Jesuit chief must be ‘corrected’ for casting doubt on Jesus’ words against divorce: Cardinal Burke

Jesuit chief must be ‘corrected’ for casting doubt on Jesus’ words against divorce: Cardinal Burke

Jesuit superior rejects charges of heresy

Catholic World News – April 10, 2017

Father Arturo Sosa Abascal, the newly elected superior general of the Society of Jesus, has brushed off charges that he engaged in heresy when he questioned the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ teachings on marriage.
In a February interview, Father Sosa had said that Christ’s teaching should be seen as reflecting a particular cultural context, and added that “no one had a tape record to take down his words.” That interview prompted formal complaints that the Jesuit leader had contradicted Catholic doctrine.
“I don’t know why so many people got mad at me,” Father Sosa said in a new interview. He denied that his intent was to undercut the meaning of Jesus’ words. “It’s exactly the opposite,” he said. “When we interpret, it’s to understand better what Jesus said directly.”

[Another correction of another important Church official forthcoming?]

Pete Baklinski

ROME, Italy, April 11, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — It is “completely wrong” for the head of the Jesuit order to suggest that Christians don’t know what Jesus really said about divorce because it wasn’t tape-recorded, said Cardinal Raymond Burke in a new interview.

Such statements are a “serious mistake” that need to be “corrected,” he added.

Cardinal Burke was reacting to statements made earlier this year by the Jesuit’s new Superior General Fr. Arturo Sosa Abascal, who claimed that the words of Jesus against divorce are “relative” and must be “discerned” according to the “conscience” of each individual.

“There would have to be a lot of reflection on what Jesus really said. At that time, no one had a recorder to take down his words. What is known is that the words of Jesus must be contextualized, they are expressed in a language, in a specific setting, they are addressed to someone in particular,” he said in a February interview with Rossoporpora.

Historically, the Superior General of the Jesuits has been dubbed the “Black Pope” because of his influence in the Church.

Sosa Abascal’s interview came nine months after Pope Francis released his controversial Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Dissident prelates have used ambiguous portions of the document to open the door to civilly divorced and remarried Catholics living in adultery — as well as cohabitating Catholic couples living in fornication — to receive Holy Communion.

The Jesuit’s statements caused a backlash from faithful Catholic bloggers, who accused him of relativizing the Bible, of casting doubt on the words of Jesus, and of doctrinal heresy.

Cardinal Burke said in the April 10 interview with InfoVaticana that he could not “understand” how a prominent leader in the Church could make such a mistaken statement.

“This is completely wrong. In fact, I find it incredible that he could make these kinds of statements. They also need to be corrected. It is unreasonable to think that words in the Gospels, which are words that, after centuries of studies, have been understood to be the direct words of Our Lord, are now not the words of Our Lord because they were not tape-recorded. I can’t understand it,” he said.

When the interviewer suggested that Sosa Abascal might have made a “simple mistake,” Burke corrected him.

“It is a serious mistake that needs to be corrected,” he said.

The Cardinal said that it would be the responsibility of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, what he called the “pope’s organ for safeguarding the truth of the faith and morals,” to issue such a correction.

But Sosa Abascal has rejected charges of “relativizing” the words of Jesus in a March 9 interview with Italian news service TGCOM24.

“I don’t know why so many people got mad at me for what I said, which is that in the time of Jesus there were no tape recorders, because it’s the truth,” he said.

He attempted to walk back his earlier controversial statements, saying now that the “words of Jesus must be understood in context, as interpreted, in the ample sense, by the Church.”

George Weigel, writing in The Catholic World Report last month, said Sosa Abascal’s questioning the authenticity of Jesus’ words smacks of Gnosticism.

“Father Sosa insisted that this was not ‘relativism;’ be that as it may, it certainly is Gnosticism, of a distinctly modern form,” he wrote.

The Catholic Church teaches in Dei Verbum: Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation that the authors of Scripture “consigned to writing whatever [God] wanted written, and no more.”

Commented Weigel: “So, no, no one had a tape recorder; the gospel writers had something better – the assistance of the Holy Spirit in preparing texts that included ‘whatever [God] wanted written, and no more.’”

“It has been clear for over two years that the marriage/divorce/holy communion controversy pits those who, with Vatican II, affirm the reality of revelation against those who insist that experience and history judge revelation. We can be grateful to Father Sosa for underscoring this point in an unmistakable way,” he wrote.

Get AQ Email Updates

13 comments on “Jesuit chief must be ‘corrected’ for casting doubt on Jesus’ words against divorce: Cardinal Burke

  1. Küng Fu: Modernism the Legend Continues

    Master Po: What is troubling you, Grasshopper?

    Kwai Chang: I am confused, Master. How can the words of Jesus be questioned by the Father General of the Jesuits?

    Master Po: Strange are the ways of the cycle of karma and maya, Grasshopper.
    If a parrot is caught in a sudden snow storm, where can he go for warmth and shelter?

    Kwai Chang: I cannot know for certain, Master.
    Could he make reservations at a Motel 6 or Holiday Inn?

    Master Po: I hadn’t thought of that, Grasshopper. But not likely.
    Back to the original question: why would a Father General of the Jesuits question the words of Jesus on divorce?

    Spock: Fascinating, Master Po. Perhaps he had read Rudy Bultmann.

    Father Mulcahy, S.J.: There was a scripture professor at the Weston School of Theology who was an advocate of Bultmann’s theories and Modern Biblical Criticism.

    Hans Küng: Ja, ja. I vuz going to say zat.

    Captain Kirk: Is that possible, Mister Spock?

    Spock: Affirmative, Captain. The modernist emphasis on ecumenical dialogue in the 1960s and 1970s led into heretical areas, particularly during the flirtation with Harvard Divinity School and Union Theological Seminary in the 1970s.

    Kwai Chang: Can they do that, Master?

    Ron Burgundy: They can do anything with ecumenical dialogue and the modernist dialectic of the Spirit of Vatican II.

    Father Mulcahy, S.J.: I have seen some unusual Enneagram seminars.

    Kwai Chang: What type of parrot was caught in a snow storm, Master?

    Master Po: There was no time to ask such a question, Grasshopper.

    Master Kan: This is something we must study in more detail before it is time for you to go.

    Ted Baxter: What’s an Enneagram number?

    For Mary Richards, a childless single career woman in 1970s Minneapolis, washing her Ford Mustang while wearing a Fran Tarkenton Minnesota Vikings sweatshirt, as Glenn Frey and the Eagles crooned “Take It Easy” on her 8-track tape player, debates on Rudy Bultmann, Modern Biblical Criticism, the mysteries of Zen, and the progressive modernist obsession with climate change and Enneagram numbers were far from her mind…

    Reverend Neuhaus: That’s my opening…. Forgive me for interrupting again as aggressive and pushy professional Protestant converts sometimes do, but this might be a good time to discuss the Naked Public Square in modernity, Max Weber’s concept of disenchantment in modern culture, and Professor Taylor’s secularization theories…

    Kierkegaard: As long as we get back to a discussion of Angst at some point that should be fine.

    Carol Brady: Mike, I don’t want to interrupt such interesting reading, but I’ve been meaning to tell you that I went off the Pill….

  2. Another classic, Howl! LOL!

  3. Kwai Chang: But Master, if a Maltese cardinal is caught in a snowstorm, who would be the first to help it, a Jesuit or a Franciscan?

    • Cyprian says:

      A Jesuit or a Franciscan?

      A few stories about that:

      1. (I forget the source): A Jesuit and a Franciscan are discussing which is the better order. They continue into the night but cannot resolve their differences. Thus, they decide to leave it up to God and put a note on the altar saying, “Dear God, Which is the better order?”, hoping for an answer by morning. When they return, they find an a reply written at the bottom:

      Reverend Fathers,

      Both of your orders are equally illustrious.

      God, S.J.

      2. (A variation on a relatively well-known story; again source unknown): A man wants to know if it’s morally OK to pray a novena for the success of a lottery ticket that he bought to win a Mercedes-Benz. First, he consults a Franciscan, who asks, “What is a Mercedes-Benz?” Then he sees a Jesuit, who asks, “What’s a novena?”

      3. (Related by the late Farley Clinton, RIP, in an article in Triumph magazine): While visiting Echo Canyon, a Jesuit and a Franciscan get into a heated argument (in Latin) about their orders. The Jesuit yells out a question into the canyon, “Quid est Franciscanorum regula (What is the Franciscan rule)?” The echo comes back, “Gula, gula (Lust, lust)!” The Franciscan does the same, yelling into the canyon, “Diabolus est Jesuita (The devil is a Jesuit)”, and the echo replies “Ita, ita (Yes, yes)!”

  4. Master Po: Ah, Grasshopper, would that be the Franciscans of the Third Order Regular of St. Francis of Penance, the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, the Fraticelli zelanti Spiritual Franciscans of eschatological divine poverty, or the Franciscans of the Order of Friars Minor Conventual ?

    Kwai Chang: I did not realize there were so many, Master. What will the prize be if I can guess correctly?

    Carol Brady: …and, Mike,…I think Jan has gone on the Pill….

    Ted Baxter: Where did this Mr. Gurdjieff meet the Ascended Master who gave him the Enneagram?

    Dick: I get to be the Number 2 or Helper type in Diagnosis: Murder.

    Dick: But I’m still for Bernie Sanders.

    Mel Cooley: Rob! You must not be feeling well. Maybe you should take a nap!

    • Mike Brady: Carol, I’ve been meaning to tell you. I’m not a hetero-normative man, but I play one on TV. I’ll be moving out tomorrow. Since the Church has changed it’s teaching on marriage, we don’t have to pretend anymore.

      Carol Brady: So, that’s why you’ve been hiding behind that book night after night.

  5. Marcia Brady: Oh, my gosh!

    Hans Küng: Who am I to judge?

    Master Po: Perhaps now the beadle of HTML spellcheck can clarify the structure of the race of modernist priests racing to their next Novus Ordo liturgy due to the shortage of priests.

    Father Telemond, S.J.: But if Father Mulcahy is carrying Method in Theology by Bernard Lonergan, S.J. and Father O’Malley is carrying Trojan Horse in the City of God by Dietrich von Hildebrand, what book will I be carrying?

    Father O’Malley: Yes, that is an important question.

    Father Mulcahy, S.J.: Yes. And one we should consider wisely.

    Reverend Neuhaus: Of course, The Benedict Option has been getting a lot of attention lately. On the other hand, Professor Charles Taylor’s work on secularization has some important points on modernity….

    Father Dowling: What about Teilhard de Chardin’s The Phenomenon of Man? After all, he is a modernist.

    Father Telemond, S.J.: Why not both? That way the Augustinian vision of the two cities could be applied eschatologically to the Church in the modern world….

    Cardinal Leone: Perhaps we should remind the Holy Father of the need to address the reform of seminary curriculum? I keep receiving letters from the United States complaining about modernist sermons in the Novus Ordo….

  6. Father Teilhard de Chardin, S.J.: Actually, I was going to suggest The Divine Milieu since we’re getting closer to Easter.

    Father Telemond, S.J.: And, before the typo, I was going to suggest that in that way the Augustinian vision of the two cities could be applied eschatologically to the Church in the modern world….

    Bishop Kiril: The Church primarily teaches a this-worldly doctrine of social justice, roughly equivalent with Marxism.

    George Faber: Well, there you have it. Progressive modernism of 1968.

  7. Abascal: “I don’t know why so many people got mad at me for what I said, which is that in the time of Jesus there were no tape recorders, because it’s the truth.”
    A typical, perverted little Modernist weasel…or a total moron. I don’t think it’s the latter, because he wouldn’t have made it to his position if he didn’t have at least some street smarts.
    That what he said is the truth is a blatant ignoratio elenchi; it’s totally beside the point. Everyone knows it’s the truth. The point is that no one would make that statement unless he were casting doubt on the objective accuracy of the kind of recording devices we *did* have at that time…you know, those things we call books — in this case Sacred Books, the substantial accuracy of which, as Weigel says, is a dogma of Faith.
    Then Abascal steps into the snare he set for himself, because he goes on with more Modernist claptrap:
    “There would have to be a lot of reflection on what Jesus really said. At that time, no one had a recorder to take down his words. What is known is that the words of Jesus must be contextualized, they are expressed in a language, in a specific setting, they are addressed to someone in particular…
    “words of Jesus must be understood in context, as interpreted, in the ample sense, by the Church.”
    Uh, hello Father.
    1) How are we supposed to reflect on, or contextualize, Jesus’ words when we’re not even sure what they were?
    2) And if we can do so, that’s because the Church has already dogmatically assured us that those words are indeed accurately recorded.
    3) And the Church has *already* reflected on, contextualized, and interpreted those words — for 20 centuries. It’s a done deal, Father Weasel. And it was done with the *Church’s* (common) sense, not your ample sense. YOUR personal little preferences about how Scripture should be interpreted are less than irrelevant; they are contemptible.
    I guess, since Fr. Weasel hoisted himself on his own petard, I have to take back what I said about him not being a moron.
    And poor George.
    He actually quotes Vat II to support the objective accuracy of Scripture. There are so many stronger and more certain sources. And that Holy Spirit he talks about, who guided the Sacred Writers…is that the same Spirit as the spirit of Vat II, to which he appeals? Because if so, he has a problem, since that latter spirit is not the one that blew down from heaven upon the Apostles, but is rather the spirit of vacillation, that is itself blown about by every wind of doctrine. It’s that same spirit that Francis keeps invoking to justify his secular humanism. And it can be used to justify the reinterpretation of Scripture in the more “ample” sense desired by the heretic Abascal.
    It’s just another of a thousand examples of how Neo-Con Catholics always fight from a position of weakness.

    • Yes, neocat George is unable to see that the Church’s doctrine on marriage changed with Vatican II and subsequent developments. We Catholics have our own approved forms of birth control and divorce which have no resemblance to Catholic doctrine and practice of preceding centuries. Francis and this apostate Jesuit are just the tip of the iceberg.

  8. Well, until this last day of the most solemn days on the Church calendar, I had been blessed with NOT having to see or hear of George Weigel.

    So much for that!

Leave a Reply