Skip to main content

Cardinal Burke Culpably Seeks a Stance of Powerlessness

In a recent interview with Ed Pentin published at the National Catholic Register, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke went into greater detail than before, regarding the mysterious disappearance of the promised “formal correction” upon which so many had pinned their hopes. 

Why has no group of Cardinals challenged the openly heretical, openly abusive, and questionably legitimate Bergoglio? Pentin and a growing number of faithful demand to know.  The stance adopted by His Eminence, if reported accurately by the utterly reliable Pentin is to be believed, is positively mind-boggling for an attitude which can only be characterized as elective futility.

“Is there such a group?” Cardinal Burke is said to have responded, as though this rhetorical question of his might substitute for vindication of Christ’s truth against the assaults of Amoris and the Amazonian Synod.  A shrug at the crack of a gun; a sigh at the sight of a rape.  It is being reported elsewhere that--to his credit, as far as it goes--His Eminence did attempt to assemble such a group, to no avail.  In which case, why not act alone?
Two reasons, apparently: one, that throughout the history of the Church, only groups and not individuals like himself have approached an errant Pope in this way, and secondly, that he himself, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, is not “the savior of the Church.”

Here His Eminence echoes a mentality if not peculiar to modern man, then certainly showcased by him.  Showcased, in particular, by a man noted in history as “Henry Q.,” who offered as justification of his conduct and that of his confreres, to researcher Robert Jay Lifton, that:

we suffered and acted within the limits of the possible.1
They did what they could, in other words, and what they could not do they did not attempt.  They had not the position nor the numbers to make any real difference--or so they judged, regarding as meaningless or (far worse) as misguided any gesture through which the less prudent might be tempted to catch sight of a glimmer of the one real fault a person can commit in their sight; namely, heroism itself.  Theirs is a colorless cosmos in the last analysis, these calculating moderns.  It isn’t as though Henry Q. wasn’t a good man, in his heart.  It’s just that the term “good German” has come to mean something very evil indeed.  The ones who “suffered and acted within the limits of the possible” were, of course, those who collaborated in the National Socialist program of the destruction of life devoid of value—in the euthanasia program which led up to the Holocaust, in other words, and generally speaking in the Holocaust itself.

Anyone who has read through the transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials is very familiar with the particular excuse which Cardinal Burke has so staggeringly, so stereotypically proffered.  War criminal after war criminal advert to it repeatedly throughout the transcripts—how they were only “doing their duty,” how nothing else was to be attempted against a system so omnipotent and perverse.  The same mentality crops up in our own culture when someone proclaims, always hollowly, “It’s above my pay grade!”  Another form of the stance of assumed powerlessness is the “Catholic” politician who rather conveniently claims to be “personally opposed to abortion, but . . . “

Neither Cardinal Burke nor any one of us has any right to be “personally opposed to Bergoglio, but . . .”  It is profoundly anti-Christian to “suffer and act within the limits of the possible,” when the Sacred Scriptures assure us that through Our Blessed Mother, “nothing shall be impossible with God” (Lk. 1:37).  Do you think it is humble of Cardinal Burke, to assert that he himself is “not the savior of the Church”?  What if God Almighty both wants and intends him to be (in an instrumental but providential sense), as was Saint Athanasius during the Arian Crisis, as were Saints John Fisher and Thomas More in the days of Henry VIII?  It is as though the child from whom Our Lord once asked for some loaves and fishes (Jn. 6:9) should have refused Him instead, declaring, “I’ll keep what I have, which is little enough, thank-you-very-much.  Can’t you count?  Who do you think I am, anyway--the savior of this hungry crowd?”

 1.        In Lifton, Robert Jay.  The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide (New York: Basic, 1986), p. 238.
Note: This article is by a Catholic Monitor contributor.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Comments

Aqua said…
Read the story of Judith.

The entire Jewish nation is under siege, collapsed and ready to surrender to Nebuchadnezzar’s General Holofernes and his assembled hordes.

The fighting men and elders: “Doomed. Give them the city. Accept terms of slavery”.

Judith, newly widowed, hears this talk of bargain and surrender, emerges from mourning and scolds the lack of faith and valor in the Jewish men.

“God is not a human being to be bargained with, or put to the test, nor can we ever hope to understand God’s mind.
We do not know what the person beside us is thinking, even if it is someone we love – just as they do not really know what we are thinking. How then can we expect to know what is in the mind of God?” (Judith 8: 12-17)

She goes forth, an army of one woman (God with her) into the General’s tent and chops off his head; the army flees. Israel liberated by an army of one faithful woman.

It is always, always this in God’s economy. It is always the small, the outnumbered, the lost causes that win God’s battles.

God would prefer one faithful Cardinal in this battle, I am quite sure of it. That is all the material God needs to sweep this evil away.

Red feather said…
We’ve waited seven years for our Judith to confront Bergoglio. Bet he’d go running scared if someone really confronted his shennanigans.

Cardinal Burke’s recent words are stunning. He really is a pantywaist. Sarah? Mueller? Won’t somebody step up?

Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Wernz-Vidal: "One cannot consider as Schismatics those who Refuse to Obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person Suspect or, because of Widespread Rumors, Doubtfully Elected"

    Pope Francis is tottering on the precipice of Hell. None of this means he isn't the pope, and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right. Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave has come out and said the election was rigged and Bergoglio isn't the pope, that he is in fact an anti-pope . If he is, a future pope can declare that, when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope. But if the very men gathered in conclave haven't made that public accusation,  anyone who is suggesting that better take into account that they too will have to give an account of themselves to Almighty God when they die . Such talk adds to the scandal of the "little ones," the simple, even potential converts, who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media saying he's not really the pope, draw back from approaching the Church. Do any of us desire to stand in front Our Blessed Lord as the Supreme Judge and explain why, in our desire for more c

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk