Posted on 03/25/2015 6:22:04 AM PDT by marshmallow
Editor’s Note: Cardinal Raymond Burke spoke with LifeSiteNews Paris correspondent Jeanne Smits in Rome on January 21. We are running the interview along with an article (available here) drawing out some of the cardinal's most significant points. Smits has also published a French version of the interview on her blog.
LifeSiteNews: Since the extraordinary synod on the family, we have entered a period of uncertainty and confusion over several “hot-button” issues: communion for divorced and “remarried” couples, a change of attitude towards homosexual unions and an apparent relaxing of attitudes towards non-married couples. Does your Eminence think that this confusion is already producing adverse effects among Catholics?
Cardinal Burke: Most certainly, it is. I hear it myself: I hear it from Catholics, I hear it from bishops. People are claiming now, for instance, that the Church has changed her teaching with regard to sexual relations outside of marriage, with regard to the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts. Or people who are within irregular matrimonial unions are demanding to receive Holy Communion, claiming that this is the will of the Holy Father. And we have astounding situations, like the declarations of the bishop of Antwerp with regard to homosexual acts, which go undisciplined, and so we can see that this confusion is spreading, really, in an alarming way.
LSN: Archbishop Bonny says Humanae vitae was disputed by many: now is the time to dispute other things. Aren't we in a period when the Church's teachings are being disputed more than before?
CB: Yes, I believe so. It seems now that people who before did not dispute the Church's teaching, because it was clear that the authority of the Church prohibited certain discussions, now feel very free to dispute even the natural moral law, including a teaching like Humanae vitae which......
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
I Corinthians 14:8: “For if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare for the battle?”
Total confusion reigns. Welcome to the era of Francis.
I know people are being confused by the Pope’s remarks, but it doesn’t help that the media is also cherry picking those remarks too.
LSN: Repeatedly, even the synod fathers who have touted the issues of “remarriage” of divorcee and homosexual or non-marital unions have repeated that the question is not doctrinal, but pastoral. What is your response to that?"There cannot be anything that's truly pastorally sound which is not doctrinally sound. In other words: you cannot divide the truth from love. In other words still: it can't be loving not to live the truth."CB: That simply is a false distinction. There cannot be anything that's truly pastorally sound which is not doctrinally sound. In other words: you cannot divide the truth from love. In other words still: it can't be loving not to live the truth. And so to say that we're just making pastoral changes that have nothing to do with doctrine is false. If you admit persons who are in irregular matrimonial unions to Holy Communion, then you're directly making a statement about the indissolubility of marriage, because Our Lord said: “He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” And the person in an irregular matrimonial union is living in a publicly adulterous state. If you give Holy Communion to that person then somehow you're saying that this is alright doctrinally. But it can't be.
Thank you, Cardinal Burke, for speaking out against contemporary moral dualism.
If you DIVORCE an abusive spouse, and ‘repent’, you CAN’T receive communion!
If you KILL an abusive spouse, and ‘repent, you CAN receive communion!
This is what our Holy Father is talking about!!!!!!!!!
I ask anyone to explain to me the logic and faith in this situation.
**If you DIVORCE an abusive spouse, and ‘repent’, you CAN’T receive communion!**
That is incorrect.
It is when a divorced person remarries, thus committing the sin of adultery, that they cannot receive Communion.
Nobody said a divorced Catholic in a state of grace cannot take communion. The problem is divorce and remarriage (without an annulment), which Our Lord himself said is adultery, and therefore the sinful state continues during the remarriage while the first spouse is alive. It’s not difficult, and it is what the doctrine and practice of the Church has always been.
oh, excuse me. Let me re-phrase another way then.....
If you DIVORCE an abusive spouse, ‘repent’, and re-marry, you CAN’T receive communion!
If you KILL an abusive spouse, and ‘repent, and re-marry, you CAN receive communion!
This is what our Holy Father is talking about!!!!!!!!!
I ask anyone to explain to me the logic and faith in this situation.
I don’t recall Jesus saying anything about “annulments”.
What’s the Biblical basis of annulment?
Liberals, whether political or religious, don't want to answer for what they are doing, it's someone else’s fault b.s.
If you read your Bible and pray to God on a regular basis, you won't be confused and over run by liberal thinkers....
God is the same today, tomorrow and always and he wants you to believe in HIM not man....
An annulment is an investigation and judgment that the marriage was never valid in the first place. Do we really need a specific Bible verse in order to answer the question “Is my marriage valid?”
“let no one put asunder” tends to indicate that perhaps, yes, some Biblical basis for annulment would be at least handy, given we have little perspective on what marriage results in after we die. Do we part? Not sure. Are we married forever? I don’t know.
Do we really need specific Bible verse on any point of Christian dogma?
Catholicism, on the one hand, makes a big deal about the sanctity of marriage and the reception of the Sacrament in a state of grace, and then on the other is reticent to explore the Biblical basis of the process by which a divorced Catholic is restored to that state of grace.
Yes, probably, there ought to be something beyond ‘dispensational tradition’ to underpin it. It would be better.
An annulment has nothing to do with the continuation of the bonds of marriage after death. It is a declaration that there was some defect that prevented the that bond to be valid in the first place. To give but one example, if one of the parties committed fraud to trick the other into marriage this would not be a valid marriage.
Do we really need specific Bible verse on any point of Christian dogma?
The annulment process does not address what constitutes a valid marriage, i.e. the Christian dogma of marriage. It just asks did the parties conform to that dogma when they allegedly entered into marriage.
Catholicism, on the one hand, makes a big deal about the sanctity of marriage and the reception of the Sacrament in a state of grace, and then on the other is reticent to explore the Biblical basis of the process by which a divorced Catholic is restored to that state of grace.
Not at all. A valid marriage, following the words of our Lord, continues until death. Remain faithful to the bonds of that marriage an confess any sins of adultery that you committed contrary to those bonds and BINGO: you are restored to the state of grace.
Yes, probably, there ought to be something beyond ‘dispensational tradition’ to underpin it. It would be better.
But if you insist on a Bible verse:
[Jesus] said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8-9)Unlawful marriages (in the Greek porneia) are not binding. An annulment is a determination that a marriage is indeed porneia.
The logic is fairly obvious. If you remarry while the previous spouse is still alive, you’re in an ongoing state of adultery, from which you can’t “repent” because it’s ongoing.
Exactly the stupidity of this logic when taken with my point. That if you "kill" your "previous spouse", then you don't need no 'stinkin annulment'.
Nice logic to apply to avoiding the "on going state of adultery"!
BTW, per canon law, if you kill your spouse in order to marry someone else, the second marriage is invalid anyway, so no, in that case, you can’t receive communion.
So is there a mens rea involved here? A ‘state of mind’ or ‘state of intention’ defect that would cause the marriage to be invalid?
Is there some sort of guideline a Catholic can turn to in order to help him or herself decide whether what they are in is a ‘false marriage’ or whether they are in a valid marriage that is essentially in a state of ‘breach’, as it were - a breaking or non-honoring of vows?
That indeed could be one reason to declare that a marriage is invalid. Again, this is a question that the marriage was invalid from its inception, not that a valid marriage does not continue to exist.
Is there some sort of guideline a Catholic can turn to in order to help him or herself decide whether what they are in is a ‘false marriage’ or whether they are in a valid marriage that is essentially in a state of ‘breach’, as it were - a breaking or non-honoring of vows?
The presumption is that a marriage is valid. For it to be declared invalid one must approach church tribunal with evidence that it is invalid. There would then be a judicial process to ascertain the truth. It is not up to the individual to make such a decision. We are all prone to delude ourselves and there is also the possibility that the spouses would disagree. But the first step would be to talk to one's parish priest to discuss the possible reasons that a marriage would be invalid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.