2012-09-09
David
Timbs
Burke’s
Law
The
occasion
Cardinal
Raymond Burke, the controversial American Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura,
delivered an August 30 key note address at a convention of the Canon Law
Society in Kenya. [1] The occasion presented him with another opportunity to use
the bully pulpit. The Cardinal repeated some of the main themes which have
become emblematic of his public speeches and interviews over the past few years.
[2]
The
narrative is essentially borrowed from the script of John Paul II’s
pontificate and one which is totally consistent with his career as a bishop. The
framework of Burke’s address is about the ideological and religious
dialectical conflict between the sacred and the secular and the role of Church
law in this oppositional struggle. It’s about culture wars; this he makes
abundantly clear,
“In
addressing the service which canon law provides the Church, I place my
reflections within the context of the present situation of the Church in a
totally secularized culture and the response of the Church to the culture of our
time. The response is a new evangelization. It is my desire to give particular
attention to the state of the Church’s canonical discipline and its
irreplaceable role in the work of the new evangelization.”
The
real message
Despite
Burke’s rather hyperbolic claim that canon law is central to the mission of
the Church, most of his script has nothing at all to do with evangelisation in
the truest sense. He instead
identifies ecclesial mission with an apocalyptic hot war being waged between the
culture of life and the culture of death. Burke and the other highly visible
strategists and apologists in this conflict and apologists are a few prominent,
self-described ‘evangelical’ American bishops. These are the commanders of
the legions of the new Church militant. Victimhood and martyrdom, red or white,
are themes central to the coded dialects they employ. [3]
Burke
also spices his analysis with the current language of an internal conflict
between the historical continuity of Church teaching and the alleged attempt to
bring rupture and dissension to that history.
He sees this internal conflict taking place within a wider parallel
perspective: the divine, eternal order of truth in a state of war with the
antagonistic world of secular humanism, relativism and moral indifferentism. The
program of the New Evangelisation, launched by John Paul II, is designed to turn
the tide in this apocalyptic struggle and claim the victory for Christ. This
narrative has close parallels with the apocalyptic themes of the Essenes’ War
Scroll in which a final decisive battle is waged between the sons of light
against the sons of darkness.
The
blame game
The
Cardinal is convinced that these external forces of evil have infiltrated and
dangerously contaminated ecclesial life and threatened its internal order and
discipline. Prominent among those corrupted and now promoters of this culpable
lawlessness are priests and laity of the post Vat II church. The assertion is
that they are subversive of both Church doctrine and the system of Law designed
to protect and serve it. It’s no wonder that Burke sees the Law as central to
the New Evangelisation.
The
question that Burke does not address in his discourse on “the present
situation of the Church” is why
people might be less attentive to Canon Law in the post Vatican II era than they
ostensibly were before. He does not seem to examine the overwhelming culture of
law, regulations, obligations directives and norms which dominated Catholic life
and popular consciousness before the Council reawakened a larger, a more
authentic and more liberating sense of the faith.
John
XXIII and Paul VI saw the Church as a living People of God, not an organisation
governed and controlled by an elite, privileged and protected authoritarian
clerical bureaucracy.
Cardinal
Burke’s approach to Law strongly reflects that of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic
mentality. Culturally these peoples have been historically been perversely
fascinated with and dominated by the power of laws and regulations. They fear it
and are intimidated by it. A culture of guilt and expectation of punishment is a
near permanent reality. The notions of binding obligation and absolute
compliance have traditionally engendered a sense of guaranteed security on the
one hand and dereliction of personal responsibility on the other. This
psychological world can so easily present Law as the dominator when its
authentic role is to serve and to liberate.
Paradoxically,
Burke’s own repeated attempts to demand compliance and conformity with his
legalistic understanding of doctrine have often backfired on him completely. A
recent example is his criticism of fellow American bishops including Cardinal
Donald Wuerl of Washington DC, who would not bow to pressure from him to refuse
Communion to Catholic public figures who have voted in favour of legislation
abhorrent to him. It may well be that many in the US Bishops Conference were
glad to see him eventually ’kicked upstairs’ to Rome.[4]
A
humanised Law
There
is a story about the Belgian, Card Suenens,
one of the leading so-called progressives at Vatican II, who invited
himself to have an informal chat with Paul VI in 1964. It was Summer recess of
the third session of the Council. Suenens complained to the Pope about the
legalism, obtuseness and obstruction of the Roman Curia. They were using every
legalistic loop-hole and bureaucratic delay they could use to get in the road of
Council business. Paul VI counselled Suenens to relax a little and play them at
their own game. The Pope reminded him of how a flexible and humanised attitude
to law will always subvert Curial legalism,
Do
what you should do
Do
what you can
Do
what you like
Curial
officials have always employed this maxim when dealing with those who know the
coded dialect of the bureaucracy. They also know just how flexible an instrument
the Law can be when faced with the necessity of changing policies and
disciplines without seeming to do so. New Zealand born, Australian canon lawyer,
Humphrey O’Leary CSsR wrote about this process a number of years ago. He
explained that firstly, the law strictly prohibits universally and without
exceptions; secondly, the law allows very limited exceptions but under strict
conditions; thirdly, a far more generalised relaxation of the law is allowed;
fourthly, that which was once completely forbidden is now made mandatory.
Law,
freedom and conscience
One
of the greatest achievements in the Church history is the preservation of
embarrassing and very subversive memories which often stand prophetically over
against the institution and summon it back to its original foundational
authenticity. These, of course, are found in the Church’s written Memory, the Scriptures. Among the most powerful of these depict
Jesus of Nazareth re-interpreting the Law according to the Kingdom standards of
mercy and compassion. Another permanent and powerful reminder to the Church of
the real purpose and function of Law is to be found in the letters of Paul,
particularly Galatians and Romans. Paul, like Jesus, believed and taught that
freedom born out of love not mere compliance or compulsion is at the heart of
Christian discipleship. For both Jesus and Paul, law is an admission of sin and
failure and passive submission to laws and regulations does not constitute the
basis of right relationship.
Later
on in the Christian Tradition, Thomas Aquinas wrote much on the principles of
moral righteousness – right relationship – with God and neighbour. He taught
that this relationship is most authentically expressed not in terms of law and
regulation but through the virtues of faith, hope and love. Repeated habits of
reinforced behaviour do not constitute virtue. Habit is transformed into virtue
only when there is free will. Aquinas wrote on the true nature of this freedom
flowing from an adult conscience,
“Those
who avoid evil, not because it is evil, but because of God’s command, are not
free; but those who avoid evil because it is evil, they are free. Now it is that
which the Holy Spirit brings about, who perfects the interior spirit of humanity
by means of a good habit, such that we do by love what the divine law
prescribes. We are thus said to be free, not because we submit to the divine
law, but because we are prompted by our good habit (Grace) to do what the divine
law ordained.” – Sup II Cor. 3.17, N. 112
Cardinal
Burke continues to propagate a view of the role of law within Church governance
which grates against and largely contradicts not only the teaching of the
Scriptures, the best of theology but also that of the Second Vatican Council.
All of these summon Christians into responsible, mature adulthood. All, by
virtue of their baptismal dignity are called to put on a new creation in Christ,
a new humanity blessed and marked by authentic liberty. All are invited to take,
share and exercise co-responsibility in the life of the Church.
Card.
Raymond Burke, in his communications, acknowledges little or none of this. His
implied ecclesiology is founded on a master-servant relationship, on the giver
of orders and those who blindly obey them. He has a flawed idea of authority
and, along the way, he has distorted the Catholic understanding of conscience.
He demonstrates a highly restrictive notion of law and its role of servant, not
monitor, of the Gospel.
After
his track record of faulty judgments, narrowness of ecclesial vision and an
inadequate grasp of the wider understanding of the faith, it will be an
education to see what awaits him after the next Conclave.
[1]
For the lengthy text of Cardinal Burke’s address in Kenya, click [Here]
For Tom Fox’s commentary on Burke’s reference to clerical child abuse and an
illustration of his poor judgment on the matter, click [Here]
[2]
For the full text of Cardinal Burke’s 11/03/11 Sydney address to the
Australian Catholic Students Association, The
Fall of the Christian West, click [Here]
See also Samuel P. Huntington’s theories on
The Clash of Civilizations (1993) and
The Clash of Civilizations and the
Remaking of World Order (1996). Burke’s paradigm may well be influenced by
this rather heated debate.
[3]
As an example of how the mind of a canon lawyer works, even to the point of
examining the finer points of Church Latin. Canonist Ed Peters defends Burke and
others click [Here]
[4]
For an account of Burke’s rashness and implied criticism of fellow American
bishops over the issue of refusing communion to politicians deemed to be
compromising their Catholic moral principles in relation to abortion, click [Here]
For criticism of Burke’s woeful understanding of the child sexual abuse
scandals, click [Here]
David
Timbs writes from Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
09/09/12