Posted on 09/24/2009 2:24:26 PM PDT by NYer
Edited on 09/24/2009 7:57:03 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Um, no. He was Peter Principled to a place more suited to his talents (but not, in direct opposition to tradition, made a cardinal). The reality is, he's an atrocious administrator. And I'm not just saying that. Rigali left us in fantastic shape and Burke made a lot of big administrative errors in everything but the seminary. I doubt he'll be asked to resign, but I don't think he's going to get what he really wants which is a red hat. BXVI is not about to let him into the next consistory.
Let's face it, the media runs to him for quotes because he can't help himself in speaking in an inflamatory way. He's usually correct, but has zero PR skills.
Sometimes that clerical/hierarchial “gossip” is pretty reliable. You needn’t credit it at all of course. Can you see how someone like Burke, disfavored among American hierarchs, a martinet and with a tendency to at least be perceived as a violator of the canons might become an embarrassment to the Vatican in other areas and with other people?
But, is there even such gossip in this case? If Raymond Burke embarrassed anyone I cannot really see how it would have been anyone that the Holy Father himself is not embarrassing with regularity. Who do you think he upset that had such pull in Rome? And, if that happened, why would Rome then allow him to constantly travel around to give interviews and talk about his views, as he has done here? I just don't see any evidence of what you seem to be suggesting, either about canonical violations regarding his comments on this funeral, or that the Vatican was forced by embarrassed people to move him to Rome.
I’m thinking about copying some of this and writing an editorial for my newspaper editorial list.
People need to hear this Truth.
You've now claimed several times that Archbishop Burke violated canons (but strangely not violated current Canon Law). Which Canon(s) have been violated? Citations, please. An exhaustive list is not necessary.
As an aside: As the supreme Law of the Church is the salvation of souls, it is my opinion that +Burke in no way errs if his intent is to preserve the immortal souls of his brother bishops and those souls entrusted to them.
Of course. It would have to be one *Hell* of an Act of Contrition, though.
Thank you all, I am very happy with my decision to convert and I wouldn’t let something like this issue make me retreat from the Church. I know all churches and religions have dissent, but at least there is a 2,000 year history here to look on for guidance and i love that fact. It is the best decision I have ever made and I am excited every day and spend a lot of time reading about the traditions and doctors and saints, etc. It’s like peeling away layers of an onion. I only wish I had done it years ago. (BTW - my saint is St. Gertrude the Great, but I also love St. Teresa of Avila.)
“You’ve now claimed several times that Archbishop Burke violated canons (but strangely not violated current Canon Law). Which Canon(s) have been violated? Citations, please. An exhaustive list is not necessary.”
Pull up the threads relating to the hierarchial exploding heads about the Obama speech at ND. In a nutshell it has to do with the ancient canons requiring removal from a see for a bishop who crosses diocesan lines and makes trouble in the diocese of another bishop. To the extent that Burke’s fulminations against what the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston did with the Kennedy bespeak an ecclesiology in which loud mouth, loose canon bishops can with impunity interfere in the jurisdiction of other bishops, this causes trouble for the Vatican, especially in light of its top own system and the claims for the Pope of universal immediate jurisdiction. Like I said earlier, Burke just isn;t worth the trouble he causes.
“...it is my opinion that +Burke in no way errs if his intent is to preserve the immortal souls of his brother bishops and those souls entrusted to them.”
That Jesuitical mindset is one of the problems. The Church doesn’t operate that way.
OK, but with all due respect, think a little more about who might be offended by a hierarch who feels free to publicly condemn either his hierarchial equals or betters, what that says about the sort of eccelsiology which allows that behavior and why all of that might be an embarrassment to a Pope who has a great stake, especially now, in promoting the concept of subsidiarity.
“The opinion of a schismatic is irrelevant.”
Sadly for you, AAC, the opinions of “schismatics” like me matter very, very much to the Vatican.
How is this different from St. Athanasius speaking out against the Arian bishops? Or any other bishop speaking out against proponents of any other heresy? (Don’t tell me abortion isn’t a heresy. The killing of babies goes against every fundamental Christian belief, not to mention the Commandments of God.)
“How is this different from St. Athanasius speaking out against the Arian bishops? Or any other bishop speaking out against proponents of any other heresy?”
Is the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston preaching heresy or merely exercising his pastoral office in a manner politically unacceptable to politically motivated hierarchs like this man Burke or American lay people who measure religious orthodoxy by a political yardstick? I suggest the latter.
So let me see...
Archbishop Burke was removed from St. Louis becuse he crossed into the jurisidctions of other bishops.
So we’re going to get rid of him and put him someplace else. Someplace were he can’t step on any other’s toes.
You know where we should put him. We’re going to make him the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura. That’s right we’re going to put him in charge of the highest judicial authority in the Church, besides the Holy Father.
He’ll have authority over any tribunal of the Church. He’ll have jurisdiction over every act of the ordinaries and dicastries in the Church. He’ll have final say over any canonical decision made by the Church... Oh and there’s no appeal.
Yeah that’ll teach him to stay out of trouble and out of the hair of the bishops.
OK. :)
Is the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston preaching heresy or merely exercising his pastoral office in a manner politically unacceptable to politically motivated hierarchs like this man Burke or American lay people who measure religious orthodoxy by a political yardstick? I suggest the latter.
Is it possible we are being a bit credulous regarding the assumptions printed in this article? Based on my reading of this article, and other commentary on this same event, I think there is reason to doubt some of what is printed here regarding what and who Archbishop Burke was speaking about.
Comments like "But for Burke... to -- in effect -- openly oppose the judgment of Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley.." more than imply that Archbishop Burke is talking about Cardinal O'Malley and his diocese. However, it would seem that this is founded on nothing other than the imagination of the "journalist" as I could find no such words actually attributed to the Archbishop himself. Burke did talk about public sinners being allowed to receive the sacraments, and it seems that from this the writer extrapolated a connection to O'Malley. I don't really buy it. If we can make such assumptions then we could also insist that any bishop who spoke against more liberal allowance of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is actually attacking and interfering in the dioceses of those bishops who spoke and acted in favour of it. It seems a far reach to me.
You may be right, but whatever he actually said has lead to comments at the Vatican and elsewhere, especially elsewhere.
Comments at the Vatican? What kind of comments do you mean?
As I recall, most (if not all) of the bishops who spoke up against Fr. Jenkins were speaking up in favor of Bishop D'Arcy, the ordinary of the Diocese of Ft. Wayne-South Bend. Hardly making trouble for Bp. D'Arcy. Certainly making trouble for Jenkins and Obama.
In a nutshell it has to do with the ancient canons requiring removal from a see for a bishop who crosses diocesan lines and makes trouble in the diocese of another bishop.
Again, which canons? I don't know where to start to look, especially if they are canons that don't exist in the current Code of Canon Law. I have no way of knowing if these canons even still bind the bishops unless I can see them.
To the extent that Burke’s fulminations against what the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston did with the Kennedy bespeak an ecclesiology in which loud mouth, loose canon bishops can with impunity interfere in the jurisdiction of other bishops, this causes trouble for the Vatican, especially in light of its top own system and the claims for the Pope of universal immediate jurisdiction. Like I said earlier, Burke just isn;t worth the trouble he causes.
So because Abp. Burke causes trouble for the Vatican, they moved him from a place where he "interfered" with the affairs of some dioceses to a position and degree of affluence where he can "interfere" with the affairs of every diocese. Got it.
... That Jesuitical mindset is one of the problems. The Church doesn’t operate that way.
We are speaking of bishops rebuking brother bishops who have caused scandal, not of bishops who are attempting to take control of affairs in other dioceses. Even at present, Abp. Burke is only speaking up about the decisions made concerning the Kennedy Funeral - his opinion still has no binding authority on other bishops.
That said, had steps been taken to challenge Kennedy's position when he was alive, perhaps this would not be an issue. Furthermore, had the errors of some Catholic theologians as well as some priests/religious-turned-politicians been dealt with in the 1960s and 1970s, this would not be an issue.
I would hope that Kennedy's funeral is a wake-up to the Bishops of the US that they need to speak out against Catholic politicians who flagrantly and publicly act in a manner contrary to Church doctrine.
This whole mess is about bishops actually doing what they are supposed to do.
Again, which canons? I don’t know where to start to look, especially if they are canons that don’t exist in the current Code of Canon Law.”
You really shouldn’t be getting into these discussions without knowing the canons. Your “canon law” isn’t the issue. At any rate, try starting with canon XX of the Council of Trullo.
“So because Abp. Burke causes trouble for the Vatican, they moved him from a place where he “interfered” with the affairs of some dioceses to a position and degree of affluence where he can “interfere” with the affairs of every diocese. Got it.”
Apparently you haven’t got it well. Burke cannot, sua sponte, interfere in the affairs of any diocese. He and his fellows on the AS can only deal with matters properly before them. They are not some world ranging Holy Inquisition, though it sounds like Burke may think that’s what he runs.
“We are speaking of bishops rebuking brother bishops who have caused scandal, not of bishops who are attempting to take control of affairs in other dioceses.”
Burke is indeed interfering in and attempting to take control of the affairs of the Boston Archdiocese, the same sort of meddling which he has done in the past. That violates the canons. The penalty for that violation is the loss of a bishop’s see, which is just what happened to Burke.
“That said, had steps been taken to challenge Kennedy’s position when he was alive, perhaps this would not be an issue.”
You have no idea what pastoral efforts were made with Kennedy. What you really wish had happened is what you wrote next:
“I would hope that Kennedy’s funeral is a wake-up to the Bishops of the US that they need to speak out against Catholic politicians who flagrantly and publicly act in a manner contrary to Church doctrine.”
In other words, public attacks on politicians you disagree with; more involvement of the Latin Church in American politics...as long as its not for the poor or immigrants or health care, the sorts of concerns which make the right’s collective head explode. You know, GCC, if your Latin priests were better formed in your seminaries, maybe they could successfully teach the people The Faith (not politics) and then what some politician did or said wouldn’t make any difference.
You really shouldn’t be getting into these discussions without knowing the canons. Your “canon law” isn’t the issue.
I would like to start here. I am young, full of pig-headed zeal for the Catholic Church, and I'm still trying to learn. I haven't had the time to study all of this yet, but FReeping (and lurking beforehand) was one of my first schools of theology. And I have learned a great deal... no small part of it was from you. Now, I'm in one of those Latin seminaries. I want to understand this, because there are a lot of confused people back at home, and neither ignoring the issue nor using political rhetoric has worked. I want to learn.
You have no idea what pastoral efforts were made with Kennedy.
This is true, and thus my bringing it up was overstepping. From what I understand, Kennedy did meet with a priest in his final days and received the Sacrament of Penance. For this reason, it seems that Abp. Burke's assertion that there should have been no funeral at all is unjust.
That said, without a formal public renunciation of any positions contrary to the Faith, it was scandalous that he received a very public funeral with Cardinals O'Malley and McCarrick present. Moreover, it was completely inappropriate for the non-Catholic and pro-abortion/infanticide/homosexuality/ad nauseam POTUS to give a eulogy - first because it provides a public platform for the President to (potentially) spread errors in a seemingly sanctioned manner and secondly because such eulogies are not permitted at any Catholic funeral.
In other words, public attacks on politicians you disagree with;
Two things here:
1) No, not attacks. Private contact with an explanation of the error for the sake of the soul of the politician. (If I recall correctly, Bp. Martino did this with Sen. Casey.) This can be done in a very cordial manner, consistent with the teaching office of the bishop.
2) Public rebukes should happen only after private contact and admonition fails. The bishop is responsible for teaching the rest of his flock the truth about moral issues as well. Likewise, for a bishop to be silent about a politician's defense of and enabling of moral evils.
more involvement of the Latin Church in American politics...as long as its not for the poor or immigrants or health care, the sorts of concerns which make the right’s collective head explode.
It is equally necessary for the Bishops to be outspoken about the poor, immigrants, and health care. There are approaches that can be squared with Catholic social teaching that has developed over the course of the last 100+ years, and Catholic politicians should seek to use those. I suspect (and this is pure speculation and opinion) that such an approach could be acceptable to many conservatives.
“So because Abp. Burke ... of every diocese. Got it.”
Apparently you haven’t got it well. Burke cannot...
I was being sarcastic. Burke has no authority over any other bishops regarding these issues; we both know this. Do you mean to say, however, that he has no right to teach at all, nor to speak for those scandalized (most of whom live outside of Cdl. O'Malley's jurisdiction)?
try starting with canon XX of the Council of Trullo.
As found:
Canon XX. It shall not be lawful for a bishop to teach publicly in any city which does not belong to him. If any shall have been observed doing this, let him cease from his episcopate, but let him discharge the office of a presbyter.
I see two problems here. First, the Latin Church never accepted the disciplinary canons of Trullo: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm
Second, even if Abp. Burke violated said canon, and even if the Latin Church did accept said canon, Abp. Burke was not punished in accordance with it. He may have "lost" his see in the sense that he was moved from it, but he does not "discharge the office of a presbyter" - he retains the same rights and privileges as any other bishop who works in the Vatican. One may say that he was "Peter principled" up, and perhaps that is true; however, he was not punished.
“Do you mean to say, however, that he has no right to teach at all, nor to speak for those scandalized (most of whom live outside of Cdl. O’Malley’s jurisdiction)?”
Yes, I mean exactly that. Burke has no right to teach at all save in his proper role in The Church which is not to be a vagante loud mouth.
“That said, without a formal public renunciation of any positions contrary to the Faith, it was scandalous that he received a very public funeral with Cardinals O’Malley and McCarrick present.”
Why, if he had repented? And we can’t know that can we? It is Burke, a prelate, who is a scandal in the Church, not the at best agnostic POTUS. Obama doesn’t act for, speak for nor is he seen as representative of The Church. Men like Burke and the heresiarch Martino are. There’s your scandal, seminarian. Study it well!
“first because it provides a public platform for the President to (potentially) spread errors in a seemingly sanctioned manner and secondly because such eulogies are not permitted at any Catholic funeral.”
Why would the Latin faithful think Obama has the slightest clue about Latin theology? That is absolute nonsense. Even your laity are better catechized than that.
“Canon XX.... I see two problems here”
OK, lets start at the beginning. Last I heard, no infallible Vicar of Christ on Earth had completely abrogated the Canons of the 1st Ecumenical Council, Rome’s heresy regarding the Creed aside, so take a look at Canon XV. Has Rome rejected that canon also?
You know, we can keep right on going with this and make a long list of the canons from the Councils of the One Church which Rome rejects and which Orthodoxy cherishes and preserves inviolate. That certainly would go a long way to demonstrating why Orthodoxy is so cautious about getting too wrapped up with Rome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.