What Cardinal Burke really said about 'resisting' Pope Francis

[twf]

Knowing he’s been the center of controversy in the press, Burke again takes the stage to speak to the press, and masks his intention under a ‘hypothetical.’ Our Lord’s words, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks,” strongly suggests his real motive, to gain as much press as possible to thwart any possibility of divorced and remarried spouses being ‘surprised by God’ in a ruling by Pope Francis. He plants the seed publicly so that others will take the hint and follow in his footsteps, resisting if necessary.

A meek and humble person, *knowing *that he is a favorite target for comments by the media, would refrain from further comment and notoriety, preferring to await the outcome of the synod. There was no need to give audience and voice yet again, his extreme disapproval, with hints of ‘resistance’ if his ideal is thwarted in any way. Once again, another public display of apparent dismay toward Pope Francis.

And what of Cardinal Marx’s interviews? What of Cardinal Kasper’s? Those who support the possibility of communion for the divorced and remarried should speak up in public apart from the Synod, but those who do not should remain silent? The German bishops have very publicly announced their full support for reform on the question of communion for the remarried…they’re not waiting for the Synod. Likewise, the Polish bishops have publicly denounced talk of this reform, with one of their archbishops going so far as to say that the Synod betrayed Pope St. John Paul (who declared this option impossible) by even discussing the matter.
To be clear, I am not expressing an opinion one way or another on the topic at hand (communion for the divorced and remarried) - that is for the bishops to discuss… but bishops have loudly, publicly, and clearly condemned and / or supported this proposition across the Church…Cardinal Burke is not alone…bishops on both side of the fence are being equally “loud”.

All bishops, as members of the Magisterium, have the right to speak up. It is not for the Pope alone to speak. The Pope may have the final word…but all bishops may contribute to the discussion . The Cardinal has the right to do so. He is expressing an opinion that many, including himself, hold sincerely and dearly.

 

[NeedsMercy]

For journalistic balance maybe?

I don’t think that’s what LongingSoul is saying. He/she is not asking why is it necessary that both views be given; he/she is asking about the timing of Burke’s remarks. Why did the cardinal feel it was necessary to speak about “feminization” right after the Holy Father spoke about female theologians? On its surface, it appears that Burke **wanted **to contradict Francis. I’m not saying that he actually does; I’m saying that he gives the appearance of such impropriety. Burke is savvy; he has to know his comments would be taken like that and they were.

 

[Sirach2]

And what of Cardinal Marx’s interviews? What of Cardinal Kasper’s?

They’re not even in the ballpark, twf. I’m sorry that our previous willingness to be congenial has taken wing again, as you continue to challenge me.

Do me a favor. Type ‘Cardinal Burke interviews’ on a google search line, and do the same for Kasper and Marx. The return for Burke, as one would expect, is 5,660,000, compared to Kasper’s 429,000. Who’s been foremost in asserting his beliefs?

Burke:

I am therefore very worried, and I call upon all Catholics, laymen, priests, and bishops, to involve themselves,** from now up to the upcoming Synodal assembly**, in order to highlight the truth on marriage.
- Interview granted in Rome to Jean-Marie Guénois[Le Figaro Magazine, Dec. 19, 2014 issue, p. 46. *Rorate

translation]

And call upon Catholics, he surely did, beginning already very early this year …to the point of orchestrating petitions among his many efforts to change public opinion, authoring a voluminous book and arranging press conferences and other social media, ad infinitem.

As I said earlier, those who have eyes to see, will see. Those who don’t, never will, so it does not benefit me one iota to rebut these challenges, which are for the most part issued by pro-Burke ultra conservatives.

 

[estesbob]

For most of my life I’ve been really deeply moved to tears during the Stations of the Cross and the Good Friday ceremony. However in 2011 I did the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius and a new anguish and repulsion gripped me like never before. Jesus was sold out by His *friend *Judas! His brothers in faith from the Synogogue joined forces with the secular haters and tortured and killed Him! There is no greater pain than betrayal and I experienced that so deeply for my dear Lord during that year of contemplation! That all just had me thinking in this lead up to Lent.

O my.Cardinal Burke is Judas?

 

[Tigg]

I don’t think that’s what LongingSoul is saying. He/she is not asking why is it necessary that both views be given; he/she is asking about the timing of Burke’s remarks. Why did the cardinal feel it was necessary to speak about “feminization” right after the Holy Father spoke about female theologians? On its surface, it appears that Burke **wanted **to contradict Francis. I’m not saying that he actually does; I’m saying that he gives the appearance of such impropriety. Burke is savvy; he has to know his comments would be taken like that and they were.

You are entitled to your uncharitable speculation, but you are not entitled to alter the fact that the feminization of the Church was becoming an oft repeated theme long before HH called for more women theologians. Polls showing a greater female attendance at Mass, the publication of “The Church Impotent” and blog posts full of speculation why men are staying away from the feminized church all contributed to this frequently recurring topic. Even the NPLC (National Pastoral Life Center) noted there are more lay ministers than priests working in Catholic parishes and that this “revolution in ministry” has meant a “stronger lay, feminine dimension” in the Church.

 

[AngelusDomini]

Knowing he’s been the center of controversy in the press, Burke again takes the stage to speak to the press, and masks his intention under a ‘hypothetical.’ Our Lord’s words, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks,” strongly suggests his real motive, to gain as much press as possible to thwart any possibility of divorced and remarried spouses being ‘surprised by God’ in a ruling by Pope Francis. He plants the seed publicly so that others will take the hint and follow in his footsteps, resisting if necessary.

A meek and humble person, *knowing *that he is a favorite target for comments by the media, would refrain from further comment and notoriety, preferring to await the outcome of the synod. There was no need to give audience and voice yet again, his extreme disapproval, with hints of ‘resistance’ if his ideal is thwarted in any way. Once again, another public display of apparent dismay toward Pope Francis.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

The fundamental issue here is not about persons, it’s about the foundations of the Catholic moral edifice as regards marriage. It is not complicated and can be very simply expressed:

Is a Catholic who has divorced and remarried obliged to practise continence, under pain of grave sin, when he feels it is humanly impossible for him to do so?

Bearing in mind that what is at stake here is a divine law that admits of no exceptions and does not change regardless of person, age, wealth, zeitgeist or any other circumstance.

Those who answer no base their position on the notion that a Catholic must do his human utmost to live a Christian life, but is not held to anything that is humanly impossible for him.

Those who answer yes base their position on the fact that God can sometimes impose or allow the imposition of very heavy burdens on people (disease, war, etc.) without that compromising his goodness or omnipotence. The indissolubility of the marriage bond after divorce is one of these burdens.

Should the noes win out in October then, by logical inference, any individual who feels that a particular moral law is humanly impossible for him to keep will feel justified in dropping it in the toilet. This will, quite simply, destroy Catholic morality from the ground up.

 

[NeedsMercy]

You are entitled to your uncharitable speculation, but you are not entitled to alter the fact that the feminization of the Church was becoming an oft repeated theme long before HH called for more women theologians. Polls showing a greater female attendance at Mass, the publication of “The Church Impotent” and blog posts full of speculation why men are staying away from the feminized church all contributed to this frequently recurring topic. Even the NPLC (National Pastoral Life Center) noted there are more lay ministers than priests working in Catholic parishes and that this “revolution in ministry” has meant a “stronger lay, feminine dimension” in the Church.

What exactly was so “uncharitable”??? What “facts” did I “alter”? I was trying to interpret someone’s comment. And I specifically inserted a statement that I was **not **saying that Burke contradicted the Pope. I never said that the idea of “feminization” did not exist before Burke made his remarks now, did I? So don’t try and sell me on the idea of “feminization” when I haven’t even argued it. Sheesh! Peace, brother!

 

[estesbob]

It has been very disturbing to see the amount of venom directed at Cardinal Burke in various threads lately. Comparing him to Judas, claiming he was “demoted” , declaring his is a publicity seeker, claiming he is defying the Pope. Cardinal Burke is a member of the Magestrium who has faithfully served the church for decades. It appears that most of the venom directed at him is because of his steadfast defense of the Moral teachings of the Church-especially in the areas of abortion, homosexuality and marriage.

 

[Sirach2]

It has been very disturbing to see the amount of venom directed at Cardinal Burke in various threads lately. Comparing him to Judas, claiming he was “demoted” , declaring his is a publicity seeker, claiming he is defying the Pope. Cardinal Burke is a member of the Magestrium who has faithfully served the church for decades. It appears that most of the venom directed at him is because of his steadfast defense of the Moral teachings of the Church-especially in the areas of abortion, homosexuality and marriage.

Conjecture, conjecture…

 

[simple_soul]

It has been very disturbing to see the amount of venom directed at Cardinal Burke in various threads lately. Comparing him to Judas, claiming he was “demoted” , declaring his is a publicity seeker, claiming he is defying the Pope. Cardinal Burke is a member of the Magestrium who has faithfully served the church for decades. It appears that most of the venom directed at him is because of his steadfast defense of the Moral teachings of the Church-especially in the areas of abortion, homosexuality and marriage.

Oh my. I’m so concussed.

What kind of venom is worse? The kind you see directed at Cardinal Burke or the kind that is indirectly and directly thrown at Pope Francis?

 

[estesbob]

Oh my. I’m so concussed.

What kind of venom is worse? The kind you see directed at Cardinal Burke or the kind that is indirectly and directly thrown at Pope Francis?

Both are bad and both are against forum rules

 

[simple_soul]

Both are bad and both are against forum rules

So if that is the case then maybe everyone should be asking themselves two question and we would see less of it;

Do you come out in defence of Pope Francis as much as you come out in defence of Cardinal Burke or do you come out in defence of Cardinal Burke as much as you come out in defence of Pope Francis?
Do you praise Pope Francis as much as you praise Cardinal Burke or do you come out in praise of Cardinal Burke as much as you come out in praise of Pope Francis?

 

[SWolf]

The fundamental issue here is not about persons, it’s about the foundations of the Catholic moral edifice as regards marriage. It is not complicated and can be very simply expressed:

Is a Catholic who has divorced and remarried obliged to practise continence, under pain of grave sin, when he feels it is humanly impossible for him to do so?

Bearing in mind that what is at stake here is a divine law that admits of no exceptions and does not change regardless of person, age, wealth, zeitgeist or any other circumstance.

Those who answer no base their position on the notion that a Catholic must do his human utmost to live a Christian life, but is not held to anything that is humanly impossible for him.

Those who answer yes base their position on the fact that God can sometimes impose or allow the imposition of very heavy burdens on people (disease, war, etc.) without that compromising his goodness or omnipotence. The indissolubility of the marriage bond after divorce is one of these burdens.

Should the noes win out in October then, by logical inference, any individual who feels that a particular moral law is humanly impossible for him to keep will feel justified in dropping it in the toilet. This will, quite simply, destroy Catholic morality from the ground up.

What a person FEELS about a moral law is irrelevant.

• Most people think not using contraceptives is an impossible burden.
• Many people feel going through a pregnancy instead of having an abortion is an impossible burden.

Should we dilute these teachings so people don’t think the task is impossible?

In a Catholic Wedding, it is made abundantly clear the burden they are imposing on themselves. Vocations are hard, and that’s what makes them worth doing. The Apostles themselves said it was easier not to marry.

If they want to throw it in the toilet, it’s their individual souls in grave danger. If the Church dilutes Jesus’ clear teachings for populism, it puts the souls of her entire flock in danger.

 

[SWolf]

So if that is the case then maybe everyone should be asking themselves two question and we would see less of it;

Do you come out in defence of Pope Francis as much as you come out in defence of Cardinal Burke?
Do you praise Pope Francis as much as you praise Cardinal Burke?

Disagreement is not the same as venom. You can disagree with either’s personal opinions and still be a good Catholic, and still be following forum rules.

 

[estesbob]

So if that is the case then maybe everyone should be asking themselves two question and we would see less of it;

Do you come out in defence of Pope Francis as much as you come out in defence of Cardinal Burke?
Do you praise Pope Francis as much as you praise Cardinal Burke?

I defend them both-I praise them both. I don’t see where they are in disagreement.

 

[simple_soul]

Disagreement is not the same as venom. You can disagree with either’s personal opinions and still be a good Catholic, and still be following forum rules.

So how does one know when a disagreement is considered venom or not?

 

[simple_soul]

I defend them both-I praise them both. I don’t see where they are in disagreement.

Just from your post it sounded to me like you were totally defending only Cardinal Burke and had nothing to say in support of Pope Francis and filled with venom against anyone who spoke out against Cardinal Burke. I apologize if I missinderstood you.

 

[SWolf]

So how does one know when a disagreement is considered venom or not?

Disagreement:
I disagree with X because of rational argument Y and Z.

Venom:
X is a nut and is trying to destroy the Church.

 

[estesbob]

So how does one know when a disagreement is considered venom or not?

Robert Bay will let you know.