Vatican Cardinal Burke interviewed on Pope Francis: says ‘we can never talk enough’ about abortion - by John-Henry Westen

Note: The relevant section of the interview with Cardinal Burke begins at 14:54 in the video.

ALABAMA, December 13, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Vatican Cardinal Raymond Burke has spoken publicly about remarks by Pope Francis that have been interpreted in the media to mean that the Church should focus on "essentials" rather than abortion or homosexual "marriage."

“What could be more essential than the natural moral law?” said Burke in an interview which aired yesterday on the EWTN flagship program the World Over Live. 

“We can never talk enough about that as long as in our society innocent and defenceless human life is being attacked in the most savage way,” the cardinal told EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo. “I mean it’s literally a massacre of the unborn.”  

Arroyo told Cardinal Burke that he has received emails from priests over the last few months who relate that people are demanding they “stop talking about this abortion and the gay marriage thing” because, “the Pope explicitly said stick to essentials, that’s what we need to do.’” 

Asked how he’d interpret that, Cardinal Burke, the head of the Vatican’s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, responded that that the Pope "doesn't state that," admitting however that the Pope’s statements are “not altogether easy to interpret.” 

The latest round of media focus relates to one paragraph within Pope Francis’ 220-page exhortation called the Gospel of Joy, released November 26, 2013. “Pastoral ministry in a missionary style is not obsessed with the disjointed transmission of a multitude of doctrines to be insistently imposed,” the document said.  Rather, the message must “concentrate on the essentials, on what is most beautiful, most grand, most appealing and at the same time most necessary.” 

Cardinal Burke said that the “Pope can’t be saying” - or at least that Burke “can’t interpret that phrase of [the Pope] as saying” - that the Church’s truths on life and family matters “are not essentials.” 

“What could be more essential than the natural moral law?” asked Burke.  Speaking of abortion, gay "marriage" and contraception, he added, “these are these acts that are always and everywhere evil.” He added that “the first commands of our conscience” are “to respect human life, to respect the integrity the family and respect conscience.” 

The media’s interpretation of those remarks flows from the first of Pope Francis’ off-the-cuff interviews, which was published in all Jesuit magazines and also on the Vatican website. “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods,” Pope Francis said at the time.  The pope added, “I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.” 

Cardinal Burke told EWTN he wasn’t “exactly sure why” Pope Francis “thinks we’re talking too much about abortion, too much about the integrity of marriage as between one man and one woman but we can never talk enough about that as long as in our society innocent and defenceless human life is being attacked in the most savage way. I mean it’s literally a massacre of the unborn.”

Cardinal Burke concluded, saying, “We can never talk enough about that because if we don't get this straight, that human life, innocent defenseless human life has an inviolable dignity, how are we going to understand anything else correctly with regard to care for the sick or whatever it might be?”

Amazing Interview With Cardinal Burke . . . Insights On The Church And Modern Society

In The Wanderer

By DON FIER (Editor's Note: Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, who formerly served as bishop of the Diocese of La Crosse, Wis., and archbishop of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Mo., recently spent some time in the United States. The Catholic Servant was granted the opportunity to interview His Eminence in mid-July on a variety of topics at Eternal Life's The Church Teaches Forum in Louisville, Ky. The Catholic Servant  a Minneapolis- based newspaper  gave The Wanderer permission to reprint the interview.

(Don Fier serves on the Board of Directors for The Catholic Servant and he writes the Learn Your Faith column for The Wanderer.) + + +

Q. Six years ago, Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum, which allowed for the usage of the Tridentine Mass on a wider scale in the Church. In his accompanying letter to the bishops, the Holy Father stated that "the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching." Do you see concrete benefits that have come to the Church in the past several years because of Summorum Pontificum?

A. I have witnessed a number of benefits. First, there is now a much stronger sense of the divine action in the Ordinary Form. There was a certain tendency in the celebration of the Ordinary Form to center attention on the priest and the congregation rather than on Christ, Who comes into the midst of the congregation through the ministry of the priest acting in His Person to give the gift of His life as He first gave it on Calvary and to make that sacrifice new for us in each holy Mass.

Another closely connected benefit is an appreciation of the true reform of the liturgy desired by the Council, namely a reform that would be in continuity with the centuries-long tradition of the Church, not a renewal that would be a break from that liturgical tradition. The celebration of the two Forms of the Roman rite have led to a growing consciousness of the need to retrieve some of the elements of the liturgical tradition too quickly discarded after the Council, contrary to the intention of the Council.

In other words, what Pope Benedict XVI had in mind was to promote the reform as it was truly desired by the Council, namely a reform in continuity with the centuries- long tradition of the Church and not a rupture. The renewed

reformed rite of the Mass is not a new Mass, but is in continuity with the holy Mass as it has always been celebrated.

Q. It has been about four months since Pope Francis became the 266th Roman Pontiff. From the vantage point of your office in Rome, have you observed any tangible changes in tone or day- today operation in the Vatican? What is the role of the group of eight Cardinals formed by Pope Francis?

A. Certainly Pope Francis, as is the case with every Pope, has his distinctive style which is not the same as Pope Benedict' s. Everyone is adjusting to that. It is a style that has very much appealed to the faithful in terms of the number of pilgrims coming to Rome and their positive and overwhelming response to the new Holy Father. He has a way of communicating with people that is direct and which demonstrates his fatherly concern for them as individuals. When people see the fatherly and spiritual care that he gives to others, they understand that he also has the same care for them.

With regard to changes, the Holy Father has indicated that he wants to study a reform of the Roman curia and that would necessarily mean also a reform in his way of relating to the particular churches throughout the world. He is studying all of that at the present moment. Those of us who hold offices in the Roman curia have been confirmed provisionally until he has finished this study. As Pope Francis has himself said, he was not part of the Roman curia and is just now coming to know the operation of the curia, and that takes time. He has only been in office for four months, so we are waiting to see.

The group of eight Cardinals Pope Francis named [ to advise him on the reform of the Roman curia] is the result of a suggestion made during the general congregation before the conclave and is actually a suggestion that was discussed some years ago. The norms for the functioning of the body have not yet been published and so I cannot say exactly what will be the scope of the considerations presented to the group or precisely how it will operate. I imagine that that type of document will be forthcoming and then we will know more about it. What seems clear is that the Holy Father wants to have a group of close and highly qualified advisors to consult with in carrying out his responsibilities.

Q. On May 13 Pope Francis consecrated his papacy to Our Lady of Fatima. What is the significance of this action?

A. I think it is deeply significant. First, it is an expression of profound devotion to Our Blessed Mother which clearly marks the life of Pope Francis. From the very beginning of his pontificate, he has repeatedly invoked the intercession of Our Blessed Mother whenever he offers holy Mass. He always reverences the image of the Blessed Mother in the sanctuary, not only by incensing her or praying before her  he will always reach up and touch the image in an act of special affection and devotion.

With regard to Our Lady of Fatima, we know well the prophecies that were given to the three seers at Fatima which have all now been published and what they indicate with regard to the attacks of Satan upon the Roman Pontiff. I am sure that Pope Francis has this clearly in mind and is invoking the intercession of Our Lady for her protection even as she protected Blessed John Paul II from an assassin' s bullet. It was on Our Lady of Fatima's feast day that the dreadful attempt occurred, and John Paul was fully convinced that she interceded to save his life. I believe that Pope Francis is imploring that same intercession and protection from her at this time.

Q. Things seem to be declining at an accelerating rate in our country. For example, it is shocking how quickly things happened in Minnesota. A year ago it seemed almost certain that a November ballot referendum would constitutionally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Despite a heroic effort by Archbishop John Nienstedt and many other Church leaders, it failed. Just four months later a law was enacted making Minnesota the 12th state to legalize so- called same- sex marriage. How did we get to this point? Aside from prayer and fasting, what can the faithful do?

A. First of all, I would underline the need for much prayer and fasting. The alarming rapidity of the realization of the homosexual agenda ought to awaken all of us and frighten us with regard to the future of our nation. This is a work of deceit, a lie about the most fundamental aspect of our human nature, our human sexuality, which after life itself defines us. There is only one place these types of lies come from, namely Satan. It is a diabolical situation which is aimed at destroying individuals, families, and eventually our nation.

How did we get to this point? The fact that these kinds of "arrangements" are made legal is a manifestation of a culture of death, of an anti- life and anti- family culture which has existed in our nation now for some time. We as Catholics have not properly combatted it because we have not been taught our Catholic Faith, especially in the depth needed to address these grave evils of our time. This is a failure of catechesis both of children and young people that has been going on for fifty years. It is being addressed, but it needs much more radical attention. I can say this because I was the bishop of two different dioceses.

After fifty years of this, we have many adult voters who support politicians with immoral positions because they do not know their Catholic Faith and its teaching with regard to same- sex attraction and the inherent disorder of sexual relations between two persons of the same sex. Therefore, they are not able to defend the Catholic Faith in this matter.

What has also contributed greatly to the situation is an exaltation of the virtue of tolerance which is falsely seen as the virtue which governs all other virtues. In other words, we should tolerate other people in their immoral actions to the extent that we seem also to accept the moral wrong. Tolerance is a virtue, but it is certainly not the principal virtue; the principal virtue is charity. Charity means speaking the truth, especially the truth about human life and human sexuality. While we love the individual, we desire only the best for one who suffers from an inclination to engage in sexual relations with a person of the same sex. We must abhor the actions themselves because they are contrary to nature itself as God has created us.

The virtue of charity leads us to be kind and understanding to the individual, but also to be firm and steadfast in opposing the evil itself. This confusion is widespread. I have encountered it many times myself as a priest and bishop. It is something we simply need to address. There is far too much silence  people do not want to talk about it because the topic is not  politically correct. But we cannot be silent any longer or we will find ourselves in a situation that will be very difficult to reverse.

Canon 915

Q. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, when recently questioned at a press briefing about the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did in murdering a baby born alive at 23 weeks as compared to the practice of aborting a baby moments before birth, refused to answer. Instead she is reported to have responded: "As a practicing and respectful Catholic this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don't think it should have anything to do with politics." How are we to react to such a seemingly scandalous statement? Is this a case where Canon 915 might properly be applied? [Editor's Note:Canon 915 of the Church's Code of Canon Law states that those who are "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."]

A. Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied. This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin  cooperating with the crime of procured abortion  and still professes to be a devout Catholic. This is a prime example of what Blessed John Paul II referred to as the situation of Catholics who have divorced their faith from their public life and therefore are not serving their brothers and sisters in the way that they must  in safeguarding and promoting the life of the innocent and defenseless unborn, in safeguarding and promoting the integrity of marriage and the family.

What Congresswoman Pelosi is speaking of is not particular confessional beliefs or practices of the Catholic Church. It belongs to the natural moral law which is written on every human heart and which the Catholic Church obviously also teaches: that natural moral law which is so wonderfully illumined for us by Our Lord Jesus Christ by His saving teaching, but most of all by His Passion and death.

To say that these are simply questions of Catholic Faith which have no part in politics is just false and wrong. I fear for Congresswoman Pelosi if she does not come to understand how gravely in error she is. I invite her to reflect upon the example of St. Thomas More who acted rightly in a similar situation even at the cost of his life.

Q. Many faithful Catholics are troubled when high- profile political figures with unconcealed antilife, anti- family positions are honored in such ways as receiving invitations to speak at Catholic university commencement ceremonies and given honorary degrees or memorialized at public Catholic funeral Masses without having renounced their immoral positions. Faithful Catholics, at the same time, are taught they have committed a serious sin if they vote for these same candidates. How are those who are seriously trying to live out their faith to reconcile this apparent contradiction?

A. You cannot reconcile it, it is a contradiction, it is wrong, it is a scandal, and it must stop! We live in a culture with a false sense of dialogue which has also crept into the Church where we pretend to dialogue about open and egregious violations of the moral law. Can we believe it is permissible to recognize publicly people who support open and egregious violations, and then act surprised if someone is scandalized by it? For Catholic institutions or individuals to give recognition to such persons, to honor them in any way, is a source of grave scandal for which they are responsible. In a certain way, they contribute to the sinfulness of the individuals involved. There is no way to reconcile it; it simply is wrong.

Mass Attendance

Q. Polls consistently report that only 20- 25 percent of those who identify themselves as Catholics regularly attend Sunday Mass. Consequently, many seem to be unaware of how HHS mandate provisions will impact religious liberty despite the USCCB and bishops being outspoken in their warnings. So even though bishops are trying to get the message out about impending dangers to the family, religious liberty, and so forth, how can they do so in such an environment? How can the lay faithful best assist? [Editor's Note:  The  HHS mandate is the mandate by the Health and Human Services department of the federal government that requires all health plans to provide coverage at no cost for contraceptives, abortion- inducing drugs, and sterilization as part of so- called preventative health services for women.] 

A. Sadly, in the time after the Second Vatican Council, there was a reform of the sacred liturgy which made it man- centered and banal. In some cases it actually became hard for people to bear because of illicit insertions, foreign agendas, and imposition of the personalities of priests and congregations into the liturgy to the point that people began to think that the Mass was some sort of social activity. If they did not find it acceptable, they did not go anymore.

If one understands what the Mass truly is, Christ Himself coming down from Heaven to renew the sacrifice of Calvary, how could you possibly not be there on Sunday? In the past people understood this and Mass attendance was in the 80- 90 percent range. We have to restore the sanctity of the celebration of Holy Eucharist so that those who have fallen away will return to the practice.

Secondly, when people are not coming to Mass in great numbers, as is the case, they do not hear the Sunday homily which is the principal means for instruction of faithful adults in the Church. In some places, even where people do attend Mass, they are not being instructed as they should be. The bishops first, and then the priests with them, must be clear and consistent in presenting the truth about the freedom of conscience and the evils of the health-care mandate.

Thirdly, in the situation as it is, which we simply must recognize, lay people giving witness to fellow lay people is the only solution. More and more sincere and informed Catholics must be ready to give an account of their Faith to others even if they are not the most eloquent and articulate. The very fact that they approach and speak with a fellow Catholic about a question like freedom of conscience will not go without a positive effect on that individual.

Q. Are we on the verge of reaching a point when well- educated, well- trained Catholics who are faithful to Church teaching on morality will no longer be hired in fields like health care, education, social services, or counseling where their religious beliefs are at odds with government policies and deviant cultural norms that are considered mainstream in our society? Is widespread persecution imminent? Is it possible to hold the government back?

A. If the present government, which can be described in no other way than totalitarian, is not held back from the course it is on, these persecutions will follow. It will not be possible for Catholics to exercise most of the normal human services whether in health care, education, or social welfare because in conscience they will no longer be able to do what the government demands: to cooperate in grave moral evil. We are heading in that direction and even see it now.

I receive many inquiries from Catholic owners of small companies who are involved with insurance whose consciences are rightly deeply troubled by the present situation in our country. It is not easy to find a way to operate with reasonable health- care coverage for some of them. This is an intolerable situation in our country and it must stop.

Yes, it can be turned back, we are a democracy. A government like ours can and must be stopped in what it is doing. Polls tell us that the majority of Americans are opposed to procured abortion and also are opposed to the idea of recognizing the sexual union of two persons of the same sex in marriage or the equivalent of marriage. Why then is our government imposing this upon a people who, with rightly formed consciences, oppose these matters?

I never thought I would ever say this, but we should follow the example of France. The French people have a government that is sadly much like our own. In a totalitarian way, it passed and is trying to enforce a bill giving legal recognition to so- called marital unions between two persons of the same sex. The French people are out on the streets in protest, one demonstration had upwards of two million people. There has arisen in France among the people the will to resist the government and that is what we need in this country.

We cannot go along with government policies and laws which are destroying the most innocent and defenseless among us. This will also redound to great harm to those who have grown weak through advanced age or serious illness. This is all a pattern: the complete corruption about the truth of human sexuality which has already wrought such terrible harm to individuals and families and to our society has to be stopped.

Encourage The Young

Q. To close, what have you observed in your travels throughout the world that gives you the greatest reason for hope?

A. The greatest sign of hope for me is the young people I meet who believe more than my generation and recognize how bankrupt our culture is and want the truth. They realize that this whole bill of goods we have been sold with regard to abortion, same- sex unions, and so forth is ultimately destructive. So I would say that is the greatest single cause for hope.

But these young people need the encouragement of those of us who are older. They need to have the wisdom from those of the older generation who have valiantly fought the battle for the truth, for what is truly charitable because it is true and in accord with God's law. Those of us who are older should take great encouragement; at the same time, we must invest ourselves in communicating with the younger generation and helping them to build a better future.

I think of the little ones who are growing up now my great- nieces and nephews  and I am sometimes filled with much sadness because I see their parents work so hard to raise them in a truly Christian home and are adhering to the truths of the Faith and practicing their faith. But the world which they will enter as adults, if they are going to remain true to their faith, will require them to be courageously strong.

Nozze gay, la resa dei vescovi francesi - di Massimo Introvigne

In NBQ 

Quello che succede nella Chiesa cattolica in Francia, dopo le grandi manifestazioni contro la legge Taubira che ha introdotto il matrimonio e le adozioni omosessuali, è di qualche interesse per l'Italia, dove rischiamo di vedere presto lo stesso film.

Riassumo, per comodità del lettore, solo le ultime puntate della saga. 4 giugno:  il Consiglio «Famiglia e società» della Conferenza episcopale francese (CEF), presieduto dal vescovo di Le Havre mons. Jean-Luc Brunin e che comprende vescovi ed esperti, pubblica il documento «Proseguiamo il dialogo!»,  dove invita alla riconciliazione fra quanti - anche all'interno del mondo cattolico - hanno militato su sponde opposte nella questione del matrimonio omosessuale. 10 giugno: diverse voci del mondo cattolico conservatore - non necessariamente legato agli ambienti cosiddetti «lefebvriani» - chiedono che la CEF revochi l'incarico ai componenti del Consiglio «Famiglia e società», accusati d'insegnare una dottrina in materia di unioni omosessuali non conforme al Magistero della Chiesa. 13 giugno: interviene il Consiglio permanente della CEF che, senza sconfessare il Consiglio «Famiglia e società» - e ovviamente senza revocarne i membri - precisa però che tra chi manifestava contro e chi a favore della legge Taubira la Chiesa non è neutrale; che chi si opponeva a una legge che apre «ferite» nel corpo sociale aveva ragione; che il suo impegno «non è stato vano» e che dovrà continuare occupandosi di «altri campi dove la vigilanza è richiesta per il rispetto della persona umana», allusione evidente alla legge sull'eutanasia il cui iter legislativo è già cominciato in Francia.

Ma che cosa si legge nel documento «Proseguiamo il dialogo!»? A leggerlo di dritto e di rovescio - meglio due volte, perché cede talora a quel linguaggio «ecclesialese», comprensibile solo ai professionisti dei piani pastorali, tante volte sconsigliato da Papa Francesco - si scopre anzitutto che non include nessuna apologia dell'omosessualità, così che alcune critiche su questo punto appaiono sopra le righe e ingiustificate. Il documento afferma che la persona omosessuale dev'essere accolta «incondizionatamente» nella comunità cristiana, espressione che può certo prestarsi a equivoci. Ma precisa che «l'accoglienza incondizionata della persona assolutamente non implica in nessun modo l'approvazione di tutti i suoi atti», che la «differenza sessuale fra un uomo e una donna è l'elemento fondamentale» perché si possa parlare di matrimonio, il quale - per essere conforme a quanto la Chiesa insegna - dev'essere caratterizzato da «unità, indissolubilità, fedeltà e apertura alla vita».

Fin qui, dunque, tutto bene. Si può discutere l'accostamento pastorale che consiglia a chi si senta fortemente attratto da una persona dello stesso sesso di mantenere con questa persona un'«amicizia» la quale, senza negare la presenza di un'«attrazione sessuale», «scelga di non cedere» a tale attrazione. Il Consiglio «Famiglia e società» spiega che, in fondo, questa «amicizia casta» è la stessa che si può consigliare a chi si senta attratto da una persona dell'altro sesso che non è il suo legittimo coniuge. Si possono condividere le considerazioni sul fatto che la nostra società oggi non concepisce più un'amicizia separata dalla sessualità, e che quanto oggi sembra ambiguo in altre epoche era normale e permetteva di coltivare relazioni amicali durature che non si trasformavano in relazioni sessuali. Sul piano prudenziale, però - con tutto il rispetto per gli illustri esperti laici e professori universitari che fanno parte insieme con i vescovi del Consiglio «Famiglia e società» -, ci si può chiedere se il consiglio di mantenere una frequentazione e un'amicizia con una persona nei cui confronti si provi un'attrazione illecita, resistendo strenuamente a questa attrazione, sia oggi realistico. La maggioranza dei confessori probabilmente offre consigli diversi.

Quello però che mi turba di più nel documento «Proseguiamo il dialogo!» - e che ha indotto probabilmente il Consiglio permanente della CEF, pur senza sconfessare apertamente il Consiglio «Famiglia e società», a intervenire - è l'aspetto, per così dire, politico. Il documento è la presa d'atto di una sconfitta, e invita i cattolici a dare «prova di maturità democratica, accettando senza violenza che il proprio punto di vista non abbia prevalso». Tutto il tono del testo è quello di un mesto invito a ripiegare le bandiere, tornare a casa e accettare sportivamente la sconfitta aprendo una stagione di testimonianza silenziosa che tace e si limita a predicare con l'esempio, prova di «maturità spirituale». Operando, anzi, per la riconciliazione, la «coesione nazionale» e l'unità fra cattolici che hanno militato su fronti opposti, atteso che «all'interno della comunità cattolica, queste divergenze non mettono in pericolo l'unità ecclesiale». La riconciliazione, aggiunge il documento, potrà essere trovata impegnando i movimenti e le parrocchie su altri temi più condivisi, tra cui si citano i diritti dei Rom e quelli degli esodati (che ci sono anche in Francia). I giovani che considerano questi temi poco importanti dopo essersi entusiasmati per le manifestazioni contro la legge Taubira devono essere «accompagnati» con pazienza a uno studio più completo della dottrina sociale della Chiesa.

È vero che il documento attribuisce le «divergenze» fra cattolici sulla legge Taubira a diversi modi di derivare «conseguenze politiche» dai principi, e non da diversi principi, e contiene una riserva sulle adozioni omosessuali, su cui manifesta una più decisa opposizione. Ma bene ha fatto l'istanza superiore, cioè la presidenza della Conferenza episcopale, a precisare che in quelle «divergenze» qualcuno aveva ragione e qualcuno aveva torto.

Mi permetto però di dire che neppure il comunicato del Consiglio di presidenza della CEF va al cuore del problema, su cui è opportuna in Francia - come altrove - una riflessione ulteriore. Davvero si tratta di accettare la sconfitta, di «comportarsi da cittadini» - come afferma il documento «Proseguiamo il dialogo!» - «assumendo democraticamente la posizione di minoranza»? O la minoranza, anche sconfitta,  può legittimamente aspirare a diventare domani maggioranza? Le leggi ingiuste devono essere accettate e contrastate solo con la testimonianza silenziosa, oppure - come ha detto Papa Francesco parlando il 15 giugno proprio a parlamentari francesi - le leggi possono anche essere abrogate? E, se ci si limita alla testimonianza silenziosa o si parla d'altro, come creare un clima in cui le leggi ingiuste possano essere cambiate?

Qualcuno ha visto nel documento «Proseguiamo il dialogo!» un ennesimo esempio della deriva omosessualista in certi settori della Chiesa. Mi sembra un'esagerazione: sia pure - per riprendere l'espressione di un vescovo siciliano di cui «La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana» si è recentemente occupata - «sussurrando» la verità piuttosto che proclamandola con vigore, il documento riafferma sul piano strettamente morale i principi fondamentali del Catechismo. Sul piano politico, invece, mi sembra di scorgere nel testo una grande stanchezza. I vescovi e gli esperti del Consiglio «Famiglia e società» si chiedono se davvero «essere cattolici richieda essere sempre "contro" riforme presentate da altri come un progresso», se non si rischi di dare l'impressione di volere «imporre la fede o un punto di vista religioso».

S'insinuano qui precisamente i rischi denunciati dal cardinale Burke in occasione del convegno romano per la «Giornata dell'Evangelium vitae» il 15 giugno. Ci si lascia intimidire dalla critica secondo cui i cattolici non sposeranno persone dello stesso sesso ma non possono impedire di farlo ai non cattolici, anziché rispondere che qui sono in gioco principi di diritto naturale che la ragione può e deve riconoscere a prescindere da qualunque opzione religiosa. Peggio ancora, ci si lascia intrappolare dal mito del progresso irreversibile e ineludibile, per cui si pubblica stancamente qualche documento «sussurrato» per amor di firma, ma in fondo si rimane convinti che la sconfitta è inevitabile e certa, e che tanto vale accettarla «democraticamente» per evitare di farsi dare dai media anche dei cattivi perdenti.

Se non si superano queste due autentiche superstizioni che la propaganda laicista insinua anche nei «buoni» - talora persino nei vescovi - ogni sconfitta prepara la sconfitta seguente. Serve a poco indicare come prossima fermata l'eutanasia, se si pensa che anche lì i cattolici non potranno «imporre un punto di vista religioso» ai non credenti - quasi che la difesa della vita umana valesse solo per chi crede e non fosse anch'essa, com'è, un'esigenza della legge naturale - né, alla fine, presentarsi come quelli che sono sempre «"contro" riforme presentate da altri come un progresso».

In un bel discorso del 7 giugno agli studenti dei Gesuiti, Papa Francesco ha invitato alla virtù dimenticata della «magnanimità», che spinge alle cose grandi e a combattere battaglie apparentemente impossibili. Dirottare le proprie energie dalle battaglie difficili per la vita e per la famiglia ad altre - come quelle sui Rom o gli esodati - che riscuotono il facile applauso dei media corrisponde alla tentazione di non essere scomodi, di compiacere il mondo, di farsi applaudire anziché criticare dai poteri forti che controllano l'opinione. È la tentazione della «mondanità spirituale» di cui parla spesso il Pontefice. Chi è magnanimo, ha detto il Papa il 7 giugno, «non ha paura di andare controcorrente, anche se non è facile». Combatte anche le battaglie impossibili, perché sa che nulla è impossibile a Dio.

Cardinal Burke : « l’Église catholique n’approuvera jamais les unions homosexuelles »

In FC

Le cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, préfet du Tribunal suprême de la signature apostolique, était présent aux journées Evangelium vitae conclues par le pape François le 16 juin à Rome. Il exhorte les catholiques à se mobiliser – y compris dans la rue si nécessaire – pour défendre la famille et la vie.

La défense de la vie est un combat incessant pour l’Église, comme l’atteste entre autres la continuation des journées Evangelium vitae lancées par Jean-Paul II. Où s’enracine cette priorité ?

La loi que la Révélation nous a donnée nous apprend que le premier droit d’un être humain est de vivre. Cette vérité qu’est l’inviolabilité de la vie innocente, est d’autant plus évidente lorsque l’on se souvient que le Christ est mort pour tous les êtres humains, sans exception. Rappelons également la parabole du jugement dernier : « Ce que vous faites au plus petit d’entre les miens, c’est à moi que vous le faites » (Matthieu 25,40). Or, ceux qui sont vivants mais qui ne sont pas encore nés, sont les plus petits. C’est pour cela que l’Église appellera toujours à protéger cette vie innocente. De plus, le premier précepte de loi naturelle est de promouvoir et de protéger la vie humaine. Inscrit dans le cœur de chacun, ce précepte est partagé par tout le monde, quelle que soit l’orientation spirituelle.

Une note de la Congrégation pour la doctrine de la foi, signée par le cardinal Ratzinger en 2004, indiquait qu’il ne fallait pas donner la communion aux hommes et femmes politiques catholiques soutenant publiquement l’avortement. Est-elle toujours d’actualité ?

Absolument ! Les hommes politiques qui se disent catholiques, mais qui soutiennent l’avortement en prétendant ne pas vouloir imposer leurs convictions religieuses sont dans l’erreur puisque, ainsi que je l’ai dit, la révélation divine ne vient que confirmer ce que la loi naturelle, accessible à tous, a déjà établi. Et ceux qui font ouvertement la promotion de l’avortement ne doivent donc pas avoir accès à la sainte communion. Cette règle de discipline canonique est prévue par le Code de droit canonique à l’article 915. Les catholiques doivent savoir manifester leur opposition, y compris dans la rue, lorsque cela est nécessaire.

Quel doit être le rôle de la famille dans le respect de la vie ?

La famille a le premier rôle car ce sont les parents qui doivent apprendre à leurs enfants à respecter la vie humaine et à se respecter eux-mêmes. Dans un deuxième temps, l’éducation religieuse doit préparer les enfants à avoir ce regard. Dans cette optique, la catéchèse est très importante. Pendant des années, la manière d’enseigner le catéchisme aux enfants a été tellement pauvre qu’il y a une nécessité de réaliser un vrai travail sur ce point. J’espère que ce temps où la catéchèse a été appauvrie est révolu. Je me souviens que, lorsque j’étais évêque d’un diocèse, j’ai essayé tant que j’ai pu de remédier à ces problèmes.

Vous êtes préfet du Tribunal suprême de la signature apostolique, qui veille à la bonne administration de la justice ecclésiastique. Qu’en est-il de l’enseignement de l’Église concernant les unions homosexuelles ?

L’enseignement de l’Église est très clair. L’union sexuelle est morale dans le cadre du mariage, celle-ci étant l’expression d’un amour fidèle, permanent et fécond, c’est-à-dire procréatif, entre un homme et une femme. Une note de la Congrégation pour la doctrine de la foi, parue en 2003 et signée par le cardinal Ratzinger, alors préfet de cette même congrégation, condamnait ainsi toute forme de légalisation des unions homosexuelles. La nature nous enseigne que l’homme et la femme sont faits l’un pour l’autre. L’altérité est une condition nécessaire au mariage. Il faut donc comprendre que l’Église catholique n’approuvera jamais les unions homosexuelles, qui ne peuvent être naturellement procréatives.

En France, la loi légalisant le mariage homosexuel a été votée. Que doivent faire les catholiques désormais ?

J’ai suivi le combat des Français contre cette loi. Je peux leur dire ceci : continuez à manifester, continuez à montrer que cette loi est injuste et immorale. L’Église vous soutiendra dans ce combat pour la justice. J’encourage ainsi les prêtres et les évêques à continuer sur cette voie et manifester leur opposition dans la rue si nécessaire. C’est important qu’ils montrent l’exemple. Moi-même, il m’est arrivé de manifester, notamment à l’occasion de Marche pour la vie. Dans Evangelium vitae, Jean-Paul II fait référence à la désobéissance civile, c’est dans ce genre de cas que nous devons la pratiquer.

Les parents ont également un travail à effectuer contre ces lois insidieuses. Ils doivent surveiller ce que font leurs enfants. Le pire aujourd’hui est sans nul doute la pornographie. Les parents doivent faire attention notamment lorsque les enfants utilisent l’ordinateur et regardent des choses dont ils ne mesurent pas les effets et qui font beaucoup de mal.

Comment préserver les enfants de ces dérives sociétales lorsqu’elles s’affichent dans la rue ?

Il faut que les parents essaient de garder leurs enfants loin de tout cela et de leur expliquer ce qui est bien et ce qui est mal. L’école est également un lieu dans lequel il faut s’investir. Il faut notamment que l’enseignement catholique soit encore plus catholique qu’il ne l’est actuellement.

Pierre de Calbiac

Admirável entrevista do Cardeal Burke - Vatican Cardinal: ‘Individual bishops’, not just conferences must fight culture of death (exclusive) - by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

ROME, April 23, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The bishops of the world must, as individuals, take the lead in combating the Culture of Death, and not wait for the national conferences, Cardinal Raymond Burke told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview yesterday.

“It should be emphasized that the individual bishop has a responsibility in this matter. Sometimes what happens is the individual bishops are unwilling to do anything because they wait for the national bishops’ conference to take the lead.”

Warning against some of the bureaucratic trends of “truth by committee” in the Church’s organisation, Cardinal Burke said, “Simply by the way these conferences work, it can be years before some kind of effective direction is given, and then oftentimes because this direction is discussed and debated, it can get very watered down.” 

He emphasized that the involvement of the bishops should be constant, and not merely a matter of issuing a statement once. “We’re not writing term papers here where you make reference to an earlier document and that’s sufficient.” In public life, he said, the message has to be stated and re-stated and kept up to date.

And statements, he said, are only one part of it. “Its another thing to encourage people to actively manifest their desire that the moral law be respected,” he said. Even in a “pluralistic” society the moral law is universal and can and must be expressed in law, he explained. 

The head of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican’s supreme court, spoke with LSN in the lead-up to the Marcia per la Vita (March for Life) Nazionale in Rome, set for May 12^th in Rome. The Cardinal is known around the world as one of the strongest voices in the Vatican’s Curia for the Church’s teaching on the sacredness of human life at all its stages. He said that the growth of the marches for life, starting in the US, is indicating a shift in opinion on abortion in many countries of the western world, particularly among younger people. 

Cardinal Burke said that abortion is the premier social justice issue, even if some in the hierarchy, even in the Vatican, don’t seem to act that way. The lack of enthusiasm for combating abortion as a priority among some of the upper echelons of the Church administration, he said, “is something that needs to be addressed”.

He said that overall, “there is a concern” about abortion among the cardinals. “How they see it practically being witnessed is another thing, however.”

Click "like" if you want to end abortion!

“I think in some places there’s a great hesitation among prelates to be involved in public manifestations. Many see it as some kind of political activity that isn’t proper for a cleric.” 

But Burke said he does not hesitate to participate, “because to me, it’s a question of the common good. Giving witness for the common good. It’s not a political rally in the sense that they’re rallying for this or that candidate, it’s not partisan, it’s a good across the  board.”

Citing the encyclical by Pope Benedict XVI Caritas in Veritate, he said that abortion, as well as the widespread use of artificial contraception, must be made priorities: “It seems to me it’s the first issue of social justice, the right to life.” 

Remarking on the marches springing up in ultra-liberal European centres like Brussels and Paris, as well as the leap for the Italian national march from 1000 to 15,000 participants in one year, the cardinal said, “I think especially among the younger people there’s a great interest. People realise that the culture is really bankrupt and they’re trying their best to respond to the situation.” 

He said that there is a visible increase in interest by bishops, particularly at the March in Washington. He also said that the media blackout has been unable to stop the personal witness of the marches. “I believe it has a great impact,” he said. 

He urged the upcoming generation of younger pro-life leaders to bring the life issues up with their clergy.

“I think the lay faithful in the parishes and in the dioceses need to go to their bishops and priests and urge them to give that pastoral leadership that they’re called to give on this very critical issue. Yes the laity have their part, a very significant part in all the various areas of public life to give witness to the Gospel but they depend upon their priests and bishops to give that teaching and example, how to confront the situation.” 

“They need leadership. That’s what it’s all about.”  

The marches in Italy are only three years old, and have already grown from a small gathering in an out-of-the-way town in the north, to 15,000 last year in the capital. Organisers are hoping to jumpstart a public debate which has not occurred since Italy’s abortion law was passed in 1978.

While it is true that the Italian abortion rate is relatively low and few doctors are willing to participate in abortion – with overall about 70 per cent in the country refusing and as many as 86 per cent in Lazio, the region of Rome – the abortion rate has numbered in the millions since legalisation. The latest statistics available estimate that about 115,517 abortions in 2010 out of a total Italian population of 60.77 million and a national rate of 8.5 abortions per 1000 women between 18 and 49. 

In 2009, the notorious abortion drug regimen, RU-486, was approved for use in early pregnancies. Italian ambivalence about abortion was demonstrated in 1981 when a national referendum to repeal the law was rejected by nearly 68 per cent of voters and another, that would have removed legal restrictions was rejected by 88.4 per cent.

Marcia per la Vita, Roma organizers have asked for help with advertising expenses. In a media release today, organizers explained that radio spots, posters and newspaper ads have cost a total of around 10,000 Euros. “We ask you to help us according to your abilities, to give our event the biggest impact possible,” they said. 

“The life of a human being is priceless and we will be in the streets to join our voices in defense of innocent human life that is suppressed every day, every minute, in the world and also in Italy!” 

Visit the Marcia per la Vita website for more details on how to donate.

Bishops have a 'duty' to deny pro-abortion politicians Communion, Vatican Cardinal says

In Catholic Voice

To decriminalise abortion is a contradiction of the most fundamental principle of the legal system

...

The 40th anniversary of Roe vs Wade has just passed which legalised abortion in America under the auspices of "health care". Could you comment on the devastation and misery which this has brought to thousands of women and also why abortion is a crime which should never be decriminalised?

The celebration of the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade underlines for the United States of America the incalculable harm which has been done by the legalization of abortion. Abortion has nothing to do with healthcare, the infant in the womb is not a disease but a gift of new human life. Over 50 million lives have been taken since the handing down of Roe vs. Wade, a decision which practically permits the taking of the life of the infant in the womb up to the very moment of birth. It is not possible to comprehend all of the devastation worked by procured abortion on demand during these past forty years. There is, first of all, the devastation of the loss of innocent and defenceless human life in such staggering numbers. At the same time, there is the tremendous suffering of the women who have undergone an abortion and who have come to understand that they have violently taken a new human life conceived in their wombs. To commit abortion is contrary to the deepest being of a woman. The taking of an innocent and defenceless human life can never be right, can never be justified. Therefore, to decriminalize abortion is a contradiction of the most fundamental principle of the legal system, the principle that human life is to be safeguarded and defended at all times. It is clear that, in the United States of America, the decriminalization of abortion has resulted in millions of deaths, in the loss of respect for woman and in the ever greater violence which sadly marks American society today.

The tragic death of Savita Halappanavar has triggered a frenzy amongst abortion activists in a similar way to which deception and lies were used in the case of Norma Jean McCorvey's pregnancy in 1973. What lessons can the Irish government learn from the McCorvey case to prevent the Savita Case becoming Ireland's Roe vs Wade?

The death of Savita Halappanavar is indeed tragic. It is, however, contrary to right reason to hold that an innocent and defenceless human life can be justifiably destroyed in order to save the life of the mother. The Irish people, and especially the Irish government, should be very alert to the kind of argumentation which will be used by the secular media and by secular ideologues, in general, claiming that the destruction of the new human life in her womb could have saved the life of Savita Halappanavar and, therefore, would have been justified. Such an argument is absurd in itself. Even though, if the reports are correct, Savita Halappanavar requested an abortion, her request would not have made it right for the law to permit such an act which is always and everywhere wrong.

Catholic bishops have been criticised for saying that abortion introduces a "culture of death", also some politicians have complained that Pro Life groups have sent them information including images detailing the horror of abortion. They appeal for what they call a "civilised" and calm debate. Is there anything civilised about abortion and does the use of graphic imagery help create awareness of the gravity of the evil which occurs when an abortion is committed?

With regard to the complaint of some about the language of “culture of death,” and also about certain images which portray the horror of abortion, one must observe that we have a habit in society today to use language which helps us to avoid the reality about which we are speaking. Blessed John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter The Gospel of Life, insisted that such evils as abortion and euthanasia must be called by their proper names and not by euphemisms which tend to keep from our consciousness the objective reality of the evil involved (cf. no. 58). Therefore, the use of the language of “culture of death,” is not only accurate, but it is also most helpful, for it draws our attention to the pervasive effect of abortion on demand on society in general. In other words, the practice of abortion on demand leads to multiple forms of violence in the family and also against our fellow citizens who have grown weak, either under advanced years or because of special needs which they have or because of a grave illness.

With regard to the use of graphic images, in the context of the plea for a civilized debate with regard to abortion, certainly one must be careful not to use graphic images for the sake of being graphic. On the other hand, our fellow citizens should know what an abortion actually is. Images of the act of abortion or the results of abortion, when carefully presented to the public, can help the public, in general, to recognize the grave evil which besets us and to take appropriate action.

What is the duty of a Catholic politician when faced with this type of legislation and can there ever be a situation where he may vote for abortion even if he believes it to be restricted?

The duty of a Catholic politician when he is faced with anti-life or anti-family legislation is to support all of those measures which will most reduce the evils which attack human life and the integrity of marriage. Sometimes it is not possible to eliminate at once completely the evil. The Catholic politician cannot vote for any legislation which would confirm the evil or even advance it, but, at the same time, if there is some legislation which will reduce the practice of the evil, he would be justified in supporting that legislation, as long as he also acknowledges the intrinsic evil of the practice involved and the need for his constituency to take appropriate action to eliminate the practice altogether.

It is clear from Canon 915 that abortion is a mortal sin and a collaboration with evil, can those who claim to be Catholic vote for it and remain full members of the Church? Also what is the role of the local bishop with regard to this matter?

With regard to Canon 915, it states that those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin should not be admitted to receive Holy Communion. There can be no question that the practice of abortion is among the gravest of manifest sins and therefore once a Catholic politician has been admonished that he should not come forward to receive Holy Communion, as long as he continues to support legislation which fosters abortion or other intrinsic evils, then he should be refused Holy Communion. In my own experience, when I have informed Catholic politicians who were supporting anti-life or anti-family legislation not to approach to receive Holy Communion, they have understood and have followed the discipline of the Church as it is set forth in Canon 915.

Depending on the situation, the Diocesan Bishop may be involved directly in admonishing the politician, but it is also within the pastoral care of the parish priest to admonish anyone in his congregation who is persisting obstinately in manifest grave sin not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The local Bishop should teach clearly in the matter and also encourage his priests to make sure that the Church’s discipline is observed, in order to avoid the grave sin of sacrilege on the part of the Catholic politician who approaches to receive Holy Communion when he is persisting obstinately in grave moral evil, and to prevent the scandal which is caused when such individuals receive Holy Communion, because their reception of Holy Communion gives the impression that the Church’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion is not firm.

In your book, Divine Love Made Flesh, you explain that Catholics who support abortion legislation should refrain from receiving Holy Communion not only because of the public scandal but also out of love for Our Lord. Could you explain?

In response to the last question, surely the consideration of public scandal must be in the mind of those who approach to receive Holy Communion unworthily. However, at a much deeper level of faith and of personal relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ, a person obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin will refrain from approaching to receive Holy Communion because of his love of our Lord and his sorrow for the grave sin which he is commiting against our Lord and His Holy Church. In fact, it is the recognition of the grave offense against the Lord which will most inspire a conversion of heart in the Catholic politician who publicly supports anti-life or anti-family legislation. One recalls here the words of Saint Paul in chapter 11 of the First Letter to the Corinthians, in which he addressed a situation of the sacrilegious receiving of Holy Communion among the faithful at Corinth, Saint Paul wrote that the person who receives Holy Communion unworthily sins against the Lord and therefore brings about his own condemnation. The passage from the First Letter to the Corinthians reads: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor. 11:27-29).