The Removal of a Great Cardinal - his head on a plate

The Pope inasmuch as he is supreme pastor of the universal Church, has full right to remove a bishop or cardinal from his office, even a distinguished one. A well-known case was the one of Cardinal Louis Billot (1846-1931). He was one of the greatest theologians of the 20th Century, who replaced his cardinal’s hat into the hands of Pius XI, with whom he had had differences regarding Action Francaise, and ended his days, as a simple Jesuit, at the house of his order in Galloro.

Another striking case is Cardinal Josef Mindszenty, who was removed by Paul VI from his office as Archbishop of Esztergom and Primate of Hungary, as a result of his opposition to the Vatican ostpolitk.

Many bishops moreover, in recent years, have been dismissed as a result of their involvement with financial or moral scandals. However, while nobody can deny the right of the Sovereign Pontiff to dismiss any prelate, for reasons he retains the most opportune, nobody can take away the right the faithful have, as rational creatures, even before being “the baptized”, to question the reasons for these dismissals, particularly if they have not been explicitly stated. This explains the disorientation of many Catholics when faced with the news formally communicated by the Vatican Press on the 8th of November, about the transferring of Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke from his office of Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, to the position of Patron of the Order of Malta.

In fact, when the move concerns a Cardinal (as it is in this case) who is still relatively young (66 years old), and comes to pass from a position of maximum importance to another purely honorary, without even respect for the rather questionable principle promoveatur ut amoveatur, we find ourselves evidently faced with a public punishment. Yet, in this case it is legitimate to ask ourselves the nature of the accusations made against this prelate. Cardinal Burke, in effect, carried out his role in a commendable way as Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and is esteemed by everyone as an eminent canon lawyer and a man of deep interior life; he was recently defined by Benedict XVI as a “great cardinal”. What is he guilty of?

Vatican observers of the most diverse tendencies answered this question with clarity. Cardinal Burke has been considered guilty of being “too conservative” and in disagreement with Pope Francis.

After the wretched report by Cardinal Kasper at the Consistory of the 20th February 2014, the American Cardinal promoted the publication of a book wherein five respected cardinals and other scholars voiced their respectful reservations on the new Vatican line open to the hypothesis of allowing communion for the divorced and remarried along with the recognition of de facto unions. The concerns of these cardinals were confirmed by the Synod in October, when the most perilous theses, along orthodox lines, were even gathered into the synthesis of the works that preceded the final report.

The only plausible reason is that the Pope has offered the head of Cardinal Burke on a plate to Cardinal Kasper and, through him, to Cardinal Karl Lehmann, the ex-President of the German Episcopal Conference. Everyone knows, actually, at least in Germany, that the one who is still pulling the strings of dissent against Rome is precisely Lehmann, an old disciple of Karl Rahner. Father Ralph Wiltgen, in his book The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber, highlighted Rahner’s role in the Second Vatican Council from the moment the Episcopal Conferences carried out a determining role.

The Episcopal Conferences were dominated in fact by their theological experts and since among them the most powerful were the Germans, the role of their principal theologian, the Jesuit, Karl Rahner, was decisive. Father Wiltgen sums it up efficaciously, describing the power of the progressive lobby united in what he calls the “European Alliance”. “Since the position of the German Bishops was adopted by the European Alliance and again, given that the position of the Alliance was generally accepted by the Council, it was enough for one theologian alone to convince the German language Bishops of his personal ideas so that the Council would make them its own. This theologian existed: Father Karl Rahner of the Society of Jesus.”

Fifty years after Vatican II, Rahner’s shadow is hovering once again over the Catholic Church, making his voice heard in the pro-homosexual positions of some of his followers, younger than Lehmann and Kasper, like Cardinal Archbishop of Munich, Reinhard Marx and Archbishop of Chieti, Bruno Forte.

Pope Francis has made statements against the two tendencies of progressivism and traditionalism, without however clarifying what these two labels encompassed. Yet, if by words he distances himself from the two poles which confront each other in the Church today, by facts all tolerance is reserved for “progressivism”, while the axe falls upon what he defines as “traditionalism”.

The removal of Cardinal Burke has an exemplary significance comparable to the ongoing destruction of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Many observers have attached the project of the Institute’s dissolution to Cardinal Bras de Aviz, but today it is clear to everyone that Pope Francis fully shares that decision. It is not about the matter of the Traditional Mass, which neither Cardinal Burke nor the Franciscans of the Immaculate celebrate regularly, but it is about their position of nonconformity to the dominant ecclesiastic politics of today. Then again the Pope entertained at length the representatives of the so-called “Popular Movements” of ultra-Marxist orientation, which gathered in Rome from 27th to 29th of October, plus he nominated consultant to the Pontifical Institute for Culture, an openly heterodox priest, a certain Father d’Ors.

We wonder what the consequences of these politics will be, keeping in mind two principles: the philosophical one of the heterogeneous of the ends, for which certain actions produce effects contrary to the intentions, and the theological principle of the action of Providence in history, through which, according to the words of St. Paul omnia cooperantur in bonum. (Rom 8.28). All things in the designs of God work for the good.

The cases of Cardinal Burke and the Franciscans of the Immaculate, like the one of the Society of Saint Pius X (although on a different level) are only signs of a widespread malaise which makes the Church look like a ship adrift. Yet even if the Society of St. Pius X were closed down, the Franciscans of the Immaculate dissolved or “re-educated” and Cardinal Burke reduced to silence, the crisis in the Church would not cease to be grave.

The Lord promised that the Barque of Peter will never sink not due to the skill of the helmsman, but because of the Divine assistance to the Church, which, can be said, lives amidst the tempests, without ever allowing Herself to be submerged by the waves (Matt. 8, 23-27; Mark 4, 35-41; Luke 8, 22-25).

Faithful Catholics are not discouraged: they close ranks, direct their eyes to the perennial and immutable Magisterium of the Church, which coincides with Tradition; they look for strength in the Sacraments, continue to pray and act, in the conviction that in the history of the Church, as in the life of men, the Lord intervenes only when everything appears lost. What is asked of us is not resigned inaction, but a confident struggle in the assurance of victory.

Faithful Catholics are not discouraged (The brainwashed rarely are): they close ranks(hunker down), direct their eyes (close their eyes so as to not be held accountable) to the perennial(to the temporary) and immutable (fallible and self-serving) Magisterium of the Church

There, fixed it for you.

That’s because some Canon law says that bishops are not to be questioned and they are the final authority on who can receive communion. This was never in Canon law before. It is assuming that all bishops will do the right thing and deny communion to pro-aborts, when we know that is not the case.
The law should be changed. They should be called on the carpet by the Pope and told to knock off their open defiance of Church teachings. But with the current pope no way in the world that will ever happen. He could care less.

The part of doctrine I was referring to is the all the sudden compassion for practicing homosexuals and saying these sinners have “gifts” to offer the church. What gifts, a spreading of aids and dying a slow death. The Catholic Church has always said to love the sinner and hate the sin. Homosexuality is a sin and Francis does not seem to understand that fact. He and his leftist cohorts are bound and determined to turn the Catholic Church into a larger version of the Anglican Church, which is dying a slow death because it has allowed open homosexuality and caved into the homosexual agenda. Francis will go down as the worst pope in the last 500 years.

No. Francis is a useful idiot for the Marxists. The position of the Pope is not, and never should be viewed as, a CEO.

He never did ANYTHING to oppose the Peronistas in Argentina. He is an enabler of tyrants.

What can one expect from a priest who says, “Who am I to judge?” The Roman Catholic Church is not a democracy.

Catholics should never enable tyrants and dictators by standing aside and allowing them to harm the laity without protest.

He real chosen pope name is Francisco. Look it up. The reason the leftist American media changed it is obvious. If someone named Francisco comes to America they don’t answer to Francis. Nobody ever left their heart in Francis. Americans know how to pronounce Francisco and don’t need any helpful translation from the urban central planners.

Reeses, you do realize that Benedict's official regnal name was Benedictus (L) and was referred to in Italian as Benedetto, right?

That John Paul was Ioannes Paulus II (L)? Also known as Jan Paweł II (Polish)?

That Paul was Paulus PP VI; and in Italian: Paolo, Paolino; in Russian: Пол (Pol), Pavel, Pasha; in Spanish: Pablo?

You think his is some kind of trick?

You honestly have a problem with this?

Francis said these words about same-sex “marriage” when the bill was being debated in Argentina. He HAS NEVER AS POPE came out with such strong language about marriage. As a matter of fact when Francis was speaking about evils of same-sex “marriage” in Argentina, at the same time he was floating the idea of the Church condoning same-sex “unions”, which is against the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I'm aware of the claims originating with biographer Sergio Rubín, that Bergoglio supported homosexual civil unions, and the counter-claims (from Miguel Woites, a confidant of Pope Francis while he was archbishop of Buenos Aires), saying he did not.

In an interview granted to the Catholic news agency ACI Prensa, Woites said that the story "isn't true. It's a complete error."

So there are conflicting claims.

We do know that in some instanes, competing versions of "civil union" have been proffered. Some of them are not predicated on a sex-themed realtiosnship, and center on insurance and inheritance entitlements, such as might benefit non-sexually linked people, like a disabled adult and caregiver, or elderly widowed or spinster sisters sharing a house. It could benefit anyone signing up for it, e.g. by being allowed to designate one non-relative as being under family coverage for insurance purposes.

That a person is exploring such contract arrangements, or discussing them, or urging careful consideration of different options, does not mean they are for accepting/normalizing unions based on sodomitic vice.

The implication that Bergoglio would do so (normalize sodomy) would need more specific and detailed evidence. I would not believe it without such evidence.

I don't know what you are citing, but the bishop is NOT the final authority. The pastor of the local community is. In some cases, that CAN be the bishop--i.e., in the cathedral parish.

But no bishop has the authority to COMMAND that all his priests give Communion to pro-aborts--and yet nearly all American bishops DO command that.

Here is the relevant document on the interpretation of Canon 915. Although the document focuses on the divorced-and-remarried, Canon 915 is NOT about the divorced-and-remarried. Canon 915 is about ALL manifest grave sinners, no matter what KIND of sin they may be involved in.

http://tinyurl.com/pont915

4. Bearing in mind the nature of the above-cited norm (cfr. n. 1), no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.

Notice that Cardinal Wuerl and most bishops DEFY this authoritative interpretation of Canon 915 by PUNISHING priests who obey Canon 915.

Here is Cardinal Burke's famous article:

http://tinyurl.com/canon915

I suspect that at this point, those who continually attempt to minimize Francis’ open attacks on orthodoxy do so because they are in accord with his destructive ideology.

Don't underestimate the role played by simple lack of courage--the courage to face facts.

I should have pasted this, also. It comes at the end of section 3.

http://tinyurl.com/pont915

The discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the described condition are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion is the responsibility of the Priest who is responsible for the community. They are to give precise instructions to the deacon or to any extraordinary minister regarding the mode of acting in concrete situations.

Still no evidence of what it was, exactly, that they shot down.

It may be exactly as you say. If I had sufficient evidence of that, I'd gladly give you credit for timely insight. But as of now, I haven't seen the words, the actually words of what Bergoglio was proferring in Buenos Aires.

You may think I'm a stickler for words. But I remember that St. Thomas More was even willing to sign Parliament's Act of Supremacy, IF he could limit the oath "as far as the law of Christ allows."

The exact words always count.

“Notice that Cardinal Wuerl and most bishops DEFY this authoritative interpretation of Canon 915 by PUNISHING priests who obey Canon 915”.

You’re right, I’m wrong, so then the problem is too many parish priests are scared of the bishops. This I can understand. It’s nice to see a local parish priest actually acting like a Catholic. Before I moved to where I live now, my parish priest actually gave homilies on life and marriage and other “hot button” issues. He would say “I can’t tell you who to vote for but if one of the candidates is for abortion and the other one is against it, the church is very clear that you have to support the candidate that is against abortion”. The priest I have now NEVER talks about abortion, marriage, or anything else that might be controversial. I asked him his reasoning and he said “I don’t want to run people away from the church”. He had a stack of pro-marriage signs in his office during the build-up to vote on same-sex “marriage” in the state. I asked him what he was doing with the signs that were hidden away in a corner. He said he didn’t really know. I told him I would put them up to promote real marriage and his answer was “I don’t want to run anyone away from the church”. I felt like saying “why don’t you try acting like a Catholic for a change”. He’s a big fan of Francis.

You'll not find me a defender of Kasper and his coterie --- Marx, Baldisseri, Forte --- all followers of Hans Kung and purveyors of his errors.

That "coterie" of heterodox destroyers was hand-picked by Pope Francis to surround his throne. He personally assembled the unholy alliance, which he has since deployed to undermine the perennial teachings of the Church, allowing his mouthpieces to promote heterodoxy in his name without contradiction. Yet we should assume that the demotion and banishment of Burke is somehow intended to accomplish the exact opposite? Where is the logic in that theory?

Burke proclaims the Gospel in season and out of season.

Kasper and the admirers of his "serene theology" scheme to lead us away from the narrow gate by launching a direct attack on the 6th commandment.

"Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit."

The implication that Bergoglio would do so (normalize sodomy) would need more specific and detailed evidence. I would not believe it without such evidence.

The fact that he promoted a statement in the relatio post disceptationem which imputes good to what the Church has always taught is intrinsic evil shows an obvious lack of constraint on his part. He has already crossed an inviolable line. This being the case, there is no reason to presume he will refrain from further pushing the envelope.

"Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.