- Status
T
twf
Guest
You can testify to the accuracy of your sources in this matter? Those are pretty serious accusations against a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church… “rogue agent” and “keeping his ego in check” is not, I think, appropriate language for a Catholic to use in regards to a bishop in good standing.
Furthermore none of it makes any sense to me. As the Grand Master explained, this was an internal matter for the Order - it wouldn’t have been the Cardinal Patron’s decision. This was a decision of the Grand Master and the Sovereign Council.
R
robertmidwest
Guest
See post number six. I linked an article in which two people make claims that Burke stated the Vatican would seize assets if the order did not comply. Same article the Vatican says no such claim of seizing property was made. That is why they are investigating.
Please read the article. I highlighted quotes in post number six.
T
twf
Guest
How do you know those two anonymous sources can be trusted? The Grand Master says it was an internal decision. You seem pretty quick to jump on and condemn a Cardinal. On what basis have you determined that His Eminence has a big ego, to use your word, that needs to be kept in check? Do you have inside information beyond two nameless witnesses talking to a liberal secular newspaper?
M
mrdrifter
Guest
There is no doubt whatsoever that this investigation is intended to discredit Cardinal Burke. But the media narrative of Dec 22, “Cardinal Burke engineered the ouster of Boeselager by lying about the wishes of the Holy See”, is no longer operative, having been superseded by the essentially incompatible media narrative of Dec 24: “Knights of Malta tell Holy See, ‘Get lost!’”
Be that as it may, here’s the really interesting question: Why would a nice chap from Missouri want to see the Cardinalis Patronus taken down? Something about his time in St. Louis?
G
gilliam
Guest
I doubt that very much.
R
robertmidwest
Guest
Wow! Talk about disparaging remarks about clergy!
S
Stat_Crux
Guest
We can’t know the motivations of exactly why the investigation was started at this stage, although the timing seems unfortunate given the ongoing controversy of how we are to interpret Amoris Laetitia. We must remember that there was already (before the investigation was announced) some disagreement over the removal of the Grand Chancellor. Either way, in starting the investigation a “side” will need to be chosen in order for the investigation to arrive at a conclusion.
We must also remember that, regardless of the investigation on whether the removal of the Grand Chancellor was following the correct procedures, the situation which caused all of this is that serious accusations were made, including evidence, that the Order of Malta distributed contraceptives under the watch of the Grand Chancellor, who also apparently kept this secret from the other members of the Order’s leadership. This in itself, regardless of whether he was/should have been removed, a grave scandal for one of the largest charitable Catholic organisations whose duty it is to give witness to and defend Catholic teachings.
C
commenter
Guest
It is troubling to compare the Vatican’s intervention in (name removed by moderator), with the Vatican’s incredible retreat, refusing to follow up on the intervention with LCWR initiated by Pope Benedict.
With the LCWR there were enormous abuses documented by bishops, priests, laity, and sisters, which the leadership has refused to recognize as abuses. The Vatican suddenly reversed itself, essentially whitewashed 90% of LCWR abuses, disempowered the 3 bishops who had begun the investigation. There is only grudging, slight improvement. The LCWR problems are not just internal, but had significant and negative impact on the Church’s public witness in the USA, including prolife and marriage. They still do not admit they did anything wrong.
With (name removed by moderator), it was learned there was inappropriate actions by an administrator. He was removed, which was an internal matter. (name removed by moderator) does not condone the actions he took.
Somehow the Vatican is now suddenly investigating the (name removed by moderator), demanding answers. With the LCWR, there is now an overwelming presumption (one might say, obsession) that nothing bad happened here. Is there a presumption regarding the (name removed by moderator)? There were countless requests for intervention by bishops regarding the LCWR. Did any bishop, at all, request Vatican intervention of (name removed by moderator)?
How about some consistency here?
With the LCWR there were enormous abuses documented by bishops, priests, laity, and sisters, which the leadership has refused to recognize as abuses. The Vatican suddenly reversed itself, essentially whitewashed 90% of LCWR abuses, disempowered the 3 bishops who had begun the investigation. There is only grudging, slight improvement. The LCWR problems are not just internal, but had significant and negative impact on the Church’s public witness in the USA, including prolife and marriage. They still do not admit they did anything wrong.
With (name removed by moderator), it was learned there was inappropriate actions by an administrator. He was removed, which was an internal matter. (name removed by moderator) does not condone the actions he took.
Somehow the Vatican is now suddenly investigating the (name removed by moderator), demanding answers. With the LCWR, there is now an overwelming presumption (one might say, obsession) that nothing bad happened here. Is there a presumption regarding the (name removed by moderator)? There were countless requests for intervention by bishops regarding the LCWR. Did any bishop, at all, request Vatican intervention of (name removed by moderator)?
How about some consistency here?
Z
zz912
Guest
Shouldn’t the big and crucial question revolve around whether the official involved approved or allowed condoms to be distributed or not?
If he did, what argument can be made to retain him?
If he did, what argument can be made to retain him?
T
twf
Guest
The FFI is another example. I’m sure they did have problem, but Rome came down on them with an iron fist… the LCWR had members who professed to “move beyond Jesus” and even under previous papacies there was slow, tolerant dialogue at every step of the way.
T
TCEL
Guest
Yes. I’m befuddled that this turned into a conversation about Cardinal Burke. Politics. As an aside, I had always heard rumors from non-Catholic activists about some Catholic aid workers giving a wink and a nod about contraceptives. I’m much more interested in the veracity of the charges, and how to go forward.
F
fin
Guest
Really? I’ve seen a lot more disparaging remarks against Cardinal Burke (calling him disrespectful, disobedient, shouldn’t receive Communion for being those, being a sourgrape), yet no one complains. 
T
twf
Guest
On this very thread we are told Cardinal Burke is a “rogue agent” with a big “ego” that the pope needs to keep in check…and those sorts of comments get a free pass. I would never speak so horribly of any bishop. But His Eminence is Public Enemy No 1 for a lot of people…even here at CAF.Really? I’ve seen a lot more disparaging remarks against Cardinal Burke (calling him disrespectful, disobedient, shouldn’t receive Communion for being those, being a sourgrape), yet no one complains.
M
mrdrifter
Guest
There is no doubt that certain officials have said this investigation is aimed at Cardinal Burke. But the media narrative of Dec 22, “Cardinal Burke engineered the ouster of Boeselager by lying about the wishes of the Holy See”, is no longer operative, having been superseded by the essentially incompatible media narrative of Dec 24: “Knights of Malta tell Holy See, ‘Get lost!’”
Be that as it may, here’s the really interesting question: Why would a nice chap from Missouri want to see the Cardinalis Patronus taken down? Something about his time in St. Louis?
G
gilliam
Guest
If I am reading everything correctly it would appear that someone said the Vatican would take certain actions if the grand master didn’t resign. The Vatican said they never made such a threat. Since the Order of Malta ultimately reports to the Holy Father, it makes sense that there should be an investigation by the Vatican.
Cardinal Burke was the Vatican’s representative at the meeting. It is possible he was misinformed or such threats were never made. The investigation will bring out the truth.
Cardinal Burke was the Vatican’s representative at the meeting. It is possible he was misinformed or such threats were never made. The investigation will bring out the truth.
C
commenter
Guest
Why wouldn’t the pope have someone privately phone Cardinal Burke, or rather walk over to meet with him, and ask him what happened? Why would there be a need for a commission of investigators, media, media, and media?
If the person who got fired feels there are grounds for a grievance, he has the option of going through the Code of Canon Law. Ideally that would be confidential.
In this, and in other recent matters, it seems there is almost a circus atmosphere. I half expect a “friend of the pope” to hint at things through a media blitz, maybe something about the climate of rigidity in the hierarchy.
G
gilliam
Guest
It was already in the media and people were dropping their affiliation with the Order of Malta because of the forced resignation. This is an attempt to mend the wound. The Holy Father isn’t looking for a public report though from what I can tell. “The pope named a top Jesuit church lawyer, the Vatican’s former U.N. ambassador to Geneva and several senior Order of Malta members to “quickly inform the Holy See” about the scandal. … The scandal appears to have deeply divided the knights, who trace their history to the 11th century with the establishment of an infirmary in Jerusalem that cared for people of all faiths making pilgrimages to the Holy Land.”
The end result could be the upholding of the forced resignation.
- Status