www.byzcath.org Forums Active Threads

Utroque,

The fact that Pope Francis has hinted at this possibility and called these relationships "holy love" is itself a sin of scandal. Anyone can call him out on this issue. No one assumes or is naive enough to call these relationships that he says may be blessed, going forward, "chaste." Several articles with comments have called this a "non-starter." Holiness does not encompass everything, every practice, and every opinion. It still remains that, as with the human body, a healthy body cannot tolerate everything that comes along. Some things are toxic and some things are contrary to what they body has been designed for.

I still go back decades ago when I was taught with no ambiguity that practicing homosexuals would never enter the Kingdom. Of course, the same was true for those who made it a lifetime practice to commit adultery and fornication. God has called us to purity. He gives us the ascetic practices of our Churches and Mystery of Confession so that we have time and time again a chance to pull our lives back on track. But a lifetime of practice with refusal to repent is a losing proposition. It think the damage is to the young--already inundated with the secular culture, its denial of God or any ultimate accountability for one's behavior, and calls for freedom that is license--that these two bishops have called attention to. The tragedy is that the Latin portion of the Catholic Church has abandoned its ascetic tradition and the tools we had to fight the good fight in so many areas. The fact that no one wants to call a sin a sin is troubling. It goes to a big error that has overtaken the Catholic Church since the Vatican Council that says everyone goes to Heaven no matter what they have done and no matter if they ever repented anything they did.

Cardinal Burke is not "a loner." I know clergy who will privately admit that they agree with his public statements but are afraid to go public because they don't want to be on the wrong side of what may become the "party line." The Catholic League president has also called attention to this and catalogued the condemnations of the groups and individuals that Pope Francis has embraced at his recent Synod. He addressed them to Rome, with no response, with the question whether the majority of senior Catholic bishops in the United States have been wrong in the last couple decades or is the new position that seems to be evolving wrong. He says that they both cannot be true.

I generally don’t like these “tell all” books; in their zeal to tell it all they often incriminate the innocent and leave one wondering if there is any good left on earth. My faith and experience leads me to believe that, indeed, there is a lot; it just gets hidden behind the headlines.

That said, I will make this my last statement on this thread.

From the time I watched this humble Italo-Argentinian bishop walk, limping a bit, through the streets of Rome behind the Corpus Christi monstrance of his Lord’s presence, I knew we had a saintly Bishop of Rome. He has visited the parishes of his diocese; traveled the world, visited refugees and shared food with the destitute homeless. God bless him for sharing lunch with transvestites. I view every effort to malign, nit-pick and disparage the words and gestures of this good papa (the English word “pope” just doesn’t cut it) a “sin against the Holy Spirit”! He has NOT made any statement that contradicts the doctrine or moral teaching of the Church and I defy anyone to specifically show me otherwise. I know personally that his humble example has brought people to the Faith, and it has strengthened mine.

I have become aware of a 2019 book, In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Closet_of_the_Vatican

"A central thesis of his book is that cardinals and bishops who make the strongest condemnations of homosexuality are more likely to be gay themselves; he describes this as part of their attempt to cover up who they really are."
From Jesuit, America Magazine

            Has anyone read this book?

Cardinal Burke plays a role in the book...I found the following:

https://nihilobstat.info/2019/03/26/did-frederic-martel-just-out-cardinal-raymond-burke/


I have been reading many reviews, both positive and negative. Not one review seems to unequivocally refute the main premise, basic concepts, or charges.  If there is even a few ounces of truth to this book, we are all being mislead..... If any of it is true, the moral concerns that we rally around, are put forth as a giant smokescreen.

How does one feel about relating this to the Forum? Sad. It is upsetting, and I considered not mentioning it. But, I would rather be sad than debate with good people over a ruse. I don't like being mislead.

Theophan, if there is another thread that deals with this book, please refer me to it, I tried to find one but couldn't.

Perhaps I was a bit overly dramatic and flippant in my characterization of Cardinal Burke. What I am trying to say is that, retired or not, he’s a loner; and, what is more, along with two or three other Cardinals, has been an active critic of the very person of the pope he and they themselves pledge to uphold. He has done this not only on his website, but in interviews with Raymond Arroyo of EWTN, and most recently in Rome at an event (“Synodal Babel”) that was set up as a foil for the Synod taking place simultaneously. The very title of his presentation, “Synodality versus True Identity of the Church as Hierarchical Communion” stands itself as an affront not only to the pope, but to the bishops gathered in the Synod in communion across town trying with the aid of faithful Catholics in their midst to more deeply understand what synodality means. In short, who does he think he is?

As far as I know, Theophan, Pope Francis has issued no decree that allows the blessing of same sex unions. He may have hinted at the possiblity of blessing a gay couple who have pledged to live chaste lives. Could you give me a reference where he has made such a decree and just what he states? Whether we're single or in a union, if we have any labido left, we struggle with our sexuality. I think all anyone wants is honesty in the Church. Repentance is a constant beckoning, is it not? Speaking of excesses; I think the Cardinal's "Capa Magna" is. There's an old story that good St Pope John XXIII steped on Cardinal Spellman's when he descended the altar steps of St Peter's after he made his obeisance.

Christ is in our midst!!

Utroque,

Cardinal Burke and Bishop Strickland have "sounded the alarm" at the excesses of Pope Francis in relation to his decrees relating to the blessing of same-sex unions, which the Catechism of the Catholic, condemns. There are also other recent decrees that seem to go against the Faith. It is the responsibility of a bishop to do do this. This pope's inability to listen to other voices that do not agree with him is the problem.

The president of the Catholic League also raised questions about the pope's shift in a letter to Rome in which he asked if the condemnation of the LGBTQ movement and lifestyle by many members of the United States Catholic Conference over the past ten years was wrong or if the pope's recent decrees were wrong. He received no reply. He asked why organizations that have been condemned and person's affiliated with them have had the pope's attention in such open and public fashion. He received no answer.

These are serious issues.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church was conceived, written, and promulgated to set the record straight about what the Catholic Church actually teaches. It was a response by Pope St John Paul 2 to the confusion that had become so rampant between the end of Vatican 2 and his election. I remember that time vividly. It seemed that every priest had his own take on every issue and there were as many answers to the same question as there were members of the clergy and processional theologians. Cardinal Burke and Bishop Strickland made their points in a heightened fashion because there was no response from Rome. (BTW, more than one canon lawyer has pointed out that Pope Francis' removal of both are serious breaches of the same canon law that outlines his authority. As Pope St John Paul 2 explained when he promulgated the Code, it was meant to give everyone in the Church the rules needed for order and to protect the rights of each person.) There have been suggestions Pope Francis wants to rewrite this tome.

I, too, am disturbed that as short a time as six to nine months ago transgenderism and the LGBTQ agenda were condemned only to be reversed in this latter short period. My questions is whether we are still in the business of saving souls or are we accommodating the spirit of the age. Christians stand on the shoulders of the Old Testament which calls homosexual acts "an abomination." Leviticus also commands God's people not to alter their bodies by cutting. I assume that this prohibition would also apply to chemical and surgical alterations of God's creation of each of us. Calling homosexual relationships "Holy Love" seems to confuse what we used to call "perverted lust" with normal human caring for another person. It certainly is not in the same league as the normal relationship between a man and a woman.

That the German Catholic Church is promoting and doing all the things that the two bishops in question raise as serious issues should not entre into the discussion. What the MSM does not tell you is that there are more conservatives in the Church than just the United States. There have been harsh criticisms of these changing praxis from Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa, but the MSM chooses not to mention that. The drumbeat has been only the pope's criticism of the Church in the United States.

I submit that the nature of the "Synod" is critical to Catholic theology, that what is critical to Catholic theology comprises Eastern Catholic theology, thus, of even greater importance than "traditions"; that the understanding, the the voice of the Orthodox -- here in the official intervention of the representative of the EP -- is "critical to our eastern traditions," and ... But let me ask, what do YOU have in mind as "those topics more critical to our eastern traditions"?

He could be. Does that scare you? It should. Think about it [a rhetorical statement]. He may even vote in a future Conclave.

He's retired (he was Archbishop of St. Louis, USA, from 2004 to 2008). This is the case for all retired bishops. Pope Benedict was a bishop without a diocese.

He was (probably considered) a citizen of Vatican City until evicted. He must still be a US citizen.

True about "the Truth" and " in great measure, exiled himself" but exiled by Pope Francis even more so by ukase.

"a man more than twenty years his elder." Card.Burke is 75; Pope Francis soon will be 87. ?????????

The Pope has the authority. Pope Francis has, though I say exactly because of his excesses, provoked a needed demystification of the Petrine Office. It is those who would have been labeled Ultramontanists [en.wikipedia.org] who are raising the concerns. The irony is that it is those who would have most aligned with the Papacy -- not one particular Pope -- are raising the questions and sounding the alarm. Those advocating an adolescent, sophomoric theology of the Papacy are the ones shouting, obey the Magisterium, period. It is the questioning of Pope Francis that is furthering the Church's understanding of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, in relation to the entire Church, especially the episcopate. Many believed that after Pastor aeternus [en.wikipedia.org] there would be no need for (Ecumenical) Councils. Pope St. John XXIII demonstrated that to be incorrect. Now we see those appealing to Tradition adding a needed nuance and limit to the Papacy in relation to the body of the episcopate and demonstrating the collegiality that VCII reinvigorated. This is the natural process of Tradition, the Church acting as it is: Agere Sequitur Esse [morallife602038257.wordpress.com]. The Pope is Peter and also and of necessity a member of the body, the college of bishops. And like Christ and His body the Church, the Pope as Peter without the body of which he is a member is no Pope at all but an individual of the worse kind.

Met Job, explicitly with historical references, in his intervention, refers to this and its context in the Eastern understanding.

Alright, thank you!

Christ is in our midst!!

Adamcsc,

This is Church News and this is news related to the Church, so you're okay.

Bob
Moderator

I offer this reflection of mine in response to the above; and beyond this, pray that subsequent threads return to those topics more critical to our eastern traditions:

The Man Who Would be Pope

Raymond Cardinal Burke is a bishop without a diocese and a Cardinal without a country; such are exiles. And His Eminence has, in great measure, exiled himself - all in the name of what he sees as the Truth. I find it strange that this cardinal-at-large even has his own website, and speaks with an authority that belies that of the Bishop of Rome who is in possession of his own diocese. Odd that he should hold in opposition a man more than twenty years his elder and who was elected at a conclave that he attended; but that’s getting a little too ad hominem.

But more to the point: How can this man so limit the authority of the man who holds the very office he so extols, quoting Council documents etc. to affirm his staunch orthodoxy? Does not the Bishop of Rome have a right to reform, and realign the Roman Curia which is at his service and more broadly at the service of the Church universal? Does he not also have the right to broaden the Synod of Bishops that grew out of the II Vatican Council to reflect on what it means to be synodal; and to have consecrated religious sisters and brothers as well as plain old male and female laics participate? Of voting members of this present and on-going Synod the vast majority are, and will be bishops, so that it does not and will not betray its episcopal character. Bishops in collaboration with the Bishop of Rome will have the final say, for certain. Lord, it's not an Ecumenical Council; but reading the cardinal's letter one would think it is. And how can Cardinal Burke so cynically deny that such a gathering cannot breathe with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Or is the clevage of a female African participant too much for his prudish ecclesial tastes? Pope Francis has been quite emphatic in saying that the Synod is not a Parliament. For one who does not like ambiguity and abstraction, I find that the exiled Cardinal engages in both to suit his own purposes.

As far as the eastern Orthodox tradition of synodality is concerned; they certainly have kept it alive, and while it can serve as an inspiration for the west, so to speak, there is no reason, as is the present case, why this cannot be expanded to include the participation of a broad spectrum of the laity, both consecrated religious men and women as well as others of the faithful. I have no specific historical data, but I am quite certain that there have been times when the laity, both regal and pedestrian, have been at a synod or two in the east.

The full title is "Head of the UGCC sets up a coordination group to translate the Holy Scriptures into Ukrainian". I wasn't quite sure where to put this, but it is Church news. I've never shared something like this here, so, please do correct me if I did something wrong.
https://ugcc.ua/en/data/head-of-the...-the-holy-scriptures-into-ukrainian-779/
Anyway, as somewhat of an inspiring polyglot and someone who has studied Ukrainian (not to the extent I'd like), I found this interesting.

Thank you; it's been a good thread!

From the link:

Note, the phrase is repeated.

Compare: Synodality versus True Identity of the Church as Hierarchical Communion [cardinalburke.com] Oct 05, 2023. Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke

That's why I posted the link and recommended it.

Correct but St. Francis wasn't a Pope either.

Well, I think I am going to wind up my final comments with regard to this discussion by referring back to the original opening. 

My opinion, is this...

Pope Francis is a reformer. Like all reformers, he is going to get static from those who feel threatened by his efforts. He upsets the tables of the temple and calls out hypocrisies, much like the Lord he serves. The status - quo does not like that. No matter what the Pope does, they are going to nit- pick him at every turn. 

Those with any kind of power or influence use conservative Catholic media- podcasts and such- to carry their message to the laity. The message of distrust of the Pope is clothed first and foremost in emotional issues like same- sex blessings, abortion, and women clergy. Those that hammer away at the message know the average Catholic is easily persuaded by, and fearful of, these highly charged issues. (They also know this brings great ratings.) Many in the laity  believe the presentations and are unwittingly enlisted against the Pope, but out of fear.  

This type of tactic, this kind of narrative, rooted in emotion and fear, is a page right out of ultra- conservative, worldly politics.........a world, by the way, of which Bishop Strickland is very familiar. It should not be the way a Church discusses issues, it is the essence of modern, reactionary politics.

And so, we are led to accept that the opposition to the Pope is based on moral issues. All along though, the majority of the laity become a pawn in the power struggle that is taking place between the princes of the Church and the reformer. (Ironically, one of the reformers' goals is to make the laity's voice more important.)

It makes no matter that Pope Francis wants to continue the reform of the Church, nor his emphasis on social justice. It makes no matter that clericalism was a main component of the abuse scandals, and the Pope wants it cast out, once and for all. Nor does it matter that the Pope is encouraging greater dialog on issues, that ignored now, will resurface down the road with greater complications. It does not matter that he points out that many of the princes of the Church live in luxury, seemingly unaware that millions of third world Catholics are living in poverty. None of this matters.

I defend Pope Francis, and I remind myself that St. Francis was no theologian, just a Saint.

The question is, of course, rhetorical; and my answer is an emphatic, “No, it does not”. In Pope Francis we have the former Archbishop of Buenos Aires who took the bus to visit his flock; no surprise that there are those who wince at his style, not to mention the name he chose as pope and his “unnuanced theology”.

I admire Bishop Barron and his “Word on Fire” ministry very much. His reflections on the Roman Synod were quite perceptive and hardly discordant. He knows that the Synod is a work in progress and seems confident that it will play out well in God’s good time. As good Saint Pope John Paul II was wont to say in quoting Jesus, “Be not afraid”. I am not, and I trust Pope Francis, whatever his time left on earth, will lead the Church to good things.

I trust also that there is much more behind the judgments regarding Bishops Torres and Strickland than meet the eye; or the press, if you will. I do not know about Bishop Torres, but Bishop Strickland was asked to tender his resignation and he did not. Though it seems he has not done so, perhaps he has a right of appeal. It seems to me that the Bishop of Rome would not have acted outside the Canons unless he had a very good reason in doing so for the good of the Church; unless, of course, he is a little more Jesuitical than we might imagine. Quote me if you will.

Prayers continue!

Lord, have mercy!

Hey y'all, I did all the paperwork for indigent care months ago, and I still haven't gotten a response. Please, continue your prayers.

Father Deacon,

Sorry for my mess up here. I hastily posted this statement before editing.

Xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx

" ....the statement does not say anyone is opposed to clericalism. How could anyone be opposed,..."

( your quote)So no one is opposed to clericalism? Including the Pope?

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

My statement was supposed to read:

".......the statement does not say anyone is opposed to the Pope's denunciation of clericalism, how could anyone be opposed, the Pope is correct, and his assertions undeniable".

Sorry for the confusion.........nothing like skipping a word or two to make the thought appear ridiculous, lol

At any rate, this conversation is very interesting. I needed to fix the above right away. Thanks for the time out.

Nothing so classical or academic as Plato. An impression -- I realize this is very subjective but my impression -- is that as Pope Francis expresses himself, and is characterized, and even lionized, as the accommodating, tolerant, inclusive, benevolent father ... but all that rather selectively. For me the case of being a clerical tyrant has a much lower threshold because my expectations are much higher of those in Orders, especially those with inherent or delegated God-given authority.

But you deserve a concrete example. It is the case of Bishop Strickland. This is not about whether one agrees or disagrees with Bishop Strickland. This has to do with the authority of the Pope as the Supreme Lawgiver in relation to the law that he gives and how he applies it and changes it at will. See Strickland’s removal was against canon law [newdailycompass.com].

A law specifying due process is good and that as such the due process should not be abrogated; that such due process is not only procedural but a matter of justice, of righteousness; it embodies a moral imperative. The argument I reject as simplistic and incorrect theology is that the Pope as "supreme" or "ultimate" or etc. is, therefore, to be understood as absolute or above the law; see Are there Any Limitations on the Power of the Pope? [canonlawmadeeasy.com].

That is the question.

Well put; I shall quote you. [To be clear, read my comment at face value and not as being snarky.]

Though about the recent Synod, but relevant to the topic of this thread, I recommend to all the wisdom of Bishop Robert Barron of the Diocese of Winona-Rochester in Minnesota: My Experience of the Synod [wordonfire.org]

'The "clericalists", of course. They know who they are,...'

Of course. " They know who they are...," but you don't or wouldn't or can't name them.


" ....the statement does not say anyone is opposed to clericalism. How could anyone be opposed,..."

So no one is opposed to clericalism? Including the Pope?

"... the validity of the Pope's claims make many uneasy, insulted, shameful, and maybe a bit vengeful...." Are these "claims" of the Pope about clericalism?

( Hutsul quote) I suspect the Pope's many statements concerning clericalism fuels a lot of his critics.

( ajk quote)Look at the statement and question. What is the connection with clericalism? I repeat: "Who is opposed to the Pope's concerns about clericalism? Doctrinal and moral issues seem to me to be the concern of the Pope's critics."

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I am looking at the statement and question.......the statement does not say anyone is opposed to clericalism. How could anyone be opposed, the Pope is correct, and his assertions undeniable.

The statement implies that the validity of the Pope's claims make many uneasy, insulted, shameful, and maybe a bit vengeful.........which they take out as criticism of the Pope in other ways.

The "clericalists", of course. They know who they are, and I think they seethe at Papa Francesco's pastoral approach to nearly everything he says and does; and are quick to quible at his unnuanced theology. But, does it rise to the level of "undermining the Deposit of Faith"? Please. It's time for all in the Church to rally around this humble and holy Bishop of Rome in what could be the final years of his life. "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone."