Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago is all for clarity. It has been a consistent theme, as when in September of 2017 he issued a decree banning guns in all parishes, schools and other facilities across the archdiocese “so there would be absolute clarity on our position.” His official statement put “clarity” in italics. When he was bishop of Rapid City, he called for “civility and clarity” in discussing legislation that would limit abortion, but he was somewhat unclear in explaining that the law “must recognize both the suffering of the unborn children in abortion and the suffering of the pregnant women in dire circumstances.” The bill was defeated 55 percent to 45 percent. As bishop of Spokane, he spoke clearly in prohibiting the use of the traditional Latin liturgical books in the Paschal Triduum. He made very clear his disapproval of seminarians and priests demonstrating against Planned Parenthood: “Decisions about abortion are not usually made in front of clinics.” In 2012, his pastoral letter on a state referendum to legalize same-sex “marriage” said: “I also want to be very clear that in stating our position the Catholic Church has no tolerance for the misuse of this moment to incite hostility towards homosexual persons or promote an agenda that is hateful and disrespectful of their human dignity.”
Clarity requires effort because it requires honesty, which can be a costly commodity. So George Orwell said: “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.” Clear expression issues from clear thinking, which in turn requires conforming thought to reality. This was a primary concern of the Master in his holy agony, for he prayed to the Father that his Church never fudge the truth: “Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17).
Cdl. Cupich is the front-man for Pp. Francis' Adultery Education Tour, and two of the consulting theologians are from Marquette University: Conor Kelly and Kate Ward.
Cupich has already given a presentation on the topic of AL in Englandand has made it clear that the interpretation given by the Bishops of Argentina (Buenos Aires) is just fine and dandy.
The Archbishop of Chicago has invited some U.S. bishops to a series of conferences on the 2016 apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The seminars will be held at three Catholic colleges later this month.
According to a letter obtained by Catholic News Agency, the meetings, dubbed “New Momentum Conferences on Amoris Laetitia,” are designed to offer a “tailor-made program that goes from why Amoris Laetitia provides New Momentum for Moral Formation and Pastoral Practice to how to provide formative pastoral programs.”
“The aim is to gather fifteen to twenty Bishops to have a conversation with the aid of theologians on the related topics,” the letter said.
His Eminence, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, spoke recently with Thinking with the Church, hosted by Chris Altieri, who is also a regular contributor to Catholic World Report.
Cardinal Burke responds to questions regarding the interpretation and reception of the post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. He has frankly critical words for the Bishops of Malta, who issued Criteria for the implementation of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia in January of last year. Their Criteria include two paragraphs – 9 and 10 – which say that persons in irregular unions may discern that continence is impossible for them, and that a person having made such a determination under the guidance of a pastor, “with an informed and enlightened conscience,” being at peace with God, “cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.” Cardinal Burke calls this implementation of the document, “[S]imply contrary to what the Church has always taught and practiced.”
When we talked about his apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia,” and referred to what some were doing in the United States in response to that text, especially Cardinal Cupich, he pounded on the desk, good, good.
Don't mind us, just paparizzing you in the parking lot
He was speaking to the podcast Thinking With the Church, and said too many people he meets are concerned and confused by the ongoing debate on the issue.
“In the whole history of the Church, it’s never been possible that someone who was living publicly in a state of sin, for example a person who is bound in matrimony to one person, is living in a marital way with another person, it has never been permitted that such a person could approach to receive Holy Communion,” the cardinal said in his latest interview.
“Now, suddenly, there are those, who are saying, ‘Oh, yes, but it is possible in certain cases,’ and so forth - but if this is something that is always and everywhere wrong, how is it possible that someone who is living this way can receive the Sacraments?”
Burke said couples in such situations - for a just reason - may receive the sacraments if they refrain from sexual situations.
“The Church has always helped such couples,” he said, “… the point is this: that the couple has the firm resolve to live chastely, and to take all measures to live chastely. If they fail, on one occasion or another, then they simply have to confess that, and renew their effort to live chastely.”
A brief recap; this all started with The Dubia being issued asking for clarification on Amoris Laetitia, privately first and then publicly. Immediately after the publication the Vatican ordered an investigation into the Order of Malta, in an apparent attempt to discredit Burke seen as the leader of the Pope John Paul II faction in the hierarchy. Now seen as not enough, and maybe some worry that the hierarchy would cling to the teachings of JPII's Familiaris Consortio, an aggressive campaign has started to paint Cardinal Burke as literally some kind of neo-nazi in the WaPo and NYTimes, and the Cardinal (I literally laughed out loud) put up anti-Francis posters around the Vatican. No evidence is given. Even the local La Crosse paper got in on the libel (and then complains when he wont give them an interview). The charges stem because of an alleged meeting he had with a reporter in Rome:
Breitbart: In hiring Breitbart’s Rome bureau chief, Bannon chose not a Pope-basher or an anti-Catholic, but Dr. Thomas Williams, a theologian and former Catholic priest who has since written literally hundreds of articles on Pope Francis and the Vatican, nearly all of which have been sympathetic to the Pope.
From the liberal side though, this campaign against Burke is seen as an imminent opportunity to change the Church's teaching on sexuality. There are those in the Church will be happy to cooperate as they despise Burke for a number of reasons, and apparently have the support of Francis whom seems to troll him regularly in public comments without mentioning him by name. And most though are happy to hide out somewhere until the whole thing blows over.
Whatever side you are on, pray for your enemies and persecutors. Do good with the time you have. Seek the cross.
Let me offer an answer to my own question. The three-pronged conspiracy theory is being promoted by the Pope’s most ardent defenders. (If you doubt me, sign up for the Twitter feed of Father Antonio Spadaro, and notice how often he makes or encourages cheap shots at Cardinal Burke.) From there it is picked up by secular journalists, who do not understand the Catholic controversy and are much more comfortable framing issues in political terms. The goal of the conspiracy theorists is to discredit Cardinal Burke—in this case exploiting the negative image of Bannon and using guilt-by-association to transfer that image onto the cardinal. And why discredit Cardinal Burke? Because Pope Francis cannot and/or will not answer his questions.
Cardinal Burke’s visit to the clinic came during one of his U.S. trips for various commitments, including the celebration of a Pontifical Low Mass in the Extraordinary Form at the adjacent Saint Mary-Saint Anthony Church.
Leavenworth resident Bingo Dickerson drives 60-plus miles once a month for diabetes education at the clinic and just happened to have an appointment while Cardinal Burke was there to bless the procedure table from the Knights.
Dickerson, a Baptist, asked one of the priests accompanying Cardinal Burke if he could meet him. It didn’t matter to Dickerson that he isn’t Catholic.
Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke actually embodies Chesterton’s description of a patriot – someone who loves his country – or his Church, so much that he is a “discontented man.” The opposite, Chesterton said, is a “courtier,” an “upholder of present conditions.” Just like in the time of St. John Fisher, it might appear that the courtiers have the upper hand, but who remembers the names of the bishops who trembled with fear in their palaces, while Fisher stood alone? Although Wisconsin is known for its production of cheese and not yet for lions or martyrs, maybe, when the smoke of battle has cleared, people will say – “there was only one Cardinal Burke – the Lion of Wisconsin.”
Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke was made a bishop by Pope John Paul II in 1994. In 2010 he was named a cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI and soon thereafter become Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. In 2014 Pope Francis removed Cardinal Burke from his position as Prefect and named him chaplain to the Order of Malta. During the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, held in Rome in October 2014, Cardinal Burke strongly criticized the mid-term report (Relatio post disceptationem), stating that it "lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium" and that it "gives the impression of inventing a totally new ... revolutionary, teaching on marriage and the family." He added that he thought a statement of clarification from Pope Francis "is long overdue."
More recently, in September of this year, Cardinal Burke and three other cardinals—Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner—sent a request for clarification to Pope Francis regarding sections of chapter 8 of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The letter stated, in part, that "we the undersigned, but also many Bishops and Priests, have received numerous requests from the faithful of various social strata on the correct interpretation to give to Chapter VIII of the Exhortation" and asked the Holy Father "as supreme Teacher of the faith, called by the Risen One to confirm his brothers in the faith, to resolve the uncertainties and bring clarity..."
And I think that quote is the precise and honest truth. Fr. Spadero may think that his insults and shaming of everyone whom has a disagreement with him is an effective tool of persuasion, but the reality is he has antagonized much more people than he would have dreamed. The silent majority is in waiting. The position The Four have presented(aka, the position of St John Paul II) is certainly the majority in the Church's hierarchy.
The Francis papacy is such a missed opportunity. There is so much to be said on many of the topics he as brought to light, but he insists on a rupture. Whatever happens with The Dubia, I'm waiting myself to see what The Reaction is to Pope Francis, or hopefully not what is The Overreaction. I hope many of the topics that came up in the Pope Francis pontificate do indeed get some clarity at some point in the future as they are important, however any current insights into a topic like how Catholics, whom are moved to faith after a second marriage, live out their faith has been lost. I think the Church can move to address these issues without the need for theological rupture. And even if theological rupture were somehow required, it would need significant explanation which simply has not been forthcoming. It requires something more than an off the cuff declaration that all marriages are invalid unless proven otherwise.
Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto, Dean of the Roman Rota, told a conference in Spain that Cardinal Burke and the three cardinals who submitted the dubia to Pope Francis "could lose their Cardinalate" for causing "grave scandal" by making the dubia public. The Dean of the Roman Rota went on to accuse Cardinals Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner of questioning the Holy Spirit[LOL!]. Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto made his astounding accusations during a conference to religious in Spain.
Archbishop Pio Vito's indictment against the four cardinals, and other people who question Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia, was that they not only questioned one synod of bishops on marriage and the family, but two synods, about which, "The action of the Holy Spirit can not be doubted.".
Look.... to defenders of Pope Francis - whom ignored the synod fathers on the issues in doubt - if you are looking for people to take your side, you simply must address the questions put forth. This Pope-Francis-because-Holy-Spirit-magic line just simply isn't true. The Holy Spirit does not work like that. If it's communion for all just say so, give the reasons, and move on.
Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago fielded about half a dozen questions from reporters after Pope Francis elevated him to the College of Cardinals on Saturday.
A question I asked him was about the Dubia, the five doubts about Amoris Laetitia that four cardinals have sent to the Pope to ascertain whether some of the most controversial passages are consistent with Church teaching.
Although the Dubia questions ask for a simple “yes” or “no” answer on whether previous magisterial teachings, particularly of Pope St. John Paul II, are still valid in light of these passages, the Holy Father has decided not to respond, nor requested to meet the cardinals to specifically discuss their concerns.
+Cupich: All I know is that the doubts that are there, that are expressed, aren’t my doubts, and I think they’re not the doubts of the universal Church. .... [If ones doubts] maybe I need to change rather than saying that the Holy Father has to change, or that the Church has to change.
Four cardinals said they formally asked Pope Francis to clarify his teaching on Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried and, not receiving a response after two months, they released their letter to the press.
In releasing their letter and accompanying explanations Nov. 14, the cardinals said, “The Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection and the discussion, calmly and with respect. And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.”
In particular, keep in mind that many people have wondered whether there is an ongoing effort to undermine the Magisterium of St. John Paul II.
The fact that The Four do not presently have curial or diocesan roles means that – short of having their red hats taken away – the Pope can’t remove them from offices that they don’t hold.
I’d be willing to bet that The Four are merely the tip of the spear. I’d wager that they represent a large gang of quiet Cardinals who want answers, but because they are presently in curial or diocesan positions they are hesitant to raise their heads too high.
I find it very unlikely the cardinal electorate would have expected how aggressively a Francis pontificate would undermined the teachings of JPII. Who knows how far off it is but the next conclave sure seems to be shaking out to be a reaction to Francis. Whether "whoops" or "woohoo" is the vote has yet to be seen.
Glad to see this Argument of the Month debate was posted online. I attended begrudgingly, certainly suffered from Synod/Amrois Fatigue Syndrome. The only reason I went was just because it was the smoker and to catch up with friends. To my pleasant surprise, the debate was high quality and I think that Dr. David Pence representing the "liberal side" makes some fantastic points, especially the harsh language that Pope Francis uses in Amoris Laetitia in the condemnation of gender ideology and the conservative complacency in the media blackout. Argument of the Month is a model that should be used across the country, no other format creates this kind of lively, fair, and thorough treatment of Catholic topics. We have to move past this paranoid Catholicism where bishop, priests and laity should fear reprisal for even discussing controversial issues. It's okay to disagree on hot topics(especially over a pint of beer)! AOTM creates an environment where Catholics truly grow in the Faith.
The secular media and even some Catholic media are describing the recently-issued post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, “On Love in the Family,” as a revolution in the Church, as a radical departure from the teaching and practice of the Church, up to now, regarding marriage and the family.
Such a view of the document is both a source of wonder and confusion to the faithful, and potentially a source of scandal not only for the faithful but for others of good will who look to Christ and his Church to teach and reflect in practice the truth regarding marriage and its fruit, family life, the first cell of the life of the Church and of every society.
It is also a disservice to the nature of the document as the fruit of the Synod of Bishops, a meeting of bishops representing the universal Church “to assist the Roman Pontiff with their counsel in the preservation and growth of faith and morals and in the observance and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline, and to consider questions pertaining to the activity of the Church in the world” (Canon 342). In other words, it would be a contradiction of the work of the Synod of Bishops to set in motion confusion regarding what the Church teaches, and safeguards and fosters by her discipline.
The only key to the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is the constant teaching of the Church and her discipline that safeguards and fosters this teaching. Pope Francis makes clear, from the beginning, that the post-synodal apostolic exhortation is not an act of the magisterium (No. 3).
During the past two years, in which the Church has engaged in an intense discussion of marriage and the family, I have frequently recalled an experience from my childhood. I was raised on a family dairy farm in rural Wisconsin, the youngest of six children of good Catholic parents. Ten o’clock Sunday Mass at our parish church in the nearby town was clearly at the heart of our life of faith. At a certain point, I became aware of a couple, friends of my parents from a neighboring farm, who were always at Holy Mass but never received Holy Communion. When I asked my father why they never received Holy Communion, he explained to me that the husband was married to another woman and, therefore, could not receive the sacraments.
I recall vividly that my father explained to me the Church’s practice, in fidelity to her teaching, in a serene manner. The discipline obviously made sense to him, and it made sense to me. In fact, his explanation was a primary occasion for me to reflect on the nature of marriage as an indissoluble bond between husband and wife. At the same time, I must say that the parish priest always treated the couple involved with the greatest respect, even as they took part in parish life in a manner appropriate to the irregular state of their union. For my part, I always had the impression that, even though it must have been very difficult to be unable to receive the Sacraments, they were at peace in living according to the truth about their marital state.
