It was observed that at the demonstration in Rome in defence of both the only marriage and the freedom of expression – the Italian parliament is currently debating a law concerning, oh what a great surprise, “homophobia” – there was only one Cardinal present, Burke. How many Bishops and Archbishops, then? Zero, apparently.
In a city that generally does lack red hats, one wonders what might have prevented other prelates from participating.
My hypotheses are the following:
1. The Great-Aunt had to be brought to the hospital.
2. The cat was gravely depressed and in dire need of company.
3. He did not know.
4. He knew, but thought it was the following day.
5. He knew, but it was on a Saturday, so the Sabbath had to be observed.
6. He was in the bathroom.
7. He was not in the very central Piazza Santi Apostoli, but in the “periphery”, as the Bishop of Rome said he should.
8. He was out trying to urgently find “Eau de Sheep No. 5”, following the Pontiff's recommendation.
9. He doesn't like the cold.
10. He was afraid of pickpockets.
As always, those baddies at Rorate are very eager to spin this according to their own anti-everything agenda.
They have no concern for cats, you see. Or Grand-Aunts.
Cardinal Burke has given a longish interview to EWTN, and it was probably unavoidable for him to take a stance about at least some of the antics of Pope Diano, the Prince of (Bleeding) Hearts.
Burke has not minced words: to the invitation of Francis not to be “obsessed” with trivia like a yearly multiple Holocaust of unborn children, or sinsthat to Heaven for vengeance becoming tolerated and celebrated, Burke opposed his very candid view: we can “never talk enough” about abortion, and nothing is “more essential” than the natural law (here obviously it is also about sodomy).
Mind, though, he is not saying anything special. Every properly instructed teenager could say the same without effort. The shocking fact here is not that a Cardinal should state the obvious, but that the obvious is in blatant contradiction to the statement the Prince of Hearts keeps making without any regard for Catholicism or decency. I really, really fear we will one day reach the point where the Pope goes around saying unconscionable things and no one is scandalised because hey, that’s what he is and he is the Pope, right?
This time, Burke’s word were so simple but so clearly in opposition to Francis’ relentless search for popularity that an additional statement was sought from the Vatican. The answer was shocking and at the same time illuminating: the Pope thinks the same way as Cardinal Burke, we are told; it is only that the Holy Father is at times “not altogether easy to interpret”. Which is rather rich considering we are talking of a man who hasmade of “simplicity” his banner, but apparently can’t make himself clear in a simple way about the very basics. Which, by the way, isn’t true: whilst Francis is always unsophisticated in his way of expressing himself, his heresies and other antics have been very clear. When one states that, say, the biggest problem on earth is youth unemployment and the second the loneliness of old people there is nothing to “interpret”: the problem is in the mind that speak, not in the mouth that talks.
When I read the “not altogether easy to interpret” phrase I almost spilled my morning coffee on the keyboard, as the comedic value of such a statement is high indeed.
Look, this is a man who throws away carefully written speeches and homilies, written for him from people who understand Catholicism, whenever he feels like reinventing the wheel: should he at least not bear responsibility for what he says? Nor can it be said (anymore) that Francis was misunderstood, and notice that by saying that Francis is not easy to interpret the same Vatican sources are giving up and admitting it’s not possible anymore to simply blame the Press. No, the problem is – say Vatican sources – Francis himself. He just can’t make himself understood, poor man. I bet St. Francis never had the problem.
We have come to such a point of ridicule that not even the official defenders of Pope Diano feel they can do more for him. One does not see how they could, either: simple truths here, Francis’ rambling there, and an ETWN journalist calling you and asking which is which. What is a poor man to do? Eh, ah, oh, erm, he is not altogether easy to interpret, you know…
The ugly truth is that the Emperor is not only naked, but goes around blaspheming and saying obscenities of various kind. At last, Vatican sources have had to admit his dressing style is unconventional, or his language a tad challenging.
One would hope a Bishop of Rome who has made himself indefensible in such a way would start to get the message and at least stay very near to the script whenever a journalist’s pen or microphone (or camera) is near. But then again the problem is not in how Francis talks, is in how he thinks: in his heretical mind, namely, and love of popularity.
They try to sell us that Fancis is not easy to interpret. Actually, he is. The only thing one must do is listen to him and register what he says rather than what he should have said.
I have a very special wish for Santa Claus this year. In case you ask, it’s not a light blue convertible.
Lifesitenews.com reports about an intervention from Cardinal Burke in an interview released earlier this month. From Life Site News’ article:
Asked about Pelosi, [Cardinal Burke] said,
“Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied.”
Canon 915 states that those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
“This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin — cooperating with the crime of procured abortion — and still professes to be a devout Catholic,” the cardinal said. “I fear for Congresswoman Pelosi if she does not come to understand how gravely in error she is. I invite her to reflect upon the example of St. Thomas More who acted rightly in a similar situation even at the cost of his life.”
I will be frank with you. I was appalled at the “disciplinarian” attitude of the good Cardinal. It is clear he has a (and I quote) “static and inward-directed view of things”. He is obviously wrong, because “the church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently”. It is clear the good Cardinal has to “find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”
On the contrary, as a minister of the Church, he “must be minister of mercy above all”.
Thank God, we have Francis taking care that the liberals do not heed what the Cardinal says. This restorationism will not lead us anywhere.
Good Lord. The man talks as if he had the Truth. And he is so judgmental!
Cardinal Burke gives a nice interview, in the course of which he says “this reconciliation can take place”, just the latest signal the reconciliation is, in fact, already in the bag.
If I wanted to be cynical, I would say that the way Cardinal Burke has been kept out of the loop (not by wolves, or by trolls; but by the Pope) in the disgraceful affair of the neocatechumenal liturgy hardly makes of him the person to go for the latest news.
Still, if I were cynical I would also say that the Pope tells to his collaborators what they want to hear; therefore, he has certainly already informed the Cardinal the reconciliation is decided, because he knows Burke will give no trouble on this.
I can’t imagine this is not going to happen now. Actually I did not imagine this even before; but now the preparations for the event are assuming Olympic Games size.
I generally ignore what appears on the internet as a result of leaks. This time, though, it is different, because the “leak” appeared on Repubblica is not a normal leak, but a very public denunciation of the intrigues going on in the Vatican.
After reading the articles on Repubblica, my impressions are as follows:
1) The Vatican leaks like a sieve. Hundreds of documents allegedly in the hands of people who even claim to want to defend the Vatican from those who leak documents! If even a part of the “hundreds” documents are in the wrong hands, this shows what once was an extremely efficient, well-oiled diplomatic machine has now become the butt of a joke. This is bad news, but we knew already the news weren’t very good on that account.
2) Cardinal Burke complains in a pleasantly outspoken way about the approval of the neocatechumenal liturgy. He says loud and clear this “liturgy” goes against the liturgical direction followed by the Pope, even after the modifications suggested by the Vatican.
This man is my hero. Please God, he will be Pope one day and we’ll see the end of a lot of this nonsense.
3) The “governance” policies of the Vatican are questionable to say the very least. Please ponder on these words of Cardinal Burke, which I give to you in their Italian original:
“Non posso – si legge – come Cardinale e membro della Congregazione per il Culto Divino e la Disciplina dei Sacramenti, non esprimere a Vostra Eminenza la meraviglia che l’invito mi ha causato. Non ricordo di aver sentito di una consultazione a riguardo dell’approvazione di una liturgia propria di questo movimento ecclesiale. Ho ricevuto, negli ultimi giorni, da varie persone, anche da uno stimato Vescovo statunitense, espressioni di preoccupazione riguardo ad una tale approvazione papale, della quale essi avevano già saputo. Tale notizia era per me una pura diceria o speculazione. Adesso ho scoperto che essi avevano ragione”
If you do not know the language of Dante, the facts are as follows:
3.1) It is the 14 January 2012 and Cardinal Burke has just received from Cardinal Bertone an invitation to take part to a ceremony on occasion of the approval (!) of the Neocatechumenal liturgy; the ceremony is scheduled for the 20 January.
3.2) He replies to Bertone that he is utterly surprised, because he had never heard that consultations had ever taken place.
3.3) He had previously received word from some people – among them a very concerned American bishop – that something of the sort might be in the making, but
3.4) He had considered this “pure hearsay and speculation”.
3.5) Only after receiving the invitation, Burke realised that the speculation was, actually, true.
This is nothing less than astonishing. As you read here, the Holy Father had signed the decree of approval on the 30 December 2011 and had not considered it necessary to inform Cardinal Burke of this; not even after the fait accompli. Nor had the Cardinal been informed by Bertone or by anyone else, which appears hardly a coincidence.
4) It gets, I am afraid, worse than this. Cardinal Burke writes his angry letter to Bertone, and lets the Pope have the letter beforehand – clearly, a polite way to say to the Holy Father “what the heck is happening here, and why am I kept in the dark?” -. Astonishingly, the Pope writes on the letter a note inviting Bertone to take account of Burke’s “very right observations”.
Of course, a Pope is free to say whatever he pleases to whomever he likes, and might even think it somewhat clever to write a couple of words of “approval” of the man he clearly chose to keep out of the loop, as one would give a sweet to a complaining child.
But frankly, if this is the way the Holy Father deals with his closest collaborators – and by reflex, the mentality going on among his troops – no one has any right to be surprised at what is happening.
Interesting video from Michael Voris, and as it has been a while since I have commented this most worthy defender of Catholic orthodoxy, it might be useful to add to his words a couple of personal considerations.
1) Voris is surprised people outside of the United States are so interested in American matters; the fact is, many Americans do not perceive how keenly American matters are followed all over the world, just because they cannot have a direct perception of how people all over the world understand American matters have a direct reflection on their own country, and on their own life. In November, TV senders from all over Europe will report on the election live, all night, with the most prestigious journalists and commentators, and people from all European countries will spend either the entire night, or a part of it (some prefer to be early risers; others late sleepers) in front of the TV following the event. Very simply, what happens in the US affects us in Europe or elsewhere, whether it is cold war or “environmentalist” policy or the invasion of a Middle-Eastern country or a conflict with the local Church.
2) Voris seems not to make any secret of the fact that to him the American Generalissimo is not Dolan, but Burke. Actually, by explicitly praising Burke’s orthodoxy in pre-HHS mandate times he seems to stress the fact Dolan’s fighting spirit seems to be a rather recent event, his past being better known for the homo masses he still continues to allow in his own courtyard.
3) It is, though, not to be denied this confrontation is putting Dolan very much on the centre stage, providing him with a worldwide audience and a chance to write history, with all this implies when, well, the current Pope is 85… I do not want to say or hint this is part of Dolan’s calculation; I simply notice this as a matter of fact.
4) Voris mentions Cardinal Burke’s very strong intervention – and certainly very atypical in a man of the Curia – about which I have also written. At times I have the impression Burke & Co. not only want to strenghten Dolan’s shoulders, but also make it more difficult – or impossible – for him to try to reach some compromise the more conservative part of the Curia would not look at with favour. Burke’s insistence not only that a) there will be no compromises, but that b) in doing so Dolan & Co. are doing nothing more than their duty seems to me to at least open the door to this interpretation.
Yes, the next Pope might well be American; and in that case, there’s no doubt as to whom Voris would prefer.
I must say I share his feelings.
“Yes, I have received emails and other communications from lay faithful who say that they are supporting their bishops 100% and they have communicated to their bishops their gratitude and assured them that they want them to continue to be courageous and not to be deceived by any kind of false accommodations which in fact continue this same kind of agenda which sadly we have witnessed for too long in our country which is totally secular and therefore is anti-life and anti-family.
These are the very words of Cardinal Burke, on EWTN o Wednesday.
The Cardinal’s cannons shoot here in several directions:
a) By fully supporting Cardinal Dolan’s stance, he sends a clear message there will be no cave-in on the HHS matter.
b) By making clear there will be no consent to “accommodations”, he promises Obama & Co. will be given no easy escape and face-saving pretend solutions.
c) By explicitly mentioning a less-than-glorious past, he makes it clear the Church hierarchy has (finally) understood silence in front of a secular agenda is going to end up in a disaster, and reacts accordingly.
There are other elements of this always so pleasantly outspoken prelate I would like to point out to:
I admire very much the courage of the bishops. At the same time I believe they would say it along with me that they are doing no more than their duty.
Wow, this is setting a standard much different from what has been witnessed in the past all over the West. Possibly the fiercest confrontation between Catholicism and secular power since Vatican II is “no more than their duty”. Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols should be crying out of sheer shame, but someway I doubt he will.
Or look at this Q&A (emphases mine):
Thomas McKenna: “So a Catholic employer, really getting down to it, he does not, or she does not provide this because that way they would be, in a sense, cooperating with the sin…the sin of contraception or the sin of providing a contraceptive that would abort a child, is this correct?”
Cardinal Burke: “This is correct. It is not only a matter of what we call “material cooperation” in the sense that the employer by giving this insurance benefit is materially providing for the contraception but it is also “formal cooperation” because he is knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people. There is no way to justify it. It is simply wrong.”
This is what is called burning bridges. There is no way the Church will agree to a lazy compromise. It’s just not going to happen. By putting his weight behind the controversy, the most prestigious (I dare say) American prelate also clearly indicates the line Dolan & Co. are going to follow. If I were cynical, I’d say this is meant to burn the bridges behind Dolan and make clear to me he is expected to fight to the end; but I ain’t, so I don’t… 😉
Many thanks to Cardinal Burke.
What a great pope he would make.
Browsing around the Internet in search of reactions to Universae Ecclesiae, I was once again struck by a very clear phenomenon: the absolute, stunning, annihilating prevalence of Conservative Catholics in the blogosphere. Their dominance is now so marked, that one is not even surprised at finding one conservative blog after the other anymore; it is more so, that this is now so natural and so expected, that the chance encounter with a liberal blog would have been – if I had had such encounter – a rather shocking experience.
This reflection should make us proud (I mean with “us” not only the cohorts of bloggers, but the legions of readers who, with their contributions and encouragements, make the entire world of Catholic blogging so interesting and instructive), if it weren’t the case that our existence is, in fact, very bad news.
It is a common fact that people don’t talk much of shared ideas or common values. There are no debates about the influence of pedophilia on society, because there is nothing much to debate. Similarly, there are – after the communist madness shot itself in the genitals – no discussion anymore about whether private property be a theft, and the like. Shared values are, by and large, shared silently.
Similarly, if in the Italy of sixty years ago you would have started a debate about whether it be good to abort or to practice euthanasia, the reaction would have been a non-discussion for the evident unworthiness of the proposer, it being generally understood and universally accepted that legalised abortion and euthanasia were a distinctive trait of the Nazi regime, and such things unthinkable in a Christian and halfway decent society.
And this is the entire point. Western societies have become so indecent, so accepting of typical Nazi values, that what two generations ago would have caused open mockery or ironic commiseration, nowadays causes savage discussions. The same goes for Catholic issues, with your typical aunt of, say, 1942 smilingly dismissing as in great need of rest whoever would have told her that two generations later, millions of words would have been written about the necessity of …….. kneeling before Communion.
Our very existence is, therefore, bad news, because our existence is the clear result of the most elementary common sense having been thrown to the dogs by the senseless pot-generation of the Sixties; a generation still spreading its poison in the form of senior clergymen and senior politicians, roaming throughout the world and seeking the ruin of souls to this very day.
As it is now, hundreds of millions of Catholics can’t remember the last time their bishop has said anything meaningful against abortion or divorce; they can’t, actually, not remember when their bishop has said anything meaningful at all, vague blathering about social justice and environ-mental issues obviously not qualifying. It’s not surprising that such faithful spend part of their evening reading Catholic blogs.
If, on the other hand, the bishops were firing daily from all cannons against modern abominations and the desertion of Christian values, Catholics wouldn’t be here in the evening reading what other Catholics think; you yourself, dear reader, would just be doing something else, needing this blog no more than you need to be informed about pedophilia, or incest, or “proletarian expropriations”. Shared values are taken for granted, and one feels comfortable in the very fact that they are no object for discussion (think about a world where vast masses think that pedophilia is all right: appalling, right?).
The day the Catholic clergy starts doing its job properly and assertively, Catholic blogging will stop being a phenomenon so vast as to even attract the attention of the Vatican. That day, million of fathers and husbands will start dedicating more time to their wives or domestic occupation and less to following endless discussion on the Internet. That day, Catholic blogging will become a far more subdued activity, because the nourishment and instruction the reader seek on the net is just there, available and propagated from the friendly priest near them, as it should have been all the time.
I firmly believe that the Liturgy is the Church. You can’t corrupt the Liturgy without corrupting the Church, and you can’t improve the Liturgy without improving the Church.
Let us hope that Universae Ecclesiae will grow to become an important step toward the end of the massive phenomenon called “Catholic blogging”.
Cardinal Burke has given an interview to the French magazine La Nef (source: Rorate Caeli). In it, the Cardinal rather vigorously defends Summorum Pontificum, declares that the Tridentine has been of great inspiration to him personally and, in general, leaves not many excuses to the enemies of Summorum Pontificum.
You can see an example of his rather direct style in this statement (emphases mine):
To those who claim not to understand the intentions of Summorum Pontificum, I suggest a re-reading of the Letter to the Bishops, written by our Holy Father when it was promulgated, as well as the numerous writings of the Holy Father on sacred liturgy, published before and after his election to the Chair of Peter.
Note the expression “claim” not to understand, followed by the encouragement to, well, just do one’s homework. The reference to the “numerous writings” also makes clear enough that the boycott of Summorum Pontificum can only be attributed to the bad faith of its enemies.
This would be, methinks, a very fitting Pope.
The only element that personally leaves me a bit perplexed is his statement (we do not know whether sincerely felt, or due to reasons of diplomatic expediency) that V II had good intentions, but these intentions have been “betrayed” successively.
How can this be, one asks, when it is crystal clear that this betrayal has been so widely spread, and looked at in the perfect inaction by the same bishops who were at the Council? Has there a nuclear war or a genocide intervened, so that the bishops presiding over the horrible post-conciliar years were different ones than the oh so well-intentioned ones giving us the V II masterworks in circiterism and double entendre? Thought not….
Should Cardinal Burke become our next Pontiff, I hope that he will, profiting from a degree of liberty he cannot enjoy now – start the work of demolition of the mentality that gave us V II in the first place without sparing the holy cow of the “good intentions”, a tale whose utter falseness has been abundantly proved by the facts of the post-conciliar years.
V II was merely a pastoral council. It is now – after the great drunkenness of the Sixties and Seventies – abundantly clear that it was inspired, informed and executed in the worst pastoral spirit one can imagine. V II can be put in the garbage can in its entirety without any doctrinal compromise with the doctrinal Truth of the Church.
The sooner, the better.