Burke says he’s not a foe of Francis, but ‘confusion’ needs an answer

[_Abyssinia]

ROME - In a new interview, American Cardinal Raymond Burke has described impressions of a conflict between him and Pope Francis as a “caricature” and depictions of the pontiff as a liberal revolutionary “fundamentally dishonest,” but at the same time insisted that “universally there’s a great deal of confusion” today, with many Catholics wanting “a much stronger presentation of the Church’s doctrine.” Burke spoke in a conversation with Australian Catholic journalist Jordan Grantham, which was published by Catholic Outlook, the news agency of the Diocese of Parramatta in Australia. Burke is one of four cardinals, two of whom have since died, who presented a set of questions, technically known as dubia, to Pope Francis about his document on the family Amoris Laetitia, and specifically, its cautious opening to Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics. In general, the tenor of the dubia suggested the four cardinals found the opening to Communion an unacceptable break with Catholic tradition.

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/09/22/burke-says-hes-not-foe-francis-confusion-needs-answer/

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

This headline alone paints Burke as a petulant child demanding an answer by sounding too big for his britches.

The entire article reeks of catfight and causing trouble.

We expect things to move quickly because we’ve gotten accustomed to it with technology…but a reply could take years…and it’s still fair to let it, even if we can communicate at the speed of light.

 

[pianistclare]

Oh, I don’t think it’s a caricature. I think the struggle is real.
Francis is merciful but firm.
No good will come of this catfight or these accusations against our Pope.

 

[pnewton]

I enjoyed this article, though I would rather have heard the actual interview. There are a couple of thing I do not like that Cardinal Burke has said or done, but I have always admired him. I would have been as happy to call him pope as I am the current Holy Father. I note that Cardinal Burke defends the Holy Father against some of the same slander I have read here.

 

[Brendan]

I didn’t see any accusations about a Pope. I saw questions about a document. Questions are not accusations, and documents are not Popes.

 

[Vadne]

Indeed, questions are not accusations.

 

[commenter]

Burke points out that many powerful people who oppose Catholic teaching inaccurately portray Pope Francis as supporting them. But that inaccurate portrayal has significant negative consequences for people: confusion in decision making, passivity in opposing evils such as abortion, very weak evangelism, and division on a massive scale.

One can argue that Pope Francis is not at fault in causing this problem. But if so, he and his excessively prominent advisers and spokesmen have a positive responsibility to address the current reality of perceived confusion. People are being hurt in 2017 by rampant ambiguity, moral decisions due right now are clouded by press releases, “friends of the pope”, and manipulation of the media. Burke is right about the pope’s need to address that larger problem.

The pope’s defenders can point out obscure statements that he still supports action to end legalization of abortion, and gay marriage, and he does not think those issues unimportant. But the people in the pews don’t see those obscure statements, they see this NON confidential adviser doing press releases that oppose most Catholic Action by bishops, priests and laity.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t think it’s right to use such language as you used, about about a Catholic Bishop.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I don’t think it’s right to use such language as you used, about about a Catholic Bishop.

Read what I wrote before scolding me.

There is a difference between saying he is, and saying how he is being portrayed. In this article Burke is portrayed badly. That’s quite clear to me. It dosn’t mean he is, it simply means that this article makes it look that way.

 

[commenter]

We expect things to move quickly because we’ve gotten accustomed to it with technology…but a reply could take years…and it’s still fair to let it, even if we can communicate at the speed of light.

No, we expect things (i. e. clarification) ought to move quickly because of charity. People are making decisions, this year; decisions about marriage, decisions about whether to embrace the Catholic Faith, decisions about diocesan policy.

Suppose the Vatican decided certain issues related to the sacraments needed to be reevaluated. Ok, a process of discernment can take place. Various drafts are considered, brainstorming occurs, “thinking outside the box” takes place, by a relatively few qualified persons. This could take years. There are no press releases, no guessing about what Footnote 215 really means, no reading between the lines by anti-Catholic media.

Then a definitive statement is issued. This, not the above paragraph, not the brainstorming/guessing/“friends of the pope” books/, no dogma-by-footnote etc, guides Catholic individuals and dioceses right now.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

We expect things to move quickly because we’ve gotten accustomed to it with technology…but a reply could take years…and it’s still fair to let it, even if we can communicate at the speed of light.

No, we expect things (i. e. clarification) ought to move quickly because of charity. People are making decisions, this year; decisions about marriage, decisions about whether to embrace the Catholic Faith, decisions about diocesan policy.

Suppose the Vatican decided certain issues related to the sacraments needed to be reevaluated. Ok, a process of discernment can take place. Various drafts are considered, brainstorming occurs, “thinking outside the box” takes place, by a relatively few qualified persons. This could take years. There are no press releases, no guessing about what Footnote 215 really means, no reading between the lines by anti-Catholic media.

Then a definitive statement is issued. This, not the above paragraph, not the brainstorming/guessing/“friends of the pope” books, etc, guides Catholic individuals and dioceses right now.

No, not really. Just because our society moves faster than it did 100 years ago doesn’t mean that we should not grant our leaders the same amount of time they had in the past.

 

[commenter]

No, not really. Just because our society moves faster than it did 100 years ago doesn’t mean that we should not grant our leaders the same amount of time they had in the past.

The CATHOLIC LEADERS deserve the same amount of time they had in the past. But ambiguous, incomplete catechesis by press release, manipulation by secular media, dogma by footnote, processes are what we have now. Any process that puts the bishops of one nation at odds with the bishops of neighboring nations, or one religious order against another, is divisive. It empowers the leaders of world media corporations.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

No, not really. Just because our society moves faster than it did 100 years ago doesn’t mean that we should not grant our leaders the same amount of time they had in the past.

The LEADERS deserve the same amount of time they had in the past. But ambiguous, incomplete catechesis by press release, manipulation by secular media, dogma by footnote, processes are what we have now. Any process that puts the bishops of one nation at odds with the bishops of neighboring nations, or one religious order against another, is divisive. It empowers the world media corporations.

Are you another one of those people who think that they are owed an answer, pronto? Because I find that rude and rather haughty. If one does not like the Pope’s words, they are free to not act on them. This llama drama over the media skewing things and it being the Pope’s fault is ridiculous.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I did read what you wrote so I don’t know why you assume
I haven’t? I don’t think the language you used is appropriate.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Where is “here”?

 

[irenaeus1]

This headline alone paints Burke as a petulant child demanding an answer by sounding too big for his britches.

The entire article reeks of catfight and causing trouble.

We expect things to move quickly because we’ve gotten accustomed to it with technology…but a reply could take years…and it’s still fair to let it, even if we can communicate at the speed of light.

It took about 40 years for Cardinal Kasper to get his answer after perpetually asking the same question about Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried since the '80’s. The difference was that Cardinal Kasper received an answer of “No” multiples times - that is, until he received his answer of “Yes” in 2015 and 2016 under the current pope.

 

[pianistclare]

Pope Francis is certainly being accused of promoting false doctrine.
From many corners.

 

[Vadne]

Francis’ problem isn’t so much what he actually says…it’s what he lets others of high rank say without correction. He’s perfectly fine when Kasper and friends say outrageous things re: traditional sexual morality…but when Sarah recommends the traditional ad orientem posture of the priest at Mass…he doesn’t let that go.

 

[commenter]

It took about 40 years for Cardinal Kasper to get his answer after perpetually asking the same question about Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried since the '80’s. The difference was that Cardinal Kasper received an answer of “No” multiples times - that is, until he received his answer of “Yes” in 2015 and 2016 under the current pope.

But there has not been a definite “yes” in 2015 or 2016; there has not been a definite anything, including there has not been any refutation of the “no” answers Kasper got previously. I would not assume the definite “no” answers of JP II and Benedict were incomplete responses or defective in some way. Sometimes an answer to prayer and discernment is “no”.

Then again, if the answer now to every question is Relativism, then none of the Vatican’s current statements will hold up or carry any authority long term. If that happens, if relativism wins, then Pope Francis would be the first pope in centuries to leave no permanent mark.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I did read what you wrote so I don’t know why you assume
I haven’t? I don’t think the language you used is appropriate.

I was speaking to how he was being portrayed. He was portrayed poorly and like a petulant child who couldn’t wait for an answer. I am not saying that it is good or right, but how I read the caricature of his actions. I have not said that is how he is, only that is completely how is made to sound. This article portrays him badly…or atleast in my eyes…he was created to look incredibly immature.

Now, that’s not the truth, but that’s how this article reads.