Rarely, and only if necessary, do I read Crux. This is one of those times. I consider it in the same category as the National Catholic
Reporter and now even the National Catholic Register owned by EWTN and having sacked blogger Pat Archbold. Crux and the mainstream Catholic media are very good at
manipulating the story for their advantage and that of those who prop them up. They and many clerics are also very good at bullying those who stand up for the truth and bloggers are easy targets. I should know.
Ines St. Martin wrote yesterday about Cardinal Burke wherein she quotes an
interview His Eminence gave to the Italian online journal, La Nuova Bussola Quotidian. It is unfortunate that she
did not print more of the actual interview and instead chose selectively to
continue what is a scandalous attempt to discredit Cardinal Burke as evident in the combox there. The Cardinals answers are detailed and clear and easy to understand. The readers at Crux would have benefited from the full interview, but when you have an agenda, what does truth matter?
This is not new.
Salt+ Light Television, Alicia Ambrosio undertook the same smearing and scandalous attempt to discredit the Cardinal stating that he lived in an "Ivory Tower" - the evidence is out there (so come and sue me, if you dare). We can put Crux, the National Catholic Reporter in this same category with the absolute distortion of the recent interview at LifeSiteNews where Cardinal Burke was alleged to have said that adulterers and gays were no better than murderers. Headlines can say many things to the non-thinking, non-reading masses and can do much damage to the truth to Catholics and non-Catholic alike. That is not what the Cardinal said as the interview makes clear. However, mortal sin is mortal sin. Some are worse than others. No good work by a murderer, an adulterer or a sodomite will make up for it, only repentance through the Sacrament of Penance and amendment of life will.
I have taken the interview in La Nuova Bussola Quotidian and translated it using Google Translate and have tidied it up a little. It is well worth reading in its entirety. Once again, Cardinal Burke speaks with clarity and truth and remains an inspiration to Catholics everywhere.
In
recent months Raymond Cardinal Burke has been portrayed as a fanatic, an ultra- conservative, an anti-conciliarist and a conspirator against Pope Francis, even ready to a schism if the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family opens unwelcome
changes to Church teaching. The campaign against the Cardinal is so strong that even in Italy several bishops have
refused to accommodate his lectures in their dioceses. And when somewhere he is
allowed to hold a meeting - as recently in some cities of northern Italy -
invariably some of the priests have contested it, accusing him of spreading
propaganda against the Pope.
"They are all nonsense, I just do not
understand this attitude. I never said a word against the Pope, I strive only
to serve the truth, a task that we all have. I've always seen my work, my
activities as a support to the Petrine ministry. People who know me can testify
that I'm not a Pope. On the contrary I have always been very loyal and I've
always wanted to serve the Holy Father, which I do even now. "
In
fact, meeting him in his apartment around the corner from St. Peter's Square,
he is affable and very spontaneous and appears as a thousand miles away from
the image of dour defender of "cold doctrine", as described by the
mainstream press.
In
the debate that preceded and followed the first Synod on the family some of
Cardinal Burke’s statements are actually played as a criticism of Pope Francis,
or so they have been interpreted. For example, recently there was made by the
media lot of noise that his "I will resist, resist" as a possible
response to the Pope's decision to grant communion to divorced and remarried.
“But it was a sentence
misrepresented, there was no reference to Pope Francis. I believe, that because
I have always spoken very clearly on the issue of marriage and the family, some
want to portray and neutralize me as an enemy of the Pope, or even ready to schism,
just using that answer I gave in an interview with a French television station.”
So how then should that answer be interpreted?
“It is very simple. The
journalist asked me what I would do, if hypothetically, - not referring to Pope
Francis - a pontiff was to make decisions against the doctrine and practice of the
Church. I said that I should resist, because we are all in the service
of truth, starting with the Pope. The Church is not a political body in the
sense of power. The power is Jesus Christ and his gospel. To this, I replied
that I will resist and would not be the first time that this happens in the
Church. There were several moments in history where someone had to stand up to
the Pope, beginning with St. Paul against St. Peter, who wanted to impose
circumcision to the converted Greek. But in my case I'm not at all undertaking any resistance to Pope Francis, because he has done nothing against the doctrine, nor do I see myself at all in the fight against the Pope, as they want to paint
me. I'm not pursuing the interests of a group or a party; I just try to be as
Cardinal, a teacher of the faith.”
Another
"count of indictment" against him is his alleged passion for
"lace," as it is said in a demeaning way and something that the Pope cannot
stand.
“The Pope has never made
me doubt the way I dress, which however, is still within the norm of the
Church. I also celebrate the liturgy in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite
and there are for this vestments that do not exist for the celebration in the Ordinary
Form, but I always wear what the rule is for the ritual that I am celebrating.
I do not engage in politics against the way of dressing of the Pope. We have to also say that every Pope has his own style, but that does not then
impose this style to all other bishops. I do not understand why this should be a
cause for controversy.”
But
the newspapers often used a photo in which he has worn a Cardinals galero a headdress
definitely out of time.
“Ah, that; but it's
amazing. I can explain. It is a picture that has spread after a newspaper had
used it to publish an interview with me during the Synod. The interview was
done well, but unfortunately they used a photo that was taken out of context,
and I'm sorry for it, because by doing this they gave the wrong impression of a
person living in the past. What happened, in fact, was that, after being
appointed cardinal, I was invited to a diocese in the south of Italy for a conference
on the liturgy. For the occasion, the organizers wanted to give me the gift of
a former cardinal's hat - they did not know who’s it had been. Obviously
it is in my hand and I had no intention of wearing it regularly, but he asked me if I would put it on to be able to do at least one photo with the hat, so I wore it. This was the
only time I put that hat on my head, but unfortunately that picture has been
all over the world and someone used it to give the impression that I go around
like that. But I've never worn it again, not even in a ceremony.”
He
was also listed as the inspiration, if not the promoter, of the "Petition
to Pope Francis on the family", which was released for collecting
signatures on a few sites amongst the world’s traditionalists.
“I signed that document,
but it was not my initiative or my idea. Nor did I write or co-write the text. Those who have said otherwise stated falsely. For all I know it is an initiative of lay people, I
was shown the text and I signed it, as have many other cardinals.”
Another
of the charges put to him is to be anti-conciliarist, against the Second
Vatican Council.
“Labels
are easy to apply, but there is no basis in reality. All my theological
education in the major seminary was based on the documents of Vatican II, and I
am still trying today to study more deeply these documents. I'm not at all
opposed to the council, and if one reads my writings will find that many times
I quote the documents of Vatican II. One on which however do not agree is the
"Spirit of the Council", this realization of the council who is not
faithful to the text of the documents but that purports to create something
totally new, a new church that has nothing to do with all the so called aberrations
of the past. In this, I follow fully the bright presentation that made Benedict XVI in his address to the Roman Curia for Christmas 2005. It is the famous
speech in which he explains that the correct interpretation is that of reform
in continuity, as opposed to hermeneutics of rupture in the discontinuity that
many sectors carry on. The intervention of Benedict XVI is brilliant and
explains everything. Many things that happened after the Council and attributed
to the council have nothing to do with the council. This is the simple truth.”
But
the fact remains that Pope Francis has "punished" him by removing him
from the Apostolic Signatura and entrusting the patronage of the Sovereign
Military Order of Malta.
“The Pope gave an
interview with Argentine newspaper La Nacion that has already answered this
question by explaining the reasons for this choice. This says it all, and not
for me to comment. I can only say, without violating any secret, I was never told by the Pope or given the impression that he wanted to punish me for
something.”
What
is certain is that this "bad image" has to do with what Cardinal
Kasper also, in recent days, called the "synodal battle". That seems
to grow in intensity as you get closer to the Ordinary Synod next October.
Where are we?
“I would say that there
is now a much more extensive discussion on the topics covered by the Synod and
that's good. There is a greater number of cardinals, bishops and lay people who
are intervening and this is very positive. I do not understand why all the
noise that was created last year around the book "Remaining in the Truth of Christ," to which I have contributed along with four other cardinals and
four specialists on marriage.”
That book is where was born the theory of a plot against the Pope, a view echoed recently by
Alberto Melloni in the Corriere della Sera, and that cost him a lawsuit by the
publisher Italian Cantagalli.
“It is simply absurd.
How you can be accused of conspiracy against the Pope with what the
Church has always taught and practiced on marriage and communion? It is certain
that the book was written as an aid for the Synod to answer the thesis of
Cardinal Kasper. But it is not controversial, is a presentation faithful to the
tradition, and is also the highest scientific quality possible. I am totally
available to receive criticism about the content, but to say that we have taken
part in a plot against the Pope is unacceptable.”
But
who is fomenting this witch hunt?
“I do not have any
direct information but surely there is a group that wants to impose on the
Church not only this thesis of Cardinal Kasper on communion for divorced and
remarried, or for people in irregular situations, but also other positions on
issues related to the themes of the Synod. I refer to the idea of finding the positive
elements in sexual relations outside of marriage or homosexuality. It is
evident that there are forces pushing in this direction, and for that they want
to discredit us who are trying to defend the Church's teaching. I have nothing
personal against Cardinal Kasper, but for me, the question is only to present the
Church's teaching, which in this case is related to words spoken by the Lord.”
Looking
at some of the themes that emerged strongly in the Synod, the about a gay lobby is common.
“Without being able to
pinpoint, I do see more and more that there is a force that goes in this
direction. I see people who, consciously or unconsciously, are carrying out a homosexual agenda. How this is organized I do not know, but it is evident that
there is a force of this kind. At the Synod we have said that talking about
homosexuality had nothing to do with the family, rather it would have been better to convene a
special Synod if you wanted to talk about this issue. But we found in the Relatio
post disceptationem this issue that had not been discussed by the fathers.”
One
of the theological justifications in support of Cardinal Kasper that today is very often repeated is that of the "development of doctrine;" -- not a change,
but a depth which can lead to a new practice.
“Here, there is a big misunderstanding.
The development of the doctrine, as it has for example presented by Blessed
Cardinal Newman or other good theologians, means a deepening in appreciation,
knowledge of a doctrine, not the change of doctrine. The development in any
case leads to change. One example is that of the Post-Synodal written by Pope
Benedict XVI on the Eucharist, is "Sacramentum Caritatis;" - in it is
presented the development of the knowledge of the real presence of Jesus in the
Eucharist, also expressed in Eucharistic adoration. There were some in fact
contrary and opposed to Eucharistic adoration, because the Eucharist is to be received
within. But Benedict XVI explained - also citing St. Augustine - that if it is
true that the Lord gives us himself in the Eucharist to be consumed, it is also
true that you cannot recognize this reality of Jesus' presence under the
Eucharistic species without worshiping these species. This is an example of the
development of doctrine, but it is not that the doctrine on the presence of
Jesus in the Eucharist has changed.”
One
reason for the controversy on the Synod is the alleged opposition between
doctrine and practice, doctrine and mercy. Even the pope insists that the often
self-righteous attitude of those who use the doctrine create a distance and prevent love.
“I think you have to
distinguish between what the Pope said on a few occasions and those who claim a
contrast between doctrine and practice. You can never admit in the Church a
contrast between doctrine and practice because we live the truth that Christ
tells us in his holy Church and the truth is never a cool thing. It is the
truth that opens to us the space for love, to really love you must respect the
truth of the person, and the person in the particular situations in which he or she finds themselves. So to establish a kind of contrast between doctrine and practice does not
reflect the reality of our faith. Whoever supports the thesis of Cardinal Kasper -
change of discipline that does not touch the doctrine - should explain how it
is possible. If the Church admits to communion a person who is related in a
marriage but is living with another person in another marriage relationship, that
is in a state of adultery how can one believe at the same time
that marriage is indissoluble? The relationship between doctrine and practice
is a false contrast that we must reject.”
But
it is true that you can use the doctrine without love.
“Sure, and that's what
the pope is denouncing, use of the law or doctrine to advance a personal
agenda, to dominate people. But that does not mean there is a problem with the
doctrine and discipline; only there are people of ill will commit abuses that
may for example by interpreting the law in a way that harms people. Or applying
the law without love, insisting on the truth of the situation of the person but
without love. Even when a person is in serious sin we must love the person and
help as the Lord has made example to us with the adulteress and the Samaritan woman. He was
very clear in announcing the state of sin in which they were, but at the same
time showed a great love by inviting them to come out of this situation. What
did not the Pharisees, which instead showed a cruel legalism: denouncing the
violation of the law, but without giving any help to the person to exit from
sin, so as to find peace in his life.”
.png&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
.png)
.png){kind=link}