Cardinal Burke is one of four cardinals who have written to the Pope asking for a clarification of Amoris Laetitia (AL). The Cardinals contend that the Apostolic Exhortation is ambiguous and could be interpreted to contradict Church teaching on the moral law and on the question of Communion for the remarried who do not abstain from marital intercourse.
The Cardinals forwarded the letter to Pope Francis on September 19, 2016. As of the writing of this article, the Holy Father Pope, while acknowledging its receipt by way of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has yet to respond.
In the face of the Pope's reticence, Cardinal Burke has provided copies of the letter to various media outlets.
When he was asked during an interview about what would happen if Pope Francis continued to remain 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.”
Cardinal Burke’s suggestion that there is need of a “formal correction” follows a lengthy debate over whether the remarried can receive Communion while in a sexually active relationship outside marriage. Cardinal Burke insists that the Church has taught that this is contrary to the dogma of the indissolubility of marriage.
It should be noted that AL makes no direct reference to this issue. Some bishops have interpreted a footnote in Chapter VIII to allow for the possibility that some remarried people can receive Communion, even if they are still in a sexual relationship.
Most recently, the Holy Father favored such an interpretation by the Argentine Conference of Catholic Bishops. Perhaps alluding to this development, Cardinal Burke stated: “Even diocesan directives are confused and in error.”
He added that there was ”tremendous division” in the Church over Communion and other related points, concerning the moral law and marriage.
Cardinal Burke defends his decision to bring the matter to public attention “because so many people are saying: "We’re confused, and we don’t understand why the Cardinals or someone in authority doesn’t speak up and help us."
Let us now carefully examine extraordinary step Cardinal Burke is prepared to take in issuing a formal act of correction to the Holy Father for the serious errors which he contends Pope Francis has introduced into the dogmatic teachings of the Church in the areas of Faith and Morals.
The Cardinal has stated that such a formal correction of a Pope is rare within the tradition of the Church. Quite an understatement to be sure. Just how rare is evidenced not only in the scant number of recorded cases but in the lack of clear legislative texts which even allow for such a possibility.
I wish to point out that some Church historians and experts in Scripture and theology do not agree on all the cases which I will cite in this ongoing series of articles. Some say there are only two such incidences and others say there are as many as five. Two or five instances of formally correcting a Pope in the history of the Papacy which spans two millennia! Rare, indeed!
Before referencing the actual cases themselves, it is important to note the thorny issues which a formal act of correction raises relative to the dogma of indefectibility.
The question is this: is a claim that a Pope has seriously erred in his teaching regarding Catholic Faith and Morals itself an act which is contrary to the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church?
One must ask, therefore, if it is possible for a Pope to be a heretic, and, if so, what means would the Church possess to remedy such a dangerous situation.
Here's the problem: if the Holy Spirit, the Consoler to Whom Christ entrusted with the welfare of the Church, could permit a man to be raised to the Papal Office whose words and actions risked leading countless souls into sin and heresy, surely the same Spirit would provide the Church with the means necessary to protect herself, and to remedy the dire situation.
An historical footnote here is most helpful in making the point. During the First Vatican Council, Bishop Zinelli, a Relator for the Deputation of the Faith (the body charged with explaining the meaning of the schemas to the Council Fathers), said the following about the hypothesis of an heretical Pope: “God does not fail in the things that are necessary; therefore, if He permits so great an evil, the means to remedy such a situation will not be lacking”.
Some deny even the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy. They argue on the basis of the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church, that the Pope can never commit the sins of apostasy, heresy, or schism, nor can he ever teach heresy. They hold fast to their belief that the Grace of God and the promise of Jesus that the Church will remain indefectible absolutely prevent the Pope from going astray, or teaching grave error. For each valid Pope is the Rock on which the Church is founded. And no valid Pope can ever become invalid, for the same reasons.
This very same principle of indefectibility also prevents the body of Bishops throughout the world from committing apostasy, heresy, or schism, as a body, and from teaching heresy as a body (not individually). Moreover, and more importantly in the present context, no invalid Pope can ever be accepted as if he were valid by the body of Bishops. For the Church is the Body of Christ, enlivened by the Holy Spirit. Neither the head of the Church on earth, the Pope, or the body of Bishops can go astray. All such claims are contrary to the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.
And so, those who hold to this position would conclude that anyone accusing a validly elected Pope of heresy commits the crime of heresy himself by acting in a way that is contrary to the dogma of indefectibility.
There is another point of view, however, which holds just the opposite opinion and which appears to be more in keeping with the teachings of the Church proclaimed by the Council Fathers of Ecumenical Council Vatican I.
The conditions for Papal Infallibility are defined by Vatican I as follows:
"We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals."
Here we see that the Holy Spirit assures infallibility only when a pope, (a) using his supreme apostolic authority in the exercise of his office as teacher of all Christians (b) defines a doctrine, (c) concerning faith and morals, (d) to be held by the universal Church.
If any of these three conditions are lacking, infallibility is not engaged and error is possible.
Therefore, when considering whether a Pope can teach errors regarding faith and morals, the following three distinctions must be made:
1) A Pope teaching as a private person.
2) A Pope teaching as the Vicar of Christ on matters of faith or morals, but not intending to define a doctrine.
3) A Pope, teaching as Christ's Vicar, defining a doctrine of faith or morals, to be held by the Universal Church.
It is only in the last instance that the charism of infallibility will prevent the Pope from erring. What this means is that, not only can a Pope err when teaching as a private theologian, he can also err in official papal documents, as long as he does not intend to define a doctrine to be held by the universal Church.
In light of the foregoing, we can see that it is within the realm of possibility for a Pope to lose the faith internally, and it is also possible for him to err in teaching the faith externally, provided he does not meet the conditions set down by Vatican I.
So, left with the possibility that the Pope accused of heresy without doing violence to the dogmatic teaching of the Church's indefectibility, what mechanism or means exist for such a determination and how would the Church proceed to such a declaration?
Weighty matters indeed which we will examine as our series on this matter continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment