Cardinal Raymond Burke is back in the news for having once again reflected upon the pontificate of Pope Francis in a public forum.
Unlike his EWTN interview in December, during which His Eminence made a number of candid statements that betray his own sense of uneasiness with the present pontificate, Cardinal Burke’s latest comments, delivered at a conference of the Dignitatis Humanae Institute, are a carefully crafted message that is being characterized in some quarters as a stirring “defense” and “explanation” of Pope Francis.
In my estimation, however, it is neither, and is more properly understood as an exercise in ecclesial gamesmanship and a bit of Romanità.
Some traditionalists have expressed deep disappointment in Cardinal Burke as a result of this speech, which tells me that it’s again necessary to address the way in which the cardinal himself is viewed.
Let’s be clear, Cardinal Burke isn’t going to rescue the Church from the present crisis; we’ve reached the point where only Christ can do that. His comments are important, however, coming as they do from one of the best of the Curial lot, especially as it relates to matters liturgical.
Even so, there’s no doubt that Cardinal Burke has embraced his share of conciliar novelties as well.
Consider, for example, his role as President of the Advisory Board of the very group he was addressing, the Dignitatis Humanae Institute (DHI).
In spite of whatever good works this group may be doing, no Catholic prelate should feel comfortable serving on the board of an organization that claims the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights as foundational. (See yesterday’s blog post for an essay on this condemnable proclamation.)
The DHI, according to its own Declaration, considers “the recognition of the dignity of Man” as that which is “most lacking in our society,” when every Catholic with a drop of traditional sense realizes that it is the failure to recognize the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ that is most lacking, and this thanks to the post-conciliar hierarchy of the Catholic Church of which Cardinal Burke is a member.
The point is simply this: Cardinal Burke has a toe in traditionalism and a foot in “newchurch.” Although he has certain traditional leanings, at the end of the day he is still a Curial prelate who obviously wishes to remain in the pope’s good graces at this time of great uncertainty, and it is from this place that he thus spoke.
So, what did Cardinal Burke actually have to say?
On the one hand, very little.
“I noted a certain questioning [on the part of people in the United States] about whether Pope Francis has altered or is about to alter the Church’s teaching on a number of the critical moral issues of our time, for example, the teaching on the inviolable dignity of innocent human life, and the integrity of marriage and the family,” he said before going on to reject the idea.
Make note of the narrow focus here.
Cardinal Burke is not weighing in on the pope’s coddling of heathens and heretics, or his unbridled hostility toward traditionalists; rather, he is speaking very specifically about the dogmas of the Faith concerning human life and the sacrament of holy matrimony.
Of course Pope Francis isn’t going to “alter” these doctrines; the Holy Ghost won’t allow it. The simple fact that Cardinal Burke treats such “questions” as worthy of a response, however, is exceedingly noteworthy.
Remember, we are dealing here with nuance and subtlety.
While I can write blog posts that directly confront the pope’s growing number of offenses against our Holy Faith, like it or not, that’s not how life in the Curia is lived, unless of course one wants to be “promoted” right out the front door.
As for his evaluation of Pope Francis’ teaching, Cardinal Burke provides what strikes me as an excellent example of how the game is played in Rome.
On the one hand he says, “It is not that the Holy Father is not clear in his opposition to abortion and euthanasia, or in his support of marriage as the indissoluble, faithful and procreative union of one man and one woman.” (Notice that he speaks of “his opposition” and “his support;” not the clarity with which he instructs others on the demands of the moral law.)
On the other hand he states, “Clearly, the words and actions of the Holy Father require, on our part, a fitting tool of interpretation, if we are to understand correctly what he intends to teach.”
In other words, what is most clear to all is that “the words and actions of the Holy Father” do not clearly communicate the Faith of the Church, and they only become so when interpreted correctly!
A close reading of this speech also reveals that His Eminence offers very few opinions of his own in support of the pope’s modus operandi; rather, he simply rewords various quotes provided by others, like Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino and the pope himself.
Cardinal Burke also speaks quite a bit about the pope’s good intentions, while stopping well short of endorsing his method. In fact, one senses the exact opposite when he states, “But his approach cannot change the duty of the Church and her shepherds to teach clearly and insistently about the most fundamental moral questions of our time.”
As the speech draws near to its close, Cardinal Burke offers his most pointed commentary.
After suggesting that the pope wishes to “put the person of Jesus Christ at the heart of all of the Church’s pastoral activity,” he goes on to deliver what can reasonably be understood as a direct critique of the Holy Father’s methods.
At the same time, we should not think that such an invitation [to come to Christ] requires that we be silent about fundamental truths of the natural moral law, as if these matters were somehow peripheral to the message of the Gospel. Rather, the proclamation of the truth of the moral law is always an essential dimension of the proclamation of the Gospel, for it is only in light of the truth of the moral law, written on every human heart, that we can recognize our need to repent from sin and accept the mercy of God offered to us in Jesus Christ.
It is for this reason that Our Lord begins His own proclamation of the Kingdom of God with the challenge to “Repent and believe in the Gospel” (Mk 1:15). The call to repentance involves both the reminder of our sinfulness and failure to keep God’s law and, at the same time, the offer of God’s forgiveness. Thus, we see the Apostles, in their preaching after Pentecost, both admonishing their hearers for their sins, and inviting them to accept the mercy that God wishes to offer them through the Risen Christ (Acts 2: 38-40; 3:14-20). St Paul, in his Letter to the Romans, begins his comprehensive presentation of the Gospel precisely by reminding us of the natural moral law, written on every human heart, which reveals to us our sinfulness and our need for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (cf. Rom 1-3).
This exhortation is, arguably, directed at Pope Francis as much as anyone else.
So, in conclusion, while I can understand why some folks initially reacted to Cardinal Burke’s address with disappointment, a careful reading through the lens of Romanità reveals that it’s far from the breathless defense of papal improprieties that some have taken it to be.
Cardinal Burke, thanks be to God, seems to be publicly correcting one of the most fundamental errors of this pontificate, made explict in Evangeli Gaudium: “The centrality of the kerygma calls for stressing those elements which are most needed today: it has to express God’s saving love which precedes any moral and religious obligation on our part …” http://culbreath.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/did-i-read-that-right/
By the way, I believe your analysis is spot on.
This is among the conciliar novelties His Eminence has embraced:
http://www.hebrewcatholic.net/category/faith-theology/election-calling/abp-burke-interview/
‘Clearly, the words and actions of the Holy Father require, on our part, a fitting tool of interpretation.’ Well, via Cardinal Burke, thank God you are doing this interpreting, Louie, or I may have thought another one had just crossed over to the ‘Force’ of Jesuitism.
p.s. From Burke: ‘Pope Francis has clearly reaffirmed’? Francis ‘clearly reaffirms’ that nothing, in fact, of faith and morals or tradition or even plain language, is to be clearly reaffirmed.
This game of poker our betters are playing with the devil, I guess we know how it ends in the ‘end’, but how will it end for the mean time? Also, is it just me, or should a ‘loyal son of the Church’, need a ‘fitting tool for interpretation’ (which perhaps we might expect Cardinal Burke to be from now on)? Shouldn’t he simply make his yes yes and his no no? But then I don’t have sit in the midnight hour trading hands with satan, so who can say?
p.s. Cardinal Burke will also have to interpret this for me:
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-the-christian-life-proclaims-the-road-to-reco
’cause it just sounds to me like Bishop Bergolgio has declared himself a protestant. I would be interested in people’s opinions. Is Bergoglio simply oblivious to the impact his uniqueness is having on the faithfull and the lack of real savific impact it will have on those he appeases, or is his speech writer a little bit diabolical?
p.s.s
‘scuse for going off topic: this definitive statement was made on a Catholic blog: ‘To reject the Council (VII), is to reject the Church’. This surely cannot be true – it implies for one thing that the Council IS THE CHURCH, and that there is nothing else to have fidelity to.
It seems that the Cardinal is being very careful now. In being more outspoken as he was on EWTN–and even that was done with gentleness and charity–he was removed from two posts.
The bottom line is that no criticism of the Holy Father is going to be tolerated. There was one exception thrown in where the Pope telephoned an ill prelate who had been critical but perhaps that was just to thrown the ‘dogs’ off the trail and keep us all rather confused.
Anyway, if the Cardinal wishes to stay in Rome so as to have some influence and be a counterbalance to the ‘progressives’, he must wisely play the game.
dear Saluto, well, this is a “stance” that indeed is beyond tragic. For this reason and more, it is good that you so identified it here.
I’d be interested in hearing your, and other brethren here, address– to what extent they’ve found this “stance” operating within their daily Catholic lives. It’s becoming more and more prevalant in mine and if I may say, necessitates an entirely grounded focus in ” proselytizing.”
To address an outfit named the Dignitatis Humanae Institute and talk about the faith, morals, values, or any problem in the Church is akin to addressing the Ku Klux Klan about the plight of African Americans and any ongoing problems with racisim in American society.
Magdalen,
While I’m not certain of your personal position here, one doesn’t wisely play the game or any game in order to still retain influence. A sure-fire prescription for further marginalization, compromise, failure and defeat.
In contrast, let us look at Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve. He didn’t play games or seek to stay in Rome and have some influence. He boldy proclaimed the truth, boldly stood by it, and boldly acted on its behalf.
And for all the problems we still have in 2014, I can confidently say that much or most of what we traditionalists still have and enjoy today is because of the archbishop’s bold actions.
Let us be bold.
“Of course Pope Francis isn’t going to “alter” these doctrines; the Holy Ghost won’t allow it.”
–
Assuming Francis is pope of course.
Hasn’t he (officially) changed church doctrine in Evangelii Gaudium concerning the abrogation of the Old Covenant, which according to Francis is still valid and ongoing for the Jews, an apostate people that rejects the only true God, Our Lord Jesús Christ?
Doesn’t it appear imminent that the official church teaching on the prohibition of the divorced and remarried receiving communion will be overturned at the upcoming synod on the family, and that indeed, this has already de facto occurred in Germany?
Hasn’t Francis de facto changed church doctrine on a number of other issues not necessarily through explicit pronouncements but through his praxis of the faith, his religious indifferentism and moral relativism?
Who can seriously claim that the Holy Spirit will act through Francis during the upcoming “canonization” of “St” JPII “The Great”, an act which up till now has been considered infalible by the saints and theologians of the Church?
Isn’t it obvious that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the visible structure of the Church (at the very least certainly the “pope”) and left it to its own whims and impieties?
Linda – that’s it – it’s like it’s done and dusted – no council no church.
p.s. rodj – i have often wondered why the good cardinals and bishop don’t cross over to SSPX. they could take Benedict with them – still got a legit Pope – bugger the rest – they can smooze with Satan all they like then – we’ll still have peter, a church with one once again unity of belief, prayer and praxis…could work?
Imagine if he’s actually denied or created confusion about an article of faith?
Dear Saluto, brother in the faith:
–
Bergoglio knows EXACTLY what he is saying. He is not the dim-witted fellow some make him out to be. How do you think this cunning snake came to rise through the ranks to eventually usurp the throne of Peter? If he speaks like a proddie, it’s cause he’s a proddie.
–
“But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies.
–
Matthew 15:18-19
Edu, these upcoming canonizations will be crossing a line for me – there will have to be some sign of Divine anger if these prom queens of VII get ‘crowns’ from this crowd who scrapped the miracle hunt, gone the devil’s advocate, gone the prudent amount of time and even the necessity for heroic virtue.
Saluto,
What you do mean, specifically, by ‘crossing a line’? How so, in relation to what has already happened up until now?
p.s. 2jn.1.9 Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. 1.10 If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. 1.11 For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.
how many ‘wicked works’ has bergoglio blessed and thus made himself are part of so far.
rod – because everyone and their poodle knows that these men are not saints – they had no devils advocate, basically one miracle that wasn’t really and they destroyed the Faith to appease heretic. there is no heroic virtue. It would certainly take heroic energy to be a pope, but that’s not what’s needed for sainthood. so, if this canonization takes place this has to be some sort sign – if God lets it happen the church is passing a point of no return.
there’s an old tale, thought to be true – it took place in a Scottish castle the name which I can’t recall. anyway, the Laird of the castle was playing poker with one of his nobles late on Saturday evening, infront of a roaring fire. the foot man comes to the door at around 11:45 and knocks,opens the door, ‘Sirs, it is nearing the Sabbath and I am to remind you that is not lawful to gamble on the sabbath.’ they drunkenly dismiss the footman and continue. The footman returns at five minutes to midnight,’Sirs,I really must insist you leave the cards and retire for the night.’ again the foot man is dismissed and they play. Soon enough another knock at the door. The Laird rises to chastise the footman this time but the door opens and a stranger is standing there. Hair of pitch, a black cloak with red silk lining. his eyes are black as his boots and he smiles and says. I’ll have a wager gentleman. the two men look each other and nod. they sit down and the game begins. the men loose hand after hand until. they have nothing left – not the castle, the land the money, nothing. so the stranger proposes one more hand winner take all – if they win they keep the wealth and the homes and treasures. if the stranger wins, he gets their souls. they laugh and make the bet. they both lose. the legend as it the entire room was consumed in flames and to this day that room has been walled up behind large stones, but the residents still hear the cries and arguments and bitter regret of the cheated men.
now the castle is the Vatican the two men are two ? and the devil? and does the devil win this one?
Saluto – when you say if God let’s it happen, the Church is passing the point of no return, then what? What does that mean in general, and for you, specifically?
“Is the Pope Catholic?” used to be a rhetorical question.
Also, according to article on Angelqueen, Michael Voris warns us to avoid John Vennari, Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara. He’s a “company man” through and through. His unquestioning loyalty to the Visible Head (the pope) is a betrayal to the Invisible Head (Christ).
“Cardinal Burke, thanks be to God, seems to be publicly correcting one of the most fundamental errors of this pontificate, made explict in Evangeli Gaudium: “The centrality of the kerygma calls for stressing those elements which are most needed today: it has to express God’s saving love which precedes any moral and religious obligation on our part …””
.
## That’s not an error. It’s part of a paradox. Which is as follow: Because we are sinners, God – never man – has to take the initiative, and grant us the grace turn to him, to want to repent, to repent, & to repent efficaciously. All 4 things come from God’s grace. We need to do them – but w/o God’s grace, we can no more do even one of them than we can jump over the Moon. God has to take the first step – because we cannot. And God does this, because His Love is unconditional – He gives grace to us sinners, not because we have first put Him under an obligation (!!!!) or could do so; but because He desires our repentance & salvation, not our destruction. God’s Love is unconditional, & self-forgetful, because it is the very same self-sacrificial Love as we see on the Cross.
So, instead of being in error, this – ““The centrality of the kerygma calls for stressing those elements which are most needed today: it has to express God’s saving love which precedes any moral and religious obligation on our part” – is spot-on. To deny it is a step towards Pelagianism – which may be why the Pope used the word. What he says is traditional Catholic teaching. The irony is that the Jesuits tended to emphasise man’s ability to help himself, rather to emphasise God’s grace – which has been more an Augustinian & Thomist emphasis (There was a prolonged controversy on the subject between Dominicans & Jesuits from 1584 to 1607. It was not resolved.).
The Pope should really call the bluff of all these traditionalists who are really no more than Republicans in sheep’s clothing. Cardinal Burke wants to talk about the “fundamental truths of the natural moral law”? Really? Is there anyone crying out to see the serial adulterer Newt Gingrich denied Holy Communion? How many “trads” listen every day to the serial adulterer and drug addict Rush Limbaugh? How many of these same “trads” practically worship at the altar of our first divorced president Ronald Reagan?
Pope Francis is too nice. If I was pope, I would ask Burke how many times he told his listening audience that heterosexual sodomy is a much more pervasive problem than homosexual sodomy by shear numbers alone. Wonder how he would respond to that?
Rodj – I mean that the Vaticanistas are now playing on the other side of the table. It’s one thing to put up with the self-indulgent Jesuitical ramblings of an old man who happens to be pope, but it is quite another to have raised to the altars the three men most responsible for the decimation of the Faith over the past 50 odd years. God doesn’t expect us to be thick when is comes to shepherds who swing their swords for the cause of the world. Christ said, you are for me or against me. Who can say what state these men were in when they died – but they worked for the world while they lived – the thing is, all that will be canonised is this antichrist humanism and relgious indifferentism if any of these men are made ‘saints’. What can it mean then? It means we cannot trust any saint to be a saint who has been canonized in several decades – because the men making them saints were compromised by humanism and religious indifferentism and perverting the process for clarifying sainthood. what it means for me specifically, is I ‘recognise and resist’, no more expectations of fidelity from clergy – at least not any I have to rely on. There are faithful priests – maybe the day will come when we have to pack up and go and move just to be in a faithful parish.
Rodj, I don’t really want to say exactly what it means because I don’t have God’s view of things. To me, on the ground, it would seem the Trinity have ‘left the building’; ‘come, Let Us Depart’. Therefore that ‘Peter’ that ‘Rock’ that Hell cannot prevail over is Tradition, History, Scripture which was and is held together by the Petrine thing because Peter has been Simon now for too long. Someone on this blog once said, we need a new St Athanasius. Someone else wryly, but probably accurate, replied, we had one, he was Archbishop Lefebvre.
catholic militant said: Michael Voris warns us to avoid John Vennari, Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara. He’s a “company man” through and through. His unquestioning loyalty to the Visible Head (the pope) is a betrayal to the Invisible Head (Christ).
Oh dear. Poor Mr Matt, Mr Ferrara (not sure about Mr Vennari) are on the ‘hate’ list of that southern poverty scam. I guess one might wonder why CMTV and Mr Voris hasn’t ended up on it yet?
Some of the CMTV editorial makes me squirm, but 90% is stuff that needs to be said, that few others are saying. I would have to hear these warnings made public by Voris himself – in what format did he express his ‘concern’ about this Faithful Catholics, fathers of families, caretakers of their children’s souls, who have suffered for the faith?
Jimmy, you are quite wrong. I refer you to Gaudem et Spes:
“In the depths of his conscience man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience can when necessary speak to his heart more specifically: ‘do this, shun that’. For man has in his heart a law written by God. To obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged (cf. Rom 2:14-16).”
We are not judged according to non-existent moral and religious obligations.
Also, Jimmy, that moral and religious obligations are imposed upon all men, even those who have no knowledge of the Gospel, is implicit in Pius IX’s “Quanto conficiamur moerore”:
“It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.”
Though Pope Francis, when addressing non-Catholics, often appeals to “conscience”, he does not connect the imperatives of conscience with the obligations of natural law (one of which is the worship of God). As such there is no basis for calling non-Catholics to repent of errors when, in the pope’s view, they are not responsible for them. But as Cardinal Burke points out, men do not respond to God’s mercy and forgiveness unless they first understand their own moral failings.
Finally, contra Francis’ words in Evangelii Gaudium and Jimmy’s creative explanation above, Cardinal Burke reminds us (and the pope!):
“Rather, the proclamation of the truth of the moral law is always an essential dimension of the proclamation of the Gospel, for it is only in light of the truth of the moral law, written on every human heart, that we can recognize our need to repent from sin and accept the mercy of God offered to us in Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that Our Lord begins His own proclamation of the Kingdom of God with the challenge to ‘Repent and believe in the Gospel’ (Mk 1:15). The call to repentance involves both the reminder of our sinfulness and failure to keep God’s law and, at the same time, the offer of God’s forgiveness.”
Beautiful! The whole Church owes Cardinal Burke a debt of gratitude for this statement.
“Rodj February 26, 2014 12:37 pm
Magdalen,
While I’m not certain of your personal position here, one doesn’t wisely play the game or any game in order to still retain influence. A sure-fire prescription for further marginalization, compromise, failure and defeat.
In contrast, let us look at Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve. He didn’t play games or seek to stay in Rome and have some influence. He boldy proclaimed the truth, boldly stood by it, and boldly acted on its behalf.
And for all the problems we still have in 2014, I can confidently say that much or most of what we traditionalists still have and enjoy today is because of the archbishop’s bold actions.
Let us be bold.”
Dear Rodj,
Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed do all the things you say, and died excommunicated. Unless you are a sedevacantist, therefore, from a pre-Concilliar point of view, dying an unrepentant excommunicate, the Archbishop is not currently enjoying the Beatific Vision, and never will. ‘Bold actions’ he may have had – but is he really a model to imitate?
Harlequin
harlequin
but St Joan of Arc was burned at the stack, an undying, unrepentent, excommunicated heretic. and then 300 years later she was canonised. Pope Benedict (to paraphrase) called Archbishop Lefebvre a ‘great champion of Mother Church’ or something like that. There are wolves devouring faith souls and tradition in the Vatican – it doesn’t take too many grey cells to see who ‘gentle as doves-wise as serpents’ Faithful are who are the only soldiers in Christ’s battalion.
p.s. however one is pressured by the church of nice, never dare to think that speaking and living truth is a sin to be confessed, because this is what they are trying to make the ONLY sin.
Harlequin,
If I were forced to choose, with no other option, to stand in the shoes of Marcel Lefebvre or Karol Wojtyla on judgment day, assuming authentic Catholicism is truth, I would not hesitate to choose the former. And if somehow, someway authentic Catholicism is not truth, then it probably does not matter either way.
@ Ganganelli:
Dude?
Those arguments are so…. so…. so 1970’ish.
You really should get out more often.
And move on….
I’ll pray for you.
Rodj – well put and I would be trying to fit into those holy shoes of Archbishop Lefebvre as well.
Jeff Culbreath said: As such there is no basis for calling non-Catholics to repent of errors when, in the pope’s view, they are not responsible for them.
–
so bergoglio undoes the beatitudes – blussed are those who don’t mourn (because they acknowledge their sins) for there was no bleeding need to mourn in the first place.
blussed are those who are not poor in spirit but poor in the little stash in the ground for I will do deals with the UN to ensure they have two little stashes in the ground.
blussed are those who hunger for justice for they shall be made millionaires through NGOs
blussed are the meek, ’cause if you don’t piss me off you won’t get fired
blussed are the tolerant for they shall be tolerated by the intolerable
blussed are the PC makers for shall be called the children of the U2 Corp.
blussed are they that suffer liturgical abuse for V2s sake, for they shall be called the children of the republic of the apostasy.
Louie thanks for the article, actually I would even go further. I would even say that the Superior General of SSPX, Bishop Fellay in his open letter to the Pope did the same thing a politician does. Though nothing is wrong with points he made. But the words used like “concern” etc. did convey what is right and necessary, the thing that St. Paul did, telling the Holy Father he is destroying the faith of Catholic souls. I did not want to bring this up in Remnant because Voris has been bashing SSPX lately but what Bishop Fellay wrote in not acceptable as a prince of the Church and one of the successors of the Apostles. I haven’t read anything from Bishop Williamson or Bishop Sanborn or Bishop Kelly yet. But we really need Saints like St. Athanasius, St. Sophonius, Archbishop Lefebvre in our time.
sorry I meant to say Bishop Fellay did NOT convey what needs to be said.