What Cardinal Burke really said about 'resisting' Pope Francis

[Suudy]

It would be a fabrication, since I have never posted that I would like to see communion for the remarried. I challenge you to find one, whereas you seem handicapped to find anything about Burke’s dissent. How is that?

I didn’t say that. Re-read what I wrote. I said only “about communion for the remarried.” I said nothing about support or opposition. I merely stated I could report what you had to say on the issue.

 

[Sirach2]

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.

Right out of the blue, he reacted, calling one of the statements a “lie???” I don’t think 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.

I know reporters often twist things out of perspective, but to out and out fabricate such a big statement by naming another Cardinal as a dissenter, is just not feasible, in my opinion. The paper could be sued, did you ever think of that? They often spin, but rare is the reporter with the nerve to indict someone in that way.

 

[Suudy]

Right out of the blue, he reacted, calling one of the statements a “lie???” I don’t think so.

“Right out of the blue”? I think it very likely that “sacerdos catholicus” made the same leap that Tornielli made. Since neither quotes +Wuerl’s statement, how do you know?

I know reporters often twist things out of perspective, but to out and out fabricate such a big statement by naming another Cardinal as a dissenter, is just not feasible, in my opinion. The paper could be sued, did you ever think of that? They often spin, but rare is the reporter with the nerve to indict someone in that way.

Then why didn’t he actually quote +Wuerl’s statement? Tornielli didn’t provide a single scrap of evidence that +Wuerl’s response was directed toward +Burke. Indeed, Tornielli comes right out and says +Wuerl “does not name names.” So where did Tornielli get +Burke for his title?

Let me be plain. Nowhere does the article or +Wuerl actually call +Burke a dissenter. But the title of the article clearly tries to associate +Burke with dissenters. And there is zero evidence of that.

 

[Sirach2]

“Right out of the blue”? I think it very likely that “sacerdos catholicus” made the same leap that Tornielli made. Since neither quotes +Wuerl’s statement, how do you know?

I DON’T know, which is why I said several posts ago, that we should not be acting as judge and jury trying the case when the facts cannot be proven either way. Yet what do I see again? … assumptions that make someone out to be a liar. THAT is totally wrong! I’m done here, and in fact, I am leaving CAF for lent. So have a good journey. God bless!

 

[Suudy]

I DON’T know, which is why I said several posts ago, that we should not be acting as judge and jury trying the case when the facts cannot be proven either way.

I did see that. I see, looking back, that I wasn’t clear. My intent was a criticism of La Stampa, not you.

Yet what do I see again? … assumptions that make someone out to be a liar. THAT is totally wrong!

What assumptions? And who’s being accused of being a liar? My criticism has been mean for Tornielli and his association of +Burke with dissenters.

And assumptions usually are wrong. Often “totally wrong.”

I’m done here, and in fact, I am leaving CAF for lent. So have a good journey. God bless!

May you have fruitful lent!

 

[otjm]

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?

The Cardinal’s statement was an adept and carefully crafted political statement for which plausible deniability can be made.

No one who is paying even minimal attention would be unaware that the “many (who) have expressed concerns” are people who are seriously upset with the Pope. Let’s not play games about that.

And without taking a breath, the Cardinal goes on to say “have a healthy spiritual leader and give powerful witness to the faith”. Wow - and what is it that the “many” are claiming? That we don’t have a healthy spiritual leader and do not have one who is “giving powerful witness to the faith”.

That ties directly back to the ship without a rudder; and the Cardinal nowhere says that the Pope is doing what the “many” claim he isn’t.

“I fully respect the Petrine ministry” means he respects the office. That is a back hand way of saying " I respect the Office (not the one holding it)". There was absolutely no reason to put that statement in the terms he did, if he had any desire whatsoever to counter the "many’ position. He did not say he respected the Pope; he said as a clear distinction, that he respected the office.

“I do not wish it to seem like I am speaking out against the Pope” If he doesn’t want it to seem like that, the easiest way to make sure that it doesn’t is to speak up plainly and say “I support the Pope in what he is doing ad trying to do” or “I am speaking out for the Pope, not against”. the “I do not wish to seem like” is a round about way of saying “I don’t wish, I intend”. He is a renowned Canon lawyer, and extremely bright man, and eminently capable of lending support to the Pope and calming the fears of those who feel the Pope is off the rails.

“I would like to be a master of the faith, with all my weaknesses, telling a truth that many currently perceive.” I have already said what the “many” perceive; here he edges closer by calling it a truth. The truth, that the Church is without a rudder, which was the introduction he made.

“We have the enduring tradition of the Church, its teachings, the liturgy, its morality. The catechism remains the same.” Again, coupled with the comment about the Petrine ministry, not coupled with the Pope. So the Pope can make his statements, but we have …

All in all, a masterfully crafted statement that does not say what you suggest. With more than ample spots in which to speak positively of what the Pope is doing, we find rather a statement laden with implications, references to the office but not to the Pope, and round-about “not wish to seem like”.

And nowhere a statement of support, but multiple references to the “many”. It is called “political speak” or “legal speak”.

 

[Sirach2]

WOW!!! What awesome insight you have, otjm.

Your professional training is very evident in your work here.

 

[Suudy]

The Cardinal’s statement was an adept and carefully crafted political statement for which plausible deniability can be made.

Strange, that’s exactly how +Wuerl’s statement can be read. So it seems that we have +Burke truly criticizing and dissenting (though in a sneaky, subversive manner) and we have +Wuerl truly calling out +Burke for criticizing and dissenting (though in a sneaky, subversive manner).

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Cardinal’s statement was an adept and carefully crafted political statement for which plausible deniability can be made.

No one who is paying even minimal attention would be unaware that the “many (who) have expressed concerns” are people who are seriously upset with the Pope. Let’s not play games about that.

And without taking a breath, the Cardinal goes on to say “have a healthy spiritual leader and give powerful witness to the faith”. Wow - and what is it that the “many” are claiming? That we don’t have a healthy spiritual leader and do not have one who is “giving powerful witness to the faith”.

That ties directly back to the ship without a rudder; and the Cardinal nowhere says that the Pope is doing what the “many” claim he isn’t.

“I fully respect the Petrine ministry” means he respects the office. That is a back hand way of saying " I respect the Office (not the one holding it)". There was absolutely no reason to put that statement in the terms he did, if he had any desire whatsoever to counter the "many’ position. He did not say he respected the Pope; he said as a clear distinction, that he respected the office.

“I do not wish it to seem like I am speaking out against the Pope” If he doesn’t want it to seem like that, the easiest way to make sure that it doesn’t is to speak up plainly and say “I support the Pope in what he is doing ad trying to do” or “I am speaking out for the Pope, not against”. the “I do not wish to seem like” is a round about way of saying “I don’t wish, I intend”. He is a renowned Canon lawyer, and extremely bright man, and eminently capable of lending support to the Pope and calming the fears of those who feel the Pope is off the rails.

“I would like to be a master of the faith, with all my weaknesses, telling a truth that many currently perceive.” I have already said what the “many” perceive; here he edges closer by calling it a truth. The truth, that the Church is without a rudder, which was the introduction he made.

“We have the enduring tradition of the Church, its teachings, the liturgy, its morality. The catechism remains the same.” Again, coupled with the comment about the Petrine ministry, not coupled with the Pope. So the Pope can make his statements, but we have …

All in all, a masterfully crafted statement that does not say what you suggest. With more than ample spots in which to speak positively of what the Pope is doing, we find rather a statement laden with implications, references to the office but not to the Pope, and round-about “not wish to seem like”.

And nowhere a statement of support, but multiple references to the “many”. It is called “political speak” or “legal speak”.

With due respect, perhaps you are just reading too much into Cardinal Burke’s comments. I think Cardinal Burke has made it clear that he does not support the Kasper proposal and he wants the Pope to stand firm on the Communion issue, and Cardinal Burke is not alone, there are many other people who want Pope Francis to stand firm on this issue too. But to read into so much into his comments and try to translate them into what you think it really means - ‘political’ or ‘legal speak’ you say, I think frankly, your translation is questionable in regards to accuracy. You may think your translation, so to speak, of his comments is accurate, but it may not be.

 

[Sirach2]

Sometimes it is pure ‘discernment of spirits’ … and THAT cannot be explained to those who never experienced it or have that gift.

I think frankly, your translation is questionable in regards to accuracy. You may think your translation, so to speak, of his comments is accurate, but it may not be.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Sometimes it is pure ‘discernment of spirits’ … and THAT cannot be explained to those who never experienced it or have that gift.

So I do not have the gift of translating what Cardinal Burke is saying? Is that what you mean? If it is, that is getting personal, and it is not needed.

 

[Sirach2]

So I do not have the gift of translating what Cardinal Burke is saying? Is that what you mean? If it is, that is getting personal, and it is not needed.

No…

I am speaking about the gift of “discernment of spirits” … a spiritual charism bestowed by the Holy Spirit. Otjm may very well have discerned behind the printed word what is behind the spirit of the speaker, whether or not the speaker is even aware of his motives. Often, people have the very best intentions, but are very wrong in applying them. “Forgive them, they know not what they do.”

 

[LongingSoul]

The Cardinal’s statement was an adept and carefully crafted political statement for which plausible deniability can be made.

No one who is paying even minimal attention would be unaware that the “many (who) have expressed concerns” are people who are seriously upset with the Pope. Let’s not play games about that.

And without taking a breath, the Cardinal goes on to say “have a healthy spiritual leader and give powerful witness to the faith”. Wow - and what is it that the “many” are claiming? That we don’t have a healthy spiritual leader and do not have one who is “giving powerful witness to the faith”.

That ties directly back to the ship without a rudder; and the Cardinal nowhere says that the Pope is doing what the “many” claim he isn’t.

“I fully respect the Petrine ministry” means he respects the office. That is a back hand way of saying " I respect the Office (not the one holding it)". There was absolutely no reason to put that statement in the terms he did, if he had any desire whatsoever to counter the "many’ position. He did not say he respected the Pope; he said as a clear distinction, that he respected the office.

“I do not wish it to seem like I am speaking out against the Pope” If he doesn’t want it to seem like that, the easiest way to make sure that it doesn’t is to speak up plainly and say “I support the Pope in what he is doing ad trying to do” or “I am speaking out for the Pope, not against”. the “I do not wish to seem like” is a round about way of saying “I don’t wish, I intend”. He is a renowned Canon lawyer, and extremely bright man, and eminently capable of lending support to the Pope and calming the fears of those who feel the Pope is off the rails.

“I would like to be a master of the faith, with all my weaknesses, telling a truth that many currently perceive.” I have already said what the “many” perceive; here he edges closer by calling it a truth. The truth, that the Church is without a rudder, which was the introduction he made.

“We have the enduring tradition of the Church, its teachings, the liturgy, its morality. The catechism remains the same.” Again, coupled with the comment about the Petrine ministry, not coupled with the Pope. So the Pope can make his statements, but we have …

All in all, a masterfully crafted statement that does not say what you suggest. With more than ample spots in which to speak positively of what the Pope is doing, we find rather a statement laden with implications, references to the office but not to the Pope, and round-about “not wish to seem like”.

And nowhere a statement of support, but multiple references to the “many”. It is called “political speak” or “legal speak”.

 

[otjm]

Strange, that’s exactly how +Wuerl’s statement can be read. So it seems that we have +Burke truly criticizing and dissenting (though in a sneaky, subversive manner) and we have +Wuerl truly calling out +Burke for criticizing and dissenting (though in a sneaky, subversive manner).

Pot, meet kettle.

There is a protocol, or at least there was, that Cardinals do not publicly rebuke the Pope. That protocol was cardinals rebuking the Pope, not Cardinals rebuking other Cardinals. I will agree with you that Cardinal Wuerl was directing some of his comments to Cardinal Burke.

 

[otjm]

With due respect, perhaps you are just reading too much into Cardinal Burke’s comments. I think Cardinal Burke has made it clear that he does not support the Kasper proposal and he wants the Pope to stand firm on the Communion issue, and Cardinal Burke is not alone, there are many other people who want Pope Francis to stand firm on this issue too. But to read into so much into his comments and try to translate them into what you think it really means - ‘political’ or ‘legal speak’ you say, I think frankly, your translation is questionable in regards to accuracy. You may think your translation, so to speak, of his comments is accurate, but it may not be.

Cardinal Burke is a very intelligent and well respected Canon lawyer, a bishop of many years, and did not end up in Rome in the Curia because he was a country bumpkin. He is a very astute individual who has had ample press time before he ever got to Rome. I am more than happy to stand by my translation.

Cardinal Burke is, no surprise to anyone, not a liberal. Nor has he ever indicated that his position on matters ever even tended toward liberal. That is perfectly fine; the Church has always had people who are more conservative and those who are more liberal, and contrary to those on both ends of the spectrum, there is plenty of room within the Church to be either liberal or conservative and be absolutely within the spectrum of the Magisterium (and we can also admit there are those on either end who may step beyond the bounds of the Magisterium, or even leap).

We have a Pope who is unlike any in my lifetime - and I was 12 when Pius 12th died, so I have seen 7 Popes. Francis clearly eschews the pomp and circumstance of the office, and in that he clearly upsets some people. He also speaks off the cuff, and much (often edited to the extreme) reported by the secular press is taken out of context and played for what it is not. That, too, has upset many.

What gets reported (somewhat) and receives far less attention are the statements which clearly indicate that this Pope is not out to change doctrine or morals (as he directly stated at or after his visit to the Philippines).

It also has been reported that any number of Cardinals wanted a Pope who would make some serious changes to the Curia, whom the Cardinals found to be bureaucratic and too often unresponsive, or at least unhelpful.

And this pope has done something no other Pope has done, and that is have a synod which was open. It has been said that one should never watch sausage being made; the same might be said of the synod.

And I have little doubt that either of those last two issues sit well with Cardinal Burke; and coupled with the secular press reporting (some of) what the Pope says (and he does so frequently), they do not sit well with a lot of Catholics.

Perhaps, had the synod not been open, Cardinal Burke would not have made his statement.

Cardinal Burke could have spoken clearly to allay the concerns of the “many”. He most certainly did not. I am not the least offended that he disagrees with the Pope’s decisions and method of catechesis. However, protocol would be that he take it up somewhere besides in the public square.

Cardinal Burke, and the “many” want a different response from the Pope, and they are not getting it. The Pope has not gone off the rails; and the Cardinal could have said as much. He clearly didn’t. The Pope has a style that is causing consternation; we can all agree with that.

So there are really several matters at play. One is the proposal by Cardinal Kasper and others, and I have no problem whatsoever with Cardinal Burke publicly addressing that issue with the Cardinal, or referencing the Cardinal…

Another issue is the Pope’s style of fulfilling his office. Over time, that may ameliorate, or it may not, and as long as people look to and read the secular press, there are going to be problems, as the secular press has its own agenda, one far different from the Magisterium.

When an issue needs to be addressed, then one looks at how it is addressed. The “many” have a serious problem with the Pope; and if one is going to address it, one does not do so by speaking of one’s respect for the office - which is not the object of the concern; one addresses the issue of the Pope directly. When one clearly sidesteps addressing the problem, that, too is patently obvious to those who understand and are conversant with “political speak” or “legal speak”.

 

[Sirach2]

Otjm, in other words, it ain’t what Burke said, it’s what he should have said, but didn’t.

I’m chuckling as I remember the commercial with a young bridesmaid worried about her calories. The question was, “Do you like your dress?” (It was garish!) She said sheepishly, with easy insight available to the viewer, “I love my sister.” Perceptions are readily obvious in many instances where words are specifically chosen to avoid exposing the real self.

 

[LongingSoul]

When an issue needs to be addressed, then one looks at how it is addressed. The “many” have a serious problem with the Pope; and if one is going to address it, one does not do so by speaking of one’s respect for the office - which is not the object of the concern; one addresses the issue of the Pope directly. When one clearly sidesteps addressing the problem, that, too is patently obvious to those who understand and are conversant with “political speak” or “legal speak”.

That brought to my mind that cowardly iconic break up line. “I love you but I’m not in love with you” for some reason.

 

[graciew]

There is a protocol, or at least there was, that Cardinals do not publicly rebuke the Pope. That protocol was cardinals rebuking the Pope, not Cardinals rebuking other Cardinals. I will agree with you that Cardinal Wuerl was directing some of his comments to Cardinal Burke.

I do not know if there still is yet I am certain it is very traditional practice.
Even among lay Catholics to publicly rebuke a Church authority is out of place.
And with all the technology nowadays,Cardinals could speak to each other by …Skype??
Rebuking a Pope publicly is unthinkable for us.

I honestly kept quiet because I understand much of this public debate ,even signing petitions is more of an American political way than religious generally speaking. Kind of normal and ok for you all.So I made an effort to try and read it in that light so as not to think about it in a negative way if you wish.

I still try not to.

 

[pianistclare]

Following this thread is almost maddening. :hypno:

What are people who are against the Synod looking at this issue so afraid of?

As far as I can tell, no one wants to change the rules, we just want to make sure that the people who are affected most by this are having the rules properly applied.

Yes, I believe that marriage is forever, but sadly, many do not, including many Catholics.
It is all part of our crazy “me-me-me” society, and the lack of proper catechesis over that last 5 decades.

As I said a couple of pages ago, to be a valid Sacrament you have to have form, matter & intent. And since it’s the couple who confer the Sacrament, if the ***intent ***to do what the Church does is not there, then the Sacrament is not valid.

In my experience, 90% of the people I know who have been married in the Church have done so because that was what was expected by their families, and they always dreamed of the “big church wedding”, not because they believed what the Church taught about marriage. They just wanted their “special day” to be as special as possible.

I think that Pope Francis knows this, and this is why he called the Synod. The Holy Spirit will guide us through this, and in the end I am confident that doctrine will not change. I am also confident that some disciplines and procedures may change, and that it will be to keep with the “spirit” of the law, not the “letter” of the law. And that is the teaching of Jesus.

Exactly. The whole process is horrible for most people.
The Pope wants to make the process less horrible. Why are people afraid of that?
I think it’s pretty awful for those who don’t need an annulment to desire that the process be hard and horrible for those who do.

 

[Suudy]

There is a protocol, or at least there was, that Cardinals do not publicly rebuke the Pope.

Well, I’m a convert, so I’m not aware of such niceties. But clearly Paul didn’t get the message when he rebuked Peter in public. So I’m not so sure any particular pope is immune to criticism, even by Cardinals and Bishops. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see some nasty things said about the Borgias popes by contemporaries.

So somehow what +Burke said is worse than what +Wuerl said is unfounded. And to hold up +Wuerl’s criticism as acceptable, but reject +Burke’s smacks of partisanship.