Men want something to believe in – let’s give it them. Let’s give them the protagonist in Robert Hugh Benson’s, “Come Rack! Come Rope!”

  29. avatar Jim says:

    Ben, you’re spot on. I know many young people of both sexes, and whole families that leave the Catholic Church, for evangelical churches, because there they are taught what Jesus said in the scriptures. They are hungry for solid teachings found in the the bible. As you say, they see a lot of “fluff” coming from the pulpit in many Catholic Churches, and they just check out for good!

  30. avatar annonymouse says:

    Gaudium and Ben – I suppose I was thinking more of this quote of Cardinal Burke from late last year: ““There is a strong sense that the Church is like a ship without a helm.” Now that might be true, but it seems to me unseemly for a Cardinal to publicly state that.

    Now if the Holy Father decides that it’s within his power to change 2000 years of teaching (teaching founded on the words of Our Blessed Lord), I suppose the good Cardinal should resist.

    And thank you, Ben, for your well-thought-out responses and your defense of Cardinal Burke. Food for thought there.

    e – there is a difference between “feminized” and “feminine.” The idea of the Church as “Bride of Christ” could not be more different than what is meant by “feminism.” I’m reasonably sure the good Cardinal was thinking of the latter, not the former, when he made his remark.

    And you would do well, I think, to study up on the THEOLOGY behind the Church’s 2000-year structure in which only men have held positions of authority. I fear that your thinking our ecclesiology absurd is an example not only of your not grasping that theology (or at least not embracing it) but of your own mindset maybe too deeply affected by our secular age. Or perhaps your understanding of ecclesiology hasn’t gone deeper than reading McBrien’s “Catholicsim” or taking a Church course at St. Bernard’s, or both. In any event, the secular culture scoffs at the “antiquated, male-dominated hierarchy” of our Church, as do you. But, unlike you, the culture can not be expected to understand the theology behind our ecclesiology.

  31. avatar annonymouse says:

    Ben – spot on with your 2/14 2:17 post. And it goes for young women, too – hence the dearth of vocations in the liberal orders of sisters. I wholeheartedly agree that few will be willing to surrender their lives for a feminized “church of nice.”

  32. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Mouse,

    I think Cardinal Burke is only stating the obvious. Look at the example of what happened in Rochester for 33 years. We were rudderless and worse, heretetical doctrines were grossly and subtily rammed down our throats. And who defendes us. For the most part,noone but ourselves.

    The Cardinal’s statements offer hope to those, like St. Athanasius, who are fighting for truth. If the naked elephant is in the living room, it is good someone mentions it.

  33. avatar annonymouse says:

    Ah, but RT, would it have been appropriate, during those 33 years, for a Rochester Diocesan priest to publicly announce that the diocese is rudderless and that he will resist his ordinary? Now granted, a diocesan priest promises obedience and respect to his ordinary, but does a Cardinal not also make a similar vow to the Pontiff?

  34. avatar Diane Harris says:

    I was going to put a long comment here, but didn’t want to interrupt the flow of input, so there is a separate, new post just added this morning: https://www.cleansingfire.org/2015/02/resisting-canon-212-and-galatians/

  35. avatar BGP says:

    Annonymouse, If a DOR priest would have done that it would have made his life difficult of course. That being said, vows of obedience a superior are not binding if that obedience is in conflict with obedience to a higher authority.

    For example: Bp. Clark celebrated a pro sodomy pride Mass, if he had required his priests to participate and one of them would have refused and vowed resistance it would have been entirely appropriate.

  36. avatar BGP says:

    The subject of the Church having become feminized is something that seems to come up periodically. Authentic femininity isn’t what’s off putting to young men (and women for that matter). What we are really talking about is effeminacy. If any normal unattached young man (and being such is by definition a possible priestly vocation) decides to go to church and what he experiences is lots of handholding, emotional melodrama, and pathetic sacralized pop music he’s going to be turned off (and really all this stuff turns off levelheaded young women as well).

    Multiply those negative feelings if there is any sense that the parish is dominated and controlled by aged women with baggage about ‘patriarchy’ multiply it again are liturgical prancers with streamers or flaming bowls of incense, raise it to a power of ten if one of the prancers is male.

  37. avatar annonymouse says:

    In the case of a diocesan cleric, I believe the promise is not only obedience, but also respect, to the ordinary and his successors. I don’t know what form the Cardinal’s promise to the Holy Father takes, but I do question how “respectful” +Burke is being, to the man Francis, and more importantly, to the papal office.

    To date, despite the serious misgivings caused by even placing such questions on the table, Pope Francis has not proposed changing doctrine or dogma (and I’m sure one might point out, accurately or not, that the synod was not about questioning doctrine or dogma but merely how to pastorally care for the faithful). And so a Cardinal, it seems to me, must be extremely circumspect in his choice of what to say, what not to say, and how to say it.

  38. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    and I’m sure one might point out, accurately or not, that the synod was not about questioning doctrine or dogma but merely how to pastorally care for the faithful

    right, but they’ve offered no explanation as to how it this pastoral approach squares with Catholic doctrine. You can’t just say, “but I’m not changing doctrine” when you have no explanation for how exactly your pastoral approach doesn’t contradict doctrine when it apparently does. I’ve heard nothing close to this articulated by these revolutionaries.

    It’s got to be one of the following, right?

    The marriage was not a marriage. At which point we don’t need any changes because there exists an annulment process. So the marriage must have actually been a marriage and now they are “re”-married.

    Having sex outside of marriage no longer a grave sin. But that changes doctrine, so that must not be how their argumentation goes.

    It’s a good thing to receive communion in a state of mortal sin. But St. Paul explicitly teaches against this, so that must not be how their argumentation goes.

    So what’s left? Maybe it’s still grave matter, but the people who are committing the sin are too ignorant to know, so it’s not a mortal sin. But then it’s the Church’s job to instruct – not leave people in ignorance and have synods that confuses everybody.

    If someone can explain this to me – I’m all ears.

  39. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    The real issue is truth and saving souls. I do not see how correcting someone like the pope disrespects his office when the pope himself may be in error.

    And it’s about saving sould. The recent synod on the family has caused incredible harm to souls because a heresy was interposed ( giving gommunion to the divorced and remmaried). If the pope is silent or appoints cardinals and bishops to the commission who are in support of the heresy, and the information of the heretics is widely disseminated, and the Holy Father does nothing or little to correct it, then it is the DUTY of cardinals and perlates like Cardinal Burke to tell the truth. This not only reaffirms Church teachings but it gives comfort and affirmation to the laity.

    If a priest would ever do so while Bishop Clark was in charge, he would be severely persecuted. Look at what happened to that priest who gave a homily on homosexuality,at the Cathedral reaffirming the Majesterial teachings, one week after a nun gave a homily in favor of Dignity and homosexual relations. The bishop made life for him impossible. The priest eventually went to Kentucky and became a Father of Mercy. That was what anyone crossing the bishop would undergo. And let’s not forget how Fr’s Antinarelli and Bonsignore were treated.

  40. avatar annonymouse says:

    Ben – I don’t agree with it, but one argument I’ve heard advanced is that your #3 is what would change – there are theologians who believe that the Church’s teaching that one ought not receive communion in a state of mortal sin is not what St. Paul intended and is based on an inaccurate hermeneutic of 1 Cor 11:27-29. They claim that v29 means that to eat “worthily” means to believe that what they’re eating truly is the Body of the Lord, or some such. To re-interpret St. Paul would mean to admit that the Church has been wrong on an important point of faith and morals for all these years – except that she hasn’t been wrong.

    I’ve also heard the Greek Orthodox view proposed, based on the “porneia” exception in Matthew’s Gospel, where “porneia” (the meaning of which is a subject of great disagreement among the Christian religious expressions – protestants freely interpret the word as “adultery” or “sexual immorality”) is taken to mean a whole host of things that one might look to in seeking to dissolve a marriage. We Catholics have consistently taken the Matthean exception to mean “unlawful marriage,” as in an incestual relationship or other consanguine relationship.

    But you’re correct – one of the three consistently-held beliefs would have to change for the synod “reformers” to prevail. I pray that the Holy Father will, before the synod next fall, realize that his mission is to protect, defend and proclaim the faith, not make wholesale changes to it.

  41. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    Thanks, Mouse. Isn’t it funny how these points are not how they’re choosing to debate the issue? Instead they completely sidestep the merely “intellectual” debate and cut straight to the “heart” with the “mercy, mercy, mercy” talk as if they Church never knew what that meant. All of this appeals quite well to a people that has been taught that you shouldn’t over-think the faith (like that’s a sin or something)… like God somehow can be irrational.

    Anyway, my point for coming back here was to once again applaud Bishop Matano. Shortly after the comment of despair I left above about why so much of our local Church doesn’t appeal to young men, I was blessed to be at RIT’s Ash Wednesday Mass with Bishop Matano as the celebrant and homilist. His reverence for Our Lord and his inspiring/challenging homily directed so well to RIT students is such an answer to prayer. Pray that he continues forward with much energy and strength. We are so blessed to have him.

Leave a Reply


Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.


-Return to main page-