A CLOSER EXAMINATION OF THE 5 QUESTIONS PUT TO POPE FRANCIS BY CARDINAL BURKE AND HIS ASSOCIATE CARDINALS

At this point in our consideration of the letter which Cardinal Burke and his associate Cardinals have sent to the Holy Father seeking clarification of certain issues raised in the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Leatitia (AL), I thought it might be helpful to examine each of the questions (dubia) more closely and attempt to simplify their importance for the average Catholic.

We note that, while the first question concerns a practical matter regarding the divorced and civilly remarried, the other four questions touch on fundamental issues concerning the moral and dogmatic teachings of the Church,

So, let us begin.

 I.  Question 1 asks whether or not Catholics, civilly divorced and remarried without having had the previous marriage declared invalid by the Church, can avail themselves of the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion, if they do not abstain from marital intercourse. 

A "yes" answer to the question would be seen by Cardinal Burke to be a denial of the teachings from Scripture and Tradition and constitute a serious error harmful to the Catholic Faith.  Those acting on the basis of such a serious error would be acting in bad faith and cooperating in the perpetuation of grave sinfulness.

A "no" answer to the question would be an affirmation of traditional Catholic teaching and disallow any Bishop or Priest from permitting persons in such invalid marital unions from receiving the Sacraments.

II.  Question 2 and the subsequent dubia address larger issues related to the doctrinal teachings of the Church concerning Faith and morals. 

Cardinal Burke asks whether certain actions, in and of themselves (in their intrinsic nature), are always evil and can never be permitted under any circumstances.  The person who commits such actions would always sin objectively, while her or she may not be fully responsible (culpable) of that sin.

A "yes" answer to this question would mean that there are indeed intrinsically evil actions which may never be permitted under any circumstances without committing grave sin objectively.

A "no" answer would mean that the Church's traditional moral teaching has not been overturned by AL.

It should be obvious that a "yes" answer to this question would mean that no situation would permit a divorced and invalidly remarried person who is living in an habitual state of adultery, an intrinsically and gravely evil act, from receiving the Sacraments.

Thus, under no circumstances could a Bishop or a Priest allow a divorced and invalidly remarried Catholic to receive the Sacraments, unless that Catholic rejected the invalid union or abstained from further marital sexual realtions.

III.  Question 3 is very closely related to the previous question and again concerns the dogmatic and doctrinal teachings of the Church related to Faith and Morals.

Cardinal Burke asks whether or not persons who habitually live in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, such as the commandment against adultery, theft, murder, or perjury, live in objective situations of grave habitual sin, even if, for whatever reasons, it is not certain that they are subjectively imputable for their habitual transgressions.

A "yes" answer would mean that the Church's consistent teaching is affirmed in AL.

A "no" answer to this question means that AL has introduced a contradiction into the consistent teachings of the Church and such constitutes a serious error harmful to faith and morals.

Again, a "yes" answer would not permit a Bishop or a Priest to administer the Sacraments to a person in an objective state of habitual grave sin, such as would be the case for a Catholic who is divorced and invalidly remarried having marital sexual relations.

IV.  Question 4 is very closely related to the previous two questions but is more nuanced.

Cardinal Burke asks whether or not circumstances or good intentions can ever turn an intrinsically evil act into one that is excusable or even good.  

In other words, do the intentions of persons or the circumstances in which they may find themselves ever negate what is an intrinsically evil act and alter it to become either a morally good or at least a moral neutral act.

Here, the "yes" and "no" response is reversed.

A "no" answer would mean that the Church's traditional teachings would be upheld and that no good intention or circumstance, dire or not, alters an action which is in and of itself evil.

A "yes" answer, Cardinal Burke suggests, would constitute serious error being introduced into the consistent doctrinal and dogmatic teachings of the Church based upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

The consequence upon Bishops and Priests administering the Sacraments should now be obvious.  A "no" answer would not allow Bishops or Priest to administer the Sacraments to divorced and invalidly married Catholics who do not abstain from marital intercourse.

V.  Question 5 is perhaps the most nuanced of all the questions since it addresses the subject of human conscience and the role in plays in matters of moral choice.

Cardinal Burke asks whether or not AL excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience.  In other words, can the human conscience ever be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

To be even more exact, can the human conscience be properly and rightfully be formed without reference or referral to the moral teachings of the Church based upon the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition?

A "yes" answer would affirm that the human conscience must always be conformed to the moral teachings of the Church.

A "no" answer would amount to the introduction of serious error into the teachings of the Church on matters pertaining to Faith and Morals.

A "yes" answer would prohibit Bishop or a Priest from allowing a divorced and invalidly remarried Catholic living in an habitual state of adultery from receiving the Sacraments, whether or not the Catholic believes he or she is acting in good conscience.

These 5 Questions are very pointed and highly nuanced.  They parse human actions and choices very narrowly and with academic, almost surgical, precision.

However, these inquiries beg a larger question. 

Is there any room in this analytical dissection of human choice for allowing that human beings, who make moral choices, are frail and wounded by sin? 

Is there any room from such a clinical perspective of moral choice for the Mercy of God to penetrate the heart, the mind and will, of weak and sinful human beings?

I can't help it, but as I read and study Cardinal Burke's letter, with its questions and inferences, the words of St. Paul's Letter to the Romans keep coming back to me.  "...but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5: 8)  I wonder why this is.

To date, Pope Francis has chosen not to respond to the questions put to him by Cardinal Burke and his associates.  The reasons for this belong to the Holy Father alone.

Yet, I cannot help but think that the lack of a merciful approach evidenced in the letter is so foreign to this Pontiff for whom the rich and bountiful Mercy of God is so central to the Catholic Faith.

In future posts, I shall address the impact which Cardinal Burke's letter and threatened issuance of a formal act of correction may have upon the unity and tranquility of the Church.

In this as in all things, let us ask the Holy Spirit to guide and direct us as we journey to the Lord Jesus, fortified and nourished by the Grace which comes to us from the loving arms of Holy Mother Church.