What Cardinal Burke really said about 'resisting' Pope Francis

[Sirach2]

The title of the article is deceptive, since there is no mention of Cardinal Burke on Cardinal Wuerl’s blog, or in the above article. But then that’s not unusual for Vatican Insider’s writer Andrea Tornielli, who also wrote a deceptive article about the SSPX/Vatican negotiations a few years ago, which caused problems for the negotiations. Also, putting the words…“and dissenters”…in the title is an attempt to make Cardinal Burke out to be a dissenter by association. From what is he dissenting, though?

The long knives are coming out now. Those who support proper Catholic teaching will be persecuted by those who are for “hope and change” during the upcoming synod (I’m mainly referring to those in the media; not Cardinal Wuerl).

These were Wuerl’s actual words:
As I was watching the Holy Father on TV, my inbox was filling with a number of emails including an interview and an article by brother bishops who are less than enthusiastic about Pope Francis.

It’s not too difficult to discern who he meant, since the only interview in the press at the time of this writing was that of Burke. It may even be true that Tornielli had permission from Wuerl to state that fact, lest the news source be sued. We don’t know, so should not judge. Had it never even be mentioned, the majority of readers would presume who was the unnamed person in the interview. It’s been all over the media.

In the second part of his statement, Wuerl revealed from the emails he received, that “brother bishops are less than enthusiastic about Pope Francis.” Therefore, the title was accurate in stating ‘dissenters.’

I don’t believe it is wise to act as jurists here, trying the Cardinal and/or Torneilli with one’s limited knowledge of the facts. This forum is rampant with such innuendo, in attempts to trounce others’ statements. My only purpose in submitting the article was to demonstrate that, contrary to speculation, not all cardinals agree with Burke, since no one in the core group here will ever admit to such a premise. With my objective having been obtained, I am through defending it.

 

[Denise1957]

These were Wuerl’s actual words:
As I was watching the Holy Father on TV, my inbox was filling with a number of emails including an interview and an article by brother bishops who are less than enthusiastic about Pope Francis.

It’s not too difficult to discern who he meant, since the only interview in the press at the time of this writing was that of Burke. It may even be true that Tornielli had permission from Wuerl to state that fact, lest the news source be sued. We don’t know, so should not judge. Had it never even be mentioned, the majority of readers would presume who was the unnamed person in the interview. It’s been all over the media.

In the second part of his statement, Wuerl revealed from the emails he received, that “brother bishops are less than enthusiastic about Pope Francis.” Therefore, the title was accurate in stating ‘dissenters.’

I don’t believe it is wise to act as jurists here, trying the Cardinal and/or Torneilli with one’s limited knowledge of the facts. This forum is rampant with such innuendo, in attempts to trounce others’ statements. My only purpose in submitting the article was to demonstrate that, contrary to speculation, not all cardinals agree with Burke, since no one in the core group here will ever admit to such a premise. With my objective having been obtained, I am through defending it.

I don’t have a problem with Cardinal Wuerl (though you seem to be trying to make it seem as if I do), who is entitled to his opinion, just as Cardinal Burke is.

The blog of Cardinal Wuerl does not mention Cardinal Burke at all. Tornielli’s title is deceptive, in that it states “Cardinal Wuerl’s response to Burke (and dissenters).” Hints are not statements of facts.

 

[Sirach2]

I don’t have a problem with Cardinal Wuerl (though you seem to be trying to make it seem as if I do), who is entitled to his opinion, just as Cardinal Burke is.

The blog of Cardinal Wuerl does not mention Cardinal Burke at all. Tornielli’s title is deceptive, in that it states “Cardinal Wuerl’s response to Burke (and dissenters).” Hints are not statements of facts.

You are being repetitive. I addressed your comment prior to this.

 

[Suudy]

The link merely copied what Wuerl said in his personal blog. He did not take out a press release, as Burke has done repeatedly.

Again, you are asking the wrong person and I see no value in second guessing the matter.

You posted the link. So to whom do you think +Wuerl is referring as dissenters?

 

[LongingSoul]

You posted the link. So to whom do you think +Wuerl is referring as dissenters?

Dissenters in general are those who reject the authority of the leader to lead.

 

[estesbob]

Dissenters in general are those who reject the authority of the leader to lead.

Why have a Synod then? Why doesn’t the Pope just say what he wants done and make it so?

 

[Sirach2]

You posted the link. So to whom do you think +Wuerl is referring as dissenters?

In Wuerl’s blog, we find this comment rather early:
sacerdos catholicus says: " It is a lie. ‘Card. Burke’ represents not his own position but the position of the Church and all true popes."

I believe the article may have been emended by the Cardinal *afterwards, *where he removed any reference to Burke. Besides this commenter’s response, it would also account for the report by Vatican Insider, as being accurate.

Since we don’t know the facts, it is best not to judge either Wuerl or the Tornielli. I don’t understand why you keep trying to pin me down.

 

[RGCheek]

It seems to me that some questions, hypothetical or not, are simply out of plausible bounds and are therefore invalid to even ask.

If someone were to ask me, ‘Hypothetically, if you held a gun and your wife came at you with a butcher knife to kill you, would you shoot her?’

I don’t think the right response is to say that I would shoot her. The right response is to say THAT WONT HAPPEN SO THE QUESTION IS INVALID. I simply cannot comfortably engage in the imagination required to answer such a question, so it is not a good or valid question. I love my wife more than I love my life and I know she would never contemplate much less actually do such a thing.

I pray for Pope Francis just about every day. I think I understand, so far as a layman convert might from across an ocean, what the Pope is trying to do, and that is to re-evaluate the forms and customs by which we honor, and obey God’s Truth. I do not think he is undermining those Truths, but the secular press is trying to generate controversy and sell advertising and this latter factor is the source of many of the frictious sources. I pray too for the bishops when I see these kinds of articles, especially those who seem to critique the Father in Rome. I do not think that bishop Burke is trying to cause trouble or stir up resistance to the Pope.

(And yes, I just made up the word frictious though someone probably did it before me; it should be a word if it isn’t, lol.)

 

[Greatservant]

You should start by bringing some consistency to your objections. Here you object to Cardinal Burke’s “covert actions” while a little earlier you accused him of “plant[ing] the seed publicly”. Apparently it is his position that causes you “much alarm” regardless of how he expresses it. Given that the German bishops - who take the opposite position - are out giving interviews on this topic it is disingenuous to excoriate Burke for doing the same thing.

Ender

 

[Suudy]

In Wuerl’s blog, we find this comment rather early:
sacerdos catholicus says: " It is a lie. ‘Card. Burke’ represents not his own position but the position of the Church and all true popes."

Who cares what a comment on +Wuerl’s blog has to say? What does that have to do with whether or not +Wuerl considers +Burke a dissenter? After all, the context of this thread is about +Burke’s comments, not some commenter on a blog.

I believe the article may have been emended by the Cardinal *afterwards, *where he removed any reference to Burke. Besides this commenter’s response, it would also account for the report by Vatican Insider, as being accurate.

I can write a news article about Sirach2’s posts about communion for the remarried, and if I quote you correctly, it would be accurate. But that doesn’t really tell anyone anything. I’m more interested in +Wuerl’s and +Burke’s words than some commenter named “sacerdos catholicus”.

Since we don’t know the facts, it is best not to judge either Wuerl or the Tornielli. I don’t understand why you keep trying to pin me down.

Then why post a link to an article about dissenters when there’s no actual evidence of dissent? That’s what I’m trying to pin down. If you think +Wuerl is “hinting” that +Burke and others are dissenters, come out and say it (you nearly said as much in post #215). Unless somebody can point to actual dissent, labeling or even insinuating someone as a dissenter is quite uncharitable.

 

[Suudy]

Dissenters in general are those who reject the authority of the leader to lead.

Right. Now where is an example of actual dissent, by +Burke or others?

 

[_Abyssinia]

“I’M A DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MOTHER. PLEASE, DON’T CHANGE CHURCH PRACTICE.”

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/11/my-plea

 

[FollowChrist34]

Right. Now where is an example of actual dissent, by +Burke or others?

 

[otjm]

Right. Now where is an example of actual dissent, by +Burke or others?

Some people would say that the comment about the Church being a ship without a rudder was a dissenting comment; others would say that it was not so much dissent, as a public statement about style of leadership, which gets into issues about changing the curia, among others.

 

[simple_soul]

is anyone dizzy yet?

 

[FollowChrist34]

Some people would say that the comment about the Church being a ship without a rudder was a dissenting comment; others would say that it was not so much dissent, as a public statement about style of leadership, which gets into issues about changing the curia, among others.

Yes, to me this is just old news. I used to hear a lot of people in the Church say that they would like to see a more open, responsive direction taken by the Vatican when Benedict was Pope. I didn’t agree with that and it irritated me, but I certainly never accused anyone of “resistance.” (may have thought it a time or two but never confronted anyone about it…)

 

[Suudy]

Some people would say that the comment about the Church being a ship without a rudder was a dissenting comment; others would say that it was not so much dissent, as a public statement about style of leadership, which gets into issues about changing the curia, among others.

But he never actually said the ship was without a rudder. He said there is a “strong sense” by some that the Church is like a ship without a rudder. There’s a huge difference there. And he didn’t say he felt that way. In fact, he spoke in support of Papa Francis. Here’s his actual quote (emphasis mine):
Many have expressed their concerns to me. At this very critical moment, there is a strong sense that the Church is like a ship without a helm, whatever the reason for this may be; now, it is more important than ever to examine our faith, have a healthy spiritual leader and give powerful witness to the faith.

I fully respect the Petrine ministry and I do not wish it to seem like I am speaking out against the Pope. I would like to be a master of the faith, with all my weaknesses, telling a truth that many currently perceive. They are feeling a bit sea sick because they feel the Church’s ship has lost its bearings. We need to set aside the reason for this disorientation because we have not lost our bearings. We have the enduring tradition of the Church, its teachings, the liturgy, its morality. The catechism remains the same.
So, again, where is the dissent, and if not dissent, +Burke’s criticism of Papa Francis?

 

[Sirach2]

Who cares what a comment on +Wuerl’s blog has to say? What does that have to do with whether or not +Wuerl considers +Burke a dissenter? After all, the context of this thread is about +Burke’s comments, not some commenter on a blog.

The commenter gave evidence that Wuerl was referring to Burke, and apparently later removed his comment naming Burke. It points to accuracy in the link I posted. I tend to think that the ‘commenter’ speaking about Wuerl’s “lie,” together with the news link I posted, had the original information which named Burke as a dissenter. Since no further comment was made in either article, Wuerl’s or Tornielli’s, it is anyone’s guess as to his meaning. THAT’S why I don’t get why you are trying to make me read his mind. I can only assume that he received emails from his brother bishops as a result of Burke’s headlines and interviews at the time they sent their emails to Wuerl. .

If you look back at the reason I stated for submitting that post, it was to show that not everyone in the higher ups agrees with Burke. That’s it. Make of it what you want to, but it would help if you took the chip off your shoulder.

As for actual dissent, there are plenty of posts in this long thread that allude to it.

 

[Sirach2]

Suudy:

I can write a news article about Sirach2’s posts about communion for the remarried, and if I quote you correctly, it would be accurate.

It would be a fabrication, since I have never posted that I would like to see communion for the remarried. I have said several times that whatever the outcome of the Synod, I will rest with peace and rejoice in the decision. I challenge you to find a post where I said anything to the contrary, whereas you seem handicapped to find anything about Burke’s dissent. How is that?

 

[Suudy]

The commenter gave evidence that Wuerl was referring to Burke, and apparently later removed his comment naming Burke. It points to accuracy in the link I posted. I tend to think that the ‘commenter’ speaking about Wuerl’s “lie,” together with the news link I posted, had the original information which named Burke as a dissenter. Since no further comment was made in either article, Wuerl’s or Tornielli’s, it is anyone’s guess as to his meaning. THAT’S why I don’t get why you are trying to make me read his mind. I can only assume that he received emails from his brother bishops as a result of Burke’s headlines and interviews at the time they sent their emails to Wuerl.

Ah! Now I understand what you meant. When I read the original link, I saw no reference to +Burke other than in the title. And I saw to reference to +Burke on +Wuerl’s page. So I was baffled as to how there was any evidence of +Burke’s dissent. And given the context of the OP, your link made it all the more confusing.

Now, I’m not sure that the commenter’s reference to +Burke is evidence that +Wuerl himself did so. So either Torneielli’s reporting was wrong or +Wuerl removed reference. For my part, I tend to believe the former since there is no actual quote from +Wuerl of any dissent. I think it far more likely that Torneielli interpreted +Wuerl’s remarks, which makes it more opinion than fact.

If you look back at the reason I stated for submitting that post, it was to show that not everyone in the higher ups agrees with Burke. That’s it. Make of it what you want to, but it would help if you took the chip off your shoulder.

Nobody suggested that everyone did agree with +Burke. Indeed, any reading of Church related news shows that to be the case. What was being challenged is whether or not +Burke is a dissenter.

And if defending the honor of our Church leaders from false claims is a chip on my shoulder, it is something that everyone should have.

As for actual dissent, there are plenty of posts in this long thread that allude to it.

And those allusions (and insinuations) are uncharitable.