Is the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston preaching heresy or merely exercising his pastoral office in a manner politically unacceptable to politically motivated hierarchs like this man Burke or American lay people who measure religious orthodoxy by a political yardstick? I suggest the latter.
Is it possible we are being a bit credulous regarding the assumptions printed in this article? Based on my reading of this article, and other commentary on this same event, I think there is reason to doubt some of what is printed here regarding what and who Archbishop Burke was speaking about.
Comments like "But for Burke... to -- in effect -- openly oppose the judgment of Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley.." more than imply that Archbishop Burke is talking about Cardinal O'Malley and his diocese. However, it would seem that this is founded on nothing other than the imagination of the "journalist" as I could find no such words actually attributed to the Archbishop himself. Burke did talk about public sinners being allowed to receive the sacraments, and it seems that from this the writer extrapolated a connection to O'Malley. I don't really buy it. If we can make such assumptions then we could also insist that any bishop who spoke against more liberal allowance of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is actually attacking and interfering in the dioceses of those bishops who spoke and acted in favour of it. It seems a far reach to me.
You may be right, but whatever he actually said has lead to comments at the Vatican and elsewhere, especially elsewhere.