So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess. 2:15). Guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards faith (1 Tim. 6:21-22).

Monday, December 12, 2016

The Burke-Effect

The Burke-Effect
  1. Dissent exposed.
  2. The "progressive Catholic", upon encountering an exponent of joyful orthodoxy (such as Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke), experiences an allergic reaction and, finding himself exposed as a lukewarm believer, lashes out at any and all who defend Christ and His teaching.
Joyful orthodoxy may be defined as zealously confident adherence to the revealed Tradition, i.e., the facts of the Catholic Faith. The Faith founded on facts not feelings, upon history not myth. Deference to the Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit, not opinion.
heresy (n.)
"doctrine or opinion at variance with established standards" (or, as Johnson defines it, "an opinion of private men different from that of the catholick and orthodox church"), c. 1200, from Old French heresie, eresie "heresy," and by extension "sodomy, immorality" (12c.), from Latin hæresis, "school of thought, philosophical sect." The Latin word is from Greek hairesis "a taking or choosing for oneself, a choice, a means of taking; a deliberate plan, purpose; philosophical sect, school," from haireisthai "take, seize," middle voice of hairein "to choose," a word of unknown origin, perhaps from PIE *ser- (5) "to seize".—ONLINE ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY
Those who are so very adamant that we should never "judge", i.e., those who are typically the self declared progressive types who also shun personal responsibility for actions, sure do leap to conclusions and mercilessly attack those who disagree with their wishy-washy agenda or agendas.

Cardinal Burke has been verbally tarred and feather by those who have made themselves allies of the Accuser (cf Revelation 12:10). Cardinals Farrell, Cupich and Tobin might do well to reflect on the passage in the Holy Gospel of Saint Matthew 5:22 which reads:
But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca (from Aramaic reqa, 'empty headed'), shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire (Gr. Gehenna).
The heat that Cardinal Burke is currently facing is hardly the soul-frying inferno that certain sycophants could be facing if they keep distilling the Magisterium down to ambiguous and therefore easily manipulated soundbites hardly worthy of tolerance by the Office of Peter.

The so-called defenders of the current papacy, i.e., the usual suspects, are Johnny-come-latelies to the defence of the papacy. Where were the Cupiches, Kaspers and the like when Benedict XVI needed them? Where were the "progressives" when Blessed Pope Paul VI needed his cardinals, bishops, priests and people to defend Humanae Vitae? The Canadian bishops were absent without leave when they issued or acquiesced to the publication of the damnable (diabolical?) Winnipeg Statement.


For the "progressive", Cardinal Burke represents a square wheel. For the Tradition-minded person, Cardinal Burke represents courage, clarity and continuity. Those virtues are looked down upon by so-called progressives who, lauding "liberty", diversity and innovation, want to silence anyone who dares to expose the real motives behind their "progressive" agenda. The same self-declared liberals do not want their license to play loosely with the Liturgy, theology and pastoral practice taken away from them, which is all the more reason to continue to expose the hypocrisy and dissent of the Cafeteria Catholic.

Slippery tongued prelates who have little interest in the consequences of promoting theological schlock will continue to fool and attract those wanting a permissive religion.

Meanwhile, Cardinal Burke and others will hold the line against the tyranny of the backward liberalism of lazy (c)atholics. Faithful Catholics with eyes wide open will watch as our brethren, enamoured in the wayward teaching of prelates like Cardinal Cupich, will drift into closer conformity to a culture that mocks uncompromising obedience to Jesus Christ. Cardinal Burke stands for the authentic defence of the papacy while those who clamour for power by sucking up fawning over Amoris Laetitia are merely in the business of being papal-hinges for the prestige.

Given the exemplary witness of Pope Saint John Paul II (The Great), most popes following would be well advised to observe a prudent and prayerful silence rather than issuing half-baked tomes ghostwritten to include hack theology unworthy of the Office of Peter.

Counsel for the Defence

The distinguished canonist Dr. Edward Peters has weighed in. His thoughts, minus an update [access link HERE], are quoted below.
Dr. Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap.
Cardinals in the Church have rights too
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/11/29/cardinals-in-the-church-have-rights-too/
The rashest reaction to the “Four Cardinals’ Five Dubia” so far is that from Bp. Frangiskos Papamanolis, President of the Bishops’ Conference of Greece, whose railing against the questions posed by Cdls. Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra, and Meisner in regard to Pope Francis’ Amoris laetitia must be read to be believed. The Greek prelate hurls epithets such as apostasy, sacrilege, heresy, schism, at four brothers in the episcopate (brothers making text-book use of their rights under Canon 212 § 3 to pose doctrinal and disciplinary questions that urgently need addressing in our day) giving little indication that he even knows what those canonical-theological terms mean. (A polite way of saying that Bp. Papamanolis has made himself look like an idiot?) I’d like to think that even the staunchest defenders of Amoris cringed when they read Papamanolis. Perhaps I am naïve.
While other contenders for an over-reaction prize can be suggested, here I consider the speculations voiced by the Dean of the Roman Rota, Msgr. Pio Pinto, namely, that Pope Francis might strip the four cardinals of their cardinatial dignity. Setting aside how inappropriate it is for one of the Church’s highest judicial officers to speculate publicly on the possible legal liability of and canonical consequences against bishops as yet uncharged with any crime, (Given the current Roman climate, well educated but apparently ill-tempered—or is that ill-mannered?—brethren feel emboldened to issue threats.) let’s review a pope’s canonical authority over prelates holding the office of cardinal.
Eleven canons (1983 CIC 349-359) regulate the institution of cardinal in the Roman Church, including one norm, Canon 351 § 2, that states in pertinent part that “From the moment of the announcement [that the pope has created some cardinals,] they are bound by the duties and possess the rights defined by law.” And what might those rights be?
Though largely honorific in nature, “cardinal” is, at least for those under age 80, also an “office” in the Church (1983 CIC 145) authorizing, among other things, one’s voting in a papal conclave (Universi Dominci Gregis [1996] 33). Appointments to the office of cardinal are made for an “indefinite period”, meaning that one holding such an appointment can be “removed” from said office for “grave causes according to the manner of proceeding defined in law” (1983 CIC 193 § 1) or could be “deprived” of said office as punishment for a canonical crime duly alleged and proven (1983 CIC 196 § 1). The suggestion that Brandmüller, et al., have committed any canonical “crime” is risible, so that leaves only the possibility of Francis treating a cardinal’s asking questions about his document Amoris as constituting “grave cause” to remove four cardinals from office (and along the way eliminating two electors currently eligible for the next papal conclave). But Francis (who alone can judge a cardinal, 1983 CIC 1405 § 1, 2º) has not said word one about stripping the four cardinals of their dignities nor of banning any of them from a conclave; such speculation is, so far, entirely Pinto’s.
But assuming, against all precedent and common sense, that one’s publicly asking the pope to clarify important questions raised in the wake of his document amounts to canonical “grave cause” for stripping several prelates of their offices, it would still remain to honor at every stage of the removal process numerous canonical rights expressly guaranteed all the Christian faithful, including the ability to “defend the rights which they possess in the Church in the competent ecclesiastical forum”, the right to “be judged according to the prescripts of law applied with equity”, and the right “not to be punished with canonical penalties except according to the norms of law.” 1983 CIC 221. Note that depriving one of “a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary” is an expiatory penalty for crime under Canon 1336 § 1, 2º, so the standards of proof should be high indeed (1983 CIC 18). How anyone can conclude, then, based on the facts at hand, that the four cardinals are at risk for deprivation of their office, escapes me.
No one, least of all the four cardinals in question, challenges the special authority that a pope enjoys over the Church (1983 CIC 331) nor do they harbor any illusions that a pope could be forced to answer the questions they posed. My hunch is that four cardinals, while they would welcome a papal reply, are probably content with having formally preserved these vital questions for a day when a direct answer might be forthcoming—although they might yet exercise their own episcopal office as teachers of the faith (1983 CIC 375) and propose answers on their own authority. For that, these men are, I think, prepared to accept personal ridicule and to suffer misunderstanding and misrepresentation of their actions and motives.
But an actual assault against their offices and against their possible roles in a future papal election? No, I don’t see that happening.

No comments:

Post a Comment

"A multitude of wise men is the salvation of the world(.)—Wisdom 6:24. Readers are welcome to make rational and responsible comments. Any comment that 1) offends human dignity and/or 2) which constitutes an irrational attack on the Catholic Faith will not go unchallenged. If deemed completely stupid, such a comment will most assuredly not see the light of day. Them's the rules. Don't like 'em? Move on.