The recent events in Taiwan have showed an attitude that we have, unfortunately, experienced within the Church not many years ago.
Then, Cardinal Burke and other (meanwhile deceased) allegedly courageous paper tigers made strong noises, and anticipated harsh measures for the case of Pope Frankie The Red-Nosed Clown not answering their Dubia; after which, they folded and retreated like the wet kitten at the sight of the Rottweiler. But hey, they sure enjoyed the applause of sincere Catholic while it lasted.
Now, China made an astonishing amount of noise about Old Hag’s visit to Taiwan, rattling sabers with the US until it was heard in the Tierra Del Fuego; then folded miserably, allowing Old Hag to come and go as she pleases, undisturbed. They are now staging military exercises around Taiwan, like the boy who plays though guy after the dude who would give him a new face has gone away.
I do not pretend to be an expert in Chinese culture, but it seems to me that not losing face is even more important in China than it is in the West. Therefore, Xi has some ‘splaining to do, as no doctor prescribed him to put such a fuss (the visit could simply have been authorised, showing once again that China gives permission to foreign dignitaries to visit Taiwan). But no: he had to do it. Ouch.
The same you can, of course, say of Burke & The Wet Kitten (might be a name for a pop band; we should ask Cardinal Ravasi for his opinion on this).
Naturally, the ones and the others will make excuses, as excuses are in even bigger supply everywhere than oxygen. “I did not want to risk a world war”, “I did not want to risk a schism”, “I have chosen to be superior”, “my squirrel had a headache”, “my pet rabbit had tennis elbow”, and the like. Obviously, none of this can ever wash.
Look at Putin instead. When he says he would do something, he also does it, and leaves no one in doubt that it would have been better to listen to him whilst there still was time. When he thinks the time is not right, he avoids the sabre rattling and simply expresses his view on a certain event (like the entry of the two Nordic Dwarfs in NATO), staying cool as a cucumber whilst he deals with the matters that are a priority to him.
Again: I am no expert of Chinese culture, but I have no doubt that China barked extremely loud on this. Then they didn’t bite. Then they engaging in some more barking.
A very poor show. One fears that Xi learned his diplomacy from Burke.
Make no mistake, this round goes to the Americans just as the Dubia round went to Frankie. You can say that the Old Hag has caused such problems that no fundraising and show of force on the home front can compensate for it, but the fact is, she did what she chose to do and the Chinese had to watch her doing it. Frankie did, of course, the same.
There aren’t many people with brass balls around.
Xi has shown to everybody that, like Burke, he is not one of them.
Cowardinal Burke strikes again.
With absolutely no sense of shame after he has refused to follow through with the Dubia, an initiative of which he was the undoubted front man, Burke has the insolence to complain again about Pope Francis as if he were a quisque de populo rather than a Prince of the Church, and actually evading the obvious elephant in the room, the question about his sustained inability to whistle after wetting his lips, in a very public way and amid worldwide cheers.
Every interview with this individual should have no other question than this one: when is the man going to proceed to the solemn and public correction of the Pope, now made clearly unavoidable by his absence of any answer to the Dubia?
Cowardinal Burke is a fair weather “conservative” always ready to make himself beautiful in interviews, and unable to fight the good fight whenever it may cost him something more than the mild inconvenience of having to move his office from this or that utterly splendid palace. And what grates me most is that is does not even have the dignity and decency of, at least, being a Cowardinal in silence, like many of his colleagues. No, this one wants your applause whilst he avoids doing his job.
The Dubia were posed in September 2016. Heavens, that’s more than one and a half year ago! Two of the Cardinals have managed to die of old age (and may the Lord have mercy on them!) before finding the guts to act. This one here keeps meowing, but it’s clear that he has no intention of acting whatsoever, either.
Most infuriatingly of all, Cowardinal Burke keeps repeating that it is right to criticise the Pope, even publicly, for the good of the Church and to avoid confusing the faithful. And what he keeps saying that it is right and the thing to do he keeps not doing!! It’s unreal!
Cowardinal Burke is trying to be a hero on the cheap.
He blabbers, you applaud, everything is fine.It’s not going to change.
God forbid, he were to lose another splendid office.
Cowardinal Burke has given another yadda yadda interview – he does this once every couple of weeks now – and has, very pointedly, shut up about what he intends to do considering that Francis has not answered the Dubia.
It appears to me that the answer to this is “nothing”, and that the Cowardinal will only give interviews to people who agree to not ask him when the heck he is going to whistle after wetting his lips for many months. The latest interview – no link, because a waste of time, and the Cowardinal does not deserve the time of day – is notable mostly for this: that the interviewer does not even pose the question.
This goes to show on the one side how toothless certain “Catholic” journalism is, and on the other side how dumb, or confused, or outright clericalist the mainstream Catholics are: people who, after such an astonishing refusal to stand for Christ, made much worse by the grandstanding that preceded it, are happy with the usual hot air the Cowardinal keeps dishing them instead of asking of him that he do his darn job day in and day out.
Seriously, I am done with this guy. I despise him by now almost as much as I despise Francis, and more than I do the other Cardinals who are just as cowardly as he is, but do not try to let you believe anything else.
It is bad enough when a Cardinal shuts up in the face of papal attacks to Sacraments. But when a Cardinal has made himself beautiful with the faithful posing as the guardian of orthodoxy and then blatantly refuse to do what he has announced many times he would do, this is much worse still.
Meet Cowardinal Burke. The man who announced he was ready to be a hero, turned out to be a coward, and still wants to give interviews and get a place in the sun because he once was a paper tiger.
There will be no link, here, to the latest non-interview of Cardinal Burke, a man whose cowardly attitude can by now be spotted from Mars.
I understand the man is trying to find the courage. But hey, you find the courage by having it.
This man is a Cardinal. He must be ready to embrace death at a moment's notice, and of him a much higher readiness is expected than of any of us. You can't only get the (substantial) privileges of the Cardinal without the burden that goes with it.
What we get instead is the usual, tired, whining repetition of a situation my cat grasped many, many months ago, with the two Cardinals now possibly the only two Catholics on the planet thinking that the time for action has not yet come.
The poor interviewer tries to nail the Cardinal to, at least, the confirmation that the interview is the last warning. In pure Burke style, the man repeats his appeal but he does not confirm any ultimatum.
Surely, even kitten must now mock as ridiculous this guy's pathetic attempts to give himself a courage he seems just unable to find.
God willing, and if the man has his salvation dear, at some point we will get something worthy of a link.
But this umpteenth, pathetic interview is not it.
“The urgency of a response to the dubia derives from the harm done to souls by the confusion and error, which result, as long as the fundamental questions raised are not answered in accord with the constant teaching and practice of the Church,” Cardinal Burke said in the interview.
“The urgency weighs very heavily on my heart,” he said, adding he has seen “a great deal of confusion, also people feeling that the Church is not a secure point of reference.”
Can you believe this guy? Amoris Laetitia is now one and a half years old, and he still talks of an “urgency” that “weighs very heavily on his heart?” This is not even a normal kitten; this one is the runt of the litter.
In the past, responses to heretical statement took a lot of time. Information traveled very slowly, and a long time was needed merely to communicate, much less to organise.
Today, information travels all over the planet in a matter of hours. Nowadays, there is no universe in which a person can talk of “urgency” after eighteen months and not lose face.
This man has no guts, and no shame. No guts, because he keep not doing his job. No shame, because he keeps posing as the hero eternally about to go to war whilst he keeps staying comfortably at home.
A paper tiger is worse than a self-confessed kitten.
Man up, Kitten Cardinal. The world is waiting.
Yes, it’s a classic move.
First some years in the wilderness. Then, a partial compensation for the previous demotion, either because one showed he learned the lesson or because it is better not to have him as too bitter an enemy.
Save his face. Give him something. After the stick, it is wise to throw a carrot. It’s not good to have bitter enemies all around one.
I have learned to not trust Cardinal Burke, though even after all this shameless waiting I keep hoping that, at some point, he will still man up. As we enter October 2017, I must say this particular cardinal’s pair is extremely, and excruciatingly, slow in growing.
The appointment – of which it is very reasonable to assume that the Cardinal was informed beforehand, and approved beforehand – could mean one of two things: either it is the (very small) sign of approval given by Francis for Burke’s continued silence about Amoris Laetitia, (you might say in this case the compensation would have been bigger; but cowards aren’t much feared, and they will readily accept a small compensation; besides, the new appointment might give Burke a very small finger behind which to hide in explaining why the correction is now informally called “Godot”), or it is an acknowledgment that the anti Amoris Laetitia party is getting some traction, and the impatience against Francis’ Banana Republic methods is growing bigger; thus leading Francis to throw a small piece of meat to the dissatisfied kitten.
Just in case you are thinking Francis is now steering a more conservative path, wait some hours and the next off-the-cuff subversive homily will cure you of this dangerous fantasy.
For the avoidance of doubt, one thing I do not believe is that Burke sent Francis this message: “I want to let the correction matter drop, but give me something!”, and this appointment is the price for his bought silence. Whilst I think the man a kitten, I do not think him a person capable of selling his principles for an appointment. I think his personal tragedy is rather one of great weakness, and inability to find the courage to do what he full well knows he must do; and that Francis is throwing him some meat to encourage the man to keep schtum about AL.
Two of his kitten companions have died without doing their job.
The man should be terrified.
Wannabe hero without the battle Cardinal Burke is having a whale of a time.
After the most scandalous dereliction of duty for now sixteen months and – which makes it even worse – orthodox posturing without even acting on it, Cardinal Burke seems intentioned to sit on this fence ad infinitum, certainly counting on all the rosewater Catholics and Pollyanna resisters dumb enough to believe, without any evidence to back their belief, that this man is every bit part of the solution rather than of the problem.
Now, the Cardinal has once again ventilated that – at some point, in future, no one knows when – a formal correction could come; and that – mirabile dictu! – this correction might contain some faint meowing of criticism of the Evil Clown for failing to defend Truth; which is exactly what the Cardinal himself is doing even as he criticises others for it.
One must appreciate the game: eternal posturing without ever acting; paper tiger extraordinaire; professional fence sitter.
Cardinal Burke is literally having his cake and eating it; courtesy of the dumbness of too many lukewarm faithful, desperately on the look for a hero whilst Our Lord is spitted in the face every day. He should be ashamed of himself.
Make no mistake: if Cardinal Burke were to proceed to a formal condemnation of Francis and his heresies tomorrow, his delay would still be gravely sinful. However, the correction itself would still be the desired, and expected, outcome. But what is happening now is truly ludicrous, and such that the Cardinal deserves open condemnation and mockery until he man up, rather than approval.
By the bye, we are now past the Assumption and I distinctly remember the Cardinal stating that after the Epiphany any time could be right for the correction, implying January, February at the latest.
Beware of the paper tigers. They are not your friends, or Christ's.
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.
This petition is not a petition, because it does not ask anything.
It is, simply, a way of saying “Thanks, Your Grace!” to this excellent man.
The signatures will be given to him personally.
We are above 18,000 as I write this.
It is good to have, once in a while, the opportunity to say “thanks” in this direct way to those who care for our salvation, rather than for their own popularity and quiet living.
Ahi serva Italia, di dolore ostello,
nave sanza nocchiere in gran tempesta,
non donna di province, ma bordello!
Ah, slave Italy, hostel of sorrows,
ship without a helmsman in a great tempest,
not the lady of provinces, but a brothel!
This is the way Dante describes Italy in the sixth Canto of his Purgatory. The Country, once so great a Lady of Provinces, is now a rudderless ship in the great tempest of the world events, and is now reduced to a brothel after her past greatness. Machiavelli famously quotes these passionate verses in the last chapter of Il Principe.
These verses are extremely well-known in Italy, and the first line is an almost proverbial way of referring to the troubles of the Country. These verses are, no doubt about it, well present to the mind of Cardinal Burke, too, as well as in that of all notable members of the Curia.
I can, therefore, not avoid thinking that when the good Cardinal chooses, of all possible ways, the image of the “ship without a rudder” he is not saying that the rudder has been unexpectedly stolen by illegal immigrants; but that, rather, the helmsman just isn’t doing his job.
This latest interview – which you can read following the link – is another pearl. I refer to what I have already written about Burke’s style, and note that in this interview he keeps following the same path:
1. He makes clear that he is not making an attack ad personam. He merely states a circumstance of fact.
2. He complains once again that the Pope is not intervening to defend truth.
3. He tells the lie on the supposed approval for Pope Francis, when he says that he feels compelled to “tell a truth that many currently perceive”.
4. He hammers once again on the infamous “who am I to judge?”, and slams it with the following sentence, that I report here verbatim:
“The acts must be judged; I do not think that the pope thinks differently. They are sinful and unnatural. The pope never said we can find positive elements in them. It is impossible to find positive elements in an evil act.”
This interview shows, in my eyes, that the Catholic front has no intention whatever to allow the Pope to scheme a prepare another attempt at Great Fraud without any resistance. It seems to me that several voices are speaking in unison.
Mueller, Pell, and Burke have been firing every few days since the end of the synod. They insist in proposing the same criticism that had emerged during the synod. It seems very obvious to me that they are not isolated at all, and it is far more probable that the heretical side is. It seems also obvious to me that the refusal of the Cardinals to allow Francis to take a stance will soon, and certainly, next October, put him in an untenable, entirely discredited position.
He is not getting any discount. In a football (soccer) metaphor, he is the object of man marking, and a very strict marking at that. He will not be allowed to play freely. His marksmen will be on every ball. Francis may be a slippery offender, but I have the impression these defenders can be rather the bulldogs if they want to.
And yes, I am persuaded that even if TMAHICH does not get the reference, all Italian prelates will get it very fast: Francis is refusing to steer the Church to safe waters, and has made of Her a brothel.
If you follow Catholic priests – as I do – you might notice – as I think I do – a certain “style” of criticism, that to me seems rather uniform. The main rules I can recognise are the following:
– the civility of the criticism (excessive, if you ask me, in most cases; but then again I am not a priest) and
– the limitation of the criticism to a fact or a statement, without ever targeting the person, if the person if a fellow clergyman.
I notice this very often in the priestly blogs I follow: there is the statement of a fact, and the criticism of the fact. There is the report of a certain statement, and the refutation of that particular statement. Clergymen of this type do not attack other clergymen as people (some other clergymen, of another type, do; Cardinal Kasper comes to mind; but not the ones I am talking about).
I have read, at the time it was finally published, the full transcript of Cardinal Burke’s interview to BuzzFeed. I was in no doubt that the actual words of the interview, when they were made public, did not contain a direct criticism of the character of Francis as person, as much as a very strong criticism of a certain behaviour in a certain, particular circumstance. Which, in the case of a Pope, is a very strong criticism, but not a personal attack.
The difference between “what the Pope does is bad” and “the Pope is bad” is not a milder criticism in the second case. It is, in my view, the desire to make clear that the criticism is a factual one, not a personal one. This is, I think, always important among the right kind of clergymen; but it becomes even more important when Cardinal Kasper blathers all the time about attacks to the Pope and enemies of the Pope.
In some cultures, this difference between the person and the issue at hand is more blurred, and there is a more or less implied understanding that you criticise a man as a result of an action or a statement of his; whilst in other cultures – like the German and, I begin to think, the ecclesiastical one – the distinction between the criticism of a person and the criticism of his stance are far more marked. The Germans even have an adjective (“sachlich”), which conveys this idea of being “linked to a thing”, rather than to the person attached to it. Whilst every language has such expressions, in the case of the Germans the frequency of its use conveys to the Foreigner the particular importance attached to it. In the case of churchmen, I doubt there is an equivalent expression; but the praxis is, it seems to me, just as solidly established: he who attacks the person looks bad; the battle is always fought on things, not people.
Therefore, I am unable to see in the recent clarification of Cardinal Burke any kind of backpedaling or watering down of his criticism. Besides, the man is a legally trained mind, and for legally trained minds distinctions of this sort do matter.
On the contrary, it seems to me – and I may be wrong on this; time will tell – that with his brutal repetition of the exact content of his criticism – the exact one; without softening of any sort – the Cardinal has sent quite the contrary message. A message which I for myself read thus: “please do not describe me as the personal enemy of the Pope; but my criticism of what he does is still there, and for the sake of clarity I will repeat it word for word”.
I have just written that the way I know these things, the criticism is often followed by a “soft retractation” meant to deny the implied, but very obvious criticism. In this case, it seems to me that the Cardinal is not ready to do even that; conscious, perhaps, of the huge dismay every little apparent giving away of Catholic ground could have on countless faithful Catholics.
I am, though, simply unable to see any difference in the clarification, which has to me the very same meaning I had already understood: what the Pope is doing – a specific conduct: not intervening against heresy – harms the Church. Headline writers tend to be imprecise and untechnical, something a rigorous legal mind like Burke will not let stand without correction. Honestly, I did not even need the clarification, because I got the Cardinal the first time, and I always discount the titles.
I do not know how strong Burke and his are. I have no way to read their mind and measure their determination on a scale from one to ten. I pray that the Lord may give them, and all those willing to take this battle on their shoulders, the determination to fight, and to fight well.
I suspect, in fact, that now a very complicated and subterranean game will begin, in which both sides will alternate public interventions with a very intensive corridor work. The result of this work will, probably, only become clear in October 2015. I cannot tell you how it will end. I am fairly optimistic, but then I always am. I carry the Roman sun inside, and if at times I do not see the shadows, I still think this Roman sun is a very good help in seeing the reality around me. Yes, I have my worries for the huge battle in front of us.
But Cardinal Burke’s clarification is, as far as I am concerned, not one of them.
I will deal with the main news (as I understand it; and if there is one) in another post.
This here is both an appetizer, and the occasion for a short comment on CMTV’s stance.
You can easily notice that this is a highly dramatic, “breaking news” broadcast.
Note that Voris interrupts a (late) dinner with his entire troop to broadcast in the night hour something that he must have seen as both huge and implying consequences for everyone, Church Militant TV included.
There is no open comment on Burke’s comments, but the treatment of the matter seems to indicate Voris himself might be, like many other persistently blind Catholics, at a crossroads.
For the moment, I limit myself to notice that Burke appears to have made what Michael Voris himself considers, or considered, very bad, weakening the Church, and (if I remember correctly) leading souls to perdition. It will be interesting to see how he deals will this: can he ever criticise a Cardinal for criticising a Pope for the very same reasons why he criticises the Cardinals himself? Absurd position, I know, but then it always was.
The fact is, it isn’t so unusual for a Cardinal to criticise a Pope. This here is important not because a criticism has been uttered, but because whichever the words used, the criticism must strike at the very core of the Papacy, exactly as Communion and sexual morality.
I am waiting to find more information on this matter. I am also eagerly awaiting to see whether other Cardinals will support Burke’s position (if it was what it is reported to be; but Voris is a serious journalist and would pay attention to what he says without having solid evidence of what was said). My impression is that the press tamtam went around the journalists’ dinner tables yesterday night, saying “Cardinal Burke wants to get rid of the gloves”. If this is so, the general tone of the words and the nature of the criticism ( that is: not of being weak or unprepared, but of being deceptive and manipulating; not of being the victim, but the architect and perpetrator) will be less important than the exact words that were said, because what counts would be, then, the main point: “Cardinal questions integrity of Pope”.
You can also be sure further interviews will follow this one, and the other Cardinals will have to take position, too.
I will not waste time on Burke’s confirmation of his demotion, because I do not write for Pollyannas. Rather, the time chosen by Burke to make this announcement is relevant for another reason: he is clearly saying that he is now more free to speak than he would have been as a person directly involved (as the head of the Signatura Apostolic,a which decides on annulments) in the administration of the Holy See and will, therefore, not shut up.
If Voris were to finally see the light, this would be great news. Another valid soldier choosing the right ranks. If not, I suspect we will just have to wait.
Brick by brick, as they say.
The army of Faggotry has had a setback this week, but there is no hoping that this is the end of the satanical pro-faggotry, sacrilegious madness fueled by TMAHICH and his minions.
Give it a couple of weeks at the most, and interviews from dissenting (from the Magisterium) bishops will start to appear, in order to gather for them Brownie Points with Francis.
The publication of the shameless Relatio will now lead to what was planned all along: the opening of a “debate”, a “discussion” between orthodoxy on one side, and sacrilege and sodomy on the other.
Whilst it is obvious the Pope did not want to start the “discussion” with a bleeding nose and a black eye, it is perfectly clear this kind of “debate” is what was planned all along, and this is what we are now going to get. And no doubt, The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History will be the one who fuels it from the very first line with more outlandish, or outright heretical, or utterly blasphemous statements.
It is clear enough by now that most Bishops do not want such a discussion at all, because Truth is not questioned and is no object for debate. But the homo troops will be reorganised in a matter of weeks, perhaps days. When the big media noise has subsided, it will be the time to start advancing again: timidly at first, more and more strongly as the months pass.
We need strong leaders now. We need Bishops and Cardinals who are actually afraid of going to hell, and put their duty to Christ before the rich privileges of their positions. When Christians in Africa and Asia risk their lives everyday just for going to Mass, it is perfectly reasonable to ask consecrated Bishops, people who should be ready to die for Christ at a moment’s notice, to run the risk of losing a diocese, and being sent to some remote and unpleasant location, at the very worst.
Some names have emerged in the last days. Cardinals Burke, Mueller, Pell, and Napier seem to me the four most courageous ones, the elite of the Christian troops in this very difficult moment. And I say this with admiration for Cardinal Mueller: a man of very questionable theological integrity concerning the Perpetual Virginity of our Blessed Lady and the Resurrection; but who has, when severely tested, reacted in an exemplary manner.
In the same vein, I am less than impressed by the silence of two names that could, I think, be expected to be among the voices claiming in the wilderness. Cardinal Piacenza is the first, and Cardinal Bagnasco is the second. The latter has, it is very true, shamefully caved in to Francis’ Gospel of inclusiveness in a past, very scandalous occasion, but it would still have been a legitimate expectation to see him, a man to whim many look as at a protector of orthodoxy, to speak clearly enough to make world news. The former is a riddle to me. A man who has never, to my knowledge, compromised his faith, has now allowed others to expose themselves to the ires of the Gay Army whilst – as far as I can see – not voicing any criticism strong enough to put him in the first line of the Resistance. Perhaps he is working with them behind the scenes. Perhaps he will intervene when his friends decide that the time is right. Perhaps the English-speaking press has ignored his strong criticism. I am grateful for links to his public utterances in these days, in whatever language. It would be a great joy to be able to count Cardinal Piacenza among the Very Brave.
Let us pray for Mueller, Pell, Napier, and particularly Burke, the first one of this brave troop to open his mouth and, from what I could read up to now, the most outspoken. But Francis needs to be questioned and criticised publicly far more strongly than this has been the case up to now.
The word “heresy” is still nowhere to be heard. We need for brave Cardinals to get into the next gear now, openly denouncing the heresy and putting the Pope in front of the choice of either openly supporting or openly recanting it.
Half words will not serve anyone now. If Francis is allowed to sit on the fence he will have reached his main objective: to sit there as the “referee” of a “friendly match” between two “pastoral views”. This is what he wanted all along.
There are no two pastoral views. There is orthodoxy on one side, and heresy on the other.
We need strong Cardinals calling Kasper’s doctrine heretical, and doing the same with the Pope if he does not condemn it. We need this vulcan to erupt in the open now, if we want to avoid the subterranean subversion of Catholicism to go on as the Pope threatens, persuades, cajoles and corrupts in the next twelve months and beyond.
The moment is now.
Who will take the lead?
How do you lose your post? If you are Cardinal Burke, perhaps you do (and you did) it just with this interview.
The interview is, in my eyes, significant for many aspects; including the ambiguity of the V II mentality, a defect from which Cardinal Burke is not exempt.
Let us see more in detail the important parts:
1. We make judgments all day concerning what is right and what is wrong.
Very fine. Best part of the interview. A hammer blow on the genitals of “who am I to judge?”. Well said, Your Grace! For the record, I think you would have lost your post anyway, so it is better to go after some straight talk after all…
2. We can’t say that a particular person is in mortal sin. He might not be conscious etc…
Well, we can’t judge the interior forum; but we have no right to be blind and stupid, either. It’s not that the Pope does not know what fornication is. It’s not that he does not know the concept of complicity in another’s sin. It’s not that a sodomite does not know the biblical episode, and what Christianity says God has in store for him unless he repents. As we remind ourselves of the rules, we keep our brains switched on.
Curiously, I never hear the Cardinal, or anyone else, applying this very merciful reasoning to Hitler.
“Oh, but he knew! He knew! ‘ course he knew!”
He knew, uh? What about Elton John? Is he under an evil spell?
3. He (Burke) is not intolerant of people with same-sex attraction; but hey, they do endanger their soul.
Can we stop with this PC talk of “same-sex” attraction? Is incest called “same-family attraction?” Is bestiality called “family pet attraction?” Is pedophilia called “child-attraction”? (yes, I know what it means in Greek; but the first word has a negative connotation the second one waters down). It’s called homosexuality, and the act is called sodomy.
It never ceases to amaze me that old bibles have words like “sodomite”, “whore”, “harlot”, and we think we must say “same-sex attraction”. Screw that. Call perverts with their name. It will do them a lot of good. It might, actually, lead them – by God’s grace – to save their souls.
The Cardinal does express the concept here, but he is too cautious. He walks on eggs. He is too V II.
4. The lesbian daughter of the old harpie isn’t evil; merely what she does is.
As the Gipper would say, “here you go again!”.
“Stupid is as stupid does”, says (if memory serves) Forrest Gump’s mother, and the entire world embraces the tautological truth of it. Strangely, it seems not to apply in case of evil acts. Evil acts are not committed by evil people. Who are we (cough) to judge?
One gases 300,000 people, or sends them to millions in gas chambers, or lets them die in horrible Gulags. How can I know he is evil, then? I am not in his brains, right? Repeat with me: “internal forum”.
“Oh, but in Saddam’s case it is obvious!”
Fine. Saddam’s evil is obvious, and the unnatural evil of sexual perversion, celebrated in public for all the world to see, isn’t? Can any of these people say they do not know perfectly well what Christian teaching on the matter is? On the contrary: isn’t it so, that they are so angry and so militant exactly because they know it? What could be more obvious, than their knowledge of Christ’s rules, and their rebellion to them?
Truly: must Satan spit directly in our face before we recognise his work, and his minions?
By the by, I have always been told that in what gravely goes against natural law no one can hide behind ignorance, because one’s God-given conscience will always rebel to it, and an insisted, substantial, evil effort will be required to become deaf to its voice. Which is why no one can massacre a village, of screw a dog, or his sister, or his school pal and then say “I’m fine, because I wasn’t told it was wrong”.
This is so darn obvious, I wouldn’t have to even write it. But hey, we live in the “age of mercy”, where TMAHICH is in power, and the official reading is that the Blessed Virgin might have thought “Lies! I have been deceived!” under the cross.
Let us say it once again: where I come from there was this strange expectation that the brains are kept switched on. This idea that everyone is always innocent even when he screams to the world day and night that he isn’t just wasn’t there.
Evil is who evil does. Forrest Gump gets it. Let’s try to do the same.
We should, I think, go back to the basics of sound thinking. We do not know whether anyone, even Elton John or Stephen Fry, will go to hell; and we wish them from the heart that they may, by the grace of God, avoid that terrible destiny, as we hope the same for ourselves.
But we can’t just pretend to be such fools that we can’t see the open rebellion to Our Lord even when openly advertised and boasted of. Particularly so, when this rebellion happens in matters of natural law, which God has written indelebly in everyone of us.
Yes, we prudently consider that we do not know the people’s internal forum, whenever there is room for reasonable doubt. But we don’t say the same of Hitler and Stalin, because common sense tells us that when one goes around screaming to the world that he is the enemy of Christ, well he damn well is. If this is true for Pol Pot and Lenin, then it must be true for all those perverts who give scandal of their perversion, in open defiance to God’s laws.
All in all, then, a typical Burke. Laudably orthodox and brave in the intent, but in the end weak in the delivery, and with the usual, unsavoury V II undertones.
Still, I can’t avoid thinking TMAHICH read the interview and the part about the judging, and… judged Burke worthy of swift punishment.
There is much surprise in the blogosphere about the rumours that want Cardinal Burke on its way to a comfortable, but obvious semi-retirement at the head of the Knights of Malta. I must say I am not in the least.
The Cardinal will, I am sure, enjoy the view from the Aventino (you know that hole from which you can see the dome of St. Peter surrounded by an arch made of plants? Well, that’s them; among other things…). Whilst so doing, he will probably reflect that this was the only way it could end seen that he is not a boot-licker like many others – in red, in purple and in black – around him. It had to end that way, because Burke is – if even in the more moderate V I I version – a thorn in the side of NuChurch. Too obsessed with abortion, too attached to Tradition, too much of a Rosary-counter, Burke was clearly a fish out of the water in a world dominated by ecclesiastical prostitutes.
I can only hope his successor will not be an open subversive; which, by the wind that is blowing, is somewhere between a hope and a dream.
In a way, Burke unavoidable departure might give him more freedom of movement. As a member of Francis’ team of “super ministers”, he might have refrained from stronger criticism; as a man now outside of the big game, he could feel free to express himself more freely and become, one day, the focal point of what they call “loyal opposition” and I call merely sanity, and refusal to prostitute oneself to the new times.
It’s a beautiful piece of real estate, that plot on the Aventino. The view is astonishing, and certainly better than from the near Giardino degli Aranci, a favourite of Romans and tourists alike.
It’s a good place to reflect, in one of the wonderful October mornings Rome never fails to give, about the price of loyalty to Christ.
Cardinal Burke is probably not a saint, and clearly he is not the man to tell all the truth, hard and straight, at the cost of real persecution. Yours truly can, in conscience, not tell you that he is sure he would behave differently and would have the strength to openly invite persecution, loss of privilege, and a poor, lost, dreary, uncomfortable parish somewhere in Alaska, or Alabama. But as Cardinals go, Burke is at the moment among the very best; and is, therefore, put aside in favour of the young generation of willing careerist puttanelle; those who are the first to do TMAHICH’s will today, and will be the first to denounce the climate of leftist intimidation tomorrow.
The good ones will be removed one by one and moved where they have less, or no, influence; as already seen in the case of Cardinal Piacenza and – though I am bitterly disappointed in the man – Bagnasco.
Enjoy the October mornings, Your Grace. You may not be a martyr, but you have deserved them.
As a Canonist, Cardinal Burke does not think that Cardinal Kasper’s idea of “playing with the very words of Christ Himself in the Gospel” and trying to square the circle to make everyone happy can work.
It is unfortunate that Kaspar’s words and speech are finding such resonance because obviously endorsed by the Bishop of Rome himself. The Cardinal does not say this, but it is obvious that three words from Francis would have stopped this madness in its tracks; not only this has not happened, but Francis is clearly the sponsor and promoter of Kasper’s initiative. You write it “Kasper”, but you pronounce it “Francis”.
It is also interesting that the Cardinal insists in letting us know that Kasper’s madness was not well received by many other Cardinals. Which in plain English means that Francis is openly endorsing a minority of subversive destroyers of the Faith, and many are the Cardinals – though we are not told how many – who choose to side with Christ instead. Let us pray that when the time of test comes, they will be able to stand their ground and become very vocal.
Francis is a vain man. I doubt he would court any controversy destined to make him seriously unpopular. I keep noticing how he avoids frontal attacks to the SSPX – Francis insults a lot; but the people he insults never have an identifiable face; they are more like shadows – well knowing the SSPX would make him look like a child of five playing with the Gospel in less time than you need to say “wheelchair”.
Coming back to Cardinal Burke, his words seem, to me, to contain a sort of hidden message along the lines of ” if anyone thought he can create a fait accompli through the leaking of the Cardinal’s speech, he should know that it will not work”.
I wish I could be as optimistic as that. I fear the worst. Not in the sense that the Bishop of Rome will officially declare Christ “intolerant” or “uncharitable”, but rather in the sense that he will say, with the intelligence and acumen we already know and love and the doctrinal profoundness that made him famous, “the principle remains intact, but do as you please with it whenever you feel you should be merciful; because hey, we live in the time of mercy now”.
I hope that as you read this a group of Cardinals is organising around Burke or Caffarra, determined not to shun any kind of scandal and controversy in order to avoid the Germans to rape Catholicism to save the proceeds from the Kirchensteuer. We have had enough of subversive puppets.
Whether it is a well founded hope, I prefer not to consider.