This one here was on the twitter account of Canon 212.
You will forgive this native Italian for not understanding exactly what the Cardinal says, but what I could acoustically get is this:
- If there is no response the Cardinals will “correct the situation”, in a “respectful way”.
- they will, in this case, “draw the response to the question from the constant teaching of the Church”
This means, to put it plainly, that there will be no correction.
What there will be is only a sort or reminder, or integration. Something every Bishop can do every day. “The Pope has not answered the Dubia, so we will do it for him”. No demand that the Pope speaks himself. No ultimatums. No warning that the Pope is, by refusing to answer the Dubia, promoting heresy. Merely a faint meowing.
This will open the floodgates for more heresies and more perverted encyclicals letters, in which Francis implies all sorts of abominations and shuts up when asked to correct them. After which, a handful of kitten will tell us what we already know without the slightest need for them to remind us of the obvious. In the meantime, the heretical Pope will go on spreading heresies, and these people will seriously try to make us believe that they have fulfilled their duty.
Mind, it might come out differently in the end. It might be that the Cardinal does not want to show his hand right now.
However, if this were to be the situation it seems to me that Fra’ Cristoforo is absolutely right: no correction at all; with the addition of some blabla so that the Cardinals may try to save face.
These here are supposed to be Princes of the Church. In what miserable state we are.
I have already written that in this just begun 2017 we will have to get accustomed to a lot of absurd talk. It seems to me the recent interview of the Remnant with Cardinal Burke constitutes another example.
Let us leave aside Burke’s initial triple salto mortale, when he states again (make no mistake: to try to justify five months of shameful inaction) that Amoris Laetitia “is not an exercise of the papal magisterium” – an obvious, blatant contradiction with his actions from September on – . What I would like to focus on today is the following Q&A.
MJM: So what’s next, Your Eminence? If Pope Francis fails to answer your dubia, what’s the next course of action? You’ve spoken of the possibility of elevating this to a formal correction. But what exactly does that look like?
Cardinal Burke: Well, it doesn’t look too much differently than the dubia. In other words, the truths that seem to be called into question by AL would simply be placed alongside what the Church has always taught and practiced and annunciated in the official teaching of the Church. And in this way these errors would be corrected. Does that make sense to you?
No, it does not make sense to me. It does not make sense to me because it does not make sense at all.
A correction is, by definition, the stating of what is wrong together with the affirmation of what is right. My teachers at school did not write the correct spelling alongside the wrong one; they barred the wrong spelling, and put the right one in its place. That was wrong, but this is right.
What the Cardinal is stating now equates to saying – and I do not see any other interpretation of this – that the Cardinals would publish a statement of what is right without even daring to explicitly say what is wrong with Amoris Laetitia.
This is not a correction. This is not even a criticism. This is first-class V II meowing.
Such an exercise does not need to be preceded by Dubia. The Cardinals could have done it anytime. Such a reaction would, actually, justify the criticism that the Dubia were uncalled for in the first place. In short: Cardinal Burke’s answer is utter baloney.
The only logical consequence of the refusal of the Pope to answer the Dubia is the open condemnation of the relevant AL points as heretical, and the rebuke of the Pope who refused to set things right by answering the Dubia.
From this another logical necessity follows: that if the Pope keeps refusing to answer the Dubia and openly set things right, he must be declared a heretic himself.
It’s as simple as that. There is no escape from it. If Cardinal Burke thought he did not have the mettle for this, he was a fool in issuing the Dubia in the first place, much less publishing them.
I have been criticised for being sceptical about Cardinal Burke. But the fact is that I do not have a high degree of confidence in someone who, after an unprecedented attack to the faith, first criticises those who want to defend it and then awaits five months before he does something. This interview is, to me, another demonstration that Cardinal Burke must earn the confidence of faithful Catholics rather than think that, as he is one of the very few prelates meowing, the faithful will stand in awe in front of such magnificence.
No, the Cardinal’s plan does not make sense at all. It is the worst of V II cowardice and betrayal of Truth. It is like a government issuing an ultimatum and then, when the ultimatum is not complied with, proceeding to declare “disagreement” instead of war. It’s a loss of face, and the man is a fool if he thinks he can meow and be hailed as a Catholic lion. If he does what he says he will lose face, big time. Not for the first time.
Do not put your faith in any V II prelate until he has earned it, no matter how long his cappa magna.
These here are fair-weather shepherds.
Pretty strong words from Cardinal Burke in a new interview clearly meant to increase the pressure on Pope Francis to at least publicly declare he is Catholic, and avoid worse trouble.
The words that define the interview and send the clear message to Francis are the following ones:
If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope
Naturally, and pretty much in style, Cardinal Burke goes on reassuring us of how much he likes Pope Francis, & Co. (this always surprises me; an obviously extremely grumpy, cantankerous, nasty, boorish and permanently insulting man appears to be liked by everyone. One wonders…). But the issue here is not of peoples, but of truths.
In another interview, it was indicated that the formal correction of Amoris Laetitia could appear in January, and would remain limited to correcting the document itself, not declaring the Pope a heretic (yours truly reported). Cardinal Burke is now sending a first message about what could happen after that correction.
It is, in fact, difficult to believe that the Cardinals would issue a formal correction of the Pope’s document as clearly heretical and, after a certain time has elapsed, would refuse to draw the conclusion that the Pope who still insists in not condemning the errors is himself a heretic.
Amoris Laetitia is, however you see his magisterial rank (the position of cardinal Burke that it hasn’t any was, of course, negated by the very act of posing the Dubia), a document Pope Francis has signed and for which he must answer. There is no way to deflect the accusations by saying that he doesn’t remember what he has written, or was drinking too much mate, or was in the bathroom when the document was released.
Every day that Francis avoids answering the Dubia, he digs a bigger hole for himself. He should swallow this bullfrog, lose face, and save what has left of his papacy, truly south-american in the scale of its failure.
What happens now is one of those multiple possibilities with the “inverted tree” diagram I cannot draw here.
The correction is issued, or not. If it is not issued the laity will keep condemning, and the Cardinals will keep shutting up. If it is issued the Pope will have two alternatives: finally answer the Dubia or further refuse to do so. If he answers the Dubia he will most certainly answer them in the proper way, and this particular matter at least will be settled. If he does not answer them the Cardinals will, once again, have the choice between shutting up and declaring him heretical and having “ceased to be Pope”. If the Pope is declared such, either nothing will happen (most bishops and cardinals simply refuse to enter the controversy and simply wait for the heretical Pope to die, as already happened for Honorius) and the not-anymore-Pope remains in office as a sort of Vatican squatter, or the “bishop against bishop” scenario sets in, and we have a number of Cardinals and a greater number of bishops willing to see this to its end. In this last scenario an imperfect, extraordinary council would be convened (say, in a place like Poland; or, more probably, Rome), at the end of which the pope would be declared a heretic in the same way as a murdered is declared a murdered when he is condemned, though in a factual sense he was a murderer the moment he committed the murder. The “inverted tree” can go on for very long, but at this point I think Francis would be told very clearly he either resigns or the cardinals and bishops kick him out with vast majority and physically remove him from office, after which a heresy trial begins.
It is sad to say that, as I write this, the most probable hypothesis still seems to be the first one: the Cardinals do not follow through, and the matter dies here.
The newest development in the matter of the dubia are now on LifeSiteNews. Quote:
“Now of course we are in the last days, days of strong grace, before the Solemnity of the Nativity of Our Lord, and then we have the Octave of the Solemnity and the celebrations at the beginning of the New Year – the whole mystery of Our Lord’s Birth and His Epiphany – so it would probably take place sometime after that.”
The cardinal, who is the patron of the Sovereign Order of Malta, said the format of the correction would be “very simple.”
“It would be direct, even as the dubia are, only in this case there would no longer be raising questions, but confronting the confusing statements in Amoris Laetitia with what has been the Church’s constant teaching and practice, and thereby correcting Amoris Laetitia,” he said.
Two elements emerge:
- The awaited correction of Amoris Laetitia is scheduled for ” sometime after the Epiphany. I think it’s reasonable, when reading the timeline of events mentioned by the Cardinal as, so to speak, in the way of an earlier declaration, to expect it for sometime before the end of January.
- The correction will (at least at this stage) pertain to Amoris Laetitia only. Therefore, it will not entail a formal declaration that the Pope is himself a heretic. However, it seems to follow from the premises that if Francis, after the correction of Amoris Laetitia, insists in not answering the dubia he will, at some point, have to be declared a heretic in view of his obstinacy.
It is impossible not to see in the interview a further warning to Pope Francis. It is also noticed by more and more people (Edward Pentin already did it, now Ross Douthat agrees) that if not Amoris Laetitia, but the dubia were scandalous we could not save ourselves from a tidal wave of public declarations of solidarity with the Pope and condemnation of the Four Cardinals. Nothing of the sort is happening, and the only ones who have run to defend the Pope were notorious dissenters, perverted Jesuits, and “philosophers” once again licking the boots of those in power, as they have done all life. None of those silent bishops can be called in any way courageous, or even right, as they have the darn duty to defend the teaching of the Church with more than silence. However, I can’t imagine that Francis hasn’t got the message.
Sadly, Francis has already seen that these bishops are very ready, and many of them willing to be strong-armed (the dismal silence after Amoris Laetitia is ample evidence of this), so at this point it requires a healthy dose of optimism to think that Francis will simply cave in. Remember: the dubia have already cut off any possibility for him to waffle himself out of the situation. Therefore, either he or the Cardinals will have to lose face on this.
I had thought that, the Vatican ways being always so slow, Francis would have been given more ample time to reflect on how to organise his defeat, as it seemed not realistic to me that after the Cardinals need five months to decide that Amoris Laetitia is very, very bad, they would not give Francis an even longer time to come to the same conclusion. Still, this correction still appears to be scheduled around four full months after the original letter, and the Cardinals might be trying a last display of determination after having been informed that Francis will not answer the dubia, full stop.
As Christmas approaches, I invite all my readers to set aside the polite fluff and sincerely, openly pray the Lord that he may, in His mercy, rid us of this unspeakable disgrace of a Pope.
Only hours after I have written my blog post about some Cardinals’ (far too slow) reaction to Amoris Laetitia, Cardinal Burke has doubled down in an interview with Edward Pentin.
The interview is very clear on one point: there is no intention of stopping here, and this matter will be pursued further. I quote:
[Q]What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
[A] Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
A “formal act of correction of a serious error” can only be a formal declaration concerning the heretical content of Amoris Laetitia. If this happens (it is still a big “if”), then we would have a big step in the right direction, because there is no way Francis can save face when one or more Cardinals declare one of his documents heretical. His pontificate would be in tatters, destroyed for all eternity.
Note here that, the perennial teaching of the Church being easily discernible, this declaration would be much different than, say, a bunch of homo Jesuits declaring a hypothetical Pope Pius XIII a “heretic” because he doesn’t follow the Gospel of Fidel. In both cases every sound Catholic, even of the thicker sort, would immediately recognise who is right and who is wrong.
The question is now whether the Cardinals will let actions follow words. I am healthily sceptical on this, because I can’t but notice that the widespread revolt of the Bishops during the first synod (aka the day the pussycat roared) was followed by the most scandalous silence when Amoris Laetitia was published. However, I must say this is a new situation, and a couple of people are now leaning very far out of the window. We should pray that they have the strength to continue on this path, and that other pussycats (basically all bishops and cardinals, with a handful of exception) find a backbone somewhere and start doing their job.
We shall see how this pans out. We have been betrayed when Amoris Laetitia was published, and I therefore will suspend my judgment until I see real action taken. The real action is what should have happened in April: a formal, official, public denunciation of the heretical content of Amoris Laetitia. If you look at the recent past, you have The Abbe’ de Nantes’ Liber Accusations in Paulum Sextum, Liber Accusationis Secundus (against JP II) and the third Liber Accusationis against the new Catechism as useful guides.
If you ask me, nothing less will suffice.
We have had a situation of officially proclaimed heresy since April. Finally, timidly, something starts to happen. And once again it was the outrage of the Catholic laity, and the openly proclaimed condemnation of our cowardly clergy, that paved the way for this action.
I’d say we are past the kittens’ meowing. Clearly, there are some angry cats around.
But I still can’t see any serious scratching.
“What is a “Dubia”? Bush 43?”
A comment on another post stated I have misunderstood Cardinal’ Burke’s initial reaction to Amoris Laetitia. However, this is not the case.
As I already wrote here, the Cardinal initially not only proposed an absurd reading of the document, but he also criticised those who criticise it. It is fair to say those who criticised the document (and the Cardinal with it) are now officially vindicated.
These were the very words of the Cardinal. Emphases mine.
The secular media and even some Catholic media are describing the recently issued post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, “Love in the Family,” as a revolution in the Church, as a radical departure from the teaching and practice of the Church, up to now, regarding marriage and the family.
Such a view of the document is both a source of wonder and confusion to the faithful and potentially a source of scandal, not only for the faithful but for others of goodwill who look to Christ and his Church to teach and reflect in practice the truth regarding marriage and its fruit, family life, the first cell of the life of the Church and of every society.
It is also a disservice to the nature of the document as the fruit of the Synod of Bishops, a meeting of bishops representing the universal Church “to assist the Roman pontiff with their counsel in the preservation and growth of faith and morals and in the observance and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline and to consider questions pertaining to the activity of the Church in the world” (Canon 342). In other words, it would be a contradiction of the work of the Synod of Bishops to set in motion confusion regarding what the Church teaches, safeguards and fosters by her discipline.
It’s not that I want to rub salt on the wounds, but if we want to understand what is happening now we must understand what did (and did not) happen in April: either silence, or criticism of concerned Catholics.
However, that was Burke 1.0. In the meantime, we appear to have Burke 2.0, or at least Burke 1.5. The man has a good heart and a sincere faith, and I think he was very uncomfortable with his position (and with the criticism it attracted) from the start. It may well be that the famous letter of the Evil Clown to the Argentinian bishop taking a position on the heresy might have persuaded him that silence was no longer compatible with the health of his soul, as the letter to Francis is dated around one week after that event.
It is nothing short of amazing that a Pope writes 200 pages of heresies, and all Cardinals to one man stubbornly refuse to see the omnipresent heretical manure; but one additional letter (merely stating, and very rightly so, that a heretical interpretation of a heretical document is the only correct one) triggers what is, up to now, a kitten’s revolt of sort.
We are, now, in a very simple situation: those who have barked will have to bite (or to stay with the metaphor: those who have meowed will have to scratch), or lose face twice.
The Evil Clown has four choices:
- do nothing (my pint is on this)
- answer “no” and refute heresy
- answer “yes” and confirm heresy
- answer with some Franciswaffle
What the “rules” are is irrelevant. If the Pope does not want to answer he will simply not answer, end of story. If he wants to waffle, he will waffle. This is one who does not kneel in front of the Blessed Sacrament. Canon Law is nothing to him.
Now the kitten have meowed. Consequently, anything but a clear refutation of the heresies contained in Amoris Laetitia must lead to an official proclamation of the heresy of both the document and the Pope. Everything else will make of this little more than an exercise in meowing.
This is the way of things with the defence of orthodoxy. It is difficult to do it by half. Many journalists and bloggers got that a long time ago.
One dares to hope at least four Cardinals have come to the same conclusion.
Cardinal Burke has sunk many orders of magnitude in my personal esteem (not that he cares, anyway) when he has publicly refused to denounce Amoris Laetitia, and has slapped in the face those Catholics who are rightly scandalised. Far from me, therefore, praising this man as an example.
However, every little help; and if those Sanctimonious Judases who would give the United States and the West to the worst heathens for the sake of feeling oh so pure don’t listen to me, they might listen to him.
There is some sense remained in this man. He makes very plain that there are two real candidates, and the fantasies of Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck becoming President are not worthy of adult consideration (“have you googled Mickey Mouse? Check it out! He is my candidate! Strongly pro-life, and almost as good as I am!”).
Let us say it with the Cardinal’s words. Emphases mine:
“I think that what we have to do in this time is to look at both candidates to see if one of them will not, at least in some way, advance the common good, both with respect to the good of human life, the good of the family, the freedom of conscience, the care of the poor, and to look at that very carefully,”
“More than likely the judgment will be that neither candidates ideally answers these questions all in the way that we want. But given the nature of our government, can we in conscience support one of the candidates, at least, who, while maybe [he or she] doesn’t support everything that we believe and know is important, will at least support it to a certain extent with the hope that that candidate can be convinced to embrace evermore fully the common good,”
One must have an IQ south of 60 in order not to get what the man is saying. It isn’t even anything particularly brilliant, or new. It’s the simple common sense of anyone who hasn’t been completely blinded by his own arrogance and sanctimoniousness.
Let me repeat again what I have written about those dark souls who refuse to do their duty (and in the worst cases even encourage others to do the same): they betray Christ out of their own love of self, their presumption, their supposed moral superiority that is cowardice and betrayal.
Reblog this post here, or the original article about the Cardinal. Spread the word until there is not one idiot nevertrumper left, that is not red in the face.
Cardinal Burke is not taking part to the Synod.
The Evil Clown invited this man instead.
Thankfully, some men in Red are still Catholic.
These seven minutes are important for everyone. They reassure the faithful, but they also warn them about the consequences of following Francis and his heretical friends into the abyss.
You will find a lot in the short video that must be said. The absurdity of the Heresy of Kasper. The simple guidance on what to do when the next pervert in purple tries to deceive the faithful. The statement that the disagreement at the Synod is due to the way the Synod was promoted, trying to ram an indecent Instrumentum Laboris down the throat of the bishops.
Have no fear. The Church has seen moments like that in the past. She will see them again in the future. There is nothing else to do than stay faithful to the Bride (not to the heresy, wherever it comes from), do all we can to fight the heresy, wait for better times, and die in the faith of our fathers, no matter what.
We follow our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Clearly, this Synod is getting stupid beyond parody. It must be deprived of any credibility together with the disgraceful man who has promoted it.
Time to walk out.
Time to walk out.
Time to walk out.
By now even “Pathe(tic)os” bloggers got that Francis is waging war against Catholics whenever he finds them: religious orders, bishops’ seats, normal pulpits, or humble pews. Therefore, it is with no small discomfort that one reads that cardinal Burke has been now received in private audience by the Evil Clown. What news will be communicated to him? Transfer perhaps? Another demotion? Generic threats about what will happen to him if he keeps pushing for the respect of the Sacraments? We don’t know. But seen what we know, we have reason to fear. Such is a private audience with a good and orthodox Cardinal in the time of Stalin. M
A Basilian, father Timothy Scott, the spokesman of the order for Canada, tweets “STFU” to a Cardinal. He retracts, but still…
Another Basilian, Father Rosica, threatens to sue a poor Catholic blogger for being Catholic.
This justifies a question for Father Rosica: should Cardinal Burke, then, sue Father Scott?
The question should be posed to him without accepting any deflection: “he did a horrible thing, for which he apologised”, doesn’t wash, because it’s not the answer. By the by, Rosica said he reserves the right to sue even if get apologies from Mr Domet for having reminded him of the Catholic religion, so that doesn’t wash twice.
Let us see the question again:
what does Father Rosica think: would it be right if Cardinal Burke sued Father Scott?
I hope at the next press conference hosted by Father Rosica someone will ask this and several other questions related to the man.
Enough with moneylenders in the temple.
Francis has been Pope for almost two years now. His questionable or heretical statements are countless (see my “The Francis Papers” section above, still incomplete). He makes continuous references to the uselessness of the Law if it does nor “serve” his purposes, criticises “excessive doctrinal security”, undermines the Truth in every possible way.
Cardinal Baldisseri has recently confirmed that the disgraceful Relatio post disceptationem was seen and approved by Francis himself before publication. The “radical Neo-Pagan” ideology reflected in the document (Bishop Schneider himself called it that way) is, therefore, directly attributed to Francis. Result? We now officially have a radical Neo-Pagan Pope.
After all this, it is no less than astonishing that there should be blog and forum commenters thick enough to even criticise Cardinal Burke for giving a public warning to the Pope. A Pope who is responsible for massive heretical activity by admission of his own closest collaborators, and continues to echo heretical sentiments in pretty much everything he does not read from a statement written by Catholics, should not be warned about the extremely grave consequences of plunging the Church into the gravest crisis since John XXII!
It beggars belief. It truly does. It is even more stupid than claiming Hitler should not have been warned about the consequences of invading Poland.
When, in addition to this, the saintly Cardinal is even accused of protagonism, I wonder whether not stupidity or naïveté, but outright evil intentions are at play.
One of the things I have noticed since the explosion of Internet fora (and then blogs) is that these places attract the sort of commenter whom no one takes seriously in life, because the written and “published” word and the impossibility to see the person behind them lend a sort of primary facie credibility to the nonsense they write; as if they were the result of serious reflection rather than the last dumb observation of a dumb man. On the Internet, no one knows your friends call you “idiot John”.
This is also the reason why I cancel, at times, comments from newcomers which, because of their evident stupidity, do not deserve publication. Commenting on this blog requires some IQ standards, below which entrance will be denied.
Whenever you read comments on blogs and fora, reflect that if someone might be an idiot he very probably is, and much dumber than he manages to let it seem on the Internet.
I call bullshit on this.
Long live Cardinal Burke. May the Lord sustain him in his battle.
Excellent interview to Cardinal Burke, translated on The Radical Catholic. The interview merits to be read in its entirety because of the many interesting views of the Cardinal concerning Liturgy, Vocation, Catechesis and much more. As always, this man proves a blessing for the Church. May he, one day, wear a Tiara, and I am sure he would, in this case, really wear one.
As so often, though, Cardinal Burke shows the symptoms of a well-spread disease: the V II bug.
The leitmotiv of the Cardinal is that everything was pretty fine before the Council, and the big problemS started after it. This is as if I would say that Hiroshima was very peaceful in that late morning of the 6 August 1945, but the atomic mushroom caused untold damage. I would, in this case, simply omit to mention that an atomic bomb was dropped, which alone caused that atomic mushroom.
The bomb thrown in the middle of the successful, solid, well-ordered Catholic world was the Second Vatican Council. That it was an atomic bomb all right, and of planetary dimension, is abundantly clear from the radioactive Catholicism now spread in such vast parts of the planet. The bomb of Vatican II was dropped. Everything that followed from it had to follow like the atomic mushroom followed the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb.
The Second Vatican Council wanted to make the Church fit for a “dialogue” with the world. In order to do so, it had to deprive Herself of those element which, because the most Catholic, made such a “dialogue” most difficult. There is no better example of atomic bomb thrown in the middle of Church life.
Yes, the Novus Ordo can still be very reverent. Yes, a small number of priests will be exemplarily orthodox. Yes, sound catechesis will still be more than possible. But still, when you throw an atomic bomb you must expect an atomic mushroom, and it does not make much sense to lament the fallout without mentioning the explosion.
The Church must be cleansed from the radioactivity caused by V II. We must deal with the cause of the problems we see everywhere around us. Only the elimination of the roots of the problem will put an end to the current troubles. Without the radical extirpation of V II there will be no serious repair of liturgy, quality of clergymen, or catechesis, because all these problems are the direct consequence of what V II was meant to be.
I think Cardinal Burke sees that, though he would not say it exactly with these words.
It would be good if this thinking were expressed clearly in interview, because Francis has led things to the point where the origin of the trouble must be recognised and dealt with without any sense of respect for… an atomic bomb with a timer thrown in the middle of the Church.
Interviewed about the recent affirmation of Cardinal Burke about the “rudderless ship”, Pope Francis has pretended not to know about it. Mind: he does understands some comments of the sort might have been made. It just did not occur to him that one of the (then) most powerful men in the Curia, a Cardinal and a voice heard the world over, would make them! Can't find the article anymore, but take it from me, this was the gist.
First of all, let us clear a very basic point. Of course he knows. Not one, but twenty people in his entourage have most certainly, most certainly informed him about it, even if he – which I do not believe in the least – does not search for news about himself on the Internet!
Once we have put ourselves firmly on the ground of reality, let us examine why the Pope would say something so absurd.
1. The first hypothesis is, of course, the insult. Burke is simply nowhere. No trace of him on the radar screen. “Cardinal…Who?” Francis might have meant the slight, and a brutal slight it would be. But I, who am so good and charitable, will try other avenues.
2. Francis has a tendency to remove bad news. One who can ignore the impending self-extinction of his own order and the abject failure of his work as seminary rector, bishop and archbishop can most certainly pretend he doesn't know about his own cardinals clearly calling him unfit for the job. “Oh, he said that? Yeah, right, I get it, one might think that. But come on, I am just furthering dialogue here…”
3. Francis is stupid. He says what he feels like saying. Unpleasant questions aren't really answered. That this gives the reader further confirmation that the ship is rudderless is either not understood, or considered utterly irrelevant. What is said today is of no relevance tomorrow. Heck, it's of no relevance today!
Still, TMAHICH is in a difficult position here. Whilst it is offensive or childish or outright stupid to deny he knows about Burke's statement, there are no satisfying answers to the underlying issue: because in fact the boat is rudderless; the confusion is there; the heresy is rampant!
Bergoglio can try to mask the mess as a sort of dialogue, but he can't deny the effects of his Pontificate on the Church. His ability to remove bad news does not go as far as that.
The ship is rudderless.
Not even the clueless helmsman has the gut to deny it.
I never understood the motto “keep your friends close and your enemy closer”, and I always thought that it does not make sense. I always had the impression it is the favourite excuse of those who do not have the guts to keep their enemies away from positions of power and influence, and want to let necessity appear virtue.
Of course it may make sense, in a democracy, for a President or Prime Minister to have people he dislikes in his cabinet. In this way, they are invested in his government, and will find it more difficult to attack him from a position of “allies”. But even in this case, such a policy is born of the necessity of limiting their ability to disrupt the work of the Government, and is invariably linked with a delegation of power and influence to them. All this is, in a word, not the fruit of brilliant thinking, but the unavoidable consequence of the atomisation of power in every modern Democracy.
Not so for a Pope. A Pope does not need to be elected. If he is orthodox, he will always float above every accusation of being “harsh” or “merciless”. His prestige and grasp on power will be, in time, greatly enhanced. Pope Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII are great examples of this strong, but in the end winning attitude.
Francis is in a different boat. He is also Pope, but he has put himself in such a mess that his papacy can now be very seriously damaged; because of this, even as a Pope Francis must pay much attention to thread carefully, lest he should one day lose not only his face, but possibly his very job. In October, Francis got a first glimpse of what trouble might be in store for him if he were to be really stupid. Since October, the criticism has not really abated. He can't completely isolate himself from his enemies, because all of his enemies are Catholic, and none of his friends are. An orthodox Pope can afford to be uncaring of tactics (Pius X was famously undiplomatic), but a Pope like Francis cannot.
Francis would, like everyone else, keep the Sarahs away and surround himself exclusively with the likes of Ricca, Forte, and Baldisseri. If he does not do it it's not because he is a superior mind or a refined strategist, but because at this point the rare Sarah is, to him, the better evil.
Keep your enemies as far as you can, and smile at those you are forced to keep near. This, I think, pretty much sums it up.
Short answer: duh?
Do not be surprised, dear reader, at the banality of the question. Apparently, there are people out there who say that to be demoted from the head of one of the most important Congregations to a purely honorific position is just normal. Hey, his five year mandate was elapsed. Time for doing nothing, then.
The author goes on getting even funnier, in an heroic effort of Pollyannism that I struggle not to consider disingenuous. Look, he says, now that Burke has nothing to do, he will have more time to criticise the Pope. Dear Francis is, therefore, encouraging loyal opposition!
This would be funny, but the situation isn't; so I will not laugh.
No. Being demoted and sent to the wilderness means just that: being demoted and sent to the wilderness. This being the Vatican, the wilderness is a rather pleasant place, but I hope no one considered a Siberian Gulag, or hard field labour, the usual alternative.
Burke is in his prime. At 67, it might be argued he is too young to be Pope. He is, by universal recognition, an extremely competent man in his field. He has led an archdiocese and a Vatican Congregation already. There is no end of important, effective positions he could be assigned to – including the one in which he was – if the Pope did not want to purge him.
The one with the loyal opposition is even funnier. With this mentality, I could say that when Mussolini sent dissidents into confinement, he did so in order for them to have a lot of time to write books, memories and other reflections, thus also encouraging loyal opposition.
Heavens, what people will not invent to keep you away from reality.
The reality is, though, still staring at us in the face. Only with a big effort of Pollyannism can we blind ourselves to it. But there it remains. Brutal.
It's time to wake up, and start looking at the events for what they are. But again, if one reads certain blogs reality is, very probably, exactly that from which he is trying to escape in the first place.