Posted on 11/16/2016 4:06:25 AM PST by marshmallow
The cardinal said there was a tradition of issuing a formal correction if a Pope is in error
Cardinal Raymond Burke has said it may be necessary to make a “formal act of correction” if Pope Francis doesn’t answer a letter from four cardinals asking him to clarify aspects of Amoris Laetitia.
In an interview with Edward Pentin of National Catholic Register, Cardinal Burke said that if the Pope were to teach error or heresy, “It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.”
Cardinal Burke is one of four cardinals who have written to the Pope asking for a clarification of Amoris Laetitia. They say that the document could be read as contradicting Church teaching on the moral law and on the question of Communion for the remarried. The Pope has declined to reply to the letter.
Asked what would happen if the Pope remained silent, Cardinal Burke replied: “Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.”
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
I can’t follow all of the technical stuff with the latin and the various doctrine because I am not well versed.
What I do know is that the Catholic Church covered up SEXUAL abuse and I want an answer from you as to why they did it.
Sure there is politics in the Church. There was politics when James and John asked our Lord that one of them would sit on his right and the other on his left. There is politics in every human organization, even in your church. But not everything is political. The Church’s defense of Catholic doctrine is not political. It is driven by sincerely held religious beliefs. Just as sincere as the religious beliefs that you hold. To deny this and posit that it is all politics is ugly rash judgment.
The Catholic Church did not cover it up but a number of particular bishops who went against Catholic teaching and Church discipline. Pope Benedict XVI instrumental in cleaning up the mess. To attribute the action of some bishops to the entire Church would be akin to saying that the Apostles betrayed Jesus because of the action of Judas.
So go back and look at my post. I didn’t say it was politics. Someone else said that to me. All I said is that they were fighting back against Pope Che.
that said, I don’t know..nor do you ..the real motivation behind what they are doing. Maybe politics plays a role and maybe it doesn’t. I don’t know.
But anytime someone says to me that people are staying quiet until they can’t anymore smells of politics.
And I have no doubt that when there is a battle like this where 4 Cardinals are willing to do something that is very rare...politics within the Church are going to heat up.
It is ludicrous to say they won’t. That Vatican is filled with backstabbers and those searching for power. Come on. You can’t deny that.
Politics will be swarming the more this heats up.
Sure...the Didn’t no nuffin excuse
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-pope-benedict-knew-about-abuse-in-the-catholic-church
He loves the world. He loves it so much that he wants you to worship at the altar of the earth by you paying to reverse his belief (religion) that there is climate change.
The article you link itself says that Pope Benedict worked to clean up the mess. But no, it has to attribute base motivations to him for doing so rather than acknowledge that he was truly horrified. I am surprised that one that claims to be a Christian would reference such a hate filled diatribe.
The last time papal infallibility was invoked was in 1950 when the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was defined as dogma.
I may be wrong but Cardinals and Archbishops ARE the catholic church...and they have been found to have covered up the sexual abuse.
So if you want to believe 100s of millions of dollars were paid out with all kinds of people in the heirarchy knowing but the Pope..go right ahead and believe that...but the Catholic Church covered up the scandal and made it worse.
Cardinals and Archbishops are right under The Pope
http://www.usccb.org/about/leadership/holy-see/francis/how-is-a-new-pope-chosen.cfm
"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."
http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-17.htm
"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
Where you have a PATTERN used over and over and over again AROUND THE WORLD...it makes you wonder how the Vatican could have been in the dark for decades.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pope-abuse-pell-idUSL3N16A5BH
“Just answer me a question”
As if I haven’t answered others?
“WHY did they cover up the sexual abuse since you are so well versed? For money? For power? For religious beliefs?”
None of the above. The reasons are as follows, but in no particular order:
1) The erosion of proper Catholic moral understanding (i.e. bishops had becomes so infected with worldly understandings of human nature that they put aside traditional understandings of morality and moral frailty of human beings). This lapse of consideration about concupiscence and misunderstanding about pedophilia and ephebophila meant a complete negation of basic responsibilities in regard to protecting the flock was in the offing. And so it was. This erosion touched on several areas which directly engaged the whole mess regarding the abuse of minors:
- a proper understanding of homosexuality.
- a proper understanding of sexual sin and sexual temptation.
- a proper understanding of pedophilia and ephebophilia.
- a proper understanding of the changing culture and how it would effect and affect things.
- a proper understanding of the office of bishop.
- a proper understanding of the limitations of modern psychology and psychological practice.
- a proper understanding of the homosexual networks.
2) Public embarrassment. The very nature of sin - and the absolution of sin - is often hidden from public view. The actual sexual abuse of minors took place behind closed doors - as did any forgiveness of the perpetrators. This was necessary in regard to the seal of confession, but created another problem. The very sensitive nature of these cases - for the minors, their families, their parishes or schools, and the Church and her clergy - meant everything was handled in secret as sin usually is. This fed into a secretive practice of handling things when it would have been better to have it more open to public view. It would have been better because it would have prevented priests from being “treated” and “reassigned” rather than forcefully removed from the priesthood. Why bishops “treated” and “reassigned” priests leads to number 3:
3) Poor leadership by bishops. Bishops often utterly failed to act properly in the 1950s-1980s (when the vast majority of sex abuse cases happened). Why? It happened for several reasons:
- An old boy network: the clergy all knew each other in each diocese. They went to school together, seminary together, were ordained together, served side-by-side together. This led to reluctance on the part of bishops to effectively and DEFINITIVELY discipline priests who did serious wrongs. Too many bishops remember their camaraderie while forgetting their moral responsibility.
- Bishops paid far too much attention to modern, worldly, psychologists in dealing with the sex abuse cases. They should have relied SOLELY in their moral training, but that too might have been impaired because of poor catechesis. Psychologists repeatedly told bishops these men could be treated and cured. Bishops made the mistake of believing them. The last time I heard of such a thing happening was 2011 or 2012. I think the bishops wanted to believe these men could be cured and so were all the more likely to believe psychology professionals when they made such claims.
- Acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual networks. Bishops were ordered as late as 1962 to not ever ordain a homosexual. Yet that order was clearly disobeyed. Now, some homosexuals may have been ordained without any knowledge on the part of the bishop that that man was a homosexual. I’m sure that happened. At the same time, however, it is clear that homosexuals – who had to be known as homosexuals – were ordained in direct violation of the laws and practice of the Church. This goes against all common sense of course. It is also clear that homosexuals formed networks within some dioceses. Bishops were either unaware of these networks or chose to ignore them. Father Enrique Rueda documented this in his 1982 landmark work The Homosexual Network, Private Lives & Public Policy. Even after he published his book the bishops by-and-large did nothing or, if they did do something, they never discussed it publicly which just worsened the problem.
- Fear of upsetting homosexuals and homosexual networks. This ties together points 2 and 3. The Bishops have mortally afraid of publicly detailing the real reasons behind more than 90% of all sex abuse cases: homosexuality, ephebophilia, etc. They have addressed other issues related to the abuse cases, but seem terrified to address the issue of homosexuality. I can only assume this is for three reasons:
i) fear of media backlash
ii) fear of alienating homosexual clergy
iii) fear of alienating liberal parishioners.
4) Individual culpability. Some bishops were themselves sexually abusive or living sexually immoral lives, and thus, did little or nothing to decisively stop the abuse or the atmosphere where it could take root. They did this to avoid implicating themselves or out of fear of looking like hypocrites.
“What was the reason since you know all about it?”
Those were the reasons and, yes, I know all about it.
It certainly had nothing to do with “money” or “power” because a bishop who acted decisively against abuse in the 60s or 70s - when the authority of a bishop in his diocese was much greater than today - could have had MORE MONEY and MORE POWER by doing so rather than doing as the vast majority of bishops did. That’s just a fact: 1) no pay outs, no settlements, no need to sell church properties to pay settlements and fees; 2) no secretive network of homosexuals undermining your authority, no priest embarrassing you and dragging your diocese through hell after being caught destroying the life of a minor, etc.
Yeah, I know all about this.
“The Catholic Church was behaving with lies and deceit within their own structure, let alone outside that structure, and I think that has just been confirmed.”
“There were audible gasps when at one point during a testy exchange over video link to Sydney, Pell said of Ridsdale’s abuse: “It’s a sad story and it wasn’t of much interest to me”.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-abuse-pell-idUSKCN0W22QN
It’s not just Bishops that covered it up. It is also Cardinals and Archbishops.
It is a Catholic Church cover up.
Yes, some bishops covered up the abuse and some did not. Pope Benedict, even as Cardinal, attempted to address the question of abuse. The episcopacy is, as are all human groups, a mixed bag.
I will not defend the actions of those bishops that did cover up the abuse. Indeed, I think that they should have been severely punished. But the bishops that we have today are not the same men. Great efforts have been made to clean up this mess, even if you do not wish to acknowledge it. If we are to reject the Catholic Church because of the sins of some of its members, then let us reject the entirety of Christianity, including your own church, because of the sins of its members. Or do you only hold the Catholic Church to this standard?
It is not Catholic doctrine that the election of a pope is chosen by the Holy Spirit.
And it is the Catholic Church that cleaned it up.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2016/s4566685.htm?site=ballarat
Cardinal George Pell and other senior officials failed to exercise proper care for children in a Melbourne parish by not acting on information of sexual misconduct by a paedophile priest, according to final submissions to the royal commission into child abuse.
It is considered likely the commission will make some adverse findings against the Cardinal.
It could also privately recommend police press charges against George Pell.
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.