Interview With Cardinal Burke . . . Insights On The State Of The Church In The Aftermath Of The Ordinary Synod On The Family

[godisgood77]

At least he hasn’t gone so far as to publicly accuse anyone of “throwing a tantrum”, being closed minded and closed hearted, being defamatory, “sowing division within the church” and producing “diatribes”. Those would be far more serious accusations :ehh:

You’re absolutely right… If someone holding the highest rank in the Church, publicly did those things (to which the good Cardinal has come close) that would be crazy.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

” The Pope cannot teach us or urge us to do anything other than what the Church has always taught and practiced."

Yikes…it is discouraging to read this. It appears that Cardinal Burke is attacking any Pope who ever implemented any changes or advances or developments in Church teaching; this is utterly absurd, of course.

The good Cardinal sounds like quite frustrated; almost like a child throwing a tantrum because he did not get his way. We should all pray for Cardinal Burke that his mind and heart are opened. Burke’s comments are becoming more and more defamatory …and he is sowing division within the Church. The Pope has taught nothing against the Jesus’ teachings…

These diatribes are heart wrenching

Wow…this is exactly what he mentioned during the interview: being accused of attacking the Pope.

 

[kozlosap]

Wow…this is exactly what he mentioned during the interview: being accused of attacking the Pope.

If you go back and Google what Cardinal Burke has said publicly since the conclave, you will see that he had, indeed, made remarks against Papa Francis, that if posted here, would guarantee that we would be banned from further posting.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

If you go back and Google what Cardinal Burke has said publicly since the conclave, you will see that he had, indeed, made remarks against Papa Francis, that if posted here, would guarantee that we would be banned from further posting.

I see. I guess I’ve just never seen them.

 

[godisgood77]

If you go back and Google what Cardinal Burke has said publicly since the conclave, you will see that he had, indeed, made remarks against Papa Francis, that if posted here, would guarantee that we would be banned from further posting.

exactly

 

[Jon_Mallory]

exactly

googled it but I didn’t find any evidence of slander…could accusing a high ranking prelate of slander be considered slander? He has attacked some of Pope Francis’s positions and wording but not the man himself. Regardless, the Cardinal’s observation of there being confusion concerning Church teaching strikes home. Even unbelievers and non-Catholic Christians have noticed that what it means to be Catholic seems to be built on shifting ground.

when I was interested in converting to Catholicism (which I am this spring) three years ago, a Jesuit priest told me to stay where I am. He didn’t explain why and I didn’t understand. Cardinal Burke helps me understand.

 

[godisgood77]

Don’t think I used the word slander… Did someone accuse Burke of slander?

I did used the phase ‘defamatory’ which I stand by as the good Cardinal’s comments on multiple occasions have served to publicly breed contempt against the Holy Father leadership

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Don’t think I used the word slander… Did someone accuse Burke of slander?

I did used the phase ‘defamatory’ which I stand by as the good Cardinal’s comments on multiple occasions have served to publicly breed contempt against the Holy Father leadership

Defamation: the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel. That’s the definition google uses. Cardinal Burke has only criticized the Pope’s stances on some issues. Last I checked, unless one is an ultramontanist, there is nothing wrong with that. Church history shows us that some Popes have taught error though not ex cathedra (see Pope Honorius. And don’t say that Pope Honorius was only guilty of negligence. He was a monothelite).

I’m not saying that I think Pope Francis is in error. I like what he’s written so far–especially the joy of the gospel. Still, no one is exempt from examination–not even the Pope.

 

[anthonymarie]

Don’t think I used the word slander… Did someone accuse Burke of slander?

I did used the phase ‘defamatory’ which I stand by as the good Cardinal’s comments on multiple occasions have served to publicly breed contempt against the Holy Father leadership

Yeah you did. Deformation when spoken would be a form slander (if written it’d be libel )

Hence deformation law covers two areas: slander and libel.

From nolo.com

Libel is a written defamatory statement, and slander is a spoken or oral defamatory statement.

 

[godisgood77]

Yeah you did. Deformation when spoken would be a form slander (if written it’d be libel )

Hence deformation law covers two areas: slander and libel.

From nolo.com

I stand corrected… I used the wrong word. My apologies.

I’ll rephrase… and talk instead about breeding contempt among Catholics and using his position of power (although that position has been severely reduced by the Pope) to do so.

I think it is fair to criticize Burke at the same level that he is criticizing the Pope

 

[LongingSoul]

— the required steps cannot be short-circuited. It is in this way that the Holy Father’s comments must be interpreted…
[/indent]

In other words, ignore the Pope and his papal authority to lead. Listen to me.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

In other words, ignore the Pope and his papal authority to lead. Listen to me.

No Pope is immune to criticism. Look back at Church History during the first seven ecumenical councils. Popes did not have have free range back then. Their teachings were examined and sometimes condemned like Pope Honorius. Simply appealing to papal authority is not enough.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR REMINDER

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:

• Vatican II
• Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
• Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
• Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
• Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
• Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
• Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. They are fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.

Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.

As Fr. Gorndon said in a recent post, “Sometimes we can think that we know more than we do and that leads us to make assumptions which could be incorrect. While having questions and seeking answers, we still need to trust that the Holy Spirit is who is guiding the Church. Put your mind at ease and trust in God to guide His Church.”

 

[Pulvis]

Thank you Robert.
I find the level of vitriol from both camps uncharitable. We can respectfully discuss the issues of the Church without injecting personal attacks on those whom we disagree. St. Paul did this with St. Peter, the first Pope. And history has shown us that Popes have erred in their personal opinions. Cardinal Burke seems to me to just be expressing his fear of certain individuals who are close to the Holy Father proposing alternate viewpoints to settled doctrine thus causing confusion amongst the Faithful. From what I have seen in print and on Catholic forums, I would agree. Others may not, and that is their prerogative. But these discussions should not devolve into attacks on anyone’s character or dedication to the Faith.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Thank you Robert.
I find the level of vitriol from both camps uncharitable. We can respectfully discuss the issues of the Church without injecting personal attacks on those whom we disagree. St. Paul did this with St. Peter, the first Pope. And history has shown us that Popes have erred in their personal opinions. Cardinal Burke seems to me to just be expressing his fear of certain individuals who are close to the Holy Father proposing alternate viewpoints to settled doctrine thus causing confusion amongst the Faithful. From what I have seen in print and on Catholic forums, I would agree. Others may not, and that is their prerogative. But these discussions should not devolve into attacks on anyone’s character or dedication to the Faith.

Which I have refrained from doing. I am simply trying to parse out what manner of teaching authority is appropriate to the office of the papacy. Several Popes have said the that the role of the Papacy should be reexamined. Pope Francis has espouses more of a synodal system. When people appeal to the authority of the Pope, I ask “within what bounds?”

 

[philipl]

I don’t know what he believes, but Pope Francis is challenging all of us to embrace the mercy of God in ways that are new and unfamiliar to us.

AS long as that mercy isnt accepting that sex outside of marriage is ok, then I agree. But if I have to accept that homosexuals can marry(they cant), and couple divorced without an annulment can remarry(they cant). There is no mercy there it is in fact the opposite of mercy. Its also a sin for them to go to communion.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

AS long as that mercy isnt accepting that sex outside of marriage is ok, then I agree. But if I have to accept that homosexuals can marry(they cant), and couple divorced without an annulment can remarry(they cant). There is no mercy there it is in fact the opposite of mercy. Its also a sin for them to go to communion.

Gay marriage and fornication? Where are you getting this from? The Pope and Church supports neither…

 

[Ender]

If you go back and Google what Cardinal Burke has said publicly since the conclave, you will see that he had, indeed, made remarks against Papa Francis, that if posted here, would guarantee that we would be banned from further posting.

Why don’t you post what you consider to be the most inflammatory thing Cardinal Burke has said so we can all see just how inappropriate they are?

Ender

 

[godisgood77]

“No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries…"

Cardinal Burke in many of his statements sound frighteningly similar this quote. Unfortunately, this quote is comes from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in his Declaration dated November 21, 1974. Lefebvre was excommunicated and was the founder of the Society of St Pius X.

 

[Ender]

“No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries…"

Cardinal Burke in many of his statements sound frighteningly similar this quote. Unfortunately, this quote is comes from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in his Declaration dated November 21, 1974. Lefebvre was excommunicated and was the founder of the Society of St Pius X.

So, I ask for a quote from Cardinal Burke, am given one from Archbishop Lefebvre, and am told that they “sound” similar. Whether a similar quote from Burke could actually be found that is in fact similar to this doesn’t address this point: are we to assume everything Lefebvre said is therefore wrong simply by reason of his excommunication? Really? That’s your argument?

Other than the fact that Lefebvre said it, what part of his statement do you disagree with?

Ender