You really shouldn’t be getting into these discussions without knowing the canons. Your “canon law” isn’t the issue.
I would like to start here. I am young, full of pig-headed zeal for the Catholic Church, and I'm still trying to learn. I haven't had the time to study all of this yet, but FReeping (and lurking beforehand) was one of my first schools of theology. And I have learned a great deal... no small part of it was from you. Now, I'm in one of those Latin seminaries. I want to understand this, because there are a lot of confused people back at home, and neither ignoring the issue nor using political rhetoric has worked. I want to learn.
You have no idea what pastoral efforts were made with Kennedy.
This is true, and thus my bringing it up was overstepping. From what I understand, Kennedy did meet with a priest in his final days and received the Sacrament of Penance. For this reason, it seems that Abp. Burke's assertion that there should have been no funeral at all is unjust.
That said, without a formal public renunciation of any positions contrary to the Faith, it was scandalous that he received a very public funeral with Cardinals O'Malley and McCarrick present. Moreover, it was completely inappropriate for the non-Catholic and pro-abortion/infanticide/homosexuality/ad nauseam POTUS to give a eulogy - first because it provides a public platform for the President to (potentially) spread errors in a seemingly sanctioned manner and secondly because such eulogies are not permitted at any Catholic funeral.
In other words, public attacks on politicians you disagree with;
Two things here:
1) No, not attacks. Private contact with an explanation of the error for the sake of the soul of the politician. (If I recall correctly, Bp. Martino did this with Sen. Casey.) This can be done in a very cordial manner, consistent with the teaching office of the bishop.
2) Public rebukes should happen only after private contact and admonition fails. The bishop is responsible for teaching the rest of his flock the truth about moral issues as well. Likewise, for a bishop to be silent about a politician's defense of and enabling of moral evils.
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.
It is equally necessary for the Bishops to be outspoken about the poor, immigrants, and health care. There are approaches that can be squared with Catholic social teaching that has developed over the course of the last 100+ years, and Catholic politicians should seek to use those. I suspect (and this is pure speculation and opinion) that such an approach could be acceptable to many conservatives.
“So because Abp. Burke ... of every diocese. Got it.”
Apparently you haven’t got it well. Burke cannot...
I was being sarcastic. Burke has no authority over any other bishops regarding these issues; we both know this. Do you mean to say, however, that he has no right to teach at all, nor to speak for those scandalized (most of whom live outside of Cdl. O'Malley's jurisdiction)?
try starting with canon XX of the Council of Trullo.
As found:
Canon XX. It shall not be lawful for a bishop to teach publicly in any city which does not belong to him. If any shall have been observed doing this, let him cease from his episcopate, but let him discharge the office of a presbyter.
I see two problems here. First, the Latin Church never accepted the disciplinary canons of Trullo: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm
Second, even if Abp. Burke violated said canon, and even if the Latin Church did accept said canon, Abp. Burke was not punished in accordance with it. He may have "lost" his see in the sense that he was moved from it, but he does not "discharge the office of a presbyter" - he retains the same rights and privileges as any other bishop who works in the Vatican. One may say that he was "Peter principled" up, and perhaps that is true; however, he was not punished.
“Do you mean to say, however, that he has no right to teach at all, nor to speak for those scandalized (most of whom live outside of Cdl. O’Malley’s jurisdiction)?”
Yes, I mean exactly that. Burke has no right to teach at all save in his proper role in The Church which is not to be a vagante loud mouth.
“That said, without a formal public renunciation of any positions contrary to the Faith, it was scandalous that he received a very public funeral with Cardinals O’Malley and McCarrick present.”
Why, if he had repented? And we can’t know that can we? It is Burke, a prelate, who is a scandal in the Church, not the at best agnostic POTUS. Obama doesn’t act for, speak for nor is he seen as representative of The Church. Men like Burke and the heresiarch Martino are. There’s your scandal, seminarian. Study it well!
“first because it provides a public platform for the President to (potentially) spread errors in a seemingly sanctioned manner and secondly because such eulogies are not permitted at any Catholic funeral.”
Why would the Latin faithful think Obama has the slightest clue about Latin theology? That is absolute nonsense. Even your laity are better catechized than that.
“Canon XX.... I see two problems here”
OK, lets start at the beginning. Last I heard, no infallible Vicar of Christ on Earth had completely abrogated the Canons of the 1st Ecumenical Council, Rome’s heresy regarding the Creed aside, so take a look at Canon XV. Has Rome rejected that canon also?
You know, we can keep right on going with this and make a long list of the canons from the Councils of the One Church which Rome rejects and which Orthodoxy cherishes and preserves inviolate. That certainly would go a long way to demonstrating why Orthodoxy is so cautious about getting too wrapped up with Rome.