In between the importance of integrity of life (it never stops being important but it is something that takes time), we have this interval of miracles giving witness that what these apostles say is true. Because we cannot work sudden miracles as proof of the reality of the Gospel, we need to instead display the very slow miracle of what God has done so far in our own individual life.
That said, if Peter was a seminarian who was curing the sick and driving out demons and who showed up at the seminary wearing only one (1) tunic (but at least had sandals... no shirt, no shoes, no service), it would be reasonable to be concerned and to keep an eye on him for a year to see what happens. My understanding is that the enemy can counterfeit cool things (e.g. levitation, apparent stigmata, visions, etc.), but that it is not possible to counterfeit humility and obedience for a *long* time. What I see in St. Peter in the Gospels is that he is given opportunity after opportunity to grow in humility by falling short whenever he tries to do something on his own. When we finally have nothing but Christ, I don't know what that's like, but apparently it involves thinking that being crucified is too great an honor and asking them to do it upside down.
the integrity of life of Padre Pio has proven to be an incredibly effective witness to the Gospel. The mistake would be to limit that idea only to the lifespan of the person, or to consider that the most borne fruit mightn't come well after someone has died, and their integrity is much more evidently manifested.
Of course it doesn't. Holy men and women (to say nothing of literal martyrs) are overlooked or persecuted or falsely accused or demoted or kicked out of their own order, and it is just as possible that they are unappreciated even after death and have no reputation (or have a lingering negative reputation) for years, decades, or centuries, despite having led a life of heroic virtue. This is one of the various ways that a person can be conformed to Christ and if we think about being conformed to Christ it will be less surprising. Yet, of him, some random soldier said "wow this really was the son of God" just by seeing (for a span of mere hours) how he behaved under torture and death; grace and humility in the observer has something to do with it, probably. I have pro-life bumper stickers on my car, and when I put them on my car, I accepted the fact that how people see me behave in traffic will matter in a different way now so I had better drive like other people's lives are actually something I care about more than I care about my own convenience and my own plans... will this convert anyone? no; but yes, it will convert me.
The other way that it doesn't work like that is the opposite way: modern instances of published locutions, where I can pick up a booklet of "things Jesus has said to the author, and maybe some things the BVM said to the author also" in a store, find an imprimatur from a friendly bishop in the front pages but can't find any written evidence that the author has been put to any sort of test other than "are you friends with a bishop". If Jesus is talking to a person I expect there to be visible fruits in the person's life (it would be odd indeed if his words had no effect) and somebody should be looking into that to see if it is the case, because this is serious business and it would be nice to take it seriously. But (this is not limited to modern times; freedom of the press has always belonged to those who own one) sometimes stuff just gets printed and we are left to be deeply skeptical on our own.
First an article on Becciu's Nixonian moment and now a comment on Pope Francis' Nixonian response to someone he considers an "enemy."
For years, I considered this papacy to be the mirror image of Trump's presidency. Now it is looking more like Nixon's ,with trials of corruption and enemies lists.
The declaration of +Burke as an enemy is a sure sign we are at the end of this papacy, even if it continues for years.
I've seen it reported that the Holy Father referred to Burke as an enemy, but here JD uses the phrase source of disunity. I am curious if the pope actually used the word enemy.
"For its part, the administration at St. Mary’s College has insisted that this is nothing new — that several U.S. Catholic women’s colleges admit both women and those who live or identify as women."
But Alicia's mom let HER stay out until 11:00 pm when SHE turned 16! Why can't I stay out that late too?!
This is a line of argumentation that never works with children and teenagers. Why does President Kate Conboy think this kind of petulance will work with a Bishop?
While I believe that’s true in some cases, maybe even in a lot of cases, it’s also true that there are plenty (a majority?) of presidents of secular-oriented Catholic colleges and universities that just simply do not recognize or care about ecclesial authority.
I once conducted a strategic planning process with a major Catholic university. I interviewed 60 people, including the university president and the VP of mission. When we discussed how she viewed Catholic identity of the university and Catholicism in general, she looked me in the eye and said without hesitation that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the green book) was “one man’s opinion,” referring to St John Paul II.
I guess she felt comfortable rolling that off her tongue because their trustees had kicked a sitting archbishop off their board. There was too much tension between the university and the diocesan ordinary over things like same sex “marriage” so the trustees of the Catholic university just ignored Catholic teaching.
Because it’s all she’s got. She cannot possibly argue successfully with the bishop’s rational correction of an irrational admissions policy. All she can do is deflect.
10 years and very much on the on home stretch of this papacy, don't understand why (what seems to be) the personal punitive actions are becoming more and more. Is it really Pope Francis who is making these decisions or close curial advisors? I know Pope Francis is the final say, but there seems to be a tail of two popes from his early papacy to this current version of his papacy.
Or he's just fed up with playing curial politics and worrying about optics. It seems to me that if anyone were high up enough to be pulling the Pope's strings, they'd respect the game better than to just break the rules like this. Nor would it serve their purposes well long term: the more the college of cardinals sours to Pope Francis' governance the less likely they are to choose a new Pope similar to him.
As I've written before, this isn't a tale of two popes. His nice words aimed at public consumption contrast sharply with his actions, which are calculating, aggressive and occasionally vindictive. As J.D. suggested regarding St. Catherine Labouré, pay attention to actions, they indicate the real person.
The first part of his papacy was a facade. My friends who work in the Vatican curia, Jesuit friends, and those from Argentina all knew the truth from the beginning. He has always led like an unvirtuous Jesuit Superior General and governs like an Argentinian politician. Much of what happened will only be revealed after his death.
Who’s vying for the apartment? The story conjures behind the scenes corner-office competitions in top heavy businesses on the verge of collapse. I’m sorry to be flippant, but the pettiness is distressing.
Concerning the situation with Cardinal Burke: I am not sure if it is proper for me to voice this concern in public, but I have seen elderly people in their late 80's first become very "unfiltered" and then a bit paranoid early in their struggle with dementia. I do not say that is the case here, but this is concerning behavior and brings up the question - How do we handle an impaired Pope. The question was brought up at the end of John Paul II's life at which time I dismissed it as he seemed very old but still mentally competent. However in retrospect it also seems many of the big players in the sex abuse scandal got missed in part to his infirmity - though there were many others who looked the other way that were not so old and ill.
I've read that the Communists in Poland tried to make it look like John Paul was misbehaving sexually but they got caught trying to do so. The result was that he tended to disbelieve such reports about others.
Raymond Cardinal Burke (more specifically the Marian Catechist Apostolate) was instrumental in bringing me to a deeper understanding and love of the faith. This seems vindictive towards an obviously pious man. The pope is the Vicar of Christ, he is answerable to the King for his actions.
Is it just me or has this situation seemingly came out of left-field? I am unaware of any recent statements or comments by Cardinal Burke that would incite this for reasons of “disunity” other than maybe the recent Dubia? I do not feel as if that really carried enough weight to spark this type of reaction, though. Burke is a known critic of the SSPX (has unapologetically called them schismatic in public statements) - and I thought most of the TC and other liturgy wars issues were due to people having a fondness for the more SSPX type mindset. He is a public opponent of that it would seem.
It's not mentioned in this article, but Cardinal Burke headlined another conference in Rome held around the Synod on the Synod calling it into question. The Synod on the Synod is described in other media as the most important event in the Church since Vatican II and the signature accomplishment of Pope Francis. There's a recent NY Times article that described Pope Francis as more patient with his opponents than JPII and Benedict. I'm just saying there is a whole another interpretation out there and it's not exactly out of left field.
I'm sure there are plenty of discussions happening out of view of the public square. Especially with the first session of the Synod finished and Germany/Poland having a spat, there are plenty of topics available for idle chatter among Cardinals.
I would guess that there have probably been individuals close to Pope Francis that have been pushing this, or some kind of measures to be taken against Cardinal Burke, for some time, and only now has Pope Francis decided to act, for whatever reason. But it still does feel very random and out of nowhere because it's not like Cardinal Burke is the only papal critic out there, and also due to the fact that Burke has been speaking out for years and years now, and nothing he's said recently can really be pointed to as any "worse" than what he's said before.
I wonder, has Cardinal Burke ever been given any warnings from the Pope to cease his criticism or his public talks? Has he been given any chance to speak or correspond with the Pope, or was this decision just made on a whim without any chance for him to speak in his own defense of his actions and words? I suspect it was the latter.
So close on the heels of the Strickland removal, it does suggest an effort to “clean house” and in the process send a strong message to anyone who publicly (recent or ever) criticized the pope’s communications, policies, procedures, or efforts related to Church doctrine or tradition. Or, in the pope’s words - *if true*- his “enemies.”
Thanks for verifying the report about Cdl. Burke. I was thinking (hoping) when I first heard it that it might not be accurate, some sensationalized interpretation of a benign event. As sorry as I am to hear it is true (I don’t know much about Cdl. Burke, but whomever it is this doesn’t sound charitable), I’m glad to hear it from a trusted news source.
Right?? You all did a report a while back (and forgive me as I misremember the details) about the Vatican wanting to sell off or charge rent on some properties that Curial folks had been using and my first thought reading the report was like, “oh man someone just concocted a crazy story without having listened to JD and Ed first.” Lol. Unfortunately not the case I guess…
Luke, thank you for this assessment of Card. Burke. Having been ordained by him and I have a great respect for him. He is as you state, quiet piety. It seems to me that the only “enemy” a Pope should have is Satan, and firm resolve to root him out. God bless both and thanks again for your reporting…
Has the Pillar tried to verify the alleged quote of Pope Francis: "Cardinal Burke is my enemy, so I am taking away his flat and salary"? It seems like the implications of the utterance, if it was really made, are even more profound than the actions that followed. How can a fellow Christian, who is a Cardinal seeking to serve Jesus, be an enemy? (c.f. Mark 9:38-40, Luke 9:49-50, 54-55)
The analysis here was so very interesting and insightful. I especially appreciate the suggestion of how the treatment of Cdl. Burke might influence a papal conclave. One of the Holy Father's close collaborators, Cdl. Parolin, has distanced himself (or perhaps was intentionally distanced) from the Francis inner circle just as the next papal conclave seems increasingly imminent. Parolin is still a Francis insider, papabile to many moderate and progressive-minded cardinals, yet arguably well-positioned to avoid any taint that close association with the Francis papacy may bestow onto other candidates in the next conclave. I wonder how well Francis and co. anticipated the reaction to his treatment of men like Burke and Strickland.
I am mind boggled at the petty disrespect that Pope Francis is showing to Cardinal Burke. I do pray for the Holy Father every day. I don’t much like Pope Francis nor his administration of the Church, but his office must be respected. Likewise, I am humbled at Cardinal Burke’s respectful and charitable attitude towards the he Pope.
"But", the repentant and shivering parrot added, "I want to know one thing. What did the *chicken* do?" - this punchline only works in shaggy-dog jokes or we would have seen the German bishops stop cussing several chickens ago. I would like to know what the cardinal did, though, and (since I have no knowledge of the matter one way or another) I imagine he would like to know what he did too.
Interesting point about the effect this could have on the other Cardinals. Hopefully it will drive home the weight of their decision in a conclave and how giving the wrong man that much power can have disastrous consequences for the Church, or even just consequences for the Cardinals personally.
when Peter was denying Christ and chopping off ears, he was not yet an especially credible witness to the Gospel!
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/mark/6?8
In between the importance of integrity of life (it never stops being important but it is something that takes time), we have this interval of miracles giving witness that what these apostles say is true. Because we cannot work sudden miracles as proof of the reality of the Gospel, we need to instead display the very slow miracle of what God has done so far in our own individual life.
That said, if Peter was a seminarian who was curing the sick and driving out demons and who showed up at the seminary wearing only one (1) tunic (but at least had sandals... no shirt, no shoes, no service), it would be reasonable to be concerned and to keep an eye on him for a year to see what happens. My understanding is that the enemy can counterfeit cool things (e.g. levitation, apparent stigmata, visions, etc.), but that it is not possible to counterfeit humility and obedience for a *long* time. What I see in St. Peter in the Gospels is that he is given opportunity after opportunity to grow in humility by falling short whenever he tries to do something on his own. When we finally have nothing but Christ, I don't know what that's like, but apparently it involves thinking that being crucified is too great an honor and asking them to do it upside down.
the integrity of life of Padre Pio has proven to be an incredibly effective witness to the Gospel. The mistake would be to limit that idea only to the lifespan of the person, or to consider that the most borne fruit mightn't come well after someone has died, and their integrity is much more evidently manifested.
> It doesn't always work like that.
Of course it doesn't. Holy men and women (to say nothing of literal martyrs) are overlooked or persecuted or falsely accused or demoted or kicked out of their own order, and it is just as possible that they are unappreciated even after death and have no reputation (or have a lingering negative reputation) for years, decades, or centuries, despite having led a life of heroic virtue. This is one of the various ways that a person can be conformed to Christ and if we think about being conformed to Christ it will be less surprising. Yet, of him, some random soldier said "wow this really was the son of God" just by seeing (for a span of mere hours) how he behaved under torture and death; grace and humility in the observer has something to do with it, probably. I have pro-life bumper stickers on my car, and when I put them on my car, I accepted the fact that how people see me behave in traffic will matter in a different way now so I had better drive like other people's lives are actually something I care about more than I care about my own convenience and my own plans... will this convert anyone? no; but yes, it will convert me.
The other way that it doesn't work like that is the opposite way: modern instances of published locutions, where I can pick up a booklet of "things Jesus has said to the author, and maybe some things the BVM said to the author also" in a store, find an imprimatur from a friendly bishop in the front pages but can't find any written evidence that the author has been put to any sort of test other than "are you friends with a bishop". If Jesus is talking to a person I expect there to be visible fruits in the person's life (it would be odd indeed if his words had no effect) and somebody should be looking into that to see if it is the case, because this is serious business and it would be nice to take it seriously. But (this is not limited to modern times; freedom of the press has always belonged to those who own one) sometimes stuff just gets printed and we are left to be deeply skeptical on our own.
First an article on Becciu's Nixonian moment and now a comment on Pope Francis' Nixonian response to someone he considers an "enemy."
For years, I considered this papacy to be the mirror image of Trump's presidency. Now it is looking more like Nixon's ,with trials of corruption and enemies lists.
The declaration of +Burke as an enemy is a sure sign we are at the end of this papacy, even if it continues for years.
Or Stalin's reign without the executions.
I've seen it reported that the Holy Father referred to Burke as an enemy, but here JD uses the phrase source of disunity. I am curious if the pope actually used the word enemy.
My sources did not report as much.
Thank you. Good to know
Regarding Burke: “Por amigos, todos. Por enemigos, ni justicia.”
"For its part, the administration at St. Mary’s College has insisted that this is nothing new — that several U.S. Catholic women’s colleges admit both women and those who live or identify as women."
But Alicia's mom let HER stay out until 11:00 pm when SHE turned 16! Why can't I stay out that late too?!
This is a line of argumentation that never works with children and teenagers. Why does President Kate Conboy think this kind of petulance will work with a Bishop?
Maybe because too many of our bishops are milquetoasts, or govern like one.
While I believe that’s true in some cases, maybe even in a lot of cases, it’s also true that there are plenty (a majority?) of presidents of secular-oriented Catholic colleges and universities that just simply do not recognize or care about ecclesial authority.
I once conducted a strategic planning process with a major Catholic university. I interviewed 60 people, including the university president and the VP of mission. When we discussed how she viewed Catholic identity of the university and Catholicism in general, she looked me in the eye and said without hesitation that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the green book) was “one man’s opinion,” referring to St John Paul II.
I guess she felt comfortable rolling that off her tongue because their trustees had kicked a sitting archbishop off their board. There was too much tension between the university and the diocesan ordinary over things like same sex “marriage” so the trustees of the Catholic university just ignored Catholic teaching.
That's fascinating, thank you.
Because it’s all she’s got. She cannot possibly argue successfully with the bishop’s rational correction of an irrational admissions policy. All she can do is deflect.
10 years and very much on the on home stretch of this papacy, don't understand why (what seems to be) the personal punitive actions are becoming more and more. Is it really Pope Francis who is making these decisions or close curial advisors? I know Pope Francis is the final say, but there seems to be a tail of two popes from his early papacy to this current version of his papacy.
Or he's just fed up with playing curial politics and worrying about optics. It seems to me that if anyone were high up enough to be pulling the Pope's strings, they'd respect the game better than to just break the rules like this. Nor would it serve their purposes well long term: the more the college of cardinals sours to Pope Francis' governance the less likely they are to choose a new Pope similar to him.
As I've written before, this isn't a tale of two popes. His nice words aimed at public consumption contrast sharply with his actions, which are calculating, aggressive and occasionally vindictive. As J.D. suggested regarding St. Catherine Labouré, pay attention to actions, they indicate the real person.
The first part of his papacy was a facade. My friends who work in the Vatican curia, Jesuit friends, and those from Argentina all knew the truth from the beginning. He has always led like an unvirtuous Jesuit Superior General and governs like an Argentinian politician. Much of what happened will only be revealed after his death.
Who’s vying for the apartment? The story conjures behind the scenes corner-office competitions in top heavy businesses on the verge of collapse. I’m sorry to be flippant, but the pettiness is distressing.
Also "Cardinal Ray and El Rey" is some next level headline writing.
All I could think of was the ranchera song, and now I have it stuck in my head 😆
Concerning the situation with Cardinal Burke: I am not sure if it is proper for me to voice this concern in public, but I have seen elderly people in their late 80's first become very "unfiltered" and then a bit paranoid early in their struggle with dementia. I do not say that is the case here, but this is concerning behavior and brings up the question - How do we handle an impaired Pope. The question was brought up at the end of John Paul II's life at which time I dismissed it as he seemed very old but still mentally competent. However in retrospect it also seems many of the big players in the sex abuse scandal got missed in part to his infirmity - though there were many others who looked the other way that were not so old and ill.
those are all fair and valid questions.
Very good comment. I have noticed that Pope Francis' bouts of particularly ill temper seem to align with his health problems.
I've read that the Communists in Poland tried to make it look like John Paul was misbehaving sexually but they got caught trying to do so. The result was that he tended to disbelieve such reports about others.
Raymond Cardinal Burke (more specifically the Marian Catechist Apostolate) was instrumental in bringing me to a deeper understanding and love of the faith. This seems vindictive towards an obviously pious man. The pope is the Vicar of Christ, he is answerable to the King for his actions.
Is it just me or has this situation seemingly came out of left-field? I am unaware of any recent statements or comments by Cardinal Burke that would incite this for reasons of “disunity” other than maybe the recent Dubia? I do not feel as if that really carried enough weight to spark this type of reaction, though. Burke is a known critic of the SSPX (has unapologetically called them schismatic in public statements) - and I thought most of the TC and other liturgy wars issues were due to people having a fondness for the more SSPX type mindset. He is a public opponent of that it would seem.
It does feel “random “ except for the Pope’s general feeling that “trads=bad”.
Plus he dislikes Americans, as he indicated early in his papacy. Let's not forget Bishop Strickland's recent "defenestration".
It's not mentioned in this article, but Cardinal Burke headlined another conference in Rome held around the Synod on the Synod calling it into question. The Synod on the Synod is described in other media as the most important event in the Church since Vatican II and the signature accomplishment of Pope Francis. There's a recent NY Times article that described Pope Francis as more patient with his opponents than JPII and Benedict. I'm just saying there is a whole another interpretation out there and it's not exactly out of left field.
Given the NYT reporting on all things Catholic, I won’t take their word for it.
Forgive me, but I think you're being a bit naive about this.
I'm not defending the views.
I understand, thank you.
I'm sure there are plenty of discussions happening out of view of the public square. Especially with the first session of the Synod finished and Germany/Poland having a spat, there are plenty of topics available for idle chatter among Cardinals.
I would guess that there have probably been individuals close to Pope Francis that have been pushing this, or some kind of measures to be taken against Cardinal Burke, for some time, and only now has Pope Francis decided to act, for whatever reason. But it still does feel very random and out of nowhere because it's not like Cardinal Burke is the only papal critic out there, and also due to the fact that Burke has been speaking out for years and years now, and nothing he's said recently can really be pointed to as any "worse" than what he's said before.
I wonder, has Cardinal Burke ever been given any warnings from the Pope to cease his criticism or his public talks? Has he been given any chance to speak or correspond with the Pope, or was this decision just made on a whim without any chance for him to speak in his own defense of his actions and words? I suspect it was the latter.
So close on the heels of the Strickland removal, it does suggest an effort to “clean house” and in the process send a strong message to anyone who publicly (recent or ever) criticized the pope’s communications, policies, procedures, or efforts related to Church doctrine or tradition. Or, in the pope’s words - *if true*- his “enemies.”
Perhaps more of this is coming in the months leading up to next fall’s big synod?
Thanks for verifying the report about Cdl. Burke. I was thinking (hoping) when I first heard it that it might not be accurate, some sensationalized interpretation of a benign event. As sorry as I am to hear it is true (I don’t know much about Cdl. Burke, but whomever it is this doesn’t sound charitable), I’m glad to hear it from a trusted news source.
to be clear, I was also EXTREMELY skeptical when first I read it.
Right?? You all did a report a while back (and forgive me as I misremember the details) about the Vatican wanting to sell off or charge rent on some properties that Curial folks had been using and my first thought reading the report was like, “oh man someone just concocted a crazy story without having listened to JD and Ed first.” Lol. Unfortunately not the case I guess…
Ed and I will talk on the pillar podcast about how those things might be connected.
I may have already checked the calendar to see how many days I had to wait to hear y’alls breakdown on the podcast. 😂
Did Pope Francis use the word enemy too? Could you confirm that as well?
If we had direct sourcing for that alleged quote, we'd have included it, I promise!
Luke, thank you for this assessment of Card. Burke. Having been ordained by him and I have a great respect for him. He is as you state, quiet piety. It seems to me that the only “enemy” a Pope should have is Satan, and firm resolve to root him out. God bless both and thanks again for your reporting…
Has the Pillar tried to verify the alleged quote of Pope Francis: "Cardinal Burke is my enemy, so I am taking away his flat and salary"? It seems like the implications of the utterance, if it was really made, are even more profound than the actions that followed. How can a fellow Christian, who is a Cardinal seeking to serve Jesus, be an enemy? (c.f. Mark 9:38-40, Luke 9:49-50, 54-55)
If we had direct sourcing for that alleged quote, we'd have included it, I promise!
The analysis here was so very interesting and insightful. I especially appreciate the suggestion of how the treatment of Cdl. Burke might influence a papal conclave. One of the Holy Father's close collaborators, Cdl. Parolin, has distanced himself (or perhaps was intentionally distanced) from the Francis inner circle just as the next papal conclave seems increasingly imminent. Parolin is still a Francis insider, papabile to many moderate and progressive-minded cardinals, yet arguably well-positioned to avoid any taint that close association with the Francis papacy may bestow onto other candidates in the next conclave. I wonder how well Francis and co. anticipated the reaction to his treatment of men like Burke and Strickland.
I am mind boggled at the petty disrespect that Pope Francis is showing to Cardinal Burke. I do pray for the Holy Father every day. I don’t much like Pope Francis nor his administration of the Church, but his office must be respected. Likewise, I am humbled at Cardinal Burke’s respectful and charitable attitude towards the he Pope.
"But", the repentant and shivering parrot added, "I want to know one thing. What did the *chicken* do?" - this punchline only works in shaggy-dog jokes or we would have seen the German bishops stop cussing several chickens ago. I would like to know what the cardinal did, though, and (since I have no knowledge of the matter one way or another) I imagine he would like to know what he did too.
Interesting point about the effect this could have on the other Cardinals. Hopefully it will drive home the weight of their decision in a conclave and how giving the wrong man that much power can have disastrous consequences for the Church, or even just consequences for the Cardinals personally.