What Card. Burke really said to BuzzFeed

Card. Burke to BuzzFeed:

BuzzFeed News: I should ask you about the reports that you’re being removed from the Signatura. What message is that sending? Do you think you are being removed in part because of how outspoken you have been on these issues?
Cardinal Burke: The difficulty — I know about all the reports, obviously. I’ve not received an official transfer yet. Obviously, these matters depend on official acts. I mean, I can be told that I’m going to be transferred to a new position but until I have a letter of transfer in my hand it’s difficult for me to speak about it. I’m not free to comment on why I think this may be going to happen.
BFN: Have you been told that you will be transferred?
CB: Yes.
BFN: You’re obviously a very well-respected person. That must be disappointing.
CB: Well, I have to say, the area in which I work is an area for which I’m prepared and I’ve tried to give very good service. I very much have enjoyed and have been happy to give this service, so it is a disappointment to leave it.
On the other hand, in the church as priests, we always have to be ready to accept whatever assignment we’re given. And so I trust that by accepting this assignment, I trust that God will bless me, and that’s what’s in the end most important. And even though I would have liked to have continued to work in the Apostolic Signatura, I’ll give myself to whatever is the new work that I’m assigned to…
BFN: And that is as the chancellor to the Order of Malta, is that right?
CB: It’s called the patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, that’s right.

___

Interview With Cardinal Raymond Burke: The Full Transcript

At the request of many readers, BuzzFeed News has published a full transcript of its interview with Cardinal Burke in which he confirms his removal from the Catholic Church’s highest court.
posted on Oct. 18, 2014, at 12:30 p.m.

BuzzFeed News reporter J. Lester Feder spoke with Cardinal Raymond Burke Friday morning via Skype to discuss the Extraordinary Synod on the Family and address rumors that he was being removed as the head of the Vatican’s highest court of canon law.

Cardinal Burke: Hello, this is Cardinal Burke.
BuzzFeed News: Apologies, it seems we got disconnected. I was just asking if it’s okay if I record our conversation.
CB: Yes, it’s fine. That’s fine.
BFN: I know you don’t have a lot of time, so why don’t we just dive in. I’ve seen your comments suggesting that [the Extraordinary Synod on the Family] was being manipulated. Can you say a little bit more about that, and who is doing the manipulating?
CB: Since the presentation of Cardinal Kasper in February to the extraordinary consistory of cardinals, there’s been a consistent repetition of [Kasper’s] position that is trying to weaken the church’s teaching and practice with regard to the indissolubility of marriage. This has just been consistent, casting the synod — which was to be on the family, directed in a positive way on family life — suggesting that the main purpose of the synod would be to permit those who are in irregular unions to receive the sacraments of penance and holy communion, which is not possible. If someone is bound to a prior marriage which has not been declared null, and is living as husband or wife with someone else. That’s a public state of sin and therefore the person cannot receive holy communion or go to the sacrament of penance until the matter is resolved.
But that’s been — all along this keeps coming back, and I see more clearly than ever that that’s how the synod is. And certainly the media has picked up on this — very much so.
BFN: To the question of how that’s being done, presumably the pope was the one who asked Cardinal Kasper to frame the synod. Are you saying that [the pope] is the one who is manipulating these proceedings?
CB: The pope has never said openly what his position is on the matter and people conjecture that because of the fact that he asked Cardinal Kasper — who was well known to have these views for many, many years — to speak to the cardinals and has permitted Cardinal Kasper to publish his presentation in five different languages and to travel around advancing his position on the matter, and then even recently to publicly claim that he’s speaking for the pope and there’s no correction of this.
I can’t speak for the pope and I can’t say what his position is on this, but the lack of clarity about the matter has certainly done a lot of harm.
BFN: Would it be inappropriate for the pope to do that? To structure the conversation in such a way that it is consistent with his thinking?
CB: According to my understanding of the church’s teaching and discipline, no it wouldn’t be correct.

BFN: I did a story a while back reporting on a conversation that sources relayed to me between an LGBT activist and Cardinal Müller. In that conversation, the activist apparently asked Müller about the possibility of the church possibly accepting some forms of civil unions, based on some of the comments that the pope had made and some of the positions he was understood to have taken while he was the president of the bishops conference of Argentina. Müller reportedly responded that [that decision] wasn’t up to the pope, it was up to “us,” referring to the curia. In that thinking about how these kinds of church teachings are made, can you explain to an outsider what the relationship is between this kind of conversation and the pope’s personal thinking?
CB: Well I suppose the simplest way to put it is that all of us who serve the church are at the service of the truth: the truth that Christ teaches us in the church. And the pope more than anyone else, as the pastor of the universal church, is bound to serve the truth. And so the cardinal is quite correct that the pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other truth of the faith. On the contrary, his work is to teach these truths and to insist on the discipline which reflects the truths in practice.
BFN: It sounds like there’s a tension, what we’re seeing play out in this [synod]. It sounds like you’re saying there are some people who deliberately want to change teaching. Like the people who are supportive of some of the positions that were articulated in the Relatio are saying that they’re trying to balance the pastoral need to find space for people who are living outside what the church teaches is the appropriate lifestyle, to find a way pastorally to incorporate them into the community and to bring them more in line.
You’ve used very strong words about homosexuality; in a recent interview you say again that homosexual acts are always wrong and evil. Is there any middle ground, any way to make space for LGBT people inside the church while also adhering to church teaching?
CB: Well the church doesn’t exclude anyone who’s of good will, even if the person is suffering from same-sex attraction or even acting on that attraction. But at the same time out of her love for the person who’s involved in sinful acts, she calls the person to conversion, in a loving way, but obviously, like a father or mother in a family, in a firm way for the person’s own good.
There never can be in the Catholic Church a difference between doctrine and practice. In other words, you can’t have a doctrine that teaches one thing and a practice which does something differently. If people don’t accept the church’s teaching on these matters than they’re not thinking with the church and they need to examine themselves on that and correct their thinking or leave the church if they absolutely can’t accept what the church teaches. They’re certainly not free to change the teaching of the church to suit their own ideas.
BFN: But as I read the Relatio — and again I’m reading this as a layperson — it seems like what they’re saying is [trying to establish] a welcoming tone. While not changing the teaching, they’re also trying to not make the primary point of contact be a fight over these lifestyle choices. While holding up that the ideal remains matrimony, they’re not going to be pushed out and harassed by virtue of not being in that arrangement.
CB: The point is that for the church, moral teaching is never a matter of ideals. They’re understood to be real commands that we’re meant to put into practice. All of us are sinners and we have to undergo a daily conversion to live according to the moral truth, but it remains for us always compelling. It’s not just an ideal that we hold out there, that, “It would be nice if it were this way, but I can’t do it.” No, we’re called to conform ourselves to those truths.
That’s the difficulty with the Relatio, which is not well expressed, and does not have a good foundation neither in the sacred scriptures nor in the church’s perennial teachings, and also uses language which can be very confusing.
One of the confusions is that it confuses the person with the sinful acts. In other words, it tries to say that if the church teaches that these acts are sinful that somehow they are turning on the people and driving them away from the church. Well, if the individuals involved are sincere and want to live the truth of moral law, the church is always ready to help. Even if someone sins repeatedly, the church always stands ready to help them begin again. But the truth of the moral law remains and it is compelling. It’s for now, it’s for me, it’s not something out there, some ideal out there that would be nice to realize but it doesn’t compel me.
BFN: I should ask you about the reports that you’re being removed from the Signatura. What message is that sending? Do you think you are being removed in part because of how outspoken you have been on these issues?

Cardinal Burke: The difficulty — I know about all the reports, obviously. I’ve not received an official transfer yet. Obviously, these matters depend on official acts. I mean, I can be told that i’m going to be transferred to a new position but until I have a letter of transfer in my hand it’s difficult for me to speak about it. I’m not free to comment on why I think this may be going to happen.
BFN: Have you been told that you will be transferred?
CB: Yes.
BFN: You’re obviously a very well respected person. That must be disappointing.
CB: Well, I have to say, the area in which I work is an area for which I’m prepared and I’ve tried to give very good service. I very much have enjoyed and have been happy to give this service, so it is a disappointment to leave it. On the other hand, in the church as priests, we always have to be ready to accept whatever assignment we’re given. And so I trust that by accepting this assignment, I trust that God will bless me, and that’s what’s in the end most important. And even though I would have liked to have continued to work in the Apostolic Signatura, I’ll give myself to whatever is the new work that I’m assigned to…
BFN: And that is as the chancellor to the order of Malta, is that right?
CB: It’s called the patron of the sovereign military order of Malta, that’s right.
BFN: So where are we now? As I understand it, the final draft of the Relatio is expected later today and it will be voted on tomorrow, is that right?
CB: It’s scheduled to be read to us tomorrow morning and then there’s to be discussion and the final vote is tomorrow afternoon.
BFN: I’m curious about the revisions that happened yesterday in the English version of the [Relatio] and none of the others. I don’t know if you can shed any light on that…
CB: I only know the revisions that were suggested by the small group to which I belonged, I haven’t seen the other ones, they were all delivered yesterday and were studied yesterday afternoon and today for the revision of the text. From the reports which were published, the summary reports, I believe that there was a rather thorough revision.
BFN: On this final stretch, you have very well respected doctrinal experts like Cardinal Wuerl on [the Relatio] writing committee. Do you have confidence in them going forward?
CB: I trust that they will produce a worthy document. I must say I was shocked by what I heard on Monday morning, which was presented by a very reputable cardinal, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Budapest. So you can imagine I’m a little shaken by that, my trust is a little bit shaken, but I am hoping that we won’t have a repeat of that.
BFN: All right, sir, I very much appreciate you making the time, I know you haven’t spoken with a lot of secular outlets, so I am really honored that you’d be willing to do that for us.
CB: You’re welcome. Goodbye, and God bless you.
This interview has been edited for clarity and to protect the identity of a source.

Please share!
Share

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to What Card. Burke really said to BuzzFeed

  1. Brian K says:

    Buzzfeed only posted the actual transcript of the section of the interview wherein Cardinal Burke talks about leaving the Signatura. They did not post the transcript of the rest of the interview where the other quotes originated. They should post the entire transcript for clarity and to see the rest of Cardinal Burke’s quotes in context.

  2. Ioannes Andreades says:

    How disappointing. Rome’s getting somewhat chilly.

  3. marcelus says:

    He is portrayed as being directly confronting the Pope. It is difficult to see this end in a different way sadly.

    “Burke said, he would not be observing his mandate as the leader of the Catholic Church (The Pope).“According to my understanding of the church’s teaching and discipline, no, it wouldn’t be correct,” Burke said, saying the pope had “done a lot of harm” by not stating “openly what his position is.” Burke said the Pope had given the impression that he endorses some of the most controversial parts of the Relatio, especially on questions of divorce, because of a German cardinal who gave an important speech suggesting a path to allowing people who had divorced and remarried to receive communion, Cardinal Walter Kasper, to open the synod’s discussion.
    “The pope, more than anyone else as the pastor of the universal church, is bound to serve the truth,” Burke said. “The pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other doctrine of the faith.”
    Burke has publicly clashed with the pope since Francis took office in 2013, and he has come to represent the sidelining of culture warriors elevated by Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict and as the top doctrinal official under Pope John Paul II. Burke, who caused controversy while bishop of St. Louis by saying Catholics who voted for politicians supportive of abortion rights should not receive communion, went on Catholic television in 2013 to rebut remarks Pope Francis made to an interviewer that the church had become “obsessed” with abortion and sexuality to the exclusion of other issues, saying, “We can never talk enough about that as long as in our society innocent and defenseless human life is being attacked in the most savage way,” Burke said”

  4. marcelus says:

    In all fairness, we must say the PE Benedict mentiond something quite similar to what PF said.

    “Pope Francis made to an interviewer that the church had become “obsessed” with abortion and sexuality to the exclusion of other issues, saying, “We can never talk enough about that as long as in our society innocent and defenseless human life is being attacked in the most savage way,” Burke said”

    PE BVXI:

    In 2006: “I always knew the questions in advance. They concerned the ordination of women, contraception, abortion.?.?. If we let ourselves be drawn into these discussions, the church is then identified with certain commandments or prohibitions; we give the impression that we are moralists with a few somewhat antiquated convictions, and not even a hint of the true greatness of the faith appears.”

    I’m afraid this will leave unhealable scars in the conservative traditional laity and at odds with Peter. The world will see them as dead set against the Pope no matter what happens. Sad.Hope it does notgo that way. It’s already out in the news as such

  5. john_6_fan says:

    Humility, service to the Church and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ. He has his opinions, but will obey and serve those he is called to serve.

    Imagine if the political leaders of the world had 1 percent of Cardinal Burke’s humility…

  6. Alohajoe5 says:

    Brian K:

    Yes, although it is disappointing to hear the discussion of this again, yes, it is questionable what the full context of his remarks were and whether the interview included quotations that were selectively cut and pasted in a order to produce a storyline. I note that in the updated piece they note that “Cardinal Burke told Buzzfeed on Friday”, I’m just curious when the interview/phone call/exchange of emails actually took place. If nothing else, the last few days has proved that a few days now, can, drastically alter the context in which comments & interviews should be interpeted.

  7. Tony Phillips says:

    I’ve never heard of ‘Buzzfeed’ before but it doesn’t look like the most edifying site–very pro-gay, for one thing. Why would Cardinal Burke give an interview to them?

  8. Gratias says:

    Thank you Cardinal Burke for your service to the Catholic Church. Sorry about the transfer but still Your Eminence is going out with a bang: the pontifical Mass next Saturday at 12:00 at the altar of the Chair at St. Peter’s. I have business but hope to be in before it ends. Mrs. Gratias will certainly be there for the pilgrimage and hopefully Father Z will also attend. God bless you Good Cardinal.

  9. truthfinder says:

    Tony,
    Buzzfeed has huge readership capabilities (hundred million range). They are a real mixed bag of cat videos, news aggregator, and some serious journalism. There is also user submitted content, so sometimes you’ll see evangelist posts right next to antichristian posts. I’m actually surprised how many positive comments were left, and refutations made to atheists (at least when I read the post).

  10. LeeF says:

    I think Francis is on to something good in theory, with shuffling cardinals around. The unhealthy subcultures that develop in the Vatican are the result of the same people continuing for too long in office, and ignoring the misdeeds of others as long as their own preserves are left alone as well. But this applies moreso to staff, both clerical and lay, and especially permanent Italian staff. All of these positions should be semi-fixed term. Just as stagnant ponds breed the carriers of disease, so do long term assignments and alliances breed cabals that spread moral diseases.

    So I am not as worried about Cardinal Burke leaving as I am about who his potential replacement might be. But popes get rotated too, either by abdication or death. The Holy Spirit guarantees the long term not necessarily the present.

  11. Traductora says:

    I saw that they had managed to create a truly inflammatory headline from the Cardinal’s rather mild and factual remarks, and I think that’s doing a great disservice to him and will probably make his life even harder. They took a comment to the effect that the Pope’s continued silence when asked for clarification “harms the Church,” and changed it into “Burke says Pope is harming the Church.” That was not what Burke said, and it was irresponsible and damaging to recast it that way. Just shows that journalists of all stripes can manipulate interviews to support their agenda, I guess…

  12. Imrahil says:

    Dear Traductora,

    well, “the Pope’s continuing silence upon being questioned harms the Church” implies “the Pope by continuing to be silent upon being questioned is harming the Church” implies “the Pope is harming the Church”. It’s not incorrect, and we can’t blame a journalist for doing his job which may be write headlines in a provocative (but not incorrect) way (and explain the details afterwards).

    On the other hand, we really need to get away from the image that disagreeing with the Pope is not being Catholic. As I repeatedly said, I guess (half-humourously) that Pope Francis, by his constant preaching, opinion-giving etc., is teaching us the important lesson that he is, when not infallible, fallible. And in fact at the end of his pontificate we’ll all have gotten that message, it would be a good thing indeed.

  13. Unwilling says:

    Obedience is mighty. He could not be more orthodox than in such Faith-filled submission.

  14. John Grammaticus says:

    Lee f

    The problem with what you’ve described is that it has the potential to result in ‘revolving doors’ in office, whereby cases (e.g appeals to Rome over parish closures, appeals against dismissals from the clerical state, letters regarding repeated litrugical abuses when the bishop has ignored the appeals of his sheep etc etc) are dealt with by people who don’t know the facts because the case took 3 years to proceed through the beauracracy only for the incumbent to be moved and someone who hasn’t been with the case from the beginning making a poor judgement because they don’t know the facts.

    Now this will happen when people move, e.g. the Transalpine redemptorists petition for cannoncial recognition stalled for 3 years when Cardinal Hoyes retired from Ecclesia Dei ,but they will be the exception rather than the rule, which is what you get when people are shuffled around automatically every couple of years.

    Yes there is quite likely a problem with careersim at the Curia, but a greater calling to sanctity not roation is the answer. It makes no sense to remove the man who is the Church’s foremost cannonist from his post as the Church’s Attorney General.

  15. The Masked Chicken says:

    “The unhealthy subcultures that develop in the Vatican are the result of the same people continuing for too long in office, and ignoring the misdeeds of others as long as their own preserves are left alone as well.”

    This fallacy is called, argumentum ad novitatem, or appeal to the new or novel (novelty). What defines, “too long?” If that were the case, then no orchestra would have players older than 35. Why remove someone who is doing a good job, unless, you think they aren’t doing a good job? Each person should be judged on their performance, both in the job and morally. One could say that THIS was exactly the thought-process that informed the liberal mind at Vatican II and, perhaps, at the current synod.

    The Chicken

    P. S. I know that you didn’t mean it this was, LeeF. I am a fan of term limits, myself, but there is a reason why some positions need longer terms. Good judges are hard to find and should be treasured when they are.

  16. Kathleen10 says:

    If Cardinal Burke is reassigned, this will now be seen as retribution for his defense of authentic Catholic teaching. This may be how things were always done, and the public did not know it, but we know it now. For me, the common person in the pew, it has become obvious how things do actually work, and in my opinion it is exceedingly ugly. The church should know that what was hidden well or not understood before, thanks to social media, has become too clear. That this process was highly controlled and faithful men may be sidelined, is something the world at large is now very aware of and watching. If this continues it will cause not only resentment from the faithful, but only add to the negative perceptions of those outside the church. That can’t help.

  17. The Astronomer says:

    Cardinal Burke is paying the price and if indeed he is assigned to the Knights of Malta, it could see almost seen as a ‘reverse exile’ of what happened to Abp. Bignini to Tehran, Iran by Pope Paul VI. (We all the know the huge numbers of Roman Catholics left untended in Shiite Tehran, Iran back in 1976 before the revolution). The key here is will the ‘progressives’ learn from their over-reaching and hubris to prevent the same kind of ‘Oct 16th uprising’ next year to advance their agenda? They have the better part of a year to lick their wounds, nurse grudges and plot anew.

    I think after this Synod, it is more than cleat that Cardinal Baldisseri was the puppetmaster, along with Kasper, et al., operating under the overall strategic directives of the Holy Father. I think the media-driven mask is now off this papacy; Pope Francis has a fluffy, smiley persona that deftly cloaks the iron will of a ‘moderate with very progressive/liberal sympathies. Deffinitely not a friend of tradition, if enforcement actions again the FFI, liberal appointments…etc. are taken in totality. Pope Francis could well be described with the same phrase Margaret Thatcher used to describe Andrei Gromyko “…he has a beautiful smile with teeth of iron.”

  18. GordonB says:

    It seems there are two possibilities, to read Sandro Magister, Pope Francis is part of the modernist cabal, putting known modernists into important leadership position and in positions close to him through the course of his pontificate (now, he has also put some solid folks in good positions, too, or maybe one, Cardinal Pell at least); or Pope Francis is engaging in the old adage, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”

  19. rainman919 says:

    I’ve never been as concerned about the direction of the Church as I am now. I’m greatly disturbed by how Pope Francis is handling this whole discussion. I pray constantly that I’m able to maintain confidence in him.
    I teach high school theology and my students are all excited over media reports that the Holy Father is supportive of gay rights. This will never be erased from their minds no matter how hard we work at correcting the damage.
    The bottom line is that this entire synod is a disaster and seemingly doing much more harm than good. God bless Cardinals Burke and Pell for their strength and courage! My prayer is that we will be surprised by the Holy Spirit and see great good come out of this synod.

  20. Curley says:

    I’d love to see a journalist ask pope Francis about his motivations for transferring cardinal Burke when he decides to give another “interview”. Doubt that will happen

  21. marcelus says:

    Curley says:
    18 October 2014 at 9:01 am
    I’d love to see a journalist ask pope Francis about his motivations for transferring cardinal Burke when he decides to give another “interview”. Doubt that will happen

    Ohhh he willl, donot doubt that. And it may come from an Argentinian paper.he is familiar with lot’s of journalists here. He will speak believe me. Then we’ll know what happened.

    Both with Burke and the Synod.

    Kathleen10 says:
    18 October 2014 at 7:52 am
    If Cardinal Burke is reassigned, this will now be seen as retribution for his defense of authentic Catholic teaching.

    In all truth, This is how the press anb the world will see it.

    I’m definately not sure celebrating this as victory, for it was not , will do any good to the Trad side, believe me. Calling it and “uprise” against the Pope, as people are in forums , trad forums that is, WILL DO NO GOOD. Good or bad, The Pope as the king was in old days, MUST be kept aside, Be that Bergoglio or any other.EVen if there is suspicion. The Synod is not finished. You’ll se the final relatio (not even the final doc of the SYnod) will be much different and it will be heald and celebrated as the result of the connsevative uprise.

    In the end, all that it will bring about is a nasty 2015, waiting for incoming fire from any side, real or not. Having placed a part of the Church against the Pope, thought nobody willl admit to that openly.

    SOmething is very wrong here. Being Argentinian, I still can not come to understand why the paper spoke so much about homosexuals. No even that much about the divorced and all that. This is not Bergoglio, when he was here, his conncerne were single mom babies, I recalled he said, ” we ask theese women not to abort and then we eill not baptized their babies?” and the children of gay unions whom he he did not want to loose for the faith. Remember he stated they were , as children of SSU . discrimainated upon by default by the action of their “parents”. But gays? I never really heard him mention that. This paper, is the result, has to be, of a sick homosexual mind in the disguise of a Cardinal’s outfit, there is no other way. Had he known, the Pope, I do not think he will have allowed it to go at like that, and the rush to get it out tothe pr ess…I don’t know.. guess will have to see what happens when he speaks

  22. Dave N. says:

    Granting an interview to BuzzFeed? Headquarters for all things “gay marriage” and Kardashian-esque?? Really??? Is Access Hollywood next on the rota?

    IMO, this takes an extremely serious matter (upholding Church teaching) and portrays it to the rest of the world as expected political jostling and public sour grapes. This is of course what the readers of BuzzFeed think already–that that church is not an institution founded by Christ but is really just about old men jockeying for power.

    I guess this IS the Synod of the Media. A sad, serious lapse of judgment on the part of Cdl. Burke and red meat for those who think ill of the Church already.

  23. marcelus says:

    Father

    Can you confirm this report is real?

    I’ve checked Facebook and it ON FIRE!!

    Reporting directly Crdl Burke says :”PF has or is causing great harm to the Church!”

    Has he said that, if so where will that place him. Outside of the CHurch directly?

    There is no way the two of them will coexist if he has really spoken those words. And one of the is Pope

  24. Ferde Rombola says:

    Since when is defending the faith a lapse in judgment? Would you prefer he stay silent and allow the wolves to devour the doctrines of Jesus Christ? Cardinal Burke has energized the faithful bishops who did not dare to speak out. Now, in Cardinals Burke, Pell and Mueller they have leaders to free them from their fears. Cardinal Burke will not take a single backward step. The Pope can send him to Alaska and we’ll still hear his voice.

  25. jmgarciajr says:

    The page of the journalist from BuzzFeed: http://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder
    Note his previous stories.

  26. marcelus says:

    Ferde Rombola says:
    18 October 2014 at 1:07 pm
    Since when is defending the faith a lapse in judgment? Would you prefer he stay silent and allow the wolves to devour the doctrines of Jesus Christ? Cardinal Burke has energized the faithful bishops who did not dare to speak out. Now, in Cardinals Burke, Pell and Mueller they have leaders to free them from their fears. Cardinal Burke will not take a single backward step. The Pope can send him to Alaska and we’ll still hear his voice.

    You are getting my point.

    Defending the faith and all is the right thing. No problem with that.

    The thing is.. as of now, the “leader” hierachially at least , of Pell, Muller and even Burke goes by the name of Francis.

    If Burke comes out saying ; ” My boss is doing t wrong to our Compay”

    Then what do you think happens??

    They go by bussines as usual?

  27. Gerard Plourde says:

    “On the other hand, in the church as priests, we always have to be ready to accept whatever assignment we’re given.”

    I think that Cardinal Burke expresses an important truth in this statement. The Church has long recognized that priests, parochial vicars and even bishops should not put down permanent roots. He has served in his present position for over six years. The danger is that even those with the best intentions can become habituated and complacent if they remain in one place too long. Our own political system provides the best example of this danger, calling it “Potomac Fever”, a condition from which a number of long-serving members of Congress suffer.

  28. marcelus says:

    From the Pope’s speech at the closure of the Synod

    una: la tentazione dell ‘irrigidimento ostile , cioè il voler chiudersi dentro lo scritto ( la lettera ) e non lasciarsi sorprendere da Dio, dal Dio delle sorprese ( lo spirito ); dentro la legge, dentro la certezza di ciò che conosciamo e non di ciò che dobbiamo ancora imparare e raggiungere. Dal tempo di Gesù, è la tentazione degli zelanti, degli scrupolosi, dei premurosi e dei cosiddetti – oggi- ” tradizionalisti” e anche degli intellettualisti.

    – La tentazione del buonismo distruttivo , che a nome di una misericordia ingannatrice fascia le ferite senza prima curarle e medicarle; che tratta i sintomi e non le cause e le radici. È la tentazione dei “buonisti”, dei timorosi e anche dei cosiddetti ” progressisti e liberalisti”.

  29. acroat says:

    It is not unusually that Prefects are removed after the number of years that Cardinal Burke has served. It is unusual that they are exiled to the position of being Patron to the Order of Multa. It makes one wonder if a reported quote by Pope Francis about legalists with their 613 commandments was directed at Cardinal Burke. If it was, it demonstrates little insight into the charity of the humble Cardinal.

  30. marcelus says:

    acroat says:
    18 October 2014 at 2:49 pm
    It is not unusually that Prefects are removed after the number of years that Cardinal Burke has served

    Let’s imagine for a minute, if it happens in the end, for the reasons we think may found this desition, PF now has the best of all excuses:CRdl Burke spoke openly against him.

    The world and most of the press , believe me, are not aware fully of all this background involving the Cardl.

    I’ve thinking, leaving aside Magister, this and that ..

    If you look at the most important newpapers, at least in latam and I suppose worldwide too, you will find that traditionalists after their reaction over the mid relatio, have been “burned” at the stake . Though there is no “winning” involved here, it seems to have been something of a victory over Francis. That is what they are saying, not mee.

    I’ve read the Pope’s speech, do that if you have not, at the closing of the Synod. Very interesting. He distances himself from both sides? You get the feeling , least I did , of afather letting his kids play freely and they messed up-

    However, judging by the results, Could it be that the Kasperites, set this whole thing up?

    1: They had to get the trads to react somehow, to show their teeh. So they came upwith this sinful relatio, of course they knew it would not go anywhere, but I would surely get traditionalists on fire. At that they may have excelled-

    2-Traditionalist reacted! and how!!the relation vanishes, the trads go on bousting about how they beat the left, Burke speaks against the Pope openly if he did, news gets out.

    3.Press picks it up and buys the left’s story as expected. Oh they stopped the Pope on his tracks, A Conservative hardliner Crdl Burke blasts the Pope (not many common catholics in the world are familiar with Burke Muller, even Kasper, believe me)

    4. In the end, press keeps reporting on the “mean” traditionalists and scalating. This is what is happening right now in the world press. (Guy on the street does not know who Magister is) Added That Crdl Burke may have said that Francis is causing damage to the Church.

    In the end, the Kasperites played with no cards in their hands and managed to get what they wanted? Discredit the Trads in the eyes of the non catholics and common catholics?

  31. Ioannes Andreades says:

    BTW, does this mean that Cardinal Burke will be able to be hired as a canon lawyer or give canonical advice as long as the Order of Malta is not a party to a dispute?

  32. Traductora says:

    @Imrahil, There’s a difference from a passive and an active causation of anything. I absolutely agree that the Pope’s failure to say anything is causing harm, but making it sound as if Burke says the Pope is actively harming the Church will only stir up animus against Burke and give them more cause to attack him.

    The NYT is making it sound like “the Vatican,” whatever that means to them (but probably includes the Pope), is now fighting with “the Church” over people who identify themselves primarily not as human beings made in the Image and Likeness of God, but as homosexuals, which appear to be a separate species. The Pope should get out and say something about this, but he probably won’t.

  33. ChristoetEcclesiae says:

    Thank you for posting the second, fuller transcript of the BuzzFeed interview, Fr. Z. It provides context that the excerpt of the original post could not.

    To my mind, after reading it, one can only see again a true Prince of the Church defending Our Lord and his Church while, at the same time, repeating that there is room in the Church for anyone of good will. He reiterates that we are all sinners. He speaks with clarity, judgment and charity.

    The Cardinal clearly wants to encourage and guide souls to heaven, and is willing to tell the truth in charity, even when the truth is unpopular. And perhaps he thought it better to offer the interview to the Buzzfeed readership than to preach to the already converted. Who knows?

    May God bless and Our Lady protect Cardinal Burke.
    Please continue to pray for him.

  34. Imrahil says:

    Dear Traductora, nonetheless I see nothing in the mentioned abbreviation which makes it an actually untrue representation of what Cdl Burke said.

    (“to harm” in my vocabulary includes unintentional harming.)

    Dear Gerard Plourde,

    The Church has long recognized that priests, parochial vicars and even bishops should not put down permanent roots.

    Forgive me: but the contrary is true. It is however true that Jesuits are, by their particular rule, not to put down permanent roots. By coincidence our Holy Father is a Jesuit, of course.

    But where no specific religious rule forbids it, there has been a lot of putting-roots-down in the clergy; and it is, of course, secular clergy which does the running of the Church-as-we-know-her. And I belong to the (I guess) minority which does think she is still something more than only a status quo to be done with as soon as possible.

    As for bishops, the idea is “marriage of the bishop with the diocese”. Even promoting a suffragan to archbishop used to be a contested, controversial move, and in fact does require the Papal full authority (which of course any choice of bishop does, but the Pope does have to loose the bond to the former diocese). Retiring an aged bishop was highly, highly controversial in the 1960s, and the law still says that “bishops are suggested”, not required, “to offer their resignation”, not simply retired from above.

    As for pastors, appointing them for life is the official standard practice in the Church (can. 522). The danger of an overdose of settling-down has been well seen, but the traditional answer was not a perpetual shuffle-around, but to arouse them in somewhat regular intervals by so-called “popular missions”, while leaving them also time for their religious everyday life in piece.

    As for priests, the secular clergy has always been recognized by a grateful Church as an estate of honor and, as far as she could afford it, she did not suffer them suffering from indigence.

    I think the Church is much more favorable to complacency (or, to put it by a friendlier word, contentment) and just-doing-the-job-that-needs-to-be-done-and-that-the-way-we-always-did than you might think, provided that it really is about things to be content about.

  35. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    “BFN: I’m curious about the revisions that happened yesterday in the English version of the [Relatio] and none of the others. I don’t know if you can shed any light on that…
    CB: I only know the revisions that were suggested by the small group to which I belonged, I haven’t seen the other ones, they were all delivered yesterday and were studied yesterday afternoon and today for the revision of the text.”

    Something curious and striking going on in this exchange!

    The “unofficial translation” into English on the Vatican site as provided at

    http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/13/0751/03037.html

    has been revised in various details (though there is no note pointing this out).

    Some journalists are aware of this – it is what Mr. Feder is referring to, and an online news story dated 16 October drew my attention to the fact, where Relatio 50-52, now entitled “Providing for homosexual persons”, is concerned.

    Other journalists are not, apparently, since the televised conversation with Cardinal Dolan provided by Fr. Z in another post relies, from their side, on the ‘old’ version, not the new, revised one!

    And Cardinal Burke also seems unaware of it – unless he simply misunderstood the question, amid the vagaries of Skype…

    It might be worth someone’s while to collate the old and newly revised versions of the “unofficial translation” and tabulate the results for easy reference…

    I have only compared 50-52, which has been revised throughout in various details. Curiously, one phrase which has not been revised is “accepting and valuing their sexual orientation” (though the earlier part of the sentence in which it occurs, has)!

    One phrase, notably discussed as odd, misleading, etc. (see, for example
    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/how-an-incorrect-translation-of-the-synod-report-created-chaos-24767/)

    has not been revised…
    Another curious point is that the translation of “Accogliere” has been changed in the section title from “Welcoming” to “Providing for”, while in 50 “accogliente” is still translated “welcoming”.

    Mr. Feder says (I know not how correctly) that “the revisions […] happened yesterday in the English version of the [Relatio] and none of the others.”

    Who is responsible for them? Why was the fact of revision not indicated explicitly (and were some journalist ‘tipped’, and not others)?

    What might this be evidence of…incompetence of a high order? mischievousness?

  36. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Cardinal Burke is quoted as saying, “That’s the difficulty with the Relatio, which is not well expressed, and does not have a good foundation neither in the sacred scriptures nor in the church’s perennial teachings, and also uses language which can be very confusing.”

    The first and third of these points seem variations of the same one – at least as far as 50-52 go – and would apply even if somewhere in the background those paragraphs may in fact have “a good foundation”: no-one can tell from it, because it is not clearly expressed.

    Intentionally or not, the confusing ill-expression allows diametrically opposed readings, and something like ‘plausible deniability’ that it is proposing anything out of keeping with natural law, Scriptural revelation, and Church teaching.

    Contrast the welcome and the clarity of

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

    Such a combination of welcome and clarity comes from Cardinal Burke as transcribed and surely could come from any and all of the Synod Fathers – including the Holy Father – if and whenever they wished to give it utterance!

  37. marcelus says:

    Traductora says:
    18 October 2014 at 4:35 pm
    @Imrahil, There’s a difference from a passive and an active causation of anything. I absolutely agree that the Pope’s failure to say anything is causing harm, but making it sound as if Burke says the Pope is actively harming the Church will only stir up animus against Burke and give them more cause to attack him.

    Clarity is a gift we lack nowadays to some extend. Interpretations are required and tendecies or inclinations are deducted from them. Francis has been much criticized, rightly maybe for not speaking clearly or vaguely. I’ll admit to that.

    CLarity is what Crdl Burke uses when he speaks. No doubt about it. “Interpreting” his , and I’m sorry to say, unfortunate words about the Pope, either by action or ommision or making some kind of linguistic interpretation, will not change the fact he said what the Pope is /is not doing harms the Church,

    And he may have not been thinking at that point of the conversation , what he was sayinf may give his opinion about this?

    Thank you and God bless

  38. robtbrown says:

    marcelus says:

    In all fairness, we must say the PE Benedict mentiond something quite similar to what PF said.

    Yes, he did, but his solution was to reform the way the Church worships.

    You cannot on the one hand applaud the activism that encouraged by the Novus Ordo but dismiss abortion activists.

    BTW, last year I spoke with an old friend, a good Catholic woman, who is not a griper and whose son is a diocesan priest. She told me that she had worked over 35 years in Right to Life/Birthright (I cannot remember which) and that almost all the girls she worked with were poor. So the pope’s encouragement to quite being obsessed with abortion and give attention to the poor didn’t make much sense to her.

  39. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    There’s that verb again!

    In his post on Pope Francis’ final address to ther Synod, Fr. Z quotes, “the duty of the Pope is that of […] reminding the pastors that their first duty is to nourish the flock […] and to seek to welcome – with fatherly care and mercy, and without false fears – the lost sheep. I made a mistake here. I said welcome: [rather] to go out and find them” and comments, “Interesting!”

    One detail of the interest is that the verb from the section title of Monday’s “Relatio” and (in one of its forms) of paragraph 50 is emphatically used again: “accogliere”. The Italian text of the address reads: “che il Signore a loro affidato e di cercare di accogliere – con paternità e misericordia e senza false paure – le pecorelle smarrite. Ho sbagliato, qui. Ho detto accogliere: andare a trovarle”.

    The anonymous Vatican English “Relatio” translation reviser has now changed “Welcoming homosexual persons” to “Providing for homosexual persons”, while “Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home” has become “Oftentimes, they want to encounter a Church which offers them a welcoming home.” The Italian still has “Accogliere” in the section title and, in 50, “accogliente”.

    Whatever awareness the Holy Father has, or does not have, of the attention to the original English translation of that “Relatio”, and of its subsequent revision, whatever is the best way to translate ‘acogliere’ in a given context, he seems to have accented that word.

    Another interesting feature, is the rhetorical play he makes of having made a mistake, done something wrong, misspoken (“Ho sbagliato”) – I don’t know how actively the sense of somebody ‘being in the wrong profession’/’having chosen the wrong job’ will come to the mind of an Italian-speaking listener/reader, though it seems the customary verb, there.

    If the Vulgate for “my sheep that was lost” is “ovem meam, quae perierat” (St. Luke 15:6), Italian seems to have “le pecorelle smarrite” (in the singular) as a standard expression, with its diminutive form for the sheep, and – might there be another Papal wordplay built in, here? – an adjective for ‘lost’ which also has as one of its synonyms, ‘disorientato’. (The ‘little lost sheep’ with a “sexual orientation” of the sort concerning which, in “Relatio” 50, it is wondered if “our communities” are “capable” of “accepting and accogliente”?)

    There seems in that “go out and find them” a play with the father in the parable later in the same chapter (v. 20) – “misericordia motus est, et accurrens cecidit super collum ejus, et osculatus est eum” (and, perhaps, elaborately with the “ostium ovium” of St. John 10:7, 9?).

    (As an aside, the anonymous Vatican reviser’s “Oftentimes” makes me think of Banquo’s “oftentimes, to win us to our harm, The intruments of darkness tell us truths, Win us with honest trifles, to betray ‘s In deepest consequence” in Macbeth, I, iii. An unintended allusive reminder that one must be wary in distinguishing lost sheep from hidden agenda?)

  40. Bruce says:

    These 2 quotes from Chesterton kept popping into my head during the synod

    “Moral issues are always terribly complex for someone without principles.”

    “I don’t need a church to tell me I’m wrong where I already know I’m wrong; I need a Church to tell me I’m wrong where I think I’m right.”

  41. marcelus says:

    robtbrown says:
    19 October 2014 at 9:58 am
    marcelus says:

    In all fairness, we must say the PE Benedict mentiond something quite similar to what PF said.

    Yes, he did, but his solution was to reform the way the Church worships

    Again my friend. ,,, interpretations and on we go, one meant this, this other meant that.

    I think Benedict needs no clarification

    Just so I make myself clear, I do not agree with not talking about these issues.

  42. marcelus says:

    For all that matter if anything at all, the libs have succeded in one thing by issuing this ill fated mid relatio. They have turned the world press dead against the trad site.I’m in Argentina and leaving aside local papers, Brazil, England ,Mexico, France and I do not know how many more countries, all printed frontline stuff like: the conservatives , hardliners stopped the reforms! They have beaten the pope! the Pope has been defeated.

    Sad