- Our Lady of Medjugorje, Queen of Peace
- CHRIST BEFORE ME
- Prayers You Haven't Memorized & Prayer Requests
- Quotes That Make You Think
- Pro-Life & Social Justice
- The Library--Free Catholic Audio Links & Various Catholic Texts
- Charities--A short list of charities that make a real & immediate impact.
- Deliver us from evil
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Monday, September 28, 2015
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Saturday, April 18, 2015
of Malta said, 'I am not against the Pope, I have never spoken out against
the Pope. … My purpose is to serve the Truth.'
BY RICCARDO CASCIOLI
Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke is troubled by the negative campaign that has
been waged against him. Sixty-six years old, ordained bishop by Pope John
Paul II in 1995, the respected expert in canon law was called to Rome by
Pope Benedict XVI in 2008 as prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the
Apostolic Signatura before being appointed Cardinal in 2010.
In recent months, critics have described him as an "ultraconservative
fanatic," "anti-Conciliar," "in conspiracy against the Pope," and
even ready for a schism should the synod open up to unwelcome changes.
The criticism has been so defamatory that in Italy several bishops have even
refused to host his lectures in their dioceses. Where he has been allowed to
give a conference — as recently in some cities in the north of Italy —
there are invariably priests who oppose him and accuse him of spreading
propaganda against the Pope.
"It's total nonsense, I don't understand this attitude. I have never
said a single word against the Pope, I strive only to serve the truth, a
task that we all have. I have always seen my talks and my activities as a
support to the Petrine ministry. The people who know me well can witness to
the fact I am not anti-papal. On the contrary, I have always been extremely
loyal and wanted to serve the Holy Father as I am doing now."
Indeed, meeting him in his apartment, a stone's throw from St. Peter's
Square, with his friendly manner and spontaneity, Cardinal Burke bears no
resemblance to that hard defender of "cold doctrine" as he is described
by mainstream media outlets.
Cardinal Burke, in the debate that preceded and followed the first Synod on
the family, some of your statements did sound like criticisms of the Pope,
or at least that is how they were interpreted. For example, quite a stir was
caused by your recent remark, "I will resist, I'll resist," as a
response to a possible decision of the Pope to grant Communion to the
divorced and remarried.
That comment was misrepresented, and 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, there are people who want to undermine what I say
by depicting me as an enemy of the Pope, or even ready for a schism by using
that answer I gave in an interview with a French television channel.
How should we interpret that answer?
Quite simply. The journalist asked me what I would do if, hypothetically,
not referring to Pope Francis, a pontiff were to make decisions contrary to
the Church's doctrine and practice. I replied I should resist, because we
are all in the service of the 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. Therefore I replied I would resist and it would not be the first
time that this has happened in the Church. There have been several moments
in history where someone had to stand up to the pope, beginning with St.
Paul against St. Peter, in the matter of Judaizers who wanted to impose
circumcision on the converted Greeks. In my case, I am not resisting Pope
Francis at all because he hasn't done anything against the doctrine. Nor
do I see myself in a fight against the Pope, as they try to depict me. I'm
not pursuing the interests of a group or party. I am simply trying, as a
Cardinal, to be a teacher of the faith.
Another criticism made against you is your alleged passion for "lace," a
comment used in a demeaning way to criticize your preferred clerical and
liturgical vestments as something that the Pope cannot endure.
The Pope has never made me aware that he disapproves of the way I dress,
which anyway has always been within norms of the Church. I celebrate the
liturgy also in the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, and there are
vestments for this which do not exist for the celebration of the ordinary
form, but I always wear what is required for the rite that I am celebrating.
I am not making a political statement against the Pope's way of dressing.
It has to be said that every Pope has his own style, but he does not impose
this on all the other bishops. So I don't understand why this should be a
cause for controversy.
But newspapers often use a photo of you wearing a hat clearly out of date.
Yes I know, but it's just incredible. I can explain. That photo was spread
around after Il Foglio published it alongside the interview I did at the
time of the synod. The interview had been done well, but unfortunately they
chose a photo that had nothing to do with it, which I regret because in this
way they gave the mistaken impression of a person who lives in the past. The
truth is that after being named cardinal, I was invited to a diocese in the
South of Italy for a conference on the liturgy. For the occasion the
organizer decided to give me as a gift an old-fashioned cardinal's hat. I
have no idea where he got it from. I held it in my hand and obviously had no
intention of wearing it regularly, but he asked me to put it on to take at
least one photo. This was the only time I put that hat on my head, but
unfortunately that picture has been published all over the world and some
use it to give the impression that I go around like that. But I've never
worn it, not even for a ceremony.
You have also been named as the inspiration if not the promoter of the
"Petition to Pope Francis for the Family," which has been circulated to
collect signatures by a number of traditionalist web sites.
I did sign that petition, but it is not my initiative or my idea. Nor did I
write or collaborate in drafting the text. Anyone who says otherwise is
affirming something false. As far as I know it is an initiative by
laypeople. I was shown the text and I signed it, as have many other
Another of the charges against you is that you are against the Second
These 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 to study these documents more deeply.
I'm not at all opposed to the Council, and if one reads my writings they
will find that I quote the documents of Vatican II many times. What I
don't agree with is the so called "spirit of the Council", which is
not faithful to the Council texts but purports to create something totally
new, a new church that has nothing to do with all the so-called aberrations
of the past. On this matter I whole-heartedly follow Pope Benedict XVI's
enlightening presentation to the Roman Curia for Christmas 2005. It is the
famous discourse in which he explains the correct hermeneutic, which is that
of reform in continuity, as opposed to the hermeneutic of rupture in
discontinuity that many sectors promote. Pope Benedict XVI's presentation
is brilliant and explains everything. Many things that happened after the
council and are attributed to the council have nothing to do with the
council. This is the plain truth.
Did Pope Francis "punish" you by removing you from the Apostolic
Signatura and entrusting you with the patronage of the Sovereign Military
Order of Malta?
In an interview with the Argentine newspaper La Nacion, the Pope already
answered this question by explaining the reasons for his decision. This
already says everything and it is not up to me to comment. I can only say,
without revealing any confidential information, that the Pope has never told
me or given me the impression that there was anything he wanted to punish me
Perhaps your "reputation" has to do with what Cardinal Walter Kasper
called the "Synod battle," which also seems to grow in intensity as we
get closer to the Ordinary Synod next October. At what stage are we now?
I would say that there is now a much more extensive discussion on the topics
covered by the Synod and this is a good thing. There is a greater number of
cardinals, bishops and laypeople who are intervening and this is very
positive. Therefore, I don't understand all the fuss last year made over
the book Remaining in the Truth of Christ, to which I contributed along with
four other cardinals and four specialists on marriage.
That was when the theory of a conspiracy against the Pope was born, a view
echoed recently by the well-known Italian historian Alberto Melloni,
co-author of a famous History of the Vatican Council II that pushes for a
progressive interpretation of the Council. Melloni wrote an article for the
most popular Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera, blaming the five
cardinals of a conspiracy against the Pope.
It is simply absurd. How can you possibly accuse of plotting against the
Pope those who uphold what the Church has always taught and practiced on
marriage and Communion? The book was certainly written as an aid for the
Synod to answer Cardinal Kasper's thesis. But it is not polemical, it is a
presentation completely faithful to the tradition, and it is also of the
highest scholarly quality possible. I am absolutely disposed to receive
criticism on the content but to say we conspired against the Pope is
Who is behind this witch hunt?
I do not have any direct information but there is definitely a group that
wants to impose on the Church not only Kasper's thesis on Communion for
the divorced and remarried, or for those in irregular situations, but also
other positions related to the themes of the Synod. I think for instance of
the idea of identifying the positive aspects of extramarital or homosexual
relationships. It is evident there are forces pushing in this direction and
this is the reason why they want to discredit those of us who are trying to
defend the Church's teaching. I have nothing personal against Cardinal
Kasper; for me the question is only to proclaim the Church's teaching,
which in this case is tied to words spoken by the Lord.
Looking at some of the themes that emerged strongly in the Synod, there is
talk again about a "gay lobby."
I can't precisely identify it but I see more and more that there is a
force moving in this direction. I can see people either consciously or
subconsciously driving a homosexual agenda. How it's organized I don't
know, but it is evident there is a force of this nature. At the Synod, we
said that homosexuality had nothing to do with the family; rather, a Synod
should be convoked on the subject if we wanted to speak about this theme.
And instead we found in the relatio post disceptationem this theme which had
not been discussed by the fathers.
One of the theological arguments that is frequently repeated to justify
Cardinal Kasper is that of the "development of doctrine." It isn't
change but a deeper understanding, which can lead to new practice.
Here there is a big misunderstanding. The development of doctrine, as for
example Blessed Cardinal Newman put it or other good theologians, means a
deepening in appreciation in the knowledge of a doctrine, not the change of
doctrine. Development in no case leads to change. An example of this is Pope
Benedict's post-synodal exhortation on the Eucharist Sacramentum
Caritatis, where he presents the development of the knowledge of the real
presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, also expressed in Eucharistic adoration.
There have in fact been some who were contrary to Eucharistic adoration,
because the Eucharist is to be received within us. 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 the case that the doctrine on the
presence of Jesus in the Eucharist changed.
One of the recurring themes in the controversy on the Synod is the alleged
opposition between doctrine and practice, doctrine and mercy. The Pope often
insists on the pharisaic attitude of those who use doctrine to keep out
I think you have to distinguish between what the Pope says on certain
occasions and those who affirm an opposition between doctrine and practice.
The Church can never allow a contrast between doctrine and practice, because
we live the truth that Christ communicates to us in his holy Church and the
Truth is never something cold. It is the Truth that opens to us a space for
love; to love really you have to respect the truth of the person and of the
person in the particular situations in which you find them. Thus creating a
kind of contrast between doctrine and practice does not reflect the reality
of our faith. One who supports the thesis of Cardinal Kasper — a change of
discipline that does not touch doctrine — should explain how this is
possible. If the Church allows Communion for a person who is bound by
marriage but who is living with another person in a matrimonial
relationship, that is in a state of adultery, how can the Church allow this
and maintain at the same time that marriage is indissoluble? The contrast
between doctrine and practice is a false contrast that we must reject.
But it is also true that you can use doctrine without love.
Absolutely, and this is what the Pope is condemning, the use of doctrine or
law to promote a personal agenda in order to dominate people. But this does
not mean there is a problem with the doctrine and discipline; only there are
people of ill will who commit abuses, for instance by interpreting the law
in a way that harms people. Or they apply the law without love, insisting on
the truth of a situation of a person but without love. Even when someone is
in a state of grievous sin, we have to love that person and help them like
Our Lord did with the adulteress and the Samaritan woman. He was very clear
in announcing the state of their sin but at the same time He showed great
love by inviting them to come out of this situation. This is not what the
Pharisees did, instead they showed cruel legalism: denouncing the violation
of the law without offering any help to the person on how to turn away from
their sin so as to find peace in their lives again.
Riccardo Cascioli is editor of the popular Italian Catholic website, Nuova
Bussola Quotidiana, where this interview originally appeared in Italian.
Translated for the Register by Patricia Gooding Williams.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
"One of the most upsetting things for me about the way I was brought into the world is the blatant double standard involved. My mother's need to have a genetic link to her child was valued, while my need to know, love and understand the father with whom I have a genetic link was not."