Cardinal Burke for Pope!

[thunderboom]

I wouldn’t mind Cdl. Dolan, but he needs to do less waving of the U.S. Constitution in people’s faces.

At this point in time, it’s good that a Catholic bishop is waving the Constitution in people’s faces - because no one else even cares about it any more.

 

[MikeInFlorida]

An American is as suitable to be pope as anyone else. The “perception” of the rest of the world is unfortunate and often incorrect.

Cardinal Burke comes to mind as a pope for the good of the Catholic Church - which is his first responsibility. For all the talk about the desired “attributes” for a pope, how about simply insisting the pope be CATHOLIC and willing and able to insist that those who call themselves Catholic be CATHOLIC. Cardinal Burke is CATHOLIC and he is a CATHOLIC leader.

As simplistic as this sounds, how can the Catholic Church proceed with relevance as the legitimate Body of Christ without its members unified in the teachings and precepts of the One True Church? The truths of the Catholic faith aren’t negotiable, and those unwilling or unable to accept them, as a matter of their free will, should perhaps look elsewhere.

This isn’t to be uncharitable, but Catholic dissenters persisting in their dissent, should not expect the continued benefits of the Church they contradict.

The Church is here to help the sinners, not the heretics.

 

[llenadegracia]

I agree, and I think most people would agree with what you said.

I don’t think it’s necessarily the “perception of the world” so much as it is “the perception of the Church/Catholics throughout the World”

The Lord will do His work during this upcoming conclave and we will have a new pontiff. He is truly wonderful for giving us such a beautiful structure of His Church!

 

[Mariem2]

I see nothing wrong with having an American pope. Don’t know anything about Cardinal Burke, but I saw Cardinal O’Malley on TV and I thought we could do a lot worse than him. He’s also a Cappuchin which is a huge plus point with me.

I’m sure the people from the Philippines must be wondering why there hasn’t been a pope from their country. South Americans must think it’s their turn too. And what about Catholics in Muslim countries? Imagine the boost it would give them to have a pope who knows what being a Catholic is like for them.

Seriously, though, maybe you Americans should be careful what you wish for. Do you really want a pope from the US? The anti-Catholic (or should that be anti-Christian?) crowd in the Obama camp would take every opportunity they could to belittle him. Add to that the down home Catholic hating fundamentalists calling him the Anti-Christ, and life could get very uncomfortable for you.

 

[MikeInFlorida]

I see nothing wrong with having an American pope. Don’t know anything about Cardinal Burke, but I saw Cardinal O’Malley on TV and I thought we could do a lot worse than him. He’s also a Cappuchin which is a huge plus point with me.

I’m sure the people from the Philippines must be wondering why there hasn’t been a pope from their country. South Americans must think it’s their turn too. And what about Catholics in Muslim countries? Imagine the boost it would give them to have a pope who knows what being a Catholic is like for them.

Seriously, though, maybe you Americans should be careful what you wish for. Do you really want a pope from the US? The anti-Catholic (or should that be anti-Christian?) crowd in the Obama camp would take every opportunity they could to belittle him. Add to that the down home Catholic hating fundamentalists calling him the Anti-Christ, and life could get very uncomfortable for you.

Let the Obama camp do as they wish. Maybe it will be somewhat uncomfortable. So what?
This is about refocusing on the TRUTH and asserting it. The truth will always be belittled and challenged by those immoral and ungodly. That’s the way it is, discomfort or not.

 

[ProVobis]

At this point in time, it’s good that a Catholic bishop is waving the Constitution in people’s faces - because no one else even cares about it any more.

Not that it should matter, but the U.S. was not very accepting of Cathoics when the Constitution was written. Just saying.

 

[MikeInFlorida]

Not that it should matter, but the U.S. was not very accepting of Cathoics when the Constitution was written. Just saying.

Correct, but this isn’t about America; it’s about the universal Catholic Church. The Church needs a leader who insists Catholics everywhere on earth believe and act like Catholics.

 

[ProVobis]

Correct, but this isn’t about America; it’s about the universal Catholic Church. The Church needs a leader who insists Catholics everywhere on earth believe and act like Catholics.

It always has.

 

[devoutchristian]

At this point in time, it’s good that a Catholic bishop is waving the Constitution in people’s faces - because no one else even cares about it any more.

Perhaps he should be championing the Divine law, rather than a document that was based on the principles of the endarkenment.

 

[JReducation]

Correct, but this isn’t about America; it’s about the universal Catholic Church. The Church needs a leader who insists Catholics everywhere on earth believe and act like Catholics.

I agree that there are many Catholics who need to have their ears boxed as my mom would say. Having said that I have questions.

1. Are you saying that the recent popes have not tried to lead Catholics?
2. How would the popes enforce this thing that they insist? Popes have no temporal power and excommunication is only allowed for seven offenses, one of which rarely happens.
3. How can one force people to believe without violating human rights?
4. Is it the pope’s jot to insist or to invite? If we look at Peter’s letters, he uses persuasion, not insistence. People like to use Paul in this situation, but it’s not fair to do so. Paul was never pope. He was a bishop ranting to this Churches and he still could not get them to tow the line.
5. What do you know about Church government that the popes don’t?

It frightens me to think that we often expect the pope to be Super Man.

 

[MikeInFlorida]

I agree that there are many Catholics who need to have their ears boxed as my mom would say. Having said that I have questions.

1. Are you saying that the recent popes have not tried to lead Catholics?
2. How would the popes enforce this thing that they insist? Popes have no temporal power and excommunication is only allowed for seven offenses, one of which rarely happens.
3. How can one force people to believe without violating human rights?
4. Is it the pope’s jot to insist or to invite? If we look at Peter’s letters, he uses persuasion, not insistence. People like to use Paul in this situation, but it’s not fair to do so. Paul was never pope. He was a bishop ranting to this Churches and he still could not get them to tow the line.
5. What do you know about Church government that the popes don’t?

It frightens me to think that we often expect the pope to be Super Man.

No one expects popes to be Super Man, and no suggestion was made to “force” anyone to believe anything.

The expectation is that those who FREELY choose to DISSENT from Catholic teaching, despite the charitable persuasion of the Church, are not continued to be regarded as in communion with the Church. Certainly it’s not unreasonable to reject the scandal they give.

Bishops should be charged to act accordingly on such vocal dissidents with the full support of the Vatican.

The recent popes have indeed tried to lead Catholics. That’s not the issue. The issue is those, clergy and laity, who actively reject and dissent from Catholic teaching, and the remaining clergy and faithful who should not be expected to live amongst the scandal they give.

 

[thunderboom]

Perhaps he should be championing the Divine law, rather than a document that was based on the principles of the endarkenment.

Last time I checked, the Constitution is based on the natural law, so your statement makes no sense.

 

[JReducation]

No one expects popes to be Super Man, and no suggestion was made to “force” anyone to believe anything.

The expectation is that those who FREELY choose to DISSENT from Catholic teaching, despite the charitable persuasion of the Church, are not continued to be regarded as in communion with the Church. Certainly it’s not unreasonable to reject the scandal they give.

Bishops should be charged to act accordingly on such vocal dissidents with the full support of the Vatican.

The recent popes have indeed tried to lead Catholics. That’s not the issue. The issue is those, clergy and laity, who actively reject and dissent from Catholic teaching, and the remaining clergy and faithful who should not be expected to live amongst the scandal they give.

The red is mine.

This is where you’re going to run into legal problems. There are degrees of communion. The furthest, of course, is excommunication. Unless the pope excommunicates someone or some group, there are only seven reasons in the law under which one incurs an automatic excommunication. Dissent is not one of them.

The next level would be an irregular state, such as that of the SSSPX. That particular situation is reserved for a grave level of dissent that does not warrant an excommunication, but where the dissent is grave enough to merit the denial of a canonical place in the Church. That law is already in place and there are people in that state. The SSPX is not alone.

The level beneath this would be a situation such as Fr. Hans Kung. In this situation the dissent warrants a penalty, because the person is not in communion with the Church on very specific points. However, the person has not committed a canonical crime as is Fr. Kung’s case. The man has never committed a crime. The most that can happen is to be censured. Which he has been. He’s not alone in that state. There are others who never get much press around here or who have been forgotten.

The lowest level where the person is not in communion with the Church would be on morals issues, such as a divorced and remarried person, an active gay Catholic, a couple that use artificial birth control, a priest who sins against chastity and other grave sins that don’t warrant an excommunication, but they separate the person spiritually at a certain level that is not visible to us. That’s already in place in the law of the Church.

There is nothing more that can be added to the law and there are no more consequences available to the Church. Unless . . . as I said, the pope excommunicates. The pope can excommunicate because he doesn’t like the color of your toothbrush. It has happened in the past. Look at all of the monarchs who have been excommunicated because they would not align themselves with the papacy on political matters. They were not sinning. They were simply on different political sides. The popes excommunicated them and the excommunication stuck until it was lifted.

There is a danger in overusing this medicine. Something that is overused can become so common that it is no longer effective.

Other than what is already in place, the pope would have to come up with something that no one has thought of yet or begin to excommunicate as a matter of course. That’s a dangerous path, because it can lose credibility.

If anyone on CAF has an idea that has not occurred to the popes, the Vatican would be interested in hearing about it. But it has to be one that promises to work, does not violate human rights, is not an overkill, and does not do more harm than good. There are times when one has to avoid a greater evil by doing less. Trust me, I’m not a pope, but I’m a superior. It’s not that easy being in authority in the Church . . . at any level.

 

[devoutchristian]

Last time I checked, the Constitution is based on the natural law, so your statement makes no sense.

The constitution is based on the principles of the endarkenment (secularism and the like) which are contrary to the moral law.

 

[MikeInFlorida]

The red is mine.

This is where you’re going to run into legal problems. There are degrees of communion. The furthest, of course, is excommunication. Unless the pope excommunicates someone or some group, there are only seven reasons in the law under which one incurs an automatic excommunication. Dissent is not one of them.

The next level would be an irregular state, such as that of the SSSPX. That particular situation is reserved for a grave level of dissent that does not warrant an excommunication, but where the dissent is grave enough to merit the denial of a canonical place in the Church. That law is already in place and there are people in that state. The SSPX is not alone.

The level beneath this would be a situation such as Fr. Hans Kung. In this situation the dissent warrants a penalty, because the person is not in communion with the Church on very specific points. However, the person has not committed a canonical crime as is Fr. Kung’s case. The man has never committed a crime. The most that can happen is to be censured. Which he has been. He’s not alone in that state. There are others who never get much press around here or who have been forgotten.

The lowest level where the person is not in communion with the Church would be on morals issues, such as a divorced and remarried person, an active gay Catholic, a couple that use artificial birth control, a priest who sins against chastity and other grave sins that don’t warrant an excommunication, but they separate the person spiritually at a certain level that is not visible to us. That’s already in place in the law of the Church.

There is nothing more that can be added to the law and there are no more consequences available to the Church. Unless . . . as I said, the pope excommunicates. The pope can excommunicate because he doesn’t like the color of your toothbrush. It has happened in the past. Look at all of the monarchs who have been excommunicated because they would not align themselves with the papacy on political matters. They were not sinning. They were simply on different political sides. The popes excommunicated them and the excommunication stuck until it was lifted.

There is a danger in overusing this medicine. Something that is overused can become so common that it is no longer effective.

Other than what is already in place, the pope would have to come up with something that no one has thought of yet or begin to excommunicate as a matter of course. That’s a dangerous path, because it can lose credibility.

If anyone on CAF has an idea that has not occurred to the popes, the Vatican would be interested in hearing about it. But it has to be one that promises to work, does not violate human rights, is not an overkill, and does not do more harm than good. There are times when one has to avoid a greater evil by doing less. Trust me, I’m not a pope, but I’m a superior. It’s not that easy being in authority in the Church . . . at any level.

With due respect, you seem to be complicating a fairly simple line of thought. The average local circumstances I refer to don’t require a complex thought matrix or talk of excommunication.

I refer to the well documented actions of Raymond Burke as Bishop of LaCrosse and Archbishop of St. Louis. Read them, they are easy to find even on his Wikipedia page. He acted, as a Bishop, swiftly and appropriately on local individuals whose conduct was openly contrary to Catholic teaching and gave needless scandal to local faithful Catholics of his diocese. What is complicated about that? This isn’t an SSPX level circumstance and most aren’t.

Also, Canon Law provides ample authority to address many problems presenting themselves at the diocesan level. Read the opinion of Burke (who is a J. C. D. canon lawyer) about using Canon 915 on Catholic politicians who are openly and publicly defiant of Catholic teaching.

 

[JReducation]

With due respect, you seem to be complicating a fairly simple line of thought. The average local circumstances I refer to don’t require a complex thought matrix or talk of excommunication.

I refer to the well documented actions of Raymond Burke as Bishop of LaCrosse and Archbishop of St. Louis. Read them, they are easy to find even on his Wikipedia page. He acted, as a Bishop, swiftly and appropriately on local individuals whose conduct was openly contrary to Catholic teaching and gave needless scandal to local faithful Catholics of his diocese. What is complicated about that? This isn’t an SSPX level circumstance and most aren’t.

Also, Canon Law provides ample authority to address many problems presenting themselves at the diocesan level. Read the opinion of Burke (who is a J. C. D. canon lawyer) about using Canon 915 on Catholic politicians who are openly and publicly defiant of Catholic teaching.

There is no need to get snippy. I’m not the enemy here.

Now, having said this, what Cardinal Burke did in his diocese is not heroic or isolated. Other ordinaries have done similar or the same and others have not. Each bishop is the head of a local Church that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome. These local Churches are not subordinate to each other. Therefore, no two bishops have to operate the same way all of the time.

Therefore my point is still valid. There are degrees of communion and the local bishop must determine what is the best course of action in each situation. The law does not demand that any bishop govern his Church contrary to his conscience. The law does expect each bishop to use prudential judgment. He must decide what is or is not appropriate in each situation.

There are going to be differences in the way that the bishops manage the same situation, because the bishops are not clones; because the law does not bind them as rigidly as we think it does; because the bishop’s judgment of the situation may be different from his counterpart in another diocese; because no one except the pope can tell a bishop to act differently.

Popes don’t make it a habit of sticking their noses into the dioceses. That would be micromanaging. Micromanagement violates two fundamental principles of the episcopate: collegiality and subsidiarity.

 

[Rocky24]

If Cardinal Raymond Burke were to become Pope, you would expect the modernist crowd to start packing immediately. Ah, the taste of victory would be so sweet! Imagine a Pontifical High Mass being celebrated in St. Peter’s by the Pope for the first time in years! Cardinal Burke would carry on the restoration of the liturgy just like His Holiness Benedict XVI did.
But in the end, it’s the Holy Spirit who chooses the next pope.
Veni Sancte Spiritus!

 

[Cat]

With due respect, you seem to be complicating a fairly simple line of thought. The average local circumstances I refer to don’t require a complex thought matrix or talk of excommunication.

I refer to the well documented actions of Raymond Burke as Bishop of LaCrosse and Archbishop of St. Louis. Read them, they are easy to find even on his Wikipedia page. He acted, as a Bishop, swiftly and appropriately on local individuals whose conduct was openly contrary to Catholic teaching and gave needless scandal to local faithful Catholics of his diocese. What is complicated about that? This isn’t an SSPX level circumstance and most aren’t.

Also, Canon Law provides ample authority to address many problems presenting themselves at the diocesan level. Read the opinion of Burke (who is a J. C. D. canon lawyer) about using Canon 915 on Catholic politicians who are openly and publicly defiant of Catholic teaching.

I personally think that the actions of a high church official; e.g., the Pope, would have little effect on recalcitrant Catholics in high political positions. Rep. Pelosi and others like her do not recognize the authority of the clergy, including the Pope, and would not submit to that authority.

I think what would be most effective in bringing about change in Rep. Pelosi and others like her is an outcry from all the Catholics in the pews in the U.S. After all, politicians thrive only when they receive adulation and votes.

But for some reason, probably because rank-and-file Catholics in the U.S. think that they don’t have to submit to the authority of the Church and the bishops, and think they can undermine the authority of these men by constantly criticizing their actions, around 50% or more of Catholics continue to vote for Rep. Pelosi and others just like her.

I heard on The Chris Matthews Show yesterday that the only people in the U.S. who are still holding out against gay marriage are the Evangelical Protestants. The various guests on the show smugly insisted that even though they were Catholic, they believed in gay marriage. They cited stats that demonstrate that the majority of Roman Catholics in the U.S. are in favor of gay marriage!

So perhaps it’s the rank-and-file Catholics in the U.S. (people like you and me), rather than our political leaders, who need a really good slapping by the Holy Father.

Just remember that God is still on the throne, and those who oppose Him and disobey His commands will one day face Him in judgement and be required to give an account for their actions and choices. Read the Psalms and be comforted.

 

[Brendan]

1. How would the popes enforce this thing that they insist? Popes have no temporal power and excommunication is only allowed for seven offenses, one of which rarely happens…

I do understand what you are saying in your post overall, but, as you are well aware, the Pope can excommunicate whomever he wants simply by stating that the excommunication has occurred.

There are no circumstances where he is not ‘allowed’ to execute this facet of his ministry in regards to one of the Catholic faithful.

I do know that this was almost certainly a phrasing that you did not mean, but I wanted to make sure that it was clarified for the sake of all who are reading this thread.

 

[october_baby]

I have heard nothing but good things about Cardinal Burke, I hope he becomes Pope!