Conservative dissent is brewing inside the Vatican

[commenter]

Much of the problem is related to style. I don’t know how much of this is nationality, how much is spirituality (including Jesuit training), and how much is individual personality.

Pope Benedict would give a lecture. He would, privately, gather information from many viewpoints, and many people, in advance. He would weigh the options - privately - then present, in public, the conclusion.

Pope Francis is giving a seminar. In public, he seeks every viewpoint to be aired. He may even summarize some of those controversial views aloud, to clarify “Am I hearing you right?” He may even weigh, aloud, the views of different people, including even non Catholics or secularists. Then he follows up - not necessarily that day - with a conclusion. All his conclusions have been totally orthodox.

In other words, Francis talks in public far more than Benedict. When he is quoted, the media does not always tell you what part of the process this is coming from. If the media were fair, this is attractive to people because they can see the Church is not arbitrarily inventing dogmas, there is a deep logic going on here. But if the media is not fair, it puts the Church’s credibility at risk long term, because he is so easy to misquote, or to quote out of context. The people don’t usually hear the conclusion, thoroughly orthodox. They do hear the controversial comments he either elicits from people, or even repeats himself.

The problem is that his style makes it easy for the media to drive an imaginary wedge between Francis and his predecessor, and between Francis and his (likely type of) successor. Something like this happened after Pope John XXIII died. He was painted up to be radically different, more loving, less doctrinal, and totally different from his successors. In the future, the secularists will paint a mostly false Francis to undermine his successor. They will say he was an unsuccessful hero, but later right wingers recaptured the Vatican, and dogma and bureaucracy replaced love and tolerance.

 

[Thomas_White]

The image the media, or at least some elements of it, portray of Pope Francis surely has resulted in a common misperception of him. There is a much clearer understanding of the pope in several good biographies as well as in his own writings. In the short address Pope Francis gave to the conclave that would soon elect him the next pope, he said there was a crisis in the Church, particulary in Europe, and that he believes it is the result of clericalism. The conclave of Cardinals heard him, and we know the result. Do Catholics not believe this result was by the Holy Spirit?

What is reportedly transpiring in the Curia is surely a resistance to the change necessary to address this issue, and it could also fairly be said to concern the tension that always exists between academic theology and pastoral needs and concerns. This was recently described by Cardinal Kasper, who is likely the most respected dogmatic theologian in the Church today. He is also highly respected by Pope Francis. But he has recently been criticised, sometimes harshly, on another thread on this forum, in comments not providing even one single word of explanation. This is rhetoric. It is clear in those comments that there is little or no understanding of the complexity of the issues involved and just as clearly that many have not read the Cardinal’s book on Mercy. It is unfortunate that this criticism is directed toward a Cardinal who does know what he is talking about when those so critical of him clearly do not. The same could fairly be said about many critical comments concerning Laudato Si. Suffice it to say, the encyclical concerns ethics and spirituality and not AGW. That criticism is only political.

Pope Francis’s focus is on spirituality. This does not invariably include an obsessive concern about several issues that are part of the cultural wars in the U.S. These issues have become political, but the Catholic teaching about these few issues has been very clear for a long, long time. Pope Francis wants to be informed not only of the views of the conservative members of the Curia, which he already knows, but also the concerns of the Catholics of a Church (and a world) he sees in serious crisis. To construe this to mean that this “ends up in blatantly rejecting and walking away from that kingdom in a revised mission statement supposedly coming from the people” is unfortunate, as though this possibly could be the intention of Pope Francis. If one understood what this is about, such rhetoric would not be the result. I trust the very learned spiritual leaders of the Church to sort this out.

 

[pnewton]

This was recently described by Cardinal Kasper, who is likely the most respected dogmatic theologian in the Church today. He is also highly respected by Pope Francis. But he has recently been criticised, sometimes harshly, on another thread on this forum, in comments not providing even one single word of explanation. This is rhetoric. It is clear in those comments that there is little or no understanding of the complexity of the issues involved and just as clearly that many have not read the Cardinal’s book on Mercy. It is unfortunate that this criticism is directed toward a Cardinal who does know what he is talking about when those so critical of him clearly do not…

Before I read your post, as I was catching up on this thread, I was thinking something similar.

While I may not agree with all that he has said, I never once read anything that is outside of acceptable Catholic understanding. He understands nuances that simply do not fit our bumper-sticker mentality, specifically, the difference between Church doctrine and Church practice, and the relationship between the two. Now those other theologians that do no agree with him surely understand this. We are reading just the headlines and conclusions and picking sides.

I have tried to address just one of the issues that I understand some of this and have found that in this area, most of what is said does not even acknowledge this difference between practice and doctrine, much less understand the relationship. Too much of the discussion devolves into nothing but straw, arguing facts of doctrine which are not questioned (like the permanence of marriage) and ignoring the multiple ways a doctrine can be put into practice. I usually have to bail on once all the points are made.

I know we all like to discuss these issues. Maybe it is a hobby. For people like Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Kaspar, it is something they care about deeply as faithful shepherds. For people like Edward Peters and the staff here at CA, it is their vocation. For our part, I hope we can keep it in perspective that we really are not responsible to be the mouth piece of God to every Catholic. I recall the words of Jesus, some of his last words, when speaking to Peter.

So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!”

In the end, we can cross the line of being overly focused on how God is working in the lives of others.

 

[WillyAL]

In addition to being “a prince of the Church,” Burke is also a politician. One who recently lost some of his political clout. He’s not happy about it and not happy with the guy who took it from him. He’s just venting a bit.

 

[pnewton]

In addition to being “a prince of the Church,” Burke is also a politician. One who recently lost some of his political clout. He’s not happy about it and not happy with the guy who took it from him. He’s just venting a bit.

I do not remember him making any such statement. Did Cardinal Burke tell you his mood, or can you show us were he said he was unhappy with Pope Francis for transferring him?

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

In addition to being “a prince of the Church,” Burke is also a politician. One who recently lost some of his political clout. He’s not happy about it and not happy with the guy who took it from him. He’s just venting a bit.

Being appointed as the Pastoral Head of one of the largest religious orders in the world is hardly a “demotion”, and Cardinal Burke has never stated he considers it as such.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

“We have a serious issue right now, a very alarming situation where Catholic priests and bishops are saying and doing things that are against what the church teaches, talking about same-sex unions, about Communion for those who are living in adultery,” the official said. “And yet the pope does nothing to silence them. So the inference is that this is what the pope wants.”

If you read the entire article you will see this quote, and frankly this is the heart of the problem. Additionally, I think that we should stop blaming the media and recognize that there is a very real and deep divide right now.

Speaking of blaming the media Time Magazine admitted that they had censored what Pope Francis said in the article they wrote about him after being called out about incorrect quoting. Pope Francis referred to abortion as killing babies and the Times thought that language was too controversial. Let’s keep blaming the media when their agenda is clearly showing.

 

[Inquiringperson]

I find Burke confusing. On the one hand Burke is ready to resist liberal changes but on the other hand he says the Pope can’t change doctrine or teaching anyway. So I don’t get what Burke is ready for.

I think Cardinal Burke was referring to a hypothetical situation, and then his comment got misrepresented. From an NCRegister article:

Cardinal Burke, in the debate that preceded and followed the first synod on the family, some of your statements did sound like criticisms of the Pope, or at least that is how they were interpreted. For example, quite a stir was caused by your recent remark, “I will resist; I’ll resist,” as a response to a possible decision of the Pope to grant Communion to the divorced and remarried.

That comment was misrepresented, and there was no reference to Pope Francis. I believe that because I have always spoken very clearly on the issue of marriage and the family, there are people who want to undermine what I say by depicting me as an enemy of the Pope or even ready for a schism by using that answer I gave in an interview with a French television channel.

How should we interpret that answer?

Quite simply. The journalist asked me what I would do if, hypothetically, not referring to Pope Francis, a pontiff were to make decisions contrary to the Church’s doctrine and practice. I replied I should resist, because we are all in the service of the truth, starting with the Pope. The Church is not a political body, in the sense of power. The power is Jesus Christ and his Gospel. Therefore, I replied I would resist, and it would not be the first time that this has happened in the Church. There have been several moments in history where someone had to stand up to the pope, beginning with St. Paul against St. Peter, in the matter of Judaizers who wanted to impose circumcision on the converted Greeks. In my case, I am not resisting Pope Francis at all because he hasn’t done anything against the doctrine. Nor do I see myself in a fight against the Pope, as they try to depict me. I’m not pursuing the interests of a group or party. I am simply trying, as a cardinal, to be a teacher of the faith.

Also, I think the media is just trying to manufacture drama between Pope Francis and Cardinal Burke. From an interview with Pope Francis from La Nacion:

A conservative sector in the US thinks that you removed the North American cardinal Raymond Leo Burke from the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura because he was the leader of a group that resisted changes of any type in the synod of bishops… Is it true?

• One day Cardinal Burke asked me what he would be doing as he had still not been confirmed in his position, in the legal sector, but rather had been confirmed “donec alitur provideatur”. And I answered “Give me some time because we are thinking of a legal restructuring of the G9”. I told him nothing had been done about it yet and that it was being considered. After that the issue of the Order of Malta cropped up and we needed a smart American who would know how to get around and I thought of him for that position. I suggested this to him long before the synod. I said to him “This will take place after the synod because I want you to participate in the synod as Dicastery Head”. As the chaplain of Malta he wouldn´t have been able to be present. He thanked me in very good terms and accepted my offer, I even think he liked it. Because he is a man that gets around a lot, he does a lot of travelling and would surely be busy there. It is therefore not true that I removed him because of how he had behaved in the synod.

I’m not sure whether the media in the US manufactures this drama because they have an agenda, or if they don’t understand the Catholic Church since their specialty is in American politics, or if they’re just trying to make money, or if it’s all of these reasons.

 

[Thomas_White]

It would seem Pope Francis has encouraged the open discussion of these issues and is not likely to suppress its discussion. If there is dissent or even a division within the Church, there are those who think it needs to be brought into the open and discussed. This cannot be accomplished by silencing anyone, and certainly not Cardinals, Bishops and members of the Roman Curia. That the media is in instances imposing its own agenda, or perhaps does not understand what is occurring in reporting on this discussion or particular events associated with it is unfortunate, but it would seem the best way to counter-act this would be to find out why Pope Francis is allowing this to occur. It is there to learn. It would then be fair to question in a charitable way whether this is a wise approach.

 

[commenter]

It would seem Pope Francis has encouraged the open discussion of these issues and is not likely to suppress its discussion. If there is dissent or even a division within the Church, there are those who think it needs to be brought into the open and discussed. This cannot be accomplished by silencing anyone, and certainly not Cardinals, Bishops and members of the Roman Curia. That the media is in instances imposing its own agenda, or perhaps does not understand what is occurring in reporting on this discussion or particular events associated with it is unfortunate, but it would seem the best way to counter-act this would be to find out why Pope Francis is allowing this to occur. It is there to learn. It would then be fair to question in a charitable way whether this is a wise approach.

The media creates a story. Then the media covers the “story”. Then the media wonders aloud why the pope is failing to respond to their “story”, which the Media may now raise to the level of a “crisis”. If the pope fails to respond to the media’s “story”, they call the pope fearful/neglectful/minimizing or whatever. If the pope take actions somewhat related to their “story”, they claim the pope actions are “silencing”/“censorship”/“too little too late”/whatever. They go to one cardinal to ask 50 questions, to elicit a few juicy responses. Then they go to another cardinal, do the same thing, “what do you think about this bit of what the other cardinal said?”

This is called “divide and conquer”.

 

[clem456]

The media creates a story. Then the media covers the “story”. Then the media wonders aloud why the pope is failing to respond to their “story”, which the Media may now raise to the level of a “crisis”. If the pope fails to respond to the media’s “story”, they call the pope fearful/neglectful/minimizing or whatever. If the pope take actions somewhat related to their “story”, they claim the pope actions are “silencing”/“censorship”/“too little too late”/whatever. They go to one cardinal to ask 50 questions, to elicit a few juicy responses. Then they go to another cardinal, do the same thing, “what do you think about this bit of what the other cardinal said?”

This is called “divide and conquer”.

It’s also called deception.
Controversy is created over mere speculation. The controversy becomes a cheap manufactured reality. It’s not true, it’s merely interesting and titillating.

 

[FollowChrist34]

By Anthony Faiola September 7 at 7:33 PM Follow @Anthony_Faiola

VATICAN CITY — On a sunny morning earlier this year, a camera crew entered a well-appointed apartment just outside the 9th-century gates of Vatican City. Pristinely dressed in the black robes and scarlet sash of the princes of the Roman Catholic Church, the Wisconsin-born Cardinal Raymond Burke sat in his elaborately upholstered armchair and appeared to issue a warning to Pope Francis.

A staunch conservative and Vatican bureaucrat, Burke had been demoted by the pope a few months earlier, but it did not take the fight out of him. Francis had been backing a more inclusive era, giving space to progressive voices on divorced Catholics as well as gays and lesbians. In front of the camera, Burke said he would “resist” liberal changes — and seemed to caution Francis about the limits of his authority. “One must be very attentive regarding the power of the pope,” Burke told the French news crew.

Papal power, Burke warned, “is not absolute.” He added, “The pope does not have the power to change teaching [or] doctrine.”

Burke’s words belied a growing sense of alarm among strict conservatives, exposing what is fast emerging as a culture war over Francis’s papacy and the powerful hierarchy that governs the Roman Catholic Church.

This month, Francis makes his first trip to the United States at a time when his progressive allies are heralding him as a revolutionary, a man who only last week broadened the power of priests to forgive women who commit what Catholic teachings call the “mortal sin” of abortion during his newly declared “year of mercy” starting in December. On Sunday, he called for “every” Catholic parish in Europe to offer shelter to one refugee family from the thousands of asylum-seekers risking all to escape war-torn Syria and other pockets of conflict and poverty.

Yet as he upends church convention, Francis also is grappling with a conservative backlash to the liberal momentum building inside the church. In more than a dozen interviews, including with seven senior church officials, insiders say the change has left the hierarchy more polarized over the direction of the church than at any point since the great papal reformers of the 1960s.

The conservative rebellion is taking on many guises, in public comments, yes, but also in the rising popularity of conservative Catholic Web sites promoting Francis dissenters; books and promotional materials backed by conservative clerics seeking to counter the liberal trend; and leaks to the news media, aimed at Vatican reformers.

More:
washingtonpost.com/world/europe/a-conservative-revolt-is-brewing-inside-the-vatican/2015/09/07/1d8e02ba-4b3d-11e5-80c2-106ea7fb80d4_story.html

Yes, I do feel like the pre-Synod winds are starting to blow with the same old spats from the last one. Worrisome. :nope: And it is not just the Washington Post - they just add another layer to the confusion. Round II.

 

[Heismysword]

The right wing Republican will staunchly stand up and condemn gay marriage and heterosexual remarriage. “I am Catholic”, says he, “I refuse to allow God’s will to be bent”. This person then gets into his car, and drives past the hungry, “He can get a job, the lazy sod!”.

“Very good, my dear fellow!” The left wing Democrat says. She stands in the other corner, feeding the homeless, and perhaps visiting those in prison. On her way home, she is upset when she sees people fighting homosexual unions. “The right wing is so cold and callous! My Lord understands love, surely He wants them to be happy!”

We have got to stop politicizing the Church. Capitalism is a man made theory of economics it is not the God ordained. It can be as damaging to humanity as communism. In some ways, I think it is far more dangerous. It allows for great comfort, we become materialistic. Sunday Night Football with Hot wings and Beer becomes more important than Sunday Morning Mass with the Bread of Life and the Cup of Salvation.

And the left is on even thinner ice… it’s from the “love, acceptance, and progress” movement that Abortion, secularism, and gay marriage have received most of their momentum. The Church walks a fine line. Do we push out anyone that steps foot out of line. How do we win souls for Christ if nobody can participate?

The problems of failed marriages needing annulment, homosexual unions, the refugees, poverty, are all problems because we have failed to evangelize. Pope Francis has an unenviable job. This is a difficult time for Christianity.

I dont mean to preach, but we need to take a giant chill pill. The Holy Spirit is in charge. If He exists, and I assume most of you agree he does, then the Church will be fine. If the Pereclete allows Pope Francis to change dogmas then you might as well go find another faith, because Jesus would have lied about the Gates of Hell.

And here is food for thought: what would Internet forums be like during the Council of Jerusalem.

I don’t worry about Pope Francis, or the Church, because I have complete and utter faith in the Lord.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.