In the second part of the letter which Cardinal Burke and three other Cardinals sent to Pope Francis on September 19, 2016, requesting that the Holy Father resolve uncertainties raised in Chapter VIII of the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, five questions are presented to the Pope in a way which expects a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
The second part of the letter to Pope Francis reads as follows:
1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of "Amoris Laetitia" (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person "more uxorio" (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by "Familiaris Consortio" n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by "Reconciliatio et Paenitentia" n. 34 and "Sacramentum Caritatis" n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live "more uxorio"?
2. After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
3. After "Amoris Laetitia" (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?
4. After the affirmations of "Amoris Laetitia" (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
5. After "Amoris Laetitia" (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
Several characteristics about the questions are noteworthy.
It should be noted that the questions are worded in a way that requires a “yes” or “no” answer, without seeking additional theological discernment or discussion. Cardinal Burke justifies this approach by suggesting that this way of addressing the Apostolic See is an age-old practice and the customary technique utilized when presenting questions to the Holy See.
But, allow me to offer a personal comment here.
It appears that the very form of the questions and the various issues they raise, matters of such tremendous import to the Catholic Faith which the Cardinal insist require resolution and clarification, do not invite or allow for very much clarification whatsoever.
They are not so much questions begging for clarification as conclusions looking for approbation.
On this point, I find that I must agree with the observation of Cardinal-elect Tobin who suggests that Cardinals are either naive or disingenuous in asking the Holy Father to clarify doctrine without comment or explanation, that is, by simply answering "yes" or "no" to pointed questions without reference to any particular context or rationale.
Additionally, the overall tone of the letter is polemic.
This appears to be the spirit of the letter. The official Church has always taught this. You, Pope Francis, are not teaching this. Here's the reasons we present to prove you are wrong. Do you admit your error? Yes or no?
And this is is supposed to be a request for clarification, a request purported to be made in a spirit of fraternal charity?
While I do not wish to impugn the motives of Cardinal Burke and his like-minded associates among the College of Cardinals, I do think that the questions reflect an unwillingness on their part to consider responses which would provide the very resolution of uncertainties they feel are required to protect the integrity of the Catholic Faith itself.
Furthermore, I am inclined agree with the sentiments of the Holy Father who suggests that the letter reveals a rigorism of thought and belief which makes any reasonable expectation for further dialogue about these matters futile from the outset. Perhaps this is the reason the Pope has yet to respond to the letter itself.
Despite their protestations to the contrary and their repeated claims of respect and charity, Cardinal Burke and his associates in the College, in their impatience and frustration, have chosen to "go public" with the fact that their letter has remained unanswered by the Holy Father as well as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Their decision to open this matter to public scrutiny and comment has placed the Holy Father in a most embarrassing position both personally and in his position as the Vicar of Christ and Visible Head of the Church.
In their precipitous haste to address these issues publicly, the Cardinals have chosen a course of action that is petulant at best and potentially scandalous at its worst.
No matter how justified they believe they are, no matter how worthy and noble their concern to defend the Catholic Faith, they have acted dishonorably and provided the enemies of the Church and the forces of evil with much ammunition to aim at and wound the Body of Christ.
It's true, Your Eminences, the end does not justify the means, when the means are hurtful and divisive to the tranquility and unity of the People of God.
Would not have patience and a concern to maintain harmony within the Body of Christ, while still seeking dialogue with Christ's Vicar, not have been the more prudent and charitable course of action? If not, why not?
Cardinal Burke and his associates need take heed of their actions, lest they violate the wisdom of the Sacred Scriptures they are apt to so readily espouse: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind." (Book of Proverbs 11: 29)
Bearing this in mind, I shall attempt in subsequent articles to examine each of the questions put to the Holy Father in detail so that the reader (and the average layperson) can at least understand the issues the Cardinals are raising.
I shall leave it to the Vicar of Christ to provide answers to these questions, if and when the Holy Father believes that doing so would be necessary in serving His mission to proclaim the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of His Church.
More to follow.
May the Lord bless our Holy Father, and all those who sincerely entrust themselves to his pastoral care. May the Lord bless Cardinal Burke and his associates in the College and soften what appears to be a hardness of both mind and heart in their desire to defend the Catholic Faith. May the Holy Spirit come to the aid of the Church in this moment and always.
No comments:
Post a Comment