The entire interview is reprinted below courtesy of Rorate Caeli blog with my emphasis in bold.
Vox.
EXCLUSIVE: CARDINAL BURKE INTERVIEW WITH RORATE CAELI
Follow @RorateCaeli on Twitter
Last week, Rorate Caeli interviewed Raymond Cardinal Burke via telephone on numerous topics. Nothing was off the table for this interview and His Eminence was incredibly generous with his time. He showed himself to be brilliant and yet filled with humility. And his care and concern for traditional Catholics must be acknowledged and appreciated.
In this wide-ranging interview, His Eminence talked about issues ripped from the news such as: Vatican officials threatening to sue bloggers; more priests coming under his authority; the dismantling of the Franciscans of the Immaculate; how traditional Catholics can save their souls in this modern world -- and get their children the sacraments in the traditional rite in the face of dissenting bishops; priestly celibacy; daily confusion from Pope Francis; and much, much more.
Please visti this link to link to Rorate Caeli blog for the whole article.
Click here to follow @RorateCaeli on Twitter
6 comments:
Vox, the good Cardinal said "Unless the blogger has committed a calumny on someone's good name unjustly, I certainly don't think that that's the way we as Catholics should deal with these matters."
The definition of calumny is clear: "the making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage someone's reputation; slander."
Isn't that exactly what Father Rosica is alleging you did?
Dear Anon 10:41
God bless you.
Let us not forget that Cardinal Burke is a Canon Lawyer, and unlike some priests and even bishops who speak without thinking (or even worse, who think without speaking), his words here are pregnant with a deep understanding of both Canon Law and theology.
Calumny as defined in the Catholic Encyclopedia and used in this sense is “the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty.”
Mr Domet, in the statements claimed as libellous by Fr. Rosica himself in his threat of civil action, is commenting on public statements made by Fr. Rosica (so there is no detraction even alleged here). The words of Mr. Domet in question do not themselves damage the good name of Fr. Rosica, but highlight how Fr. Rosica damages his own reputation by simply uttering the statements in question. There is no question that Rosica’s reputation is harmed by the repetition of his own disgraceful theological utterances, but this harm is far outweighed by the need to act, even publicly, to defend the good of the Church in confronting such statements. St. Thomas Aquinas is clear on this point in the Summa. Through his blog, Mr. Domet is reacting publicly to the public words of Fr. Rosica. Nothing on David’s blog is occult – all the statements in question were made in the external and very public forum.
The operative words in the definition from the CE are “a crime of which he is NOT guilty.” Mr. Domet is asserting the statements Fr. Rosica made in his public capacity are the main evidence of his guilt. That may or may not be true. The argument here lies in whether Fr. Rosica’s statements constitute a fault. As our good Cardinal suggests for these situations in general, Fr. Rosica should have sought to resolve his grievance within the systems the Church has established for resolving this sort of dispute or simply offered up his perceived sufferings for the good of the Church. Instead he resorted to using the coercive power of Caesar to resolve a theological dispute. I seem to recall four men who wrote books still in print about some angry first century Jews who kept haranguing a Roman governor to do the same.
I think reading the Scriptural passages suggested by Cardinal Burke
identifies the manner in which Christian resolve disputes.
I refuse to accept their post-modernist nonsense. Let our words be YES - YES, NO - NO. After reading the catechism, I know (I do not guess, suppose, assume, believe, because I know) that a Catholic is someone who accepts the entire doctrine of the Church, no exceptions. I also know that dogma is something set in stone, something that can not be spun, something that does not evolve or depend on the cultural or historic context. It can be understood more profoundly, but it can not change. A Catholic believes that God doesn't evolve. Teilhard de Chardin was a heretic. Period. Jesus' teaching is plain and simple, and we should be as children accepting it. Catholicism is not a secret society with many levels of initiation, the elites at the top being in charge of knowledge-rationing to the unsophisticated masses.
Rosica is not alone in playing with words, rejecting simplicity and clarity. I do not believe he is able to comprehend the spiritual sophistication of those who speak plainly and simply follow Jesus Christ.
When young, a university student, I became so mindful of nuances and ambiguities in language, at times I could not speak for fear of being misunderstood. I am older now, and can see clearly that we DO understand each other.
This is what I understand: Rosica may draw his certainties and strength form the large numbers of the hypocrites everywhere, including the Vatican, who like him, go along to get along. He is certainly not drawing his certainties from Jesus Christ.
If he wants to come after me, I will gladly provide my email address.
Oh Darota; you need to start a blog!
Welcome to the fight, my sister in the Truth of Christ!
Post a Comment