Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, the new ‘John Fisher’

Barbara Kralis conducted an interview recently with Archbishop Burke while he was on vacation and she asked six questions which he answered:

Question:  Dear Archbishop Burke, regarding Cardinal Ratzinger’s June 2004 memorandum, were the contents of the memo made known to you and the other bishops at the Denver meeting?

 

Archbishop Burke:  “It certainly was not made known to me and I do not believe it was given to the other bishops.  Cardinal McCarrick referred to the memorandum.  We were told that, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, the application of the Canon 915 was up to the prudent judgment of each bishop.  The text of the memorandum would have been very helpful at the meeting in Denver.  Knowing now about the memo, I am disappointed it was not given to us at the meeting of the Bishops’ Conference,” said Archbishop Burke.

 

Question:  The Bishops’ Denver Statement reads:

 

“Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action.” 

 

Does this mean that one Bishop can deny Senator John Kerry Holy Communion and another Bishop can give Kerry Communion and both Bishops are correct?

 

Archbishop Burke:  “No, in fact, Canon 915 must be applied.  It does not give an option.  Canon 915 says that those persons who obstinately persist in grave manifest sin must be denied the Eucharist.  I strongly believe that if a bishop has spoken to someone who obstinately persists in grave manifest sin and he still presents himself for Holy Communion, he should be refused.”

 

Question:  Cardinal McCarrick received a letter dated July 9, 2004, from Cardinal Ratzinger saying:

 

“The ‘Statement’ is very much in harmony with the memorandum’s general principles, ‘Worthiness to receive Holy Communion,’ sent as a fraternal service – to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue – in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations.” 

 

Is it your understanding that Cardinal Ratzinger agreed that some ‘ministers of Holy Communion’ should admit John Kerry and that some should not admit him?

 

Archbishop Burke:  “That is not my understanding.” [vi]

 

Question:  In the Denver Statement, the fifth paragraph reads: 

 

“Our obligation as bishops at this time is to teach clearly.” 

 

Can one bishop admit and another bishop not admit?  Is this teaching clearly?  Is it not a contradiction of Canon 915, for one bishop to refuse John Kerry the Eucharist in one diocese and for another bishop to give John Kerry the Eucharist in another diocese?

 

Archbishop Burke:  “Yes, it would be a source of confusion.  I have refused to talk about individual candidates, but when a ‘Catholic’ pro-abortion politician knows the actions he has taken are gravely sinful in a public matter like supporting abortion, the only way to uphold church teaching is to withhold Holy Communion.  It is not right for one ‘minister of Holy Communion’ to give the Eucharist and another not to.”

 

Question:  Is it your understanding that the ‘Task Force’s’ work is completed.  Cardinal Ratzinger’s July 9 letter assumed that the ‘Task Force’ has not decided yet.[vii]

 

Archbishop Burke:  “I understood from the meeting that the work of the ‘Task Force’ was not completed and we would be given another report at our November 2004 meeting.  I do not know if there will be another vote.  Normally there is a vote to accept and not to accept.”

 

Question:  What can you tell us now about the ‘Note Bene’ statement of Cardinal Ratzinger’s at the end of his June memorandum?  In it, he states that ‘proportionalism’ or voting for ‘the lesser of two evils’ is acceptable.  Do you think it is possible to end abortion by always voting for the lesser evil candidate?  How would this apply to Pope Paul VI who stated? 

 

“Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it [viii]—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.” [ix]

 

Archbishop Burke:  “It is clear that the Catholic voter has to be opposed to procured abortion.  Anybody who votes for a candidate who supports or favors procured abortion because the candidate favors procured abortion cooperates in evil.[x]

 

“A host of considerations enter in the decision to vote for a particular candidate.  The voter must be opposed to procured abortion and do everything as a voter to decrease the evil of abortion and eliminate it.

 

“If the Catholic voter votes for a candidate who is in favor of procured abortion, while the voter is clearly opposed to it, there must be some serious reason to justify such a vote.

 

“As Cardinal Ratzinger said, in his June memorandum, such a vote is ‘remote material cooperation,’ which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. 

 

His position is not proportionalism, for the voter remains steadfastly opposed to procured abortion and works to eliminate abortion in society and its protection by the law.”

 

Question:  Thank you very much for granting this interview.

 

Archbishop Burke:  You are welcome, and please pray for me.

Complete article here.