Cardinal Burke Amazed that Cardinal Kasper Claimed to be Speaking For Pope Francis
Cardinal Burke would be the first to say that the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, which begins this Sunday, needs to address a host of concerns arising from the almost universal ignorance and confusion over the meaning and goods of marriage and family. Speaking to journalists this week in a conference call arranged by Ignatius Press, publisher of “Remaining in the Truth of Christ,” to which Cardinal Burke contributed an essay, the Cardinal explained:
“We have to admit that in a totally secularized society our teaching has been radically defective for the past 50 years. We must address these two things: the radical secularization of society and the sad defect with respect to catechesis.” He, and probably all the experts and journalists on the call, were hoping to explore the many other topics and potential solutions addressed in the Synod’s Instrumentum Laboris.
And yet, Cardinal Kasper’s proposal at February’s Extraordinary Consistory — to develop a process through which divorced and remarried Catholics could again receive the Eucharist — is not the elephant in the room, but a whole herd of stomping, trumpeting elephants: impossible to ignore, no matter how much one wishes they’d go away.
And because silence is not an option, as Cardinal Burke remarked, when one is faced with “things being said that are not true,” he spoke repeatedly and forcefully in defense of the truth.
At the outset, Cardinal Burke made it clear that the Kasper proposal had already been asked and answered:
, and they were thoroughly discussed and the Church gave the response in accord with the Tradition.
Asked to elaborate on the direction the conversation is taking, with so much attention being paid to Cardinal Kasper’s proposal, Cardinal Burke underscored how extreme he believes Cardinal Kasper’s position to be:
Cardinal Burke and his coauthors concluded that “the direction proposed by Cardinal Kasper is flawed fundamentally. He erred and so I [Cardinal Burke] believe the book is a very positive contribution to get the dialogue back on track.”