Andrea Tornielli, "
Burke: 'There is a strong sense that the Church is like a ship without a helm'" (La Stampa: Vatican Insider, October 31, 2014):
After his criticisms about the Synod being manipulated and censored, the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, is continuing to raise concerns – in an increasingly distressed tone – about the direction the Church is taking, criticising the Pope, whilst at the same time claiming he does not wish it seem like he is speaking out against he Pope.” His latest interview with Darío Menor Torres was published by Spanish religious news weekly Vida Nueva.
“Many have expressed their concerns to me. At this very critical moment, there is a strong sense that the Church is like a ship without a helm, whatever the reason for this may be; now, it is more important than ever to examine our faith, have a healthy spiritual leader and give powerful witness to the faith.”
“I fully respect the Petrine ministry and I do not wish it to seem like I am speaking out against the Pope. I would like to be a master of the faith, with all my weaknesses, telling a truth that many currently perceive. They are feeling a bit sea sick because they feel the Church’s ship has lost its bearings. We need to set aside the reason for this disorientation because we have not lost our bearings. We have the enduring tradition of the Church, its teachings, the liturgy, its morality. The catechism remains the same.”
“The Pope rightly speaks of the need to go out to the peripheries,” the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura said. “The people have responded very warmly to this. But we cannot go to the peripheries empty-handed. We go with the Word of God, with the Sacraments, with the virtuous life of the Holy Spirit. I am not saying the Pope does this, but there is a risk of the encounter with culture being misinterpreted. Faith cannot adapt to culture but , must call to it to convert. We are a counter-cultural movement, not a popular one.”
17 comments:
Even this is not without prevarication. Fill in the holes in Burke's metaphor. Why would a ship be without a helm? Especially this ship, against which we have been assured even the gates of hell shall not prevail? Was it designed without one? Did the helm break itself off one dark night and head for the bright lights of Broadway? Of course not. Well, what happened to it?
What about the captain and/or the crew? Is it possible that they took their axes to it and rendered it useless? That is the metaphorical sense around which Burke dances.
The Catholic Church has a robust tradition of reform originating from within but not remaining so: it is called protestantism.
Metaphors are powerful things. Burke is taking a distinct risk by referring to the current crisis of "reform" in such a provocative manner. He shares a common ground with trads: neither has anything left to lose.
Strong words, Ralph. I'm afraid you're right.
Such moments are not quite unprecedented, when we remember the historical incident of three simultaneous rival claimants to Peter's throne.
What is left to the faithful is to hood fast to tradition, as St. Paul says, and to see to their own salvation with fear and trembling.
Let the ship sink. She is done.
Karl
God Bless Burke. It cannot be at all easy for him to speak out like this from within clerical culture.
>At this very critical moment, there is a strong sense that the Church is like a ship without a helm, whatever the reason for this may be;
Taken at face value it merely means the people who have complained to Cardinal Burke feel this way. Wither it is a justified feeling or not or wither Francis is at fault or wither Burke faults Francis is largely left unsaid.
> We need to set aside the reason for this disorientation because we have not lost our bearings. We have the enduring tradition of the Church, its teachings, the liturgy, its morality. The catechism remains the same.”
Amen! Which is why I think most if not all of the "Francis resisters" and chicken little crowd need to cool it big time.
>“The Pope rightly speaks of the need to go out to the peripheries,” the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura said. “The people have responded very warmly to this. But we cannot go to the peripheries empty-handed. We go with the Word of God, with the Sacraments, with the virtuous life of the Holy Spirit. I am not saying the Pope does this, but there is a risk of the encounter with culture being misinterpreted. Faith cannot adapt to culture but , must call to it to convert. We are a counter-cultural movement, not a popular one.”
Here I would say he openly disagrees with the Pope's pastoral approach.
He is at liberty to do so & I am at liberty to say I don't agree we CAN adapt to the culture we just have to purify the culture, any culture, of all that offends the Truth within it.
The Church is quite adaptable to cultures. Which is why we can have Eastern Rites, Hebrew Catholics, Charismatic Catholics, Anglican Use Catholics and even Traditionalists.
We can have a Catholic democracy, a Republic or Monarchy etc...
Unless of course Cardinal Burke is making an equivocation between Culture and "being of the world".
In which case might I politely suggest he needs to define his terms more precisely.
If there is one thing we have had enough of is ambiguity.
Just saying......;-)
Burkes statements are within the realm of Catholic tradition to be sure. To read a kind of neo-Protestantism into them is errant. If you are worried about Protestant tendencies in Burkes statements here, what do you make of the much more troublesome statements of Francis himself?
Ben,
I really hesitate to comment on your remarks, because I sense you're trying to mind your manners and be a gentleman, which I appreciate. What I dislike is having to disagree with you so frequently.
I agree that we've "had enough of ambiguity," but I don't think the ambiguity is coming from Cardinal Burke, whose statements are crystal clear, at least to me and everyone else I've heard comment on him.
When he says that "Faith cannot adapt to culture but must call to it to convert," he of course means that the morality of marriage can't be bent (without violence to the Faith) to accommodate those who would like to mainstream serialized polygamy or sodomite unions as forms of "matrimony."
You ridicule as the "chicken little crowd" those alarmed by the doctrinal chaos disseminated by the events of the last several weeks in Rome and the "Francis resisters," like Cardinal Burke, who plead with him for clarity in the face of the present doctrinal confusion. (Yes, I agree that our doctrinal tradition and foundations are intact, but who can't see the confusion emanating from recent events or, to quote the Cardinal, the "great harm" being done to the faithful?)
Catholic saints have spoken repeatedly of the duty of the Catholic faithful to resist clerical confusion bordering even on heresy that can endanger the Church. The Angelic Doctor says where there is "imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects" (ST II-II, Q33, a4). Fr. Francisco de Vitoria says that a pope should never be obeyed in what is evil but "should be resisted with courteous reprehension." (Obras, 1960, p. 486f.) Fr. Francisco Suarez says that of the Holy Father "gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed," and "if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be licit to resist him." (De Fide, disp. X, sec. VI, n. 16) And St. Robert Bellarmine says that although it is never licit to judge or depose a pope, since these are acts proper only to a superior, one is morally bound nevertheless to "resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed" where his actions are endangering the Church." (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, chap. 29, in Opera omnia, 1871, vol. I, p. 418)
I cite these passages, not as any sort of defiant manifesto to incite rebellion, but as evidence of the clear justification good men like Cardinal Burke have for resisting the detrimental effects of some of the Holy Father's recent actions, like approving the publication of the mid-term Relatio and its release to the press before even the Synod Fathers had copies of it in hand, and his appointment of five tendentious liberals to key positions in the Synod. Why? What good came of it? Anything but confusion?
Finally, when the faithful experience cognitive dissonance, they DESERVE clear answers. This is what good shepherds do. They protect and lead and foster spiritual health. When the brightest lights among Evangelical Protestants are asking "What is your pope doing???" When the faithful themselves are shaking their heads and asking "What is going on here???" In such an environment THE MOST HARMFUL THING IS DENIAL. The most dangerous thing to the true Faith is PRETENDING THERE'S NO PROBLEM.
It's one thing to have supernatural confidence that Christ will not abandon His Church. It's another thing to address the cognitive dissonance of the faithful with more than "Hush, now! Be quiet! Everything's fine! Don't worry!" As a good spiritual instructor of mine used to say: "Honest questions DESERVE honest answers." More than that, they deserve more than the "BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!" sort of answers.
No one is reading "a kind of neo-Protestantism" into Burke's words except you. Burke has defended tradition, not sought to "reform" it. If crypto-protestantism lives in the Church, it is nurtured by our pope and the circle of progressivist "reformers" to whom he caters. Burke's risk in publicly addressing these remarks and this metaphor to this pope is not a risk to his soul, but to his career, which has already taken a couple of downturns since the arrival of good Pope Francis.
@ Doc B.
>I really hesitate to comment on your remarks, because I sense you're trying to mind your manners and be a gentleman, which I appreciate. What I dislike is having to disagree with you so frequently.
Rather I am gratified you are giving me feedback & attempting argument rather than glibly dismissing me or acting as if the views you post here are above criticism. Also you are a gentleman about it. You can tell me you think I am wrong. I won’t hesitate to do the same. In fact I am going to do it right now so wait for it…….;-)
>I agree that we've "had enough of ambiguity," but I don't think the ambiguity is coming from Cardinal Burke, whose statements are crystal clear, at least to me and everyone else I've heard comment on him.
Well they were not clear to me & I believe I myself have been clear but obviously not clear enough for you my friend. Wait for it…
>When he says that "Faith cannot adapt to culture but must call to it to convert," he of course means that the morality of marriage can't be bent (without violence to the Faith) to accommodate those who would like to mainstream serialized polygamy or sodomite unions as forms of "matrimony."
Thank you for clearing up. I guess I was wrong & that is what he meant. Wait for it.
>You ridicule as the "chicken little crowd" those alarmed by the doctrinal chaos disseminated by the events of the last several weeks in Rome and the "Francis resisters," like Cardinal Burke, who plead with him for clarity in the face of the present doctrinal confusion. (Yes, I agree that our doctrinal tradition and foundations are intact, but who can't see the confusion emanating from recent events or, to quote the Cardinal, the "great harm" being done to the faithful?)
The penny drops…..Doc did you miss the part where I said Cardinal Burke obviously disagrees with Pope Francis’ pastoral approach here & he is at liberty to do so? Well I don’t expect you to follow me around the web reading all my comments but I have said elsewhere that I absolutely have no problem with Burke or Tobin & here I might for the first time include Pell criticizing the Pope. They are bishops like Paul was to Peter. By definition they are not Francis bashers. They are authorized Francis critics. It’s lay clowns on the internet with blogs(BTW FYI I am not accusing you) or newspaper columns or in comments boxes who attack the Pope that I object too. I am with Voris on this matter and he has stated he is not against prelates criticizing the Pope.
Indeed if a Bishop or Cardinal does it that is more constructive then some gorilla you have posting here calling the Holy Father a “rank hypocrite”. It is more likely the Pope will hear and can evaluate it in his conscience when it come from a bishop.
part 2
>Catholic saints have spoken repeatedly of the duty of the Catholic faithful to resist clerical confusion bordering even on heresy that can endanger the Church. The Angelic Doctor says where there is "imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects" (ST II-II, Q33, a4).
Which I take to mean I can in charity do so with my own bishop but there are other Saints who claim it is wrong to attack or criticize the Pope.
Which is probably the justification Voris has for unloading as he does on the Bishops but leaving the Pope alone. Of course if he thought Bruke was out of line I think we would have heard from him.
> Fr. Francisco de Vitoria says that a pope should never be obeyed in what is evil but "should be resisted with courteous reprehension." (Obras, 1960, p. 486f.)
I think so too but I can do that without attacking him or inciting rebellion or undermining the confident in others for the faith.
>Fr. Francisco Suarez says that of the Holy Father "gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed," and "if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be licit to resist him." (De Fide, disp. X, sec. VI, n. 16)
Which means to me I may politely disagree with his views on life imprisonment & not see that they become public policy in my country but I don’t have to be a jerk about it.
> And St. Robert Bellarmine says that although it is never licit to judge or depose a pope, since these are acts proper only to a superior, one is morally bound nevertheless to "resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed" where his actions are endangering the Church." (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, chap. 29, in Opera omnia, 1871, vol. I, p. 418)
I agree but passive resistance to any unambiguous unlawful orders does not translate for me active attack mode. Besides it has to be in proportion to his actions. Calling for a discussion isn’t the same as him saying “Bother it all! It is no longer a sin to take communion if you are in an invalid marriage”.
.
Part III
>I cite these passages, not as any sort of defiant manifesto to incite rebellion, but as evidence of the clear justification good men like Cardinal Burke have for resisting the detrimental effects of some of the Holy Father's recent actions, like approving the publication of the mid-term Relatio and its release to the press before even the Synod Fathers had copies of it in hand, and his appointment of five tendentious liberals to key positions in the Synod. Why? What good came of it? Anything but confusion?
The Holy Father has also appointed a conservative to head the final draft and Cardinal Pell is one of Francis’ gang of eight & I think they need to fire whoever translates their documents into English. Granted I was able to pull an orthodox interpretation out of the mistranslation but I trust the media to always get it wrong. Did you hear the latest? The Pope “denies God is divine”? Apparently someone needs to explain to them what a demiurge is…..
>Finally, when the faithful experience cognitive dissonance, they DESERVE clear answers. This is what good shepherds do. They protect and lead and foster spiritual health. When the brightest lights among Evangelical Protestants are asking "What is your pope doing???" When the faithful themselves are shaking their heads and asking "What is going on here???" In such an environment THE MOST HARMFUL THING IS DENIAL. The most dangerous thing to the true Faith is PRETENDING THERE'S NO PROBLEM.
I don’t know Doc. Trent is suppose to be the good Council vs bad Vatican II. I bet your Evangelical bright lights still thinks Trent teaches Our Lord is “re-sacrificed at every Mass and Jesus dies again because Calvary” or the Church teaches we are saved by Our own words apart from the grace of Christ.
It seems to me “the problem” has been going on for centuries & it seem to me a bit short sighted to act as if the problem only existed since the 60’s. Or the return to an earlier liturgical era will solve everything.
I don’t have a solution to the problem but I don’t see how acting like the Problem is a new thing helps?
Also it seems to me from history every Pope even the Papal Saints screws up big time in one way or another.
>It's one thing to have supernatural confidence that Christ will not abandon His Church. It's another thing to address the cognitive dissonance of the faithful with more than "Hush, now! Be quiet! Everything's fine! Don't worry!" As a good spiritual instructor of mine used to say: "Honest questions DESERVE honest answers." More than that, they deserve more than the "BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!" sort of answers.
Rather I say stop being hysterical not that everything is fine. It has never been fine & I doubt it is ever going to ever be “fine” by our standards! But God allows evil so He can bring good out of it. I would like to see more of that trying to being good out of it then shouting “We are so Screwed”. OTOH Doc this hysteria has been around since JP2 and the only difference is it has become more shrill these days.
There is nothing new under the sun
hope that wasn't too long doc.
I apologize if it was...
Cheers.
Long, Ben, but not too long. Long is just your style; like one of my colleagues: you ask him what time it is, and he spends half and hour telling you how a watch is made.
Reading your remarks in ## 1-3, the differences between (at least here) appear to be relatively minor. It all hinges on how one defines the difference between various terms, like "quiet resistance" (which you seem to accept) as opposed to the "attack mode" (which you oppose). Again, depending on how those were defined, we might agree.
I'm not as certain about the distinction you make between "prelate" being allowed to criticize and "laity" not being permitted to do so. I'm not sure where that comes from, and it sounds "clericalist." V-II documents stress the importance of laity making their views (even protestations) known to their clerical superiors (which doesn't exclude the pope). Dietrich von Hildebrand disagreed sharply with Paul VI's handling of ecclesial matters after V-II, and told him so in a personal audience, even though the Pope didn't receive it well and was rather dismissive. Still, I think Hildebrand handled himself as a perfect gentleman and was well within his rights.
In other writings of his, he is critical of clerical decisions made regarding the liturgy, etc., but again, not in a demeaning way, although his language is clear and unmistakably critical.
Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail.
>Long, Ben, but not too long. Long is just your style; like one of my colleagues: you ask him what time it is, and he spends half and hour telling you how a watch is made.
That is funny I so have to steal that one......;-)
Cheers.
Dang it the little ">" things I put in front of the words I am responding too didn't post!!!
Oy Vey!
Oh wait Belay my last I'm confused.
I am going to go and watch Downtown Abby.
@Doc B
You might find this interesting.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/vatican-doctrine-secularism-marriage/2014/11/04/id/605133/
Post a Comment