Burke's tactics may ultimately aid reformers

Yes, the actions of Abp Burke are rather lame, as those on the so-called liberal periphery are so disgusted with the church anyway, they are choosing disobedience which is probably their last stand before actually choosing to walk away from the Church altogether. By making a big deal of a few churches and individuals taking controversial stands, he not only is banishing them from the church but also making martyrs out of them and creating support from more moderate souls in the church who would have otherwise been content to muddle along with the status quo. The folks doing the so-called disobedience have reached the point of "What do I have to lose?" "I'm ready to go anyway." In a time of dwindling membership and dearth of priests, I wonder if it is a wise move for a bishop to further alienate those who are already on the brink. Those on the brink are apt to take quite a few of the stationary ones along with them.
The effect of all this is that if you eliminate the dissenters on the left and they take their supporters with them then you are left with the conservatives and middle group. The middle group then becomes the "new left" in contrast with the "right." The effect is like a melting ice burg with the end result being just a mere puddle.

You need a little course in church history.
Many of the presently revered saints or people in the
church were pushed to the brink at one time,
including Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of
Siena, the Jesuits, John Courtney Murray, Mary Ward, John
Henry Newman, Matteo Ricci, Hildegard of Bingen, etc. not to
mention Jesus.....and look what they did to him!

Have a look at 'Faithful Dissenters-Stories of Men and
Women Who Loved and Changed the Church.'

The Holy Spirit blows where he will, no matter how some
people try to prevent it.
Only dead things don't change.

Perhaps this is the only administrative model that Archbishop Burke knows - how sad that the Church has not been able to adapt their models to reflect the changing times and the changing dynamics of the world today. Many people resist change at all costs because change is very hard. But some change is inevitable and even necessary for growth. I hope the hierarchy realize that people like Louise Lears and Sean Collins, formerly of St. Cronan church, and all of the people who signed thepetitionsite are ready for certain changes now and are willing to act on their conscience.
Kate Lears (one of Louise's biological sisters)

Yes, many older Catholics agree with you, but if we look to the Youth rallies, the new monasteries and religious orders being formed today, the tide seems to be turning. Pope Benedict always said that the church should enter into a period where the church is not as large but is more faithful to what we actually believe as Catholics. Our goal isn't to reduce our system of beliefs based upon popularity or opinion polls; our goal is to be faithful to the deposit of faith which has guided us for 2000 years.

For sure, there exists two different church models, and these differences are becoming clearer and their defenders are becoming increasing more confrontational. Catholics aren't Episcoplians and I doubt we would be as accomodating when it comes to the distribution of church properties. We are headed for a major schism and maybe it is time to accept that reality. For many of us whom you call as Traditionalists are just as angry and bitter, but not against Archbishop Burke but against many here online who only look at the church through their own set of eyes. For 50 years you have had the opportunity to show to us how this new Vatican II church ought to be, instead you gave us Pedophile priests, nuns hell bent on being ordained, and catechsim reduced to least common denominator. Worse, we had to suffer through various liturigcal inventions that would make the Early Church martyrs scream for vindication. We have learned that the Eucharist is only a meal; that Jesus is just one Way to the Father and that the church should change her teachings on human sexuality because the post Vatican II church leaders have decided it to be so. For many, the Pope is some type of vilian trying to impose the Inquisition upon the entire church.

Not once did this newspaper or its readers ask one fundamental question of Sister Lears. Why did she decide to actively participate in a liturgy that was declared void and illict, knowing fully that her direct participation would create a scandal in the church. It is one thing to talk or to speak or to write about women's ordination, and it is something entirely different to make a liturgical gesture such as a blessing over what the church has deemed as impossible, void and illicit.

Many NCR readers want to have a church that does not exist and you are so full of rage and anger that you don't realize that many Catholics who are the middle of things find both sides extremely rude and uncharitable.

Finally, when you travel the same circles, when you speak to the same types of people, when you read the same type of literature, books and periodicals, you begin to believe that your views are the majority. Isn't that just a little bit arrogant. Do the readers here really think that the majority of active Catholics actually agree with them? I'm saying, come on.

Many of the really good "people managers" who were in the priesthood
are now out in the private sector, doing very will as leaders in
private industry, supporting their wives and children.

The "old bachelors' club" lost them.

But their Holy Orders are still valid, if only the would be invited
back, bringing with them their experience in "the world."

Many of the potentially good "people managers" who could be in the
priesthood are barred, by virtue of possessing no "Y" chromosome.

Yet the "old bachelors'" club wails and gnashes its teeth at their
increasing per capita work-load and dwindling numbers. While simultaneously
punishing anyone who would dare suggest that they change.

Burke is one of those "old bachelors."

Re the editorial on Archbishop Burke: A prayer answered. I knew the only way Rome could get him out of the thick of US politics was to promote him out. C'est finis.
Now for your example of His Grace's negatives: his favor of Latin and colorful costumes and pageantry were just about the only side of him that I liked! Why can't one be a "progressive" Catholic and still like tradition? Must our religion always be so dour and bland? It ought to be fun! It seems there are a few others out there like myself who like "the old ways" but without the overly dogmatic and juridical baggage. Put from the other side: one can see the silliness of so much sexual "morality" without getting trapped in PC & LC (liturgical correctness).

Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus.

The ongoing saga of the pedophile priests and their enabling bishops brought into focus that the first priority of most bishops in this country apparently is to preserve the physical/temporal structure of the Church and their place in it. The spiritual welfare of the laity appears to be a distant second. With that in mind the conservative hierarchy tends towards an arrogant use of their power and, at least in a pastoral sense, combined with an egregious lack of common sense. Archbishop Burke is the poster boy for this approach to Church affairs. His new position in Rome probably is more suited to him than anything that is remotely pastoral in nature.

Archbishop Burke spoke the truth, and this much has never changed--those who speak the truth are often reviled. The Archbishop gave Louise Lears and others who chose to ignore Church teaching both the time and opportunity to repent and come home to Holy Mother Church, but they simply refused. God bless Archbishop Burke for being the fine shepherd that he is; may his influence be great in the worldwide Church. As to Louise Lears and the others who follow in her footsteps, I pray for their souls daily.

Not pastoral, eh? Tell that to the television reporter then-Bishop Burke met at a meeting with journalists he had during the Jubilee Year in La Crosse. The bishop had met him on only one previous occasion. But the first question out of the bishop's mouth to the reporter was, "How are your mother and your grandmother?" The reporter was shocked because the bishop had remembered that they were both suffering from whatever it was. But of course, that's not pastoral.

And what is shocking is that NCR should overlook the archbishop's past chairmanship of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference. His advocacy of the Green Ribbon Campaign (http://www.ncrlc.com/greenribbon.html) still carries on today. I saw a recent photo of him with the green ribbon on his lapel. In La Crosse, he was very clear in his opposition to large feedlot operations and in his support for sustainable agriculture, so much so that he frequently received nasty phone calls and letters from large feedlot operators complaining about it. Convenient to forget that when one has an agenda to push, isn't it?

I had the wonderful opportunity to meet the great Archbishop Burke at a pro-life conference in Lincoln NE. I just spoke to him briefly, thanking him for his courage. As had been obvious to see before the day that I met him, he was truly a gentle man. He asked me to pray for him. I continue to do so.
Speaking of Lincoln NE, it should be obvious, but for some reason it isn't to many, the dioceses headed by great bishops, such as Burke, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Archbishop Chaput of Denver, and a growing number of other bishops who strictly follow the Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church, are the dioceses that are thriving. They have an abundance of priests, seminarians, sisters, and their pews are packed.
When I have attended Mass in Lincoln, the pews have been packed with all ages, including many families and many young people. Young people hunger for actual truth, not watered down feel goodism. Have you noticed the number of young people at World Youth Days, the Marches for Life, or who were at the funeral of Pope John Paul II?
And the last I checked, the number of seminarians has greatly increased in St. Louis under the leadership of Archbishop Burke, even after the diocese was well lead under now Cardinal Rigali.
"Thankfully," NCR heroes, Bishops Weakland and Gumbleton and Father McBrien aren't polarizing.
Archbishop Burke will be greatly missed in St. Louis and the U.S., the land of the pro-abortion "Catholic" politician.
Leave it to The National Catholic Reporter to quote a, dubious at best Catholic, U.S. president when pathetically comparing a great Catholic archbishop(soon to be Cardinal, and who knows) to Bull Connor. So, according to NCR, strictly following the Canon Law of the Catholic Church is to Catholics, as fire hoses and police dogs were to African Americans in the days of Bull Connor. This is sick, and also of course gives you an opportunity to call conservatives racists. You liberals are sneaky and have so many motives going at the same time. Racism has nothing to do with conservatism or "ultra-conservatism," whatever that is. No doubt, you are also trying to imply that Burke is some "ultra-conservative" that is having the same effect on the Catholic Church as Bull Connor racists had on African Americans and the U.S. in general. "Nice try."
This all says so much about NCR and nothing about Archbishop Burke. You all must be panicked about his new assignment. He doesn't have a personal "model," he simply follows Catholic Church teaching, that, as previously mentioned, is what causes the church to thrive.
Archbishop Burke will now no doubt be able to bring his influence to the worldwide Catholic Church. Many yet-to-be born children and so many others will be thankful.
All the best to him in Rome. Our prayers continue to be with him. Thankyou.

Mark Robertson
Independence, Mo.

I am a Catholic raised before Vatican II, taught by Sisters of Mercy about the unerring validity of the patriachal Church, and inculcated with the idea that biology trumps reason (and that is why women are inferior theologically). Fortunately, I began to actually read Scripture and slowly started to appreciate how inclusive Jesus was, how completely he rejected myopic rules which had as their purpose the aggrandisement of the few and the exclusion of the many. So I understand Archbishop Burke's need to unthinkingly follow the "rules." How else can he and his fellow hierarchs preserve their power? And I appreciate those several comments critical of your editorial - those writers too find solace in a medieval church where unthinking "faith" permits them to check their reason at the door. It must be wonderfully satisfying to enjoy such complete security from doubt by the simple expedient of blind rule following. Unfortunately, Jesus had little patience for the accretion of power and fearsome adherence to "rules" as a substitute for reason. And so the good archbishop and his medievalist coterie will continue to work diligently to maintain the hegemony of the patriarchal hierarchy. And they will surely fail.

Since when does a "dedicated and caring Sister of Charity" actually *lie* to her Archbishop???

Or does someone want to explain why/how her initial *denial* of attending the "ordination" is not lying?

Often times, I read NCR to get a different perspective about the Church because I really do try to understand the broader Body of Christ. But since the election of Pope Benedict, I've noticed that progressive Catholics are becoming more and more asertive and aggressive about "reforming the church" into their ideals and philosophies as Rome continues to reinforce tradition, appoint more conservative bishops and issue clearer statements on what the church actually teaches.

Consider these observations:

1) Before active Catholics chose not to participate in a Womenpriest ordination ceremonies. Now, they do and do so in a very diliberate and active way. Well educated Catholics know what they are doing and do so with a clear conscience, but complain when they are held accountable for their actions. I just don't understand that. Sister Lears admits that she attended this ordination ceremony and that she gave the ladies her personal blessing during this Rite. Regardless how her actions were documented, it happened and she admits that it happened. She responded and acted out of her conscience that women should be ordained and made a liturgical act to show her support, despite being told not to do so. Ok, now, AB Burke responded and acted out of his conscience and held Sister Lears accountable to Canon Law. Why is it that it is ok for progressives to act of their consciences but it isn't ok when conservatives do the same thing. Yes, most progressive Catholics, even those who support women's ordination would not have done what Sister Lears did nor would the majority of bishops impose canonical penalities on a nun for doing what Sister Lears did. But if progressives want to push the envelope, shouldn't they expect a reaction? Aren't they the ones who are polarizing the church more, even to the extent that more bishops may follow AB Burke's lead?

2. Before, the Vatican never really got involved in trying to silence the debate over women's ordination, albeit for the exception of dealing with those women who did try to get ordained. Suporters of women's ordination spoke, wrote and in many cases, advocated for the full inclusion fo women into the priesthood. However, due to Sister Lears and others like her who decided to participate in a liturgical act, now the CDF has issued a very clear statement declaring the penalty of excommunication for any woman who seeks ordiantion or who tries to ordain a woman to the priesthood. These penalities had always existed but were left for bishops to impose or not to impose. Could it be possible that the Vatican responded because women religious today are crossing that invisible line by engaging themselves in a liturigical act that has been declared as schismatic and heretical? Don't these women religious want to remain relevant to the church in which they want to serve?

3. Women religious for years have created a church within the church and just ignored Vatican protocols and statements. They created their own liturgies, re-formulated their own constitutions, developed new social justice outreaches, and basically have discarded any resemblance of the pre-Vatican II Church. Now, after 50 years of "renewal" where are they today? Very few professions, high mortality rate, increased concern about finances, and a very direct emphases on their independence from their local bishops and the Vatican. More so, most Catholics laugh at their notion of poverty because it would be very unusual for any Catholic even to meet a poor nun who has to beg for clothes and food. Sisters today are the church's high class elite where their personal priveledges and way of life (triple college degrees, living in mansions, taking very expensive sabbaticals all around the world, living in plush apartments that are well decoarted and furnished, buying clothes at major retailers, spending money on jewlery and hair styles, driving nice cars, etc.) degrades any reality that they are living lives of committed poverty. I mean, why not sell their mansions and give them to the homeless? Why not wear Goodwill clothes instead of buying from Sears, or Filennes? Why not rent an apartment downtown and live among the poor and immigrant instead of living like the upper class in their upper middle class neighborhoods. Nuns today have a very comfortable lifestyle, and Catholics are getting annoyed at it especially when they lecture us about helping the poor when they themselves like the Royal Family despite taking vows of committed poverty. The outrage by some Catholics at Sister Lears is based upon this type of perceived lifestyle: a priveledge life where she did not have to struggle; if she did, she would be more worried about helping the poor, or educating the immigrant than protesting a church law that certainly won't be changed any time soon. Some Sisters today seemed to be more interested in positions of power than living lives of simplicity and poverty, especially when their personal lifestyles and material purchases reflect more an upper class environment than the lives of those living in professed poverty. Even progressives, despite their differences with conservatives on other issues, would agree that nuns today have a very comfortable lifestyle, which in my view, schews their perspective on things. When you are just worried about the poor, you don't have time to be worried on who the priest is. Many immigrants today aren't as lucky as in times past because nuns today abdicated the inner cities for the afluent environment of well off parishes and chancellories than living and educating the poor. Of course, they are just as capable as making decisions as priests, but why must they become priests to feel like they are empowered to make these decisions?

4. Progressives need to take a hard look at things. They do not have a monopoly on anger and resentment. Conservatives are just as mad.

Sister Louise NEVER denied that she went to the ordination. It's the Archdiocese that is lying about that fact.

As a St. Louisan, several things stand out about Archbishop Burke:

1) Person to person, he was warm with a senses of humor. But few ever saw that, instead seeing the scowling, rarely smiling jury/lawyer/judge part of his personality. As one priest said, "He is the nicest nut job out there!"

2) Instead of communicating with people with whom he disagreed, he used the archaic excommunication. No dialogue, just threats of "eternal damnation." Seriously, does an entire parish board deserve to be excommunicated because they were frightened of losing their parish where they were born, baptized, betrothed and will be buried?

3) His firm belief in "the faithful remnant," thinking that the Catholic Church was meant only for the few, orthodox, like-minded believers. He helped further the culture of the litmus test, and unfortunately set up a culture of "Us vs. Them," and all the self-righteousness and condemnations that go with it.

4) Being unable to put a wider perspective on sin - instead seemingly focused solely on 'the pelvic issues' that include civil unions, abortion, premarital sex, birth control, and of course, his infatuation with "consecrated virgins."

5) While Pope John Paul II vehemently spoke out against the US's unprovoked, pre-emptive, unjust and unholy invasion of a sovereign nation, Archbishop Burke was absolutely silent. Insiders say it was because he was for it - I'm speculating that his spirituality is much more in line with Carl Rove than the Vatican here, and he certainly didn't want to upset his core group of wealthy, older conservatives who helped sustain him.

6) Finally, it seems fitting that he brought back the Tridentine Mass, where he is able to turn his back on the people he was called to serve.

I'm glad the Vatican has pulled him in and will be able to reign him in. He needs to have his nearly paranoia fears tempered, his clericalism surgically removed, and direction to help him realize that the law is different from the spirit of the law. God bless this scared and scary man.

Several things have become very clear reading the posts about Sr. Louise:

1. The "faithful orthodox" refuse to see anything that does not support their position. Evidence is irrelevant. The level of attrocity committed by those in authority is irrelevant. Unquestioning obedience to the letter of the law is all that matters to them. They will go to the extreme limits of illogical and irrational thought to avoid acknowledging that the status quo is fatally flawed. Those who do not agree with their fanatical fundamentalism are labeled protestants, non-catholics, and heretics.

2. Those who are "progressive" are typically highly educated, think for themselves, study the scriptures and recognize the glaring flaws in the current system of canon law. They choose to follow the teachings of Jesus as the scripture sets them out, especially when those teachings conflict with the teachings dictated by the church. They are seeking changes that bring the Church into greater alignment with the true teachings of Jesus, with the true teachings of divine love.

3. Both of these groups are faithful catholic, both love the church.

4. The "faithful orthodox" will not yield, because they believe that they have the support of the Magisterium. The magisterium is exploiting the fears of the "faithful orthodox" in its war against the "progressives".

5. The "progressive" element will not yield because they have been lied to, dismissed, abused in one form or another by the magisterial authority and when they complain of the abuse (as in the rape of the Foster girls), they are told that they are the problem.

6. The "faithful orthodox" believe that beating a person into submission to the laws of the church is love. They also believe that those who refuse to submit to the beatings, and see the error of their ways should leave the church and go to a "protestant" congregation.

7. The "progressives" have a more pastoral definition of love.

8. The "faithful orthodox" label anyone who does not agree with them as heretics. There is no middle ground, no possiblity of middle ground, no possiblity for compromise. There is only room for them, for their brand of fundamentalist catholicism.

9. Schism is aleady present.

10. Love, the divine love that Jesus taught, is not.

There is so much more that could be said, but the truth of is, the vast majority of the "faithful orthodox" will most likely have stopped reading at paragraph 1, labeled me a heretic for suggesting that they might be wrong, and find an excuse not to read the rest.

Some reflections for CL:

1. Thanks for calling us the "Faithful Orthodox."

2. Thanks for acknowledging that many progressives have declared their schism with the Bishop of Rome. We have felt that way for decades. We would write letters to the Vatican, petition our bishops, and they ignored us; opting instead to isolate us, pretend that we were a small vocal minority, but then Sister Louise nailed her "95 THESES" to the door of the Reformed Jewish Congregation and made this schism clearer and more obvious.

3. Thanks for acknowledging that papal pronouncements, church protocols, traditional church teaching mean absolutely nothing to you. Finally, we have some progressives who are admitting it publicly. We are getting somewhere. See what dialogue/blogging does!

4. The remaining question is where do we go from here. My conservative friends say "wait for 20 more years for the age thing to work in our favor." But as Sister Louise expressed at the reformed Jewish Congregation when she laid hands on the womenpriests that she wants to make her separation from Rome now. Ok, Have it your way.