Burke: "I'm not against the Pope. They want to discredit those who defend the teaching of the Church"
In recent months has been portrayed as a fanatic ultraconservative anticonciliarista, conspiracy against Pope Francis, even ready to a schism if the Synod opened to unwelcome changes. The campaign is so strong that even in Italy several bishops have refused to accommodate his lectures in their dioceses. And when it somewhere he is allowed to hold a meeting - as recently in some cities of northern Italy - is invariably the priests who contested it, accusing him of spreading propaganda against the Pope. "They are all nonsense, just do not understand this attitude. I never said a word against the Pope, I strive only to serve the truth, a task that we all have. I've always seen my work, my activities as a support to the Petrine ministry. People who know me can testify that I'm not a Pope. On the contrary I have always been very loyal and I've always wanted to serve the Holy Father, which I do even now. "I am curious as to the identity of and reasons given by any bishop who refused to allow Cardinal Burke to lecture in their dioceses.
In fact, meeting him in his apartment around the corner from St. Peter's Square, with those affable and her talking very spontaneous appears thousand miles away from the image of dour defender of "cold doctrine", as described by the mainstream press. Cardinal Burke, yet in the debate that preceded and followed the first Synod on the family some of his statements are actually played as a criticism of Pope Francis, or so they have been interpreted. For example, recently made a lot of noise that his "I will resist, resist" as a possible response to the Pope's decision to grant communion to divorced and remarried.
But it was a sentence misrepresented, there was no reference to Pope Francis. I believe that because I have always spoken very clearly on the issue of marriage and the family, some want dipingendomi neutralize me as an enemy of the Pope, or even ready to schism, just using that answer I gave in an interview with a French television .
So as to be interpreted that answer?
It is very simple. The journalist asked me what I would do if hypothetically - not referring to Pope Francis - a pontiff to take decisions against the doctrine and practice of the Church against. I said that I should resist, because we are all in the service of truth, starting with the Pope. The Church is not a political body in the sense of power. The power is Jesus Christ and his gospel. To this I replied that I will resist and would not be the first time that this happens in the Church. There were several moments in history where someone had to stand up to the Pope, beginning with St. Paul against St. Peter, in the story of giudeizzanti, who wanted to impose circumcision to the converted Greek. But in my case I'm not at all doing resistance to Pope Francis, because he did nothing against the doctrine. And I do not see myself at all in the fight against the Pope, as they want to paint me. I'm not pursuing the interests of a group or a party, I just try to be as Cardinal teacher of the faith.
Another "count of indictment" against him is his alleged passion for "lace", as we say in a demeaning way, something that the Pope can not stand.
The Pope has ever made me learn to be sorry the way I dress, which, however, was still within the norm of the Church. I celebrate the liturgy even in the extraordinary form of the Roman rite and there are for this vestments that do not exist for the celebration in the ordinary form, but I always wear what the rule is for the ritual that I am celebrating. I do not do politics against the way of dressing of the Pope. Then you have to also say that every Pope has his own style, but it's not that then imposes this to all other bishops. I do not understand why this should be a cause for controversy.
But the newspapers often used a photo in which she wears a headdress definitely out of time ...
Ah, that, but it's amazing. I can explain. It is a picture that has spread after the sheet has used it to publish an interview with me during the Synod. The interview was done well, but unfortunately have taken a photo out of context, and I'm sorry because this way they gave the wrong impression of a person living in the past. It was in fact happened that, after being appointed cardinal, I was invited in a diocese of South Italy for a conference on the liturgy. For the occasion, the organizers wanted to give me the gift of a former cardinal's hat that does not know where he could find. Obviously it in my hand and I had no intention of wearing it regularly, but he asked me to be able to do at least one photo with the hat I wear. This was the only time I put that hat on my head, but unfortunately that picture has been all over the world and someone uses it to give the impression that I go around like that. But I've never worn, even in a ceremony.
She was also listed as the inspiration if not the promoter of the "Petition to Pope Francis on the family", which was released for collecting signatures on a few sites in the world traditionalist.
I signed that document, but it is not my initiative or my idea. Nor I wrote or co-wrote the text. Who says otherwise stated falsely. For all I know is an initiative of lay people, I was shown the text and I signed it, as have many other cardinals.
Another of the charges put to him is to be anti-conciliarist, against the Second Vatican Council.
Are labels that are easy to apply, but there is no basis in reality. All my theological education in the major seminary was based on the documents of Vatican II, and I am still trying today to study more deeply these documents. I'm not at all opposed to the council, and if one reads my writings will find that many times I quote the documents of Vatican II. One on which however do not agree is the "Spirit of the Council", this realization of the council who is not faithful to the text of the documents but that purports to create something totally new, a new church that has nothing to do with all the so called aberrations of the past. In this I follow fully the bright presentation that made Benedict XVI in his address to the Roman Curia for Christmas 2005. It is the famous speech in which he explains that the correct interpretation is that of reform in continuity, as opposed to hermeneutics of rupture in the discontinuity that many sectors carry on. The intervention of Benedict XVI is brilliant and explains everything. Many things that happened after the Council and attributed to the council have nothing to do with the council. This is the simple truth.
But the fact remains that Pope Francis has "punished" by removing it from the Apostolic Signatura and entrusting the patronage of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.
The Pope gave an interview with Argentine newspaper La Nacion that has already answered this question by explaining the reasons for this choice. This says it all, and not for me to comment. I can only say, without violating any secret, that the Pope, I was never told or given the impression that he wanted to punish me for something.
What is certain is that his "bad image" has to do with what Cardinal Kasper also, in recent days, called the "battle synodal". That seems to grow in intensity as you get closer to the Ordinary Synod next October. Where are we?
I would say that there is now a much more extensive discussion on the topics covered by the Synod and that's good. There is a greater number of cardinals, bishops and lay people who are intervening and this is very positive. I do not understand why all the noise that was created last year around the book "To remain in the Truth of Christ", to which I have contributed along with other four cardinal and four specialists on marriage.
That's where I was born the theory of a plot against the Pope, a view echoed recently by Alberto Melloni in the Corriere della Sera, and that cost him a lawsuit by the publisher Italian Cantagalli.
It is simply absurd. How you can be accused of conspiracy against the Pope those with what the Church has always taught and practiced on marriage and communion? It is certain that the book was written as an aid for the Synod to answer the thesis of Cardinal Kasper. But it is not controversial, is a presentation faithful to the tradition, and is also the highest scientific quality possible. I totally available to receive criticism about the content, but to say that we have taken part in a plot against the Pope is unacceptable.
But who is fomenting this witch hunt?
I do not have any direct information but surely there is a group that wants to impose on the Church not only this thesis of Cardinal Kasper on communion for divorced and remarried, or for people in irregular situations, but also other positions on issues related to the themes of the Synod. I refer to the idea of finding the positive elements in sexual relations outside of marriage or homosexual. It is evident that there are forces pushing in this direction, and for that they want to discredit us who are trying to defend the Church's teaching. I have nothing personal against Cardinal Kasper, for me the question is only to present the Church's teaching, which in this case is related to words spoken by the Lord.
Looking at some of the themes that emerged strongly in the Synod, it is back to talk about gay lobby.
Are not able to pinpoint, but I see more and more that there is a force that goes in this direction. I see people who, consciously or unconsciously, are carrying out homosexual agenda. How this is organized not know, but it is evident that there is a force of this kind. At the Synod we have said that talking about homosexuality had nothing to do with the family, rather would have to convene a special Synod if you wanted to talk about this issue. But we found in Relatio post disceptationem this issue that had not been discussed by the fathers.
One of the theological justifications in support of Cardinal Kasper that today is very repeated is that of the "development of doctrine". Not a change, but a depth which can lead to a new practice.
Here there is a big misunderstanding. The development of the doctrine, as it has for example presented by Blessed Cardinal Newman or other good theologians, means a deepening in appreciation, knowledge of a doctrine, not the change of doctrine. The development in any case leads to change. One example is that of the Post-Synodal written by Pope Benedict XVI on the Eucharist, the "Sacramentum Caritatis", it is presented the development of the knowledge of the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, also expressed in Eucharistic adoration. There were some in fact contrary to Eucharistic adoration, because the Eucharist is to be received within. But Benedict XVI explained - also citing s. Augustine - that if it is true that the Lord gives us himself in the Eucharist to be consumed, it is also true that you can not recognize this reality of Jesus' presence under the Eucharistic species without worshiping these species. This is an example of the development of doctrine, but it is not that the doctrine on the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist has changed.
One reason that back in the controversy on the Synod is the alleged opposition between doctrine and practice, doctrine and mercy. Even the pope insists often self-righteous attitude of those who use the doctrine preventing distance love.
I think you have to distinguish between what the Pope said on a few occasions and those who claim a contrast between doctrine and practice. You can never admit in the Church a contrast between doctrine and practice because we live the truth that Christ tells us in his holy Church and the truth is never a cool thing. It is the truth that opens to us the space for love, to really love you must respect the truth of the person, and the person in the particular situations in which it is located. So establish a kind of contrast between doctrine and practice does not reflect the reality of our faith. Who supports the thesis of Cardinal Kasper - change of discipline that does not touch the doctrine - should explain how it is possible. If the Church admits to communion a person who is related in a marriage but is living with another person another marriage relationship, that is in a state of adultery, as you can afford this and feel at the same time that marriage is indissoluble? The relationship between doctrine and practice is a false contrast that we must reject.
But it is true that you can use the doctrine without love.
Sure, and that's what the pope is denouncing, use of the law or doctrine to advance a personal agenda, to dominate people. But that does not mean there is a problem with the doctrine and discipline; only there are people of ill will commit abuses that may for example by interpreting the law in a way that harm people. Or applying the law without love, insist on the truth of the situation of the person but without love. Even when a person is in serious sin we must love the person and help as the Lord has made with the adulteress and the Samaritan woman. He was very clear in announcing the state of sin in which they were, but at the same time showed a great love by inviting them to come out of this situation. What did not the Pharisees, which instead showed a cruel legalism: denouncing the violation of the law, but without giving any help to the person to exit from sin, so as to find peace in his life.
"La campagna è così forte che anche in Italia diversi vescovi si sono rifiutati di ospitare sue conferenze nelle proprie diocesi."
Can that be accurate?