Even in your account of the dubia 2.0, I don't think you recount it correctly. You may recall that the cardinals sent in their dubia, and originally released only snippets of the responsa that majorly mischaracterized Pope Francis. The cardinals didn't release the full responsa because "they say the response was addressed only to them and so not meant for the public." Very odd for them not to release the full responsa because they're not meant for the public, but it's a-okay to release truncated quotes that put Pope Francis in a bad light. They only ended up releasing the Pope's full responsa after Cardinal Fernandez published them. Very odd behavior from the dubia 2.0 cardinals!
I think you're right! Crowdfunding a Cardinal may be an interesting historical first, but probably wouldn't help non-Catholics become more interested in the shining evangelical witness of the Church...
I wonder if it was a scummy thing for Cardinal Burke to submit the dubia 2.0, originally release only truncated, mischaracterized quotes from the Pope's original response to the media, and yet not share the full responses because "the response was addressed only to [the Cardinals] and so not meant for the public" (I wonder why the full answers weren't okay for the public but snippets that mischaracterized the pope weren't?), finally releasing the full responses only when Cardinal Fernandez publicized them.
Maybe. I certainly don't think it was Burke's finest hour. But putting a 75 yearly man out on the street is a level of spite that is not becoming for the Roman Pontiff. He has already fired Burke from two jobs and made fun of him when he was ill, can't Francis just bear the man's criticisms a little more gracefully?
Also, if the proper response to, “he published some selective quotations from a letter I gave him that makes me look bad” is to kick him out of his house, I’ll eat my hat. That’s like me kicking one of my kids out for breaking any number of petty rules I have. Are the petty rules important: Yes. Is it just to kick them out if they break them? No. So, assuming the details we have are correct, it is a much more serious breach of justice.
But it's not just a matter of making the pope as a person look bad. It truly is a matter wherein the unity of the Church is at stake. The Roman Pontiff is a source of unity in the Church, and Cardinal Burke was selectively giving out parts of the Pope's response that made it look like he was erroneous in his teaching. That undermines the Apostolic See and provokes the faithful to disobedience with regards to that See.
But what Cardinal Burke did seemed to cross the line beyond mere criticism (which Pope Francis is open to) and seems more to be undermining the papal office and Pope Francis' magisterium in particular. What he did with intentionally giving answers that made Pope Francis sound theologically erroneous serves to undermine the Apostolic See, and to provoke the faithful to disobedience to its teaching authority.
Nothing undermines authority more than using personally vindictive measures to enforce obedience. If I tell my son that he will lose his allowance if he defies me, he might obey me but without love so I have destroyed my authority. If Francis wants to preserve his teaching authority he needs to teach better. And stopping trashing Benedict’s authority would help as well.
But I'm less sure that this is some sort of *personal* vindictiveness, for Pope Francis isn't taking offense to attacks of his person in this instance, but is protecting the institution of the Roman Pontiff which Cardinal Burke seriously undermined by intentionally going to the media with truncated quotes that made it seem like the Pope was teaching error, which certainly provoked the faithful to disobedience to the Apostolic See's teaching authority. Pope Francis, I've found, teaches pretty well with a creative fidelity to the deposit of the faith.
Further, I'm not sure that this is a personally *vindictive* measure either, insofar as vindictiveness has to do with a strong desire for revenge. If an employee is doing a job improperly and is actually undermining the authority of his boss, it's proper for that boss to fire that employee. No one would think of that boss as vindictive.
If it's not biased, than why haven't any German bishops been removed?
It is probably hard to find any bishop who has never done anything that cannot be construed to damage the unity of the Church. Given that every sin does that. But there are things that are more damaging than others.
Where are these snippets? I only heard about it after the full responses were released.
"Mischaracterized" could be a matter of opinion. Releasing a summary of the responses could have been a way to avoid violating the privacy of the response while still giving some information.
In the original Catholic News Agency article in which cardinals first stated that they had submitted the dubia 2.0 (the article is titled: "Cardinals send ‘dubia’ to Pope Francis ahead of Synod on Synodality"), the journalist requested to "review the pope’s July 11 response," but the cardinals didn't permit them to view the full responses initially, since they said "response was addressed only to them and so not meant for the public."
Despite it not being meant for the public in their words, that didn't stop the cardinals from releasing parts of the response (which raises the question, was the response meant for the public or not? If not, then what is the purpose behind releasing snippets?). And these snippets really mischaracterized the pope.
For example, the first dubium had to do with whether "divine revelation is binding forever, immutable and therefore not to be contradicted," and the only part of Pope Francis' response that the cardinals released was him saying that the Church "can deepen her understanding of the deposit of faith." Which makes it kind of sound like revelation might not be immutable. But in Pope Francis' response, he states that "divine Revelation is immutable and always binding." In the same sentence where the Pope talks about deepening our understanding is where he makes the point that revelation is always binding. So why not mention that? Why didn't they mention the full context, or even the full sentence?
And we would have been left with just these truncated responses had Cardinal Fernandez not gotten the pope's permission to publish the full responses. It was only after Fernandez released the full responses that Cardinal Burke was forced to put them up on his website as well.
Were I a cynical person, I might say that the Cardinals deliberately released parts of the responses, so that the Vatican would publish the whole rather than keeping it private. There are actual copyright laws (and probably other laws) that do not affect sharing small parts of documents, but do affect the whole.
In any case, I agree that the responses are not particularly clarifying, taken as a whole. To say that doctrine is immutable, but to then say that slavery was understood wrongly before, and rightly now, (rather than saying people did wrong things, or that non-authoritative teaching said wrong things) begs some questions. To say that what has been revealed for the salvation of all peoples cannot change, but we must be constantly discerning what is necessary and what is secondary, is a bit confusing. You discern what you are uncertain about. If the things necessary for salvation have already been revealed, and they cannot change, than what's to discern? There might be plenty to fill in, but that's not really the same as changing whether something is a grave sin, or just a bad idea.
The point on copyright seems pretty speculative. And one week before the five Cardinals released their snippets of the response, Cardinal Fernandez had already asked for permission to share the responses. So it seemed that the Pope and Fernandez might have already suspected something was afoot. And why wouldn't the five Cardinals release the full sentence that stated that divine revelation is immutable? It's not like they would have had to release that much more of the document. And when their concern was whether the deposit of the faith is immutable, it seems like that would be a relevant portion to share.
I don't see how the response isn't particularly clarifying. It states firmly that divine revelation is immutable, and then goes a bit further with nuance. With regards to your concerns on the question of slavery, two points: (1) it seems like the response actually does mirror your language. You stated that it would be better to say "people did wrong things" or that "non-authoritative teaching said wrong things." The response states that it's possible to "distinguish their perennial substance from cultural conditioning," which sounds like what you're talking about, and would also leave the actual deposit of faith (as opposed to mere cultural conditioning) unchanged. And further, the response doesn't even make a definitive ruling on the question, just points out that there are issues that exist, that at one point slavery was tolerated, and saying "[t]hese texts are in need of interpretation."
(2) The Pope here in his mentioning of slavery is actually being more cautious on this issue than Pope John Paul II was. Here, Pope Francis states that there might be a difficulty of interpretation, and leaves it up for further study, while not ruling on it. Pope John Paul II, in Veritatis Splendor, just came right out and stated that slavery was "intrinsically evil," which would seem to fall exactly what you stated wasn't clarifying, i.e., that it was understood wrongly before, and rightly now.
I've heard of the Vatican chasing down copyright violations for putting the Vatican 2 documents (from the website) in an accessible electronic format and offering it for free. I would've thought that was a good thing, but I'm not in charge.
The Cardinals might have. The article was written by a reporter. And I highly doubt the Cardinals thought the deposit of faith might not be immutable. They were probably asking in order to combat the bishops saying or seeming to say otherwise. Back to me being a cynical person who wonders if the article was written to get the responses released.
Cultural conditioning is what society is currently arguing is the foundation of sexual differences and sexual morality. And a lot of other forms of morality, from what I can see of the pro-Palestinian protests at Harvard. That is a very common argument by "Catholics" regarding Church teaching on sexual morality, that it is not clearly forbidden in the New Testament, that it was a matter of ritual purity in the Old, and that all of the stigma against it is merely cultural, not a matter of faith and morals. That is why I said "did wrong things" and "said wrong things" rather than "cultural conditioning". Ignoring past teachings because they seem to be driven by culture is a very bad plan, and those who want to do that will probably quote the responses as supporting evidence.
The texts themselves require interpretation. The doctrines shouldn't require discernment. Unless you think we should spend a great deal of time discerning, in each changing generation, whether obeying the prohibition on enslaving innocent people is necessary for salvation, or just a secondary thing, or culturally driven? St. JP2 was teaching morality when he quoted Gaudium et Spes, not explaining and interpreting 2000 years of texts. Which is sort of what you expect from dubia responses as well. Affirm, deny, distinguish.
“ Cardinals resident in Rome typically receive a stipend of about $4,500 monthly, in recognition of their regular service to the Vatican. … The Pillar confirmed Sunday that Burke remains a member of the Vatican Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, and is a working member of the Apostolic Signatura.“
If Cdl Burke is still engaged in regular service to the Vatican, they shouldn’t disturb his stipend. It would be hilarious is a group of supporters got together and covered his rent so he didn’t have to move…
More likely a group of supporters will cover his rent at a non-Vatican apartment, and the Holy See will give Burke's current apartment (rent free) to some Francis yes man
In the article, it looks like the letter was only delivered to the Cardinal on December 1st—the same day as the change in the rent. I’m not sure why they don’t have a number for the amount being requested in rent either. “Market rate” doesn’t tell a person how much is owed. Unless it’s not supposed to matter because nothing is owed as long as the property is vacated by the end of February?
Reading the Pillar article from back in March, it seems that the decision to ask the Cardinal to pay market rate for his residence will be expected of all cardinals (and, perhaps, has already been implemented in some cases, which maybe just have not been made public). There is no confirmaton his salary is withdrawn. Perhaps we should wait and see what actually occurs. It may be that it is not quite the evil plot everyone is assuming it is.
if you listen to The Pillar podcast from last Friday, apparently that decision drew criticisms within Vatican that many cardinals (practically everyone except Burke it seems) got exempted from that decision.
I haven't listened to that yet. But it would be helpful if we knew the facts for certain. Otherwise, we are drawing conclusions that may or may not be valid.
How do you know that about the Cardinal. I have read on this very post that many of these so called lily white cardinals are anything but. Let’s deal with the facts
Totally agree. Why report anything on this if you want to keep your integrity. Wait till the facts are known and reported accurately. That is why we have problems.
Msgr. Charles Pope got it right the first time in his (now deleted) tweet. As he said, "we are left to ponder how petty this has become." As painful as it is to say, our current pope, the Holy Roman Pontiff, is a "divisive and frankly mean-spirited leader." The truth hurts.
I just wish Pope Francis could see that with his morally ambiguous spiritual leadership and the heavy handedness he treats conservatives vs. lack of discipline of heterodox progressives, he's the one most responsible for creating the Church's current state of factionalism. He's acting more like a Dictator now than a Vicar and I fear that will be his legacy unless he miraculously sees the light.
He’s a working member of the Apostolic Signatura (think Vatican Supreme Court for Canonical cases). So he is still very much involved in the day to day application of Canon Law at the highest level.
Yes. Other members of the Apostolic Signatura do not have housing provided by the Holy See. Both Cardinal Joseph Tobin of the Archdiocese of Newark, and Bishop Mark Bartchak of the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown are members.
Probably correct (I wouldn’t be surprised if Tobin also had quarters in the Vatican). But to the point, both are still active Bishops with a Church to shepherd. Burke is and has been “retired” and so there is not another place he *should* be living that keeps him away from Rome.
Even in your account of the dubia 2.0, I don't think you recount it correctly. You may recall that the cardinals sent in their dubia, and originally released only snippets of the responsa that majorly mischaracterized Pope Francis. The cardinals didn't release the full responsa because "they say the response was addressed only to them and so not meant for the public." Very odd for them not to release the full responsa because they're not meant for the public, but it's a-okay to release truncated quotes that put Pope Francis in a bad light. They only ended up releasing the Pope's full responsa after Cardinal Fernandez published them. Very odd behavior from the dubia 2.0 cardinals!
I'm guessing he'll accept the situation with humility and respect. What a man!
He is not the kind of cleric who would set up a GoFundMe, but if he did people would certainly fund it.
I think you're right! Crowdfunding a Cardinal may be an interesting historical first, but probably wouldn't help non-Catholics become more interested in the shining evangelical witness of the Church...
What a scummy thing to do. I think Francis has gone mad, and enablers like Ivereigh should hang their heads in shame.
I wonder if it was a scummy thing for Cardinal Burke to submit the dubia 2.0, originally release only truncated, mischaracterized quotes from the Pope's original response to the media, and yet not share the full responses because "the response was addressed only to [the Cardinals] and so not meant for the public" (I wonder why the full answers weren't okay for the public but snippets that mischaracterized the pope weren't?), finally releasing the full responses only when Cardinal Fernandez publicized them.
Maybe. I certainly don't think it was Burke's finest hour. But putting a 75 yearly man out on the street is a level of spite that is not becoming for the Roman Pontiff. He has already fired Burke from two jobs and made fun of him when he was ill, can't Francis just bear the man's criticisms a little more gracefully?
Also, if the proper response to, “he published some selective quotations from a letter I gave him that makes me look bad” is to kick him out of his house, I’ll eat my hat. That’s like me kicking one of my kids out for breaking any number of petty rules I have. Are the petty rules important: Yes. Is it just to kick them out if they break them? No. So, assuming the details we have are correct, it is a much more serious breach of justice.
But it's not just a matter of making the pope as a person look bad. It truly is a matter wherein the unity of the Church is at stake. The Roman Pontiff is a source of unity in the Church, and Cardinal Burke was selectively giving out parts of the Pope's response that made it look like he was erroneous in his teaching. That undermines the Apostolic See and provokes the faithful to disobedience with regards to that See.
But what Cardinal Burke did seemed to cross the line beyond mere criticism (which Pope Francis is open to) and seems more to be undermining the papal office and Pope Francis' magisterium in particular. What he did with intentionally giving answers that made Pope Francis sound theologically erroneous serves to undermine the Apostolic See, and to provoke the faithful to disobedience to its teaching authority.
Nothing undermines authority more than using personally vindictive measures to enforce obedience. If I tell my son that he will lose his allowance if he defies me, he might obey me but without love so I have destroyed my authority. If Francis wants to preserve his teaching authority he needs to teach better. And stopping trashing Benedict’s authority would help as well.
But I'm less sure that this is some sort of *personal* vindictiveness, for Pope Francis isn't taking offense to attacks of his person in this instance, but is protecting the institution of the Roman Pontiff which Cardinal Burke seriously undermined by intentionally going to the media with truncated quotes that made it seem like the Pope was teaching error, which certainly provoked the faithful to disobedience to the Apostolic See's teaching authority. Pope Francis, I've found, teaches pretty well with a creative fidelity to the deposit of the faith.
Further, I'm not sure that this is a personally *vindictive* measure either, insofar as vindictiveness has to do with a strong desire for revenge. If an employee is doing a job improperly and is actually undermining the authority of his boss, it's proper for that boss to fire that employee. No one would think of that boss as vindictive.
If it's not biased, than why haven't any German bishops been removed?
It is probably hard to find any bishop who has never done anything that cannot be construed to damage the unity of the Church. Given that every sin does that. But there are things that are more damaging than others.
Where are these snippets? I only heard about it after the full responses were released.
"Mischaracterized" could be a matter of opinion. Releasing a summary of the responses could have been a way to avoid violating the privacy of the response while still giving some information.
In the original Catholic News Agency article in which cardinals first stated that they had submitted the dubia 2.0 (the article is titled: "Cardinals send ‘dubia’ to Pope Francis ahead of Synod on Synodality"), the journalist requested to "review the pope’s July 11 response," but the cardinals didn't permit them to view the full responses initially, since they said "response was addressed only to them and so not meant for the public."
Despite it not being meant for the public in their words, that didn't stop the cardinals from releasing parts of the response (which raises the question, was the response meant for the public or not? If not, then what is the purpose behind releasing snippets?). And these snippets really mischaracterized the pope.
For example, the first dubium had to do with whether "divine revelation is binding forever, immutable and therefore not to be contradicted," and the only part of Pope Francis' response that the cardinals released was him saying that the Church "can deepen her understanding of the deposit of faith." Which makes it kind of sound like revelation might not be immutable. But in Pope Francis' response, he states that "divine Revelation is immutable and always binding." In the same sentence where the Pope talks about deepening our understanding is where he makes the point that revelation is always binding. So why not mention that? Why didn't they mention the full context, or even the full sentence?
And we would have been left with just these truncated responses had Cardinal Fernandez not gotten the pope's permission to publish the full responses. It was only after Fernandez released the full responses that Cardinal Burke was forced to put them up on his website as well.
Were I a cynical person, I might say that the Cardinals deliberately released parts of the responses, so that the Vatican would publish the whole rather than keeping it private. There are actual copyright laws (and probably other laws) that do not affect sharing small parts of documents, but do affect the whole.
In any case, I agree that the responses are not particularly clarifying, taken as a whole. To say that doctrine is immutable, but to then say that slavery was understood wrongly before, and rightly now, (rather than saying people did wrong things, or that non-authoritative teaching said wrong things) begs some questions. To say that what has been revealed for the salvation of all peoples cannot change, but we must be constantly discerning what is necessary and what is secondary, is a bit confusing. You discern what you are uncertain about. If the things necessary for salvation have already been revealed, and they cannot change, than what's to discern? There might be plenty to fill in, but that's not really the same as changing whether something is a grave sin, or just a bad idea.
The point on copyright seems pretty speculative. And one week before the five Cardinals released their snippets of the response, Cardinal Fernandez had already asked for permission to share the responses. So it seemed that the Pope and Fernandez might have already suspected something was afoot. And why wouldn't the five Cardinals release the full sentence that stated that divine revelation is immutable? It's not like they would have had to release that much more of the document. And when their concern was whether the deposit of the faith is immutable, it seems like that would be a relevant portion to share.
I don't see how the response isn't particularly clarifying. It states firmly that divine revelation is immutable, and then goes a bit further with nuance. With regards to your concerns on the question of slavery, two points: (1) it seems like the response actually does mirror your language. You stated that it would be better to say "people did wrong things" or that "non-authoritative teaching said wrong things." The response states that it's possible to "distinguish their perennial substance from cultural conditioning," which sounds like what you're talking about, and would also leave the actual deposit of faith (as opposed to mere cultural conditioning) unchanged. And further, the response doesn't even make a definitive ruling on the question, just points out that there are issues that exist, that at one point slavery was tolerated, and saying "[t]hese texts are in need of interpretation."
(2) The Pope here in his mentioning of slavery is actually being more cautious on this issue than Pope John Paul II was. Here, Pope Francis states that there might be a difficulty of interpretation, and leaves it up for further study, while not ruling on it. Pope John Paul II, in Veritatis Splendor, just came right out and stated that slavery was "intrinsically evil," which would seem to fall exactly what you stated wasn't clarifying, i.e., that it was understood wrongly before, and rightly now.
I've heard of the Vatican chasing down copyright violations for putting the Vatican 2 documents (from the website) in an accessible electronic format and offering it for free. I would've thought that was a good thing, but I'm not in charge.
The Cardinals might have. The article was written by a reporter. And I highly doubt the Cardinals thought the deposit of faith might not be immutable. They were probably asking in order to combat the bishops saying or seeming to say otherwise. Back to me being a cynical person who wonders if the article was written to get the responses released.
Cultural conditioning is what society is currently arguing is the foundation of sexual differences and sexual morality. And a lot of other forms of morality, from what I can see of the pro-Palestinian protests at Harvard. That is a very common argument by "Catholics" regarding Church teaching on sexual morality, that it is not clearly forbidden in the New Testament, that it was a matter of ritual purity in the Old, and that all of the stigma against it is merely cultural, not a matter of faith and morals. That is why I said "did wrong things" and "said wrong things" rather than "cultural conditioning". Ignoring past teachings because they seem to be driven by culture is a very bad plan, and those who want to do that will probably quote the responses as supporting evidence.
The texts themselves require interpretation. The doctrines shouldn't require discernment. Unless you think we should spend a great deal of time discerning, in each changing generation, whether obeying the prohibition on enslaving innocent people is necessary for salvation, or just a secondary thing, or culturally driven? St. JP2 was teaching morality when he quoted Gaudium et Spes, not explaining and interpreting 2000 years of texts. Which is sort of what you expect from dubia responses as well. Affirm, deny, distinguish.
“ Cardinals resident in Rome typically receive a stipend of about $4,500 monthly, in recognition of their regular service to the Vatican. … The Pillar confirmed Sunday that Burke remains a member of the Vatican Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, and is a working member of the Apostolic Signatura.“
If Cdl Burke is still engaged in regular service to the Vatican, they shouldn’t disturb his stipend. It would be hilarious is a group of supporters got together and covered his rent so he didn’t have to move…
I think that is a wonderful idea. How can we develop an into a practical solution?
More likely a group of supporters will cover his rent at a non-Vatican apartment, and the Holy See will give Burke's current apartment (rent free) to some Francis yes man
7 day notice of major change to rent? Wouldn’t have thought that’s within the norms of Catholic social teaching.
In the article, it looks like the letter was only delivered to the Cardinal on December 1st—the same day as the change in the rent. I’m not sure why they don’t have a number for the amount being requested in rent either. “Market rate” doesn’t tell a person how much is owed. Unless it’s not supposed to matter because nothing is owed as long as the property is vacated by the end of February?
Reading the Pillar article from back in March, it seems that the decision to ask the Cardinal to pay market rate for his residence will be expected of all cardinals (and, perhaps, has already been implemented in some cases, which maybe just have not been made public). There is no confirmaton his salary is withdrawn. Perhaps we should wait and see what actually occurs. It may be that it is not quite the evil plot everyone is assuming it is.
if you listen to The Pillar podcast from last Friday, apparently that decision drew criticisms within Vatican that many cardinals (practically everyone except Burke it seems) got exempted from that decision.
I haven't listened to that yet. But it would be helpful if we knew the facts for certain. Otherwise, we are drawing conclusions that may or may not be valid.
True, Father, but in these times transparency, accurate information and often truth are not in active play.
The Cardinal is a man of honor and dignity, we can follow his lead regarding the situation.
If only all prelates of the RCC were like Cdl. Burke!!!
How do you know that about the Cardinal. I have read on this very post that many of these so called lily white cardinals are anything but. Let’s deal with the facts
Totally agree. Why report anything on this if you want to keep your integrity. Wait till the facts are known and reported accurately. That is why we have problems.
A rent near Vatican is very expensive and difficult to afford.
Kinda curious which other cardinals are being kicked out...
Swatting flies while letting the snake run wild
The vibes are so bad...
Maybe the appropriate response is to donate support the"enemies" so we can continue the diversity of opinion in faithful Church leaders?
I wonder who is next??? Cdl. Muller?
Msgr. Charles Pope got it right the first time in his (now deleted) tweet. As he said, "we are left to ponder how petty this has become." As painful as it is to say, our current pope, the Holy Roman Pontiff, is a "divisive and frankly mean-spirited leader." The truth hurts.
I just wish Pope Francis could see that with his morally ambiguous spiritual leadership and the heavy handedness he treats conservatives vs. lack of discipline of heterodox progressives, he's the one most responsible for creating the Church's current state of factionalism. He's acting more like a Dictator now than a Vicar and I fear that will be his legacy unless he miraculously sees the light.
What are Burke's actual duties in Rome?
What are any of their duties? What actually do these men DO?
He’s a working member of the Apostolic Signatura (think Vatican Supreme Court for Canonical cases). So he is still very much involved in the day to day application of Canon Law at the highest level.
Yes. Other members of the Apostolic Signatura do not have housing provided by the Holy See. Both Cardinal Joseph Tobin of the Archdiocese of Newark, and Bishop Mark Bartchak of the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown are members.
Probably correct (I wouldn’t be surprised if Tobin also had quarters in the Vatican). But to the point, both are still active Bishops with a Church to shepherd. Burke is and has been “retired” and so there is not another place he *should* be living that keeps him away from Rome.
Will the bishop Zanchetta be keeping his Vatican apartment and the position created for him?
Would love to see the Wisconsin State KofC Council step up and cover the Cardinal's ongoing rent expense for his apartment in Rome.