Burke’s comments are absolutely outrageous and his actions uncanonical. To intrude into the affairs of the Archdiocese of Boston and of the Cardinal, however veiled his comments were, is beyond the pale no matter what one thinks of Kennedy.
The reason Burke was removed from St. Louis was his refusal to abode by the canons prohibiting crossing into the jurisdictions of other hierarchs. Apparently exiling him to a court which spends its time dealing with annulments and laicizations hasn’t been effective to persuade him to conform to the canons,stay out of America and avoid embarrassing the Vatican. Burke, like that character Martino, will “retire” soon; probably for “health reasons”.
The reason Burke was removed from St. Louis was his refusal to abode by the canons prohibiting crossing into the jurisdictions of other hierarchs.
Are you certain about this? I have not read any such statement from the Vatican saying this was the reason why he was reassigned. You may be right, but I don't know if one can say that as certainly as you have without engaging in some form of gossip. Surely that court is not simply being stocked with exiles for bad behaviour?
I think you are also overstating the rest of your case a bit. I am not an expert, so I am not making any claim to definite knowledge, but I would be inclined to think that if we looked through the history of the Church we could find numerous examples of bishops criticising other hierarchs for their public actions, statements and policies, especially for particularly scandalous ones. Were there no Orthodox bishops who rebuked those who allowed the filioque to be used in their dioceses? Surely not. Since Kennedy's funeral was a nationally (globally?) watched and publicized event I cannot see how a bishop can actually be "intruding" into Boston's affairs simply by speaking about it, or even for criticising Boston's bishop for allowing it.
Archbishop Burke is the head of the Pope’s tribunal. He has every right to speak.
The opinion of a schismatic is irrelevant.
Um, no. He was Peter Principled to a place more suited to his talents (but not, in direct opposition to tradition, made a cardinal). The reality is, he's an atrocious administrator. And I'm not just saying that. Rigali left us in fantastic shape and Burke made a lot of big administrative errors in everything but the seminary. I doubt he'll be asked to resign, but I don't think he's going to get what he really wants which is a red hat. BXVI is not about to let him into the next consistory.
Let's face it, the media runs to him for quotes because he can't help himself in speaking in an inflamatory way. He's usually correct, but has zero PR skills.
So let me see...
Archbishop Burke was removed from St. Louis becuse he crossed into the jurisidctions of other bishops.
So we’re going to get rid of him and put him someplace else. Someplace were he can’t step on any other’s toes.
You know where we should put him. We’re going to make him the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura. That’s right we’re going to put him in charge of the highest judicial authority in the Church, besides the Holy Father.
He’ll have authority over any tribunal of the Church. He’ll have jurisdiction over every act of the ordinaries and dicastries in the Church. He’ll have final say over any canonical decision made by the Church... Oh and there’s no appeal.
Yeah that’ll teach him to stay out of trouble and out of the hair of the bishops.