LEAGUE CALLS PUNISHMENT OF CARDINAL BURKE ‘VINDICTIVE’
On Wednesday, November 29th, reporter Alice Giordano of The Epoch Times, contacted the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, seeking a comment from C. J. Doyle on the decision of Pope Francis to evict the 75 year old American Cardinal, Raymond Burke, from his Vatican apartment and deprive him of his salary.
According to Vatican insiders, the Pope claimed that Burke was “my enemy” and a source of “disunity” after he questioned the Pope’s unprecedented, unscriptural and un-Catholic decision to permit blessings of relationships founded upon the mortal sin of impurity against nature.
Burke also criticized the so-called Synod on Synodality, saying its agenda “was more political and human than ecclesial and divine.”
Giordano also asked for a comment from Doyle on the Pope’s removal of the Bishop of Tyler, Texas, the Most Reverend Joseph Strickland.
Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle issued the following statement: “The uncharitable and unimaginable decision by the Pope to strip a Prince of the Church of his income and residence is petty, punitive, vindictive and mean spirited, and is inconsistent with the high dignity of the Petrine office. It speaks to the absence of a Christian personality in Jorge Bergoglio.
The hypocrisy of this pontificate is astonishing. The Pope speaks of ‘mercy’ and ‘accompaniment,’ but mercilessly eliminates and ruthlessly isolates anyone who disagrees with his novel and heterodox initiatives.
He talks about ministering to those on the ‘margins,’ but then deliberately drives faithful Catholics to the very margins of the Church, especially those attached to the traditional Latin liturgy.
Francis claims to desire diversity and decentralization under the guise of ‘synodality,’ while insisting on uniformity of opinion and obedience to his own central authority.
He protects and promotes priests and prelates who question or deny the ancient and irreformable doctrines of the Faith, but punishes and banishes bishops and cardinals who question or criticize the modern and avant garde positions of his papacy.
None of this, of course, is surprising. In the end, given the unlawfulness and illegitimacy of their actions, all revolutionaries must resort to the instruments of coercion.
There is now, no doubt, that Francis seeks to impose a revolution upon the Church, particularly in his attempt to separate the moral teachings of the Church from Divine Revelation and natural law.
The scandalous and tyrannical decision to remove Bishop Strickland was unjust, arbitrary, capricious and of dubious canonical validity. The entire notion that a Pope can simply fire a bishop—who, like the Pope, is a successor of the Apostles—is a recent and radical innovation, unknown and unheard of in the first nineteen centuries of Catholicism.
Even by this uncertain modern standard, the Pope’s action was improper, as there was no due process or judicial finding of malfeasance or misconduct in the deprivation of Bishop Strickland.
The most obvious solution to this decade-long reign of scandal, heresy, division and confusion is for Pope Francis to emulate his illustrious predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, and for the common good of the Church, resign.”