Fri 31st Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 31st Oct 2014 at 14:03pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo

Latest News

Cardinal Burke withdraws from London conference at last minute

By on Wednesday, 1 June 2011

Cardinal Burke is one of the highest-placed officials at the Vatican (CNS photo)

Cardinal Burke is one of the highest-placed officials at the Vatican (CNS photo)

Mystery surrounds the unexpected withdrawal of Cardinal Raymond Burke as the main speaker at a conference organised by Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice at Westminster Central Hall on June 18.

The Faith of our Fathers conferences, which began in 1996, have traditionally attracted high-profile speakers such as Mother Angela, founder of the Eternal Word Television Network. As prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, Cardinal Burke oversees the administration of justice in the Church. He was to have spoken on “The Restoration of Church Discipline and Evangelisation”. He has long been seen as one of the most outspoken US bishops and, since his elevation to the College of Cardinals by Pope Benedict last November, is one of the highest-placed officials at the Vatican.

Daphne McLeod, chairman of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, said that Cardinal Burke had been informed by “several devout and faithful people” that his speaking at the conference would be divisive because Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice “are too outspoken and don’t have respect for the bishops”.

“We’re whistle-blowers, and we have enemies,” she said.

She would not say who she thought had issued this warning, but said the impression was given that if the cardinal speaks, “because he’s so close to the Pope it’ll look as if he’s speaking for the Pope and attacking the bishops – which is crazy”, she said.

Cardinal Burke came to prominence outside the Church during the 2004 American presidential elections, when he publicly stated that Democratic candidate John Kerry and other Catholic politicians who supported legalised abortion should not be allowed to receive the Eucharist.

  • EditorCT

     And so would I.  Without a second thought.

  • Bellevuetarn

    Please, please, please – let us not concentrate so much upon the content of people’s trousers and what they may or may not do with it.

    In the case of a layman, that is between himself and his partner and God. In the case of a ‘priest’ what he does is likely to give public scandal so I agree that it is all our business. In my seminary - to speak conservatively – covert homophilia was the order of the day for about 60% of the house and they, for the most part, were the ‘balanced’ ones who knew how to keep their desires where they belonged.

    I do not think ‘Archbishop Nichols’ amounts to more than a row of beans, sub specie aeternitatis. For me he is not very much better than a liberal protestant who masquerades in catholic garb to which he shows less and less entitlement. We really should lift our eyes and our sights a little higher than below some man’s belt area.

    The Church proper – the authenic Catholic Church is controlled by modernists. It is a simple facy that becomes ever clearer. By rights most of these ‘bishops’ should not be there. Had they any honour (those who took the Anti-Modernist Oath) they would have shoved off, years ago. They could have gone to the Anglicans. Better that than squat where they have no right to be. Most of the pseudo-heirarchy of England and Wales and all too many of their ‘presbyters’ are parasites and cuckoos in the catholic nest. They leech the offerings of the catholic – they live well on them, too - while signally failing publicly to hold and teach the Catholic Faith. They befoul the nest and disseminate false, liberal and sometimes positively heretical doctrine while they masquerade as Bishops and ‘presbyters’.  We have to concentrate on them, on their scandalous imposturings and we must spread the reality of the Gospel and the fulness of Catholic Teaching, a thing that liberal protestants and their ‘experts’ are inherently incapable of doing.

  • Bellevuetarn

    This by way of a monitum. Some of my postings fail to appear. I wonder why……any ideas?

  • Bellevuetarn

    Raymond Burke is one of Benedict-Ratzinger’s cardinals and has a record of
    “messing up ” badly.

    Cardinal Burke has had a very bad record. He
    began as Bishop of LaCrosse, Wisconsin, USA, where he “consecrated” a
    “transgendered” man as a “nun.” The scandal was so great that he was translated to St. Louis, Missouri where he appears by the evidence to steal a church
    that was not his property. This scandal wasso embarrassing that Pope Benedict-Ratzinger decided that Burke had to be removed from the
    United States, to be placed essentially under a form of house arrest. It would only have required the Vatican to bug his splendid Roman appartment (free, of course) and attach a tag to his leg to make its surveillance of him better and closer. Pope Benedict – an accomplished spin-doctor in his own right and allegedly, in his previous incarnation a wonderful sanitiser of ecclesiastical messes, appointed Cardiunal Burke to what is for him a quasi-sinecure as Prefect of the
    Apostolic Signatura. He is no great Canonist so he is unable to bring any notable expertise to what should be an highly responsible post. Word is that hewas given the job to keep him under the sights of those who govern the new church at Rome. He could be “watched” according to the
    ecclesiastical mechanism moveatur, ut amoveatur. None can really think this ‘prelate’ a defender of orthodox Chrisianity. This is the same
    technique that was used to remove Bernard Law,
    ex-archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts. Read for the full low-down – you will not find the information and the supporting evidence on ‘official’ church sites

  • Florin S.

    You are a liar…I know Cardinal Burke personally and what you say are lies…and watch out or you will be sued for malicious slander…what an evil person you must be!!!!

  • No Longer Deceived

    and I know the Truth…poor person

  • No Longer Deceived

    I  am not a liar – but you are something far worse viz. you are a fool.

    I give not a fiddler’s fart for your words and I give even less for Burke’s suing me. Let him do it. 

    Bring it on, Florin S…bring it on, fool!

  • Florin S.

    the devil ‘knows’ the truth too but spouts lies…I’ve sent your link to Cardinal Burke and others in Rome -they know how to deal with evil…may the evil you spread fall back on you – in greater measure!!!

  • EditorCT

    I’m surprised that the Catholic Herald is permitting you to brand someone a liar.  That is a very serious charge.

    But, listen: if you’re in personal contact with Cardinal Burke, will you ask him if he’s read my letter yet and if so, when can we expect a full apology for his outragous capitulation to liberalism by withdrawing from the PEEP  conference.

    Oh  and tell him that only this morning I had a conversation with a Scottish priest during which I told him to never, ever, EVER again try  to  convince me again that Cardinal Burke is one of the “good guys”.  He knew perfectly well the work Pro Ecclesia have been doing for years; he met Daphne and praised her work and encouraged her to continue. Then, at the first prod from the enemies of the Church, he does their bidding. Coward.  Make sure you tell  him I said that now, you hear, Florence? 

    Finally, your nasty threatening message to Bellevuetarn, complete with silly name-dropping (who cares if you know Cardinal  Burke personally?) merely confirms your own liberalism.  And no Catholic can be a “liberal” – Catholics are either faithful or unfaithful. 

    I trust you will apologise to Bellevuetarn for calling  him a liar when you are not in a position to judge his motives, or to know whether he has deliberately spoken or written falsehoods or whether he just knows more than you.  I urge you  to apologise or, if they are to be equitable, since others have been blocked from this site for less, the Catholic Herald will surely kiss you goodbye.

  • Florin S.

    You go on Catholic Lane to defend Lefebvre and now I know where you are coming from…

  • Joan

     Is it OK to call Cardinal Burke “Burke” and if not why do you call Archbishop Lefebvre “Lefebvre”?

    At least Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t run away and cower in a corner when faced with a decision of whether to remain popular (Pope John Paul II called him “my best General”) or act like a man, no matter what.

  • Anonymous

    I think no one know that why Cardinal Burke withdraws from London conference at last minute. According to me there is some personal reason of Cardinal Burke. 
    Sexual Assault

  • Friend of Burke

    I realize I am coming late to this thread but I cannot let this stand.  I too know Cardinal Burke personally, knew him when he was Bishop of La Crosse.  There was a very unfortunate incident concerning a “transgendered” individual.  But this is going to come as a shock to those who can see nothing but malevolence in Catholic bishops.  Bishop Burke was duped and at that time he was just inexperienced enough and truly innocent enough not to fathom that such a person would actually pursue the religious life in the Roman Catholic Church.  The implication that he did this knowingly is groundless and malicious.

    The rest from “Bellevuetarn” is pure make-believe.  The matter in La Crosse was corrected.  There was no great scandal.  Had any of you heard of it before you read about it here?  The notion that a bishop would be transferred from a backwater like La Crosse to a major metropolitan archdiocese like St. Louis as a punishment is absurd on its face and comes backed up by no evidence whatsoever from “Bellevuetarn”.  He then proceeds to make the unsubstantiated charge that His Excellency tried to “steal a church”.  He says this appears “by the evidence” but does he cite any evidence?  Can this be anything but a reference to the incident over St. Stanislaus Kostka, a situation which Cardinal Burke inherited from his predecessors and which ended in the thoroughly liberal and defiant congregation bringing in their own excommunicated priest whose “non-orthodox views include allowing priests to marry and permitting women and homosexuals to be ordained.”?

    See the Wikipedia article about this and judge for yourself whether Cardinal Burke is some sort of milksop afraid to defend the Faith,_Missouri%29

    The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has rejected former-Father Bozek’s appeal and Pope Benedict XVI supported Cardinal Burke by removing Bozek from the clerical state.  Does this sound like Rome was so embarrassed by Cardinal Burke’s actions that they brought him to Rome to place him “essentially under a form of house arrest”?  What sort of paranoid nonsense is it that thinks Rome needs to keep him under “surveillance”?  Watch out “Bellevuetarn”, but Masons are tunneling under your house.

    The sedevacantist “traditio” site does not give any “low-down”, just the same unsubstantiated charges and malicious spin.

    I do not know much about the PEeP but I will tell you this.  If the individuals attacking Cardinal Burke on this thread are representative of that group’s supporters then he can count himself truly blessed to have nothing to do with them.

  • Nat_ons

    I take no issue with you, in fact I like what you have to say; yet, it has an unkindly spirit with it too – a sigh of righteous rage, of outraged justice, of an injustice condemned. I have little truck with the strident or worse the silent worldly spirit of modernism; this can have no place in Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, today and all tomorrows. Nonetheless, I love still those who are rapt in its appeal – for much of this is in and of itself good, and godly-good at that (love, outreach, compassion); its errors are to be opposed, and vigorously, but not the desire for Christ – the problem is not Christ but that the errors so vastly outweigh the witness to Christ.

    As for ecumenical services with non-Roman obedience Rites, these certainly occurred even with Rome’s approval and instigation. The whole Pavia-Siena-Basle-Florence-Ferrara sequence are full of such hopes, desires and realities .. moreso than any vapid modernistic equivalent (that these to failed owes as much to geo-political hostility as the one faith – the 1050CE schism line is a case in point, communion of sorts did continue in various ways). And tolerance of non-Orthodox/Catholic/Roman belief systems – heathen, Jewish, Gnostic, Marcionist, Arian – although straightforwardly non-existent in liturgical practice, in practical terms there was indeed, at times, less division than polemical rhetoric might allow (Innocent I permitted heathen sacrifices to the pagan defenders of Rome, heretics and Catholics shared common Marian devotion, Christians popularly if improperly shared in Jewish festivals cf John Chrysostom, Sermon II).

    None of this practical getting-along-with sort of toleration at the community or official level in any way absolves the current practice of equivalence of rite, belief or custom. And the modern ecumenist would indeed find it hard to defend such equivocation on the unique character of orthodox catholicism in the body of Christ, let alone suggest any sincere hermeneutic of continuity with Chrysostom, et al; as, of course, there must be, or it should be restored double quick where there has been a wandering from it, if Christ is the same. Shrinking from history, however, is not the catholic way, even where history is unpalatable to catholic ways: past or present or prescient; so seeking to understand how, where or even if catholic orthodoxy may share common truths and express these in culturally tolerable fellowship let alone advance them in mutual support cannot be answered in the context of communal worship .. as way too many so-called ecumenical souls have persuaded themselves .. Christian communion is an end in itself not a means, Catholic worship is not the public witness of a public sentiment for the pleasure of the public even if some would have it treated as such, and ecumenism if true to Christ can only be a means of household management = greeting the stranger, welcoming the guest, enfolding the kith, but always upholding rules of God’s house (not making up one’s own, whether in tradition or as novelty).

    God bless, Nat.

  • Nat_ons

    I cannot read the hearts of other men, let alone their minds, B, yet we may discern something of their souls .. looking first into our own.

    It is clear that the inner turmoil of a modernist spirit at work continues to cast souls adrift, stir up their lives in tumult and even draw many to a shipwreck of faith: irrespective of veiling over the concealed breast – not least in the presbyterate: Lord help us!

    In this, as in all things, the firmly orthodox and catholic Christian may trust only to God; the Holy Ghost will not so easily be dismissed as He is not deceived, however much souls in oversight may seek privately to ignore Him – it is He who enlivens the body as a whole, not them .. and that is the key, let them not dismiss this easily, but with humbled, submissive obedience require this faith of them also who lead.

    Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing — for that would be harmful to you. Heb 13 : 17.

    God Bless, Nat.