What Cardinal Burke really said about 'resisting' Pope Francis

[otjm]

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.

What Paul said to Peter, he said to Peter - and it got reported; a little bit different than a veiled criticism in the secular press.

And I don’t recall taking on Cardinal Wuerl; nor did I take on Cardinal Burke’s comments directed directly or indirectly to Cardinal Kasper - I noted that I don’t have a problem with them publicly going back and forth. So let’s not expand the topic; the question I answered was, what did Cardinal Burke say that was dissenting. He has clearly taken his back-hand statement in the public press to the Pope. That is what we are discussing, and not the other statements.

You may not be sure about public criticisms of a sitting Pope, as you are a convert (and welcome, even if it is a bit late!). I can’t say if there were public criticisms of John 23rd, although there definitely were people who were as unhappy, if not more so, with the Pope back then at the start of Vatican 2.

It is fine to say I don’t like the Pope’s style of being Pope; it is another thing entirely to leave an impression that he is off the rails. A “ship without a helm” is the equivalent of my comment about a ship without a rudder (if you have sailed, the helm controls the rudder) and that is a verbal attack.

The question was asked as to what the Cardinal said that was dissenting. I have answered that.

I hope Lent is spiritually fulfilling for you and everyone else on the thread; this will be my last response until after Easter.

 

[MarcoPolo]

another public display

more and more covert actions on his part

Are you upset with Cardinal Burke for taking public action or covert action? Is there another option he should take?

Also, I see the use of such phrases to criticize Cardinal Burke, but I wonder what specific statements of his you find to be in error, if any?

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Of course. They don’t call us the Church Militant for nothing.

 

[graciew]

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. /QUOTE]
You are right ,Suudy. Paul.did. It was in the context of a personal dialogue with Peter held in public about a discipline.
We are also influenced by our education in general so it is good I.go through mine as well.

 

[pnewton]

Since the result of the synod is, by design, a recommendation, a mix of agreement and disagreement is virtually a given. One of the benefits of the intense media coverage of these gatherings is the example of good, holy men disagreeing and continuing to discuss and enjoy communion with each other. Disagreement is healthy. Taking side and creating factions is not.

That is a really good point and nice spin on all this back and forth. Even the language used by those in disagreement is not something we see much in this day of flame wars and media battles. It is (for the most part) the language of the Church, polite and well-seasoned.

 

[pnewton]

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?’

Theologians, which most of our Cardinals are, were first trained in philosophy. Hypothetical situations, even extreme ones, can serve as good thought experiments for the ordering of priorities.

 

[Ender]

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

Regarding prudential questions, which involve the application of doctrine, there is surely room for divergent positions. Regarding doctrinal issues, however, there is not room for disagreement: one position is right and the other is wrong. The question of communion for the divorced and remarried involves doctrines, and Burke (and others) have been quite clear about their position.

And I have little doubt that either of those last two issues sit well with Cardinal Burke…

Is this another example of a “discernment of spirit”? It seems a bit more like a rash judgment.

Cardinal Burke could have spoken clearly to allay the concerns of the “many”. He most certainly did not.

Given that the concerns are not with Burke’s position, how exactly could he have allayed the concerns raised by the positions taken by others?

I am not the least offended that he disagrees with the Pope’s decisions…

I admit to not having read everything going on here so help me out. What decision has the Pope taken that Burke disagreed with?

Ender

 

[Ender]

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.

There are people who are upset. There are also people who are terribly confused, and there seems to be a justifiable reason for that concern. Many of the pope’s comments, despite how he intended them, have supplied ammunition for the enemies of the church. One example: in 2013 the Illinois legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill. One of the main supporters of the bill was the (Democrat) Speaker of the House, who was Catholic and directly cited Pope Francis to lend support to his position. As the press reported it:“Advocates [of gay ‘marriage’ in Illinois] soon received additional help from Pope Francis, who warned that the Catholic Church could lose its way by focusing too much on social stances, including opposition to homosexuality.” (Chicage Tribune)
Yes, the concern is real. And it is reasonable.

“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”.

To acknowledge the (apparently valid) concerns raised by several of the pope’s statements is not the same as “speaking out against the pope.” Holding that an action was inadvisable is not at all the same as condemning the person who committed it.

the “I do not wish to seem like” is a round about way of saying “I don’t wish, I intend”.

I’m glad you cleared that up. I never know when it’s appropriate to conclude a person actually means the opposite of what he says.

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.

How is lending support to the very concerns that raised the fears in the first place supposed to have a calming effect?

“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 …

If you assume that everything done by a pope is well thought out and helpful in advancing the church, this might seem at best like faint praise. If, however, you admit room for the occasional misstep, it is “calming” to recall that it is the church that is protected and not necessarily those who lead it.

Ender

 

[Suudy]

Just one other point. It seems there is some confusion, or at least some ambiguity, regarding the term “dissent.” When used in the context of discussion about the Church, it has a certain connotation that implies dissent from doctrine. At least that’s how I’ve always understood it to be used.

To call someone a dissenter is to say they reject or resist authentic Church doctrine. For example, the already mentioned Winnipeg Statement, and the host of other open dissent from religious and lay people in the wake of Humanae Vitae.

But to disagree with a particular pope’s methods, emphases, habits, etc, is not dissent. Again, during Papa Benedict XVI’s papacy, there was many an outcry that the “German Shepherd” had been elected. I even heard from a priest at a parish event when he was elected complain that “now the gays and Jews are really gonna get it.” But these were all criticisms of style, not of doctrine, and I never viewed them as dissent.

So ultimately my argument back and forth here is the label that has been associated with +Burke as a dissenter. Nowhere did he dissent against any Church doctrine or Church teaching. There was discussion on what he should do should an attempt be made to change Church doctrine regarding communion for the divorced and remarried (akin to the types of changes say the Monophystites or Arians tried to promulgate). It isn’t about resistance to Papa Francis. It never was, despite efforts to spin it that way.

 

[Seamus_L]

The potential problem many people see coming next October is not that the Church could radically change Church teaching, but rather that issues become even more confused and unclear. That which is contrary to Catholic tradition should not even be open to discussion, because at that point, who’s to say what can’t be discussed next.

 

[Suudy]

What Paul said to Peter, he said to Peter - and it got reported; a little bit different than a veiled criticism in the secular press.

Well, that was never my reading of Galatians. Paul himself points out his public opposition:
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
The current practice may be to refrain from publicly rebuking the pope, but it has not basis in history or in the Bible.

So let’s not expand the topic; the question I answered was, what did Cardinal Burke say that was dissenting. He has clearly taken his back-hand statement in the public press to the Pope. That is what we are discussing, and not the other statements.

…

It is fine to say I don’t like the Pope’s style of being Pope; it is another thing entirely to leave an impression that he is off the rails. A “ship without a helm” is the equivalent of my comment about a ship without a rudder (if you have sailed, the helm controls the rudder) and that is a verbal attack.

I think your definition of “dissent” is ambiguous at best if not inconsistent. +Burke’s criticism, even if backhanded or done in “political speak” or “legal speak” was a statement about style and leadership. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume +Burke’s words mirror his beliefs. He never said or implied that Papa Francis was “off the rails,” but that the Church seemed be somewhat adrift or veering. These are statements about leadership, which are criticisms of “style of being Pope.” They are not criticisms of any doctrine or teaching. Which makes them not dissent, but disagreement.

And there is a difference.

The question was asked as to what the Cardinal said that was dissenting. I have answered that.

But I don’t agree on your definition of dissent. So I’m not sure your example was a good one.

I hope Lent is spiritually fulfilling for you and everyone else on the thread; this will be my last response until after Easter.

And for you as well. It is unfortunate you won’t respond for the next 40+ days, as by then this topic will likely fall off. Perhaps you can do so on Sundays, when the usual lenten restrictions are less strict?

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yes, re Lent and CAF, I am thinking of just going off on Fridays (if I even do that; depends on what is going on in the world; as long as you are disconnecting for the right reasons. I mean I hope I can meaningfully do my Lent and still talk to people ). I am not trying to run other people’s Lent of course. Just adding my perspective…

 

[graciew]

The current practice may be to refrain from publicly rebuking the pope, but it has not basis in history or in the BibleQUOTE]
Let me clarify a couple of things.
Paul and Cephas were having a dialogue. And as you say , Paul addressed him as Cephas not as Peter in respectful recognition of his authority.
When I said it is traditional practice not to rebuke a Pope in public , there.is an honest intention and a purpose , it is not about an " image" of unity .
I am not addressing this particular c Burke ,Pope Francis isssue right now. I can later on.
God bless!

 

[graciew]

Here is what I wanted to share about C. Burke and Pope Francis . It takes a glance to realize the interviewer makes two attempts( that we can read in the article OP) to confront their authorities. It is easy to read,think and answer ,But that is not the case in an interview,though C Burke ratifies what he said.and we do have to believe in his intention
My only point with most respect to his authority is that the hypothetical question had the word " insists" as a trap. Hard to avoid it…
And as I have found it hurtful to see how Pope Francis was at times nearly shredded word by word,the least I would like to do is have C.Burke undergo the same fate…

So instead,I am sharing a passage of a Church Father,Cyprian of Carthage bishop and martyr born about AD 200 ,written at a time when there was a lot going on,much of which reminded me of what is going on today.
It is about Church Unity
The original from the manuscript can be found here

newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm

The substituted passage is as follows:

. . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, ‘feed My sheep’. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?

I loved this part " but the flock is shown to be one,that is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and one heart"

 

[unafraid]

That Cardinal Burke is still the object of so much angst and scrutiny mystifies me. I have never found him to be a compelling figure, but somehow he seems to have a propensity for controversy.

Pope Francis wears the ring; Cardinal Burke does not. Humility demands deference to the Vicar of Christ. This is becoming an embarrassment. Cardinal Burke needs to stand down.

 

[pianistclare]

That Cardinal Burke is still the object of so much angst and scrutiny mystifies me. I have never found him to be a compelling figure, but somehow he seems to have a propensity for controversy.

Pope Francis wears the ring; Cardinal Burke does not. Humility demands deference to the Vicar of Christ. This is becoming an embarrassment. Cardinal Burke needs to stand down.

Agreed.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Well, the circumstances are a little unusual here. The ball was set rolling by Cardinal Kasper’s proposal regarding communion for the divorced and remarried at the last Synod. I think this is an ongoing discussion frankly at all levels of the Church. Even the Pope has not yet made a decision, correct? He wants (name removed by moderator)ut from the bishops.

I am fine with Cardinal Burke and others expressing their viewpoints on this subject. The subject matter does concern Catholic doctrine and teaching. The Pope has called for openness in discussion.

Have I overlooked something?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That Cardinal Burke is still the object of so much angst and scrutiny mystifies me. I have never found him to be a compelling figure, but somehow he seems to have a propensity for controversy.

Pope Francis wears the ring; Cardinal Burke does not. Humility demands deference to the Vicar of Christ. This is becoming an embarrassment. Cardinal Burke needs to stand down.

What exactly about this statement is a problem?

Cardinal Raymond Burke said he was “responding to a hypothetical situation” when he stated that he would resist any possible move by Pope Francis away from Catholic doctrine.

“I simply affirmed that it is always my sacred duty to defend the truth of the Church’s teaching and discipline regarding marriage,” Cardinal Burke told CNA Feb. 9.

“No authority can absolve me from that responsibility, and, therefore, if any authority, even the highest authority, were to deny that truth or act contrary to it I would be obliged to resist, in fidelity to my responsibility before God.”

I just wonder if he had made that statement 3 years ago, when Benedict XVI was Pope, if people would have been so ‘angsty’ and called on him to ‘stand down’.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR WARNING

Be careful when discussing disputes between clergy. Members will be cited for ad hominem or uncharitable posts or links to blogs that violate CAF rules.

---

 

[Tigg]

Well, the circumstances are a little unusual here. The ball was set rolling by Cardinal Kasper’s proposal regarding communion for the divorced and remarried at the last Synod. I think this is an ongoing discussion frankly at all levels of the Church. Even the Pope has not yet made a decision, correct? He wants (name removed by moderator)ut from the bishops.

I am fine with Cardinal Burke and others expressing their viewpoints on this subject. The subject matter does concern Catholic doctrine and teaching. The Pope has called for openness in discussion.

Have I overlooked something?

No, I believe this states it perfectly.