Cardinal Brandmüller, one of the signatories of the “dubia” addressed to the Pope in relation to the “Amoris Laetitia”, has stated that Burke “expressed his own opinion in complete independence” and is apparently convinced he is not making a public step
[Hat-tip to Canon212: “CD. BRANDMULLER: CORRECTION TO FRANCIS WILL BE ‘CAMERA CARITATIS,’ PRIVATE AND UNWRITTEN?!” Sooner or later, “What you have whispered in secret chambers, will be proclaimed on the house-tops.” (Luke 12:3 – Ronald Knox trans.)]
27 December 2016
The last interview in which Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke suggested a “formal correction” of an alleged error the Pope made in his Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” has sparked a heated discussion. By brandishing “formal correction”, an institute that cannot be found in canon law, Burke seemed to be presenting Francis with some form of an ultimatum in light of the five “dubia” over the interpretation of the “Amoris Laetitia”.
In an interview with Vatican Insider, another of the three signatories of the “dubia”, German cardinal Walter Brandmüller, was keen to point out that a potential “fraternal correction” of a point made by the Pope must take place “in camera caritatis”, in other words not in public by means of published acts or written documents . Readers will recall that the five “dubia” regarding the “Amoris Laetitia” were made public just a few days before the final consistory, less than two months after they had been presented.
“The ‘dubia’,” Brandmüller stated, “seek to encourage debate in the Church, as is indeed happening. In his original interview in English (unlike what was reported in Italian media) Cardinal Burke did not specify a deadline but simply responded that we must now focus on Christmas and the issue will be dealt with afterwards.”
Burke “did not say,” Brandmüller was also keen to point out, “that a potential fraternal correction – such as the one quoted in Galatians 2:11-14 must be made publicly”. The passage that was mentioned by the German cardinal is the one from the Letter to the Galatians in which St. Paul describes his disagreement with Peter because the latter wanted to impose Jewish traditions on pagans.
“I believe,” Brandmüller adds, “that Cardinal Burke is convinced that a fraternal correction must in the first instance be made in camera caritatis”. In other words not publicly. “I must say,” he explained, “that the cardinals has expressed his own opinion in complete independence and may of course be shared by the other cardinals too”. Brandmüller thus leads us to believe that in the interviews following the publication of the “dubia”, Burke was not speaking as a spokesman for the four cardinals who signed the document.
The German cardinal concluded by saying: “We cardinals expect a response to the “dubia”, as the lack of a response would be seen by many within the Church as a rejection of the clear and articulate adherence to the clearly defined doctrine.”