“You’ve now claimed several times that Archbishop Burke violated canons (but strangely not violated current Canon Law). Which Canon(s) have been violated? Citations, please. An exhaustive list is not necessary.”
Pull up the threads relating to the hierarchial exploding heads about the Obama speech at ND. In a nutshell it has to do with the ancient canons requiring removal from a see for a bishop who crosses diocesan lines and makes trouble in the diocese of another bishop. To the extent that Burke’s fulminations against what the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston did with the Kennedy bespeak an ecclesiology in which loud mouth, loose canon bishops can with impunity interfere in the jurisdiction of other bishops, this causes trouble for the Vatican, especially in light of its top own system and the claims for the Pope of universal immediate jurisdiction. Like I said earlier, Burke just isn;t worth the trouble he causes.
“...it is my opinion that +Burke in no way errs if his intent is to preserve the immortal souls of his brother bishops and those souls entrusted to them.”
That Jesuitical mindset is one of the problems. The Church doesn’t operate that way.
How is this different from St. Athanasius speaking out against the Arian bishops? Or any other bishop speaking out against proponents of any other heresy? (Don’t tell me abortion isn’t a heresy. The killing of babies goes against every fundamental Christian belief, not to mention the Commandments of God.)
As I recall, most (if not all) of the bishops who spoke up against Fr. Jenkins were speaking up in favor of Bishop D'Arcy, the ordinary of the Diocese of Ft. Wayne-South Bend. Hardly making trouble for Bp. D'Arcy. Certainly making trouble for Jenkins and Obama.
In a nutshell it has to do with the ancient canons requiring removal from a see for a bishop who crosses diocesan lines and makes trouble in the diocese of another bishop.
Again, which canons? I don't know where to start to look, especially if they are canons that don't exist in the current Code of Canon Law. I have no way of knowing if these canons even still bind the bishops unless I can see them.
To the extent that Burke’s fulminations against what the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston did with the Kennedy bespeak an ecclesiology in which loud mouth, loose canon bishops can with impunity interfere in the jurisdiction of other bishops, this causes trouble for the Vatican, especially in light of its top own system and the claims for the Pope of universal immediate jurisdiction. Like I said earlier, Burke just isn;t worth the trouble he causes.
So because Abp. Burke causes trouble for the Vatican, they moved him from a place where he "interfered" with the affairs of some dioceses to a position and degree of affluence where he can "interfere" with the affairs of every diocese. Got it.
... That Jesuitical mindset is one of the problems. The Church doesn’t operate that way.
We are speaking of bishops rebuking brother bishops who have caused scandal, not of bishops who are attempting to take control of affairs in other dioceses. Even at present, Abp. Burke is only speaking up about the decisions made concerning the Kennedy Funeral - his opinion still has no binding authority on other bishops.
That said, had steps been taken to challenge Kennedy's position when he was alive, perhaps this would not be an issue. Furthermore, had the errors of some Catholic theologians as well as some priests/religious-turned-politicians been dealt with in the 1960s and 1970s, this would not be an issue.
I would hope that Kennedy's funeral is a wake-up to the Bishops of the US that they need to speak out against Catholic politicians who flagrantly and publicly act in a manner contrary to Church doctrine.
This whole mess is about bishops actually doing what they are supposed to do.