Featured Image
John-Henry Westen / LifeSiteNews
Patrick B. Craine Patrick B. Craine Follow Patrick

,

Cardinal Burke says statement from Pope Francis defending Catholic teaching is ‘long overdue’

Patrick B. Craine Patrick B. Craine Follow Patrick
By Patrick Craine

In a candid interview Monday, Cardinal Raymond Burke voiced the concerns of many of his brothers in the Synod hall and lay Catholic activists throughout the world that the public presentation of the Synod has been manipulated by the organizers in the General Secretariat.

He strongly criticized yesterday’s Relatio post disceptationem, or “report after the debate,” which the Catholic lay group Voice of the Family had called a “betrayal,” saying it proposes views that "faithful shepherds ... cannot accept," and betrays an approach that is "not of the Church." He called on Pope Francis to issue a statement defending Catholic teaching.

In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue,” he told Catholic World Report’s Carl Olsen. “The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position.”

“The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church,” he added.

The relatio, he said, proposes views that many Synod fathers “cannot accept,” and that they “as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept.”

The document, among its most controversial propositions, asks whether “accepting and valuing [homosexuals’] sexual orientation” could align with Catholic doctrine; proposes allowing Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics on a “case-by-case basis”; and says pastors should emphasize the “positive aspects” of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation.

“Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of the Synod Fathers found it objectionable,” Burke told Olsen.

“The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium. In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one Synod Father called ‘revolutionary’, teaching on marriage and the family. It invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.”

Burke lamented that the bishops’ interventions are not published, while the General Secretariat chose to publish the controversial relatio, which was intended as a merely provisional summary of the first week that is under review by the fathers this week.

“All of the information regarding the Synod is controlled by the General Secretariat of the Synod which clearly has favored from the beginning the positions expressed in the Relatio post disceptationem of yesterday morning,” he said.

“While the individual interventions of the Synod Fathers are not published, yesterday’s Relatio, which is merely a discussion document, was published immediately and, I am told, even broadcast live. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see the approach at work, which is certainly not of the Church.”

While critics of Burke's public interventions in the Synod debates have portrayed him as representing a fringe, he was elected by his brother bishops to moderate one of the three English-speaking small groups discussing the relatio this week.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Archbishop Bruno Forte, Cardinal Luis Tagle, and Cardinal Peter Erdo at the press conference October 13, 2014 announcing the Synod on the Family's interim report. Patrick Craine / LifeSiteNews
Patrick B. Craine Patrick B. Craine Follow Patrick

‘Earthquake’: Vatican Synod mid-term report suggests emphasizing ‘positive’ aspects of cohabitation, homosexuality

Patrick B. Craine Patrick B. Craine Follow Patrick
By Patrick Craine
Image
(From left to right) Archbishop Forte, Cardinal Luis Tagle, Cardinal Peter Erdo, Cardinal Ricardo Ezzati Andrello, and Father Federico Lombardi speak at the press conference announcing the mid-term report on the Synod on the Family on October 13, 2014. Patrick Craine / LifeSiteNews
Image
Hungarian Cardinal Peter Erdo, general relator of the Synod, presents his interim report at a Vatican press conference October 13, 2014. Patrick Craine / LifeSiteNews

ROME – The Vatican’s interim report on the debates at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, released in Rome this morning, includes a range of controversial proposals that are eliciting strong reactions, including a statement from the Voice of the Family coalition charging that it amounts to a “betrayal” of the Catholic faith.

The document, which is not definitive and is merely meant to summarize the debates of the first week, asks whether “accepting and valuing [homosexuals’] sexual orientation” could align with Catholic doctrine; proposes allowing Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics on a “case-by-case basis”; and says pastors should emphasize the “positive aspects” of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation.

After the document, known as the relatio post disceptationem, or ‘report after the debate,’ was read in the Synod hall this morning, numerous bishops reportedly rose to raise concerns or ask for clarification.

Cardinal Peter Erdo, the synod’s general relator and thus the document’s lead author, told a press conference at the Vatican this morning that some bishops questioned why the document fails to mention Church teaching that homosexual unions are “disordered.” Vatican reporter John Thavis, who describes the document as a “pastoral earthquake,” wrote that “at least one bishop asked what happened to the concept of sin,” noting that it is hardly mentioned in the document.

The document has drawn strong praise in mainstream media and from liberal Catholics. Joshua McElwee, the Vatican correspondent for the leftist National Catholic Reporter, commented on Twitter, "Reading this #Synod14 document, I don't know what to say. It feels like a whole new church, a whole new tone, a whole new posture. Wow."

Fr. James Martin, SJ, tweeted: "Today's stunning change in tone from the Catholic bishops on LGBT people shows what happens when the Holy Spirit is let loose.”

However, it has also met a sharp rebuke from Catholic activists. John Smeaton, co-founder of Voice of the Family, a coalition of 15 international pro-famiy groups, said it is “one of the worst official documents drafted in Church history.”

“Thankfully the report is a preliminary report for discussion, rather than a definitive proposal,” he said in a press release. “It is essential that the voices of those lay faithful who sincerely live out Catholic teaching are also taken into account. Catholic families are clinging to Christ’s teaching on marriage and chastity by their finger-tips.”

‘Accept people in their concrete being’

The document is largely framed in terms of the need to reach out to people in their sinful state, or, as it says, to “accept people in their concrete being.” This “requires that the doctrine of the faith … be proposed alongside with mercy,” it explains.

It emphasizes what it calls the “law of gradualness,” suggesting that while a couple may not live up to the “ideal” of Christian marriage as totally faithful and open to life, pastors should emphasize the “positive elements” in the relationship in order to help guide the couple to the ideal.

“Following the expansive gaze of Christ, whose light illuminates every man the Church turns respectfully to those who participate in her life in an incomplete and imperfect way, appreciating the positive values they contain rather than their limitations and shortcomings,” it states.

Communion for ‘remarried’ couples on a ‘case-by-case basis’?

In the case of divorced-and-remarried Catholics, the document calls for pastors to avoid “any language or behavior that might make them feel discriminated against.”

Though noting that “some” Synod fathers argued in favor of the current practice barring these Catholics from Communion, the bulk of the document’s discussion on the topic presents arguments from those opposing the practice.

“For some, partaking of the sacraments might occur where it is preceded by a penitential path – under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop – and with a clear undertaking in favor of the children,” it reads. “This would not be a general possibility, but the fruit of a discernment applied on a case-by-case basis, according to a law of gradualness, that takes into consideration the distinction between state of sin, state of grace and the attenuating circumstances.”

It then critiques those cardinals and bishops who defended Church teaching and who had suggested divorced-and-remarried Catholics could nevertheless do a “spiritual communion.”

“Suggesting limiting themselves to only ‘spiritual communion’ was questioned by more than a few Synodal Fathers: if spiritual communion is possible, why not allow them to partake in the sacrament?” the document reads.

‘Accept and value’ homosexuality?

In a section titled ‘Welcoming homosexual persons’, the document states: “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.” It then asks: “Are our communities capable of providing [them a welcoming home], accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”

“The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman,” it adds. “Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.”

At the Vatican press conference this morning, Michael Voris of ChurchMilitant.TV challenged the authors on this section. “Are the Synod fathers proposing that ‘gifts and qualities’ flow from the sexual orientation of homosexuality?” he asked. “Is the Synod proposing that there is something innate in the homosexual orientation that transcends and uplifts the Catholic Church, the Christian community, and if so, what would those particular gifts be?”

In response, Archbishop Bruno Forte, the Synod’s special secretary, said, “I guess that what I want to express is that we must respect the dignity of every person, and the fact to be homosexual doesn’t mean that this dignity must be not recognized and promoted. … I think it is the most important point, and also the attitude of the Church to welcome persons who have homosexual orientation is based on the dignity of the person they are.”

Speaking in Italian at another point in the press conference, Forte said that homosexual unions have "rights that should be protected," calling it an "issue of civilization and respect of those people."

Catholics must ‘oppose the course being taken within the Synod’

Patrick Buckley of European Life Network said the report is “an attack on marriage and family” that “in effect gives a tacit approval of adulterous relationships, thereby contradicting the Sixth Commandment and the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ on the indissolubility of marriage.”

Maria Madise, coordinator for Voice of the Family, asked whether parents must now “tell their children that the Vatican teaches that there are positive and constructive aspects to … mortal sins” such as cohabitation and homosexuality.

“It would be a false mercy to give Holy Communion to people who do not repent of their mortal sins against Christ’s teachings on sexual purity. Real mercy consists of offering people a clean conscience via the Sacrament of Confession and thus union with God,” she said.

“Many of those who claim to speak in the name of the universal Church have failed to teach the faithful. This failure has created unprecedented difficulties for families. No responsibility is taken for this failure in this disastrous mid-way report,” she added. “The Synod’s mid-way report will increase the incidence of faithful Catholics being labelled as ‘pharisees’, simply for upholding Catholic teaching on sexual purity.”

Smeaton concluded: “We urge Catholics not to be complacent or give in to a false sense of obedience, in the face of attacks on the fundamental principles of the natural law. Catholics are morally obliged to oppose the course being taken within the Synod.”

‘The drama continues’

Cardinal Luis Tagle of Manila, who praised the document’s drafters as “heroes and heroines,” emphasized at the beginning of Monday’s press conference that it is “very provisionary” and “not a final document from the Synod.” However, he noted that it would be the “basis of future discussions.”

 “The drama continues,” he added, smiling. 

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

,

California churches fight back against law forcing them to cover abortion

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

Seven California churches have filed a civil rights complaint with the federal Department of Health & Human Services, saying that a new interpretation of California law would violate both federal and state law by requiring insurance coverage for all abortions.

In a letter dated August 22 to president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) Director Shelley Rouillard wrote that some of the insurance companies' "contracts contain language that may discriminate against women by limiting or excluding coverage for termination of pregnancies."

According to Rouillard, California law "requires the provision of basic health care services," which she says includes. Likewise, "the California Constitution prohibits health plans from discriminating against women who choose to terminate a pregnancy."

"Thus," says Rouillard, "all health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally."

The letter ordered BlueCross to make the change immediately, which led to the challenge by seven churches, the California Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Loyola Marymount University.

In a response, attorneys for the Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) said that the state's position was untenable based upon both federal and state law.

"Federal law prevents California from mandating that a health insurance plan include abortion coverage,” the letter says, citing an annual federal appropriations amendment that prevents entities that receive federal funds from engaging in "discrimination that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage for, or refer for abortions."

The letter notes that the state of California receives "over $40 billion in federal funds.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Additionally, ADF/LLDF letter says, the California requirement for abortion coverage "prohibits the state from discriminating against women who choose to terminate a pregnancy, by withholding funding for abortions. This decision does not prohibit private actors such as religious employers from deciding what services its employee health insurance policies will cover."

“California’s Department of Managed Health Care created this abortion mandate in response to political pressure from the abortion lobby,” Life Legal Defense Foundation Legal Director Catherine Short said. “They would have us believe that, while the legislature exempted these churches from the state’s contraceptive coverage mandate, it nonetheless intended to force them to cover all abortions under the rubric of ‘basic health care."

Bishop Robert McElroy called the state's decision "coercive and discriminatory action," saying that the requirement "was directly targeted at Catholic institutions like Santa Clara University, Loyola Marymount University, along with other California employers and citizens. It is a flagrant violation of their civil rights and deepest moral convictions, and is government coercion of the worst kind.”

In a response letter dated September 8, Rouillard wrote that the state "will not reverse its position," which led to the ADF and LLDF complaint.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook