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.
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.”
You really shouldn’t be getting into these discussions without knowing the canons. Your “canon law” isn’t the issue. At any rate, try starting with canon XX of the Council of Trullo.
“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.”
Apparently you haven’t got it well. Burke cannot, sua sponte, interfere in the affairs of any diocese. He and his fellows on the AS can only deal with matters properly before them. They are not some world ranging Holy Inquisition, though it sounds like Burke may think that’s what he runs.
“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.”
Burke is indeed interfering in and attempting to take control of the affairs of the Boston Archdiocese, the same sort of meddling which he has done in the past. That violates the canons. The penalty for that violation is the loss of a bishop’s see, which is just what happened to Burke.
“That said, had steps been taken to challenge Kennedy’s position when he was alive, perhaps this would not be an issue.”
You have no idea what pastoral efforts were made with Kennedy. What you really wish had happened is what you wrote next:
“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.”
In other words, public attacks on politicians you disagree with; more involvement of the Latin Church in American politics...as long as its not for the poor or immigrants or health care, the sorts of concerns which make the right’s collective head explode. You know, GCC, if your Latin priests were better formed in your seminaries, maybe they could successfully teach the people The Faith (not politics) and then what some politician did or said wouldn’t make any difference.