This has nothing to do with infallibility, and if you're honest, you will admit that this is nothing but a red herring designed to confuse the issue.
Burke is given way too much credit for being holy and reverent in his actions. Did anyone ever think it was just an act, theatrics for attention, face time? Think about him ordaining a male that had a sex change operation in the Lacrosse diocese as a nun ... please there are many, many blatant inconsistencies in his actions.
You're reliance on the RFT as a source of journalistic integrity and truth would cause reasonable people to question one's ability to discern other truths and facts.
Whether the facts of the story you cite are true or not, it has no bearing on the issue of the rebellion of certain St. Stanislaus individuals. Lastly, attempting to impugn the character of Archbishop Burke by pointing out this story, is, objectively, either the serious sin of rash judgment, detraction or calumny. Perhaps, you might wish to prayerfully consider the following:
The Catechism states:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
2479. Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.