His Eminence Raymond L. Burke gave an interview to Raymond Arroyo of EWTN.
You don’t want to miss this. Arroyo does not lob softballs. He starts out with a question about Pope Francis praise of Card. Kasper!
This is refreshing and it gets better and better as it goes along.
It is about, in part, the “Five Cardinals Book”.
As I post, it has 589 views.
Click to PRE-ORDER
Buy in USA HERE
Buy in UK HERE
The book is available for KINDLE (USA) for a reduced price of $9.99, which is much less than the paperback. HERE
Don’t have a Kindle yet. What on earth are you waiting for? USA HERE (for one type, a Paperwhite, you can surf to others) and UK HERE
Loading ...
Thank you for posting this.
My husband watched it but I missed it last night.
“We cannot have … a reopening of questions which have been discussed and which the church has responded in an authoritative way.”
Is he saying the Church never changes? No reopening of questions ever? He weakens his case if he makes such hyperbolic statements.
Rainbow families?!? Great scott! Are these people serious?
The smackdown at 10:21
Thank God for a cardinal who speaks the truth without shame!
Kyrie eleison!
Pingback: iPadre Catholic Podcasting
Spectacular and beautiful expression of catholicism and glorification of The Word.
Pingback: Cardinal Burke interview with Raymond Arroyo | Church of the Holy Ghost
Raymond Arroyo, whom I’ve never liked watching, did an amazing job with this interview. As for Cardinal Burke, I really don’t have adequate words to express my admiration for his courage and clarity.
Ok. With all due respect to Cardinal Kasper, how can two or three priests responsible for a parish of 7500 “membership units” (which translates to many more people: welcome to Texas!) find the time to credibly “walk with a couple for a substantial period of time” to assess the “solidity” of their “civil marriage”? Even if such an idea could be theologically sustained, the reality on the ground is absurd.
Thank you Cardinal Burke.
Wisdom speaks with a Wisconsin accent.
I pray daily for Cardinal Burke, that the Holy Spirit may guide the next conclave to elect the good cardinal to the Chair of Peter as the future Pius XIII.
I’m praying more fervently for His Eminence after watching this interview. His Eminence is truly a loyal (and obedient) son of Our Lord and of the Holy Mother Church.
I am glad Cardinal Burke reminds us to ask the question: “What happens to the first union?”
I am astounded that Cardinal Kasper is in favor of allowing 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and even 5th marriages.
What happens to the first union? How is that fair to the poor mother who’s abandoned for a younger, prettier girl?
At 10:30 Cardinal Burke had me literally LOL! It’s the only response possible. He’s a good man.
What an absolute treasure this man is, and how much he must suffering to see the unholy forces unleashed around him. May God bless guide and help and protect this great man.
Incidentally, if you con’t have kindle, you can read the “five cardinals’ book” on your computer if you download an E-book reader, like calibre, which you can do for free.
http://calibre-ebook.com/download
I’ve reposted the video on my blog.
I will add His Eminence to my daily prayer list….maybe forever. Oh thank you Lord for this good shepherd. And he’s American. We don’t deserve this good shepherd, but thank you Merciful Love.
Please, someone teach Raymond how to pronounce “echelon”.
He is absolutely right. If people simply want permission to receive Holy Communion, then leaving it all in the hands of parish priests may be the way to go, but if someone is interested in the TRUTH, then they can only support the process that exists, with its two tribunals and a vigorous Defender of the Bond.
“Happy to be a fundamentalist”. Mega dittos.
Good on Cardinal Burke! I think the problem is that even Catholics have become so used to those who are divorced and “remarried” , (My parents and all of my siblings, for example.), that many have succumbed to the idea that it really isn’t adultery any longer. I also think part of the problem, at least in America, has been the far to liberal granting of annulments. I have a pretty tough row to hoe in convincing non-Catholics friends how it is not when they site some Catholic celebrity or politician, married for decades with ample children to show for it, who is able to obtain an annulment and marry.
The vitriol & bile being spewed at His Eminence Cardinal Burke in the Fishwrap comboxes is proof that he is a true Son of the Church.
Would you also please check your email for a message from me today on an important, unrelated topic?
I second Monica’s comment above completely.
As a product of poor catechism and almost non existent marriage formation, I don’t need anymore excuse to look for to seek an annulment when the going gets tough, particularly lately. And it’s been tough. Revitalizing my faith has helped tremendously to deal. Therefore I would like to see if they also discuss the seriousness of marriage formation classes. I can’t say I would have changed my mind but at least I wouldn’t be contemplating an annulment as a possibility. I can say I would not have married the same person.
.. Knowing what I know now.
There are serious canonical questions being raised about the presumption that any marriage, civil or otherwise, should be presumed to be valid which is the current position of Canon law. Changing this presumption is not changing doctrine. Many people do not see marriage in terms of sacrament or covenant but instead contractual. Given this reality, solid catechesis on marriage is essential as is practical solution to help couples stay together like Retrouvaille. There is a lot that parishes can and should be doing in this regard. I am not sure if traditional oriented parishes offer these kinds of programs but they are important and things we can all agree on.
Astronomer, for the first time ever I just went over to NCR look at what they were saying about Burke. You are correct. Hatred and bile clearly diabolical in origin is all that’s there. That’s it. But, just as leftists are in the secular world, why would you expect their behavior to be any different just because they claim to be Catholic and walk around with ashes on their foreheads once a year? Those people are exactly the same leftists that are battled every day as they try and destroy our country and civilization with their self loathing and their hatred of humanity.
The Truth of the Inspired Word will set you free. Surfing into that den (NCR) for merely two minutes makes me thank God that there are objective truths. If there weren’t, we’d all be like NCR’s combox commentators.
I need a shower and a confession after that near occasion of sin… don’t do that again, Astronomer.
God bless Cardinal Burke. He is in my daily prayers.
“I don’t know what a ‘rainbow family’ is!”
I don’t like when people infuse “reception of Communion” into this debate. It’s a question of being in the State of Grace. If people have conjugal relations with somebody other than their wife, it’s a grave sin (objectively speaking). Fornication is bad, but not as bad as adultery, since adultery involves breaking a vow. Cardinal Kasper ought to be saying FORNICATION is not a sin; if he succeeds there, THEN AND ONLY THEN should he move onto trying to say that adultery is acceptable.
I’m absolutely astounded by the fact that Cardinal Kasper justifies 3rd, 4th, and even 5th “marriages” while the first spouse has not died.
Card Burke has been elected the moderator of one of the three English speaking groups (along with Kurtz and Napier).
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/sinodo-famiglia-36883/
God bless Cardinal Burke. I still think he will be pope someday.
God bless Cardinal Burke. I still think he will be pope someday.
Austin Catholics says:
Is he saying the Church never changes? No reopening of questions ever? He weakens his case if he makes such hyperbolic statements.
Are you saying doctrinal questions have been reopened? If so, which ones?
Everyone seems disturbed by Pope Francis saying Kasper’s ideas were profound theology etc.
The pope is Jesuit. They developed the mental reservation tradition. He did not say it was Catholic theology, even Christian theology, just profound.
Various popes have praised aspects of the theology of Jewish thinkers and theologians of Indigenous religions, and of course some German theologians: Protestants like Barth for example.
Aspects of Luther’s theology of the Cross are profound, however, it is not Catholic.
In a general sense, “profound theology” can be applied to some aspects of Cdl Kasper’s thought.
IMHO, this situation is just another example of liberals being out of touch. They are still thinking it’s the 1970’s, when they had numbers and could bully everyone to get their way. Now years later it’s easy to see that their promises of a New Church have done little else than cause confusion and empty monasteries, seminaries, and religious houses.
And the Church had 35+ years of JPII and BXVI and their Episcopal and Cardinalatial nominations, so the liberals now are in the minority. The result is Cardinal Kasper whining about opposition to his proposals. And he seems too naive for it to cross his mind that perhaps he is being used as a tethered goat.
Many quote our Saviour’s words on adultery. I, like Pell, also prefer to stay with Christ on this one.
However, Christ’s words are clear that for a Jewish woman who is divorced and who then remarries, although she is in what the Catechism teaches is a public state of mortal sin, the FAULT for that adultery is her husband’s (in the original marriage) for divorcing her …. anyone who divorces a woman CAUSES her to commit adultery!
I disagree profoundly with Kasper, but I have not seen anyone touch on this aspect. If anyone finds it in “Remaining in the truth of Christ” or elsewhere (besides Kasper) let me know please.
Daniel W, was Adam absolved from his sin because Eve gave him the fruit from the forbidden tree? I’m not sure that your assessment that the man causes adultery by divorce his wife? One sin does not cause another. Also, what “caused” the divorce? Did she have anything to do with not sacrificing herself in the marriage? See where that goes?
No, we each have free will. Albeit it’s not pleasant, the woman didn’t need to enter an adulterous relationship. I think you have heard from a number here who have stayed celibate after a failed marriage and have not sought annulment. So, it’s not correct to say that she was forced to commit adultery.
The vitriol currently directed towards Cardinal Burke was – when I was in high school/college – directed towards Cardinal Ratzinger. At one point, you were considered completely intolerant, backward looking, mean and probably a Nazi sympathizer if you ever read or took seriously a word that Cardinal Ratzinger said. Then we had that fateful day when he was elected Pope. My husband and I were jumping up and down with joy. When I see the animosity directed toward Cardinal Burke, I look at this photo at the announcement of the election of Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope: https://bylovealone.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/happy-seminarians.jpg
Thank you Fr. Z for presenting this interview and your thoughts. I thank God everyday for leadership like Cardinal Burke. What was just as interesting was after the YouTube video finished a link to your interview on the Journey Home popped up and I must say it was most enjoyable to hear your Journey. Well done Fr. Z, well done. Something I have been struggling with is how to evangelize the faith with all that is going on in the Church it seems often evangelization turns into a defensive posture and I loved to hear how you got realed in so to speak by Monsignor Schuler. The Church is blessed to have you and all of us that have enjoyed your blog over the years, thank you for your service to Holy Mother Church and her flock. Just to let you know my wife lead me into the Church from a Baptist/Methodist up bringing but it was your blog and Pope Benedict XVI that anchored us into the Traditional Latin mass.
Incredulous,
We can be an occasion of sin for others. Our Lord was speaking of cultures where a divorced woman is unable to provide for herself and her children and is tempted to remarry so as not to starve. This does not absolve the woman completely though, I did not say it did – neither did our Lord. Have a look at his words and explain to me what the Church says he meant by “’caused”.
Daniel, I think you addressed your concern then. Does your question have any relevance at all today? We are no longer in an environment where a woman who is the victim of the divorce needs to marry another for the historical reasons you stated. There is alimony and public support in addition to a large percentage of women having their own jobs which negate the need to support themselves through sexual sin. Moreover, does the death of the husband “cause” the widow to either (legally) remarry or enter prostitution to support herself? I think you’ll find many widows, even with children, do not remarry or prostitute themselves. So, the causality point seems moot and merely a historical artifact in the Bible.
Also, going back to historical times, we also know that divorced women engaged in prostitution as well in order to support themselves. There is a train of thinking that says Mary (of Bethany/Magdalene) was able to afford expensive oil for anointing Jesus because she earned it through prostitution.
So, does the divorcing husband make the woman an adulteress or a prostitute? Why doesn’t the Bible accuse him of making her a prostitute?
Is financial need always the source of the sexual sins of adultery and prostitution? For example, was Bathsheba’s adultery “caused” by Uriah (who didn’t divorce her and throw her into David’s arms) or was it due to her own sinful free will?
I’m not sure your point other than to say that women are victims and not completely responsible for their actions due to the exercise of their own free will and that blame needs to be placed on the man too.
My point is that everyone is subject to passions and this can diminish the voluntary nature of a sin so that it is not mortal (ccc 1859, 1860).
It is Church teaching that a person who marries another while their spouse is alive is in a public state of sin. However, it is also Church teaching that “although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.”
Let’s pray for those at the synod.
Hello DanielW
CCC1859, 1860 do not say anything about passions….
However, we can read:’
1767 In themselves passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, “either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way.”44 It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.45
I’m not seeing how this shows that we are subject to our passions, but rather the opposite.
Also, isn’t it Church teaching that marrying another person while a previous spouse is still alive is a sin depending upon whether or not the once married person has received an annulment or not?
With regard to the quotation from Matthew, are you sure that Jesus does not mean that what is “caused” by the divorce is the thought/expectation that a person is free to marry; is He actually saying that the divorce itself is not legitimate ?
Finally, there is indeed a distinction between judgment of persons and judgment of sins. This discussion has been about the judgment of sins, not people….The Church is our source of guidance for learning to form our consciences and learn to judge ourselves that we may better amend our ways.
Pingback: Play by Play: Card. Burke's video interview recap! | Fr. Z's BlogFr. Z's Blog
pnkn
I’ll address two of your points and leave it to you to work out the rest.
ccc1860 “The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders.”
You say: “Also, isn’t it Church teaching that marrying another person while a previous spouse is still alive is a sin depending upon whether or not the once married person has received an annulment or not?”
If the marriage is declared null then what you call “the previous spouse” was never a spouse.
Don’t expect me to have time to help you more until you get these points clear.
A Catholic virtue is that of getting to the point and making the point clearly without shrouding it in a lot of words. “But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no…” As an engineer I try and understand things clearly without a lot of technical jargon and the like. If I can explain a complex situation to a lay person, then I have fully understood the technical matter and its relationship to the general world.
I’ll restate that the context of this discussion is based divorce and remarriage and the divorcing husband “causing” the adulterous behavior of the woman. So, I think you’ve concluded that a woman who civilly remarries and is having conjugal relations with her second civil spouse after her real husband civilly divorces her (no annulment) may not be in state of mortal sin and may be able to receive the Holy Eucharist without the sacrament of reconciliation.
This, I think, is the crux of the matter.
I’ll invoke Mr. Martin……..
“Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me !”
You’re excuuuuuuuuuuuseed, Steve – I hope I am too!
Daniel W says:
It is Church teaching that a person who marries another while their spouse is alive is in a public state of sin. However, it is also Church teaching that “although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.”
It is objectively a sinful state, but culpability refers to the subject.
That’s right…
Kasper, as Peters implies, is basically suggesting we drop canon 915 regarding denying communion because we can’t judge the person’s subjective culpability.
What Kasper seems to deny is the value of the “living as brother/sister” solution that, though not perfect, more clearly balances mercy with truth and avoiding scandal. He never seems to give this solution any credibility.