Cardinal Burke breaks his silence

Cardinal Burke breaks his silence

Louie Verrecchio
July 25, 2016

In recent months, two gravely important matters of particular concern to canon law experts came to the fore:

On May 20th, Archbishop Gänswein (a canon lawyer by training) confirmed what Stefano Violi, Professor of Canon Law at the Faculty of Theology in Bologna and Lugano, had been saying since 2013:

Benedict XVI did not intend to resign the Petrine ministry whole and entire, but rather to “transform” and “expand” it in such way as to include two members; one “active,” and the other, “contemplative.”

Less than a month later, Francis the Loquacious stunned the Catholic world by stating that the “great majority” of sacramental marriages are invalid.

In spite of the magnificent confusion that ensued in the aftermath of these events, the one man considered by many neo-conservatives to be the most qualified of all canon lawyers living today, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, has been conspicuously quiet.

On July 20th, however, he broke his silence; not with respect to the aforementioned scandals, but on the topic of Islam.

Predictably, Cardinal Burke’s words, which we will examine more closely momentarily, are being applauded by poor undernourished Catholics as an example of courage and straightforwardness.

I suspect that most are doing so, not out of malice, but out of sheer ignorance. Perhaps rereading Burke’s commentary through a Catholic lens (for those willing to endure a little discomfort) may prove helpful.

In any case, it ends up that Cardinal Burke has been quietly spending time in Wisconsin (his home state) working on a new book entitled, “Hope for the World: To Unite All Things in Christ,” which will be an extended interview conducted by a French journalist.

Speaking with David Gibson for Religion News Service in promotion of the effort, Cardinal Burke was quoted as saying that Islam is “fundamentally a form of government” that “wants to govern the world.”

He went on to say that he is concerned that many people do not understand that, in his view, “when they (Muslims) become the majority in any country they have the duty to submit the whole population to Shariah,” as the Islamic code of law is known.

According to Gibson, Cardinal Burke made it a point to stress that he did not want to be “disrespectful” of Islam or “generate hostility.”

As for an appropriate reaction to Islam, Burke is quoted as saying:

“The Church really should be afraid of it.”

Cardinal Burke had more to say, but at this, let’s see if we can untangle the mess he has created thus far.

First, let it be said that Islam, unlike monarchy, socialism, democracy, etc., is not “fundamentally a form of government.”

Yes, Islam does wish to rule the world, but here’s the key to truly understanding it:

Islam is first and foremost a false religion; one that directly opposes the reign of Christ the King and the Holy Catholic Church that He established for our salvation. As such, Islam labors to institute a system of worship and governance according to the diabolical ravings of the warmongering pedophile “prophet,” Muhammad, in service to the false god, Allah.

Cowardly clerics of the conciliar kind, like Cardinal Raymond Burke, cannot bring themselves to acknowledge as much; in fact, he is ever so careful not to be seen as being “disrespectful” toward Islam.

Think about that for a moment…

In exactly what way does this evil enterprise merit the respect of faithful Catholics?

Clearly, Islam doesn’t deserve anyone’s respect.

Much less is it the case, as Cardinal Burke states, that “the Church really should be afraid of it.”

It amazes me how many Catholics, far from finding fault with this ludicrous statement, saw fit to approve of it!

How many times did Our Blessed Lord encourage His followers to “be not afraid”?

Yes, but Islam is a religion of the sword. Fear in this case is prudent!

Oh, really?

St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, tells us otherwise, saying:

What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who is against us? Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? Or distress? Or famine? Or nakedness? Or danger? Or persecution? Or the sword? (Romans 8:31,35)

The reason St. Paul’s words seem to have escaped Cardinal Burke is simple – they don’t really apply to his manner of thinking; i.e., God is not for those who think as he does.

Cardinal Burke went on to say:

When they (Muslims) become a majority in any country then they have the religious obligation to govern that country. If that’s what the citizens of a nation want, well, then, they should just allow this to go on. But if that’s not what they want, then they have to find a way to deal with it.”

Note the contradiction (otherwise recognized as disorientation):

On the one hand, Burke insists that Islam is “fundamentally a form of government.” On the other, he clearly recognizes that its quest to govern the world concerns “the religious obligation” to do so!

Indeed, Islam is fundamentally – that is, primarily and most basically – a false religion, and make no mistake about it – the Church need not fear it in the least.

A Catholic view of the Muhammadan menace is to realize that the Church must confront and condemn Islam for the evil that it is, and to labor for its eradication by way of conversion as she carries out the mission that was given to her by Christ the King.

The Burkes of the world no longer possess the clarity of thought that flows from a genuine sensus Catholicus, and the reason is that they have, willingly or not, abandoned the true faith in exchange for the conciliar counterfeit; the same that embraces the Americanist version of religious liberty as if it were sure doctrine.

As reported by Gibson:

When asked how the West should respond, the cardinal did not cite or endorse specific proposals, like those championed by the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and other conservatives, to ban or limit Muslims coming into the U.S.

“I think the appropriate response,” he said, “is to be firm about the Christian origin of our own nation, and certainly in Europe, and the Christian foundations of the government, and to fortify those.”

God Bless America!

As for precisely which one – Jesus Christ, Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, or Mother Earth (one of Francis’ favorites) – well, that’s an entirely personal decision.

Seriously, folks, can we please dispense with the lie about “the Christian origin of our own (American) nation”?

The origins of this nation are not Christian; they are deist, protestant, and decidedly anti-Catholic.

The United States of America is constitutionally forbidden by law to formally and publicly recognize the exclusive rights of Christ the King and the Holy Catholic Church – the obligation of every individual, society and State.

Truly, Cardinal Burke provides a far better example of steadfast Americanism than he does authentic Catholicism – the former of which champions “the consent of the governed;” the latter the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King.

How else can one explain his insistence concerning Shariah law, “When they (Muslims) become a majority in any country … if that’s what the citizens of a nation want, well, then, they should just allow this to go on”?

In conclusion, I always take considerable heat from certain readers when I expose the hollowness of Cardinal Burke’s rhetoric. I’ve lost any number of supporters for this one reason alone. (If you feel moved to help offset that loss, I’d be most grateful.)

My intent in these posts is not to denigrate the man, but rather to urge readers to scrutinize everything, even those things that come from churchmen they happen to admire; measuring every last thought and idea against the mind of the Church as made known with clarity in the centuries leading up to Vatican Council II.

Yes, it takes effort, and it may very well lead to disappointment in men once idolized, but all of this pales in comparison to the joy of knowing the immutable truth that comes to us from Christ through His Holy Catholic Church.

Get AQ Email Updates

2 comments on “Cardinal Burke breaks his silence

  1. The Survival of Catholicism In America


    Warren Goddard

    The American Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776) from Great Britain and the reigning King, George III, states:

    When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation’s, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world…
    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
    For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province [Quebec], establishing therein an Arbitrary government [Catholicism], and enlarging its Boundaries [to the Ohio River] so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    [Emphasis added]

    The very first resolutions passed by the first Congress meeting in the fall of 1774, calling itself the First Continental Congress, were complaints against British tolerance toward Canadian Catholics. In particular, Americans feared what the British called the “Quebec Act,” passed in June, 1774. John Adams claimed that the Quebec Act was “a frightful system, as would have terrified any people, who did not prefer liberty to life.” On October 21, 1774, Congress issued the following— its first official pronouncement ever— “The Quebec Act was passed by Parliament to place ‛in the hands of power, to reduce the ancient, free Protestant colonies’ to slavery.” “Nor,” it stated, “can we suppress our astonishment that a British parliament should ever consent to establish in that country a religion that has deluged your island with blood, and superseded impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellions through every part of the world.”

    In June of 1774, King George III had signed a law granting religious freedom to Catholics in territories formerly ruled by the French. It was known as the Quebec Act and included not only parts of Canada, but also what is now Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, northern Ohio, northern Maine and Wisconsin. This Act gave Catholics in these territories the right to “have, hold, and enjoy the free exercise of the religion of the Church of Rome.” The Act also declared these lands to be Indian Territory and created a boundary line running along the crest of the Allegheny mountains, thereby barring access to the English colonies. Although it thus helped to bring on the American Revolution, the Act was very influential in keeping Canada loyal to the crown during the Revolution.

    In 1620, the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, MA. While being the same sort of Calvinists as the Puritans who wished to change the Church of England, the Pilgrim-Puritans held that the Church of England was so Catholic that she could not be reformed. The Pilgrims identified themselves with the children of Israel in the Old Testament. They considered all those whom they encountered—Indians, French, Spanish and even other English settlers—to be the equivalent of the Canaanites, and to be treated the same way without mercy. Although the Pilgrims were at first dependent on the good will of the Indians, particularly during the first year, the Pilgrims eventually took to annihilating them. The next victims of the Pilgrims were the other English settlers. In 1628, the Pilgrims attacked and destroyed the Merry Mount settlement a few miles from Plymouth. Some of the Merry Mount settlers were killed; the rest were forced back to England. Then the French and Spanish soon became casualties of a “Manifest Destiny” mission, which would not allow a Catholic presence to flourish on the continent. The new “chosen people” of the Mayflower would soon dominate the entire land mass from the Atlantic to the Pacific, displacing anyone who did not conform to their Masonic “Enlightenment” ideas.

    In the 1500’s, Spanish Catholics had established mission settlements from Florida to California long before the Pilgrims landed in 1620 and began their “Manifest Destiny” outrage. For example, Freemason James Oglethorpe attacked and destroyed numerous Catholic mission settlements in Georgia in the 1790s, killing both missionaries and Indian converts, as well as capturing many hundreds of Indians and selling them into forced slave-labor to Protestant plantation owners in the Carolinas and Virginia.

    Long before any English had arrived in the new world, the French had explored, claimed and occupied the land beyond the Appalachian Mountains, particularly the Ohio valley region, and peacefully co-existed with the Indians there. The “French and Indian war,” more appropriately should be known as “The War of English Aggression,” at which time some 3000 militia (armed colonists) from Massachusetts attacked and captured two French forts in what is now New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, then called Acadie. The French who lived there desired only peace and to live their Catholic Faith. The people of Acadie had been living peacefully under English rule since 1713, but in 1755 the New England militiamen made them choose between going into exile or renouncing their Catholic Faith and loyalty to the King of France in order to stay. Ten thousand of the Acadians chose exile instead of denying the True Faith of Jesus Christ. They saw their homes burned. Some families fled into the wilderness, but most were deported—women and children in separate boats from the men never to be reunited— and shipped to the American colonies for assimilation into Protestantism. The land of Acadie was then settled by Protestants brought there from Scotland, and Acadie became New Scotland—Nova Scotia.

    In 1759, the New Hampshire Rogers’ Rangers attacked and destroyed the Abenaki Catholic village (St. Francis) in Vermont, which was neither a cluster of bark-covered wigwams, nor was it a stockaded arrangement of long houses, but fifty-one houses built in the English or French style of squared log timbers covered with rough-cut boards. At least twelve were one or two-story French-style wood-frame houses with clapboards, and three houses were built of stone. They were arranged in rows around a central square with a church and a large Council House. Several hundred inhabitants fled the attack, but thirty-two Indians died during the raid—among them ten men and twenty-two women and children, who were burned in their homes. The number of dead and the looting of the church and Jesuit convent was corroborated by Bishop de Portbriand, who wrote to the Bishop of France, “The Mission of the Abenaquis Indians of Saint Francois has been utterly destroyed by a party of English and Indians, who have stolen all the vestments and sacred vessels, have thrown the sacred Hosts on the ground, have killed some thirty persons, more than 20 were women and children.” Until 1968, Catholics in New Hampshire were prohibited by the state’s constitution from holding public office, teaching in public schools, or serving in the legislature.

    The Catholic colonists of Maryland came to America to escape severe English penal laws that forbid their practice of the Faith. They simply wanted to be left alone and avoid any persecution, so instead of zeal for the Faith like the Spanish and French Catholics expressed when they came to these shores, they did not spread the True Faith among either the Indians or their Protestant neighbors. In 1649, compromising the necessity of the True Faith, these Catholics even enacted the “Maryland Toleration Act,” granting freedom of belief and worship to everyone. As a result, Protestants from the other colonies moved to Maryland and, by1654, they repealed the Maryland Toleration Act and passed a religious edict establishing the English penal laws by declaring, “None who professed and exercised the Popish religion could be protected in the province by the Laws of England…but were to be restrained from the exercise thereof.” Eventually, most English-speaking Catholics in America acquired this same un-Catholic attitude which replaced zeal for the Faith. For example, with abortion being the most serious moral evil afflicting American society, consider Baltimore’s former mayor Catholic Martin O’Malley’s present endorsement of pro-abortion Hillary Clinton for President. At the crucial period in 1885, Bishop Gibbons published the Baltimore Catechism, which included the new baptisms (blood and desire) as doctrines. Thus, falsehood entered the Catholic Church in the United States and inundated the dying Faith of Europe and the rest of the world. This “go along to get along” virus, until then limited to the lofty centers of speculation, descended upon the naive faithful living in America. Of this watering down of the Faith, “Americanism,” Pope Leo XIII wrote, “Let it be far from anyone’s mind to suppress for any reason any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ. There is nothing closer to our heart than to have those who are separated from the fold of Christ return to it, but in no other way than the way pointed out by Christ.” Testem Benevolentiae Nostre,1898. Unfortunately, the American evangelization of culture over doctrine prevailed.

    By 1830, Mexico had granted large plots of land to numerous Anglo-Americans to farm and grow crops. The laws of Mexico were that before one could settle in what is now Texas, one had to convert to the Catholic Faith, swear allegiance to Mexico, and be without slaves. These settlers did not really intend to convert; they just wanted the land. Though they swore allegiance to Mexico, they rebelled in 1835 and won a skirmish against the Mexicans at Gonzales. After this victory the Anglo-Texas militia marched on San Antonio and laid siege to the city. On March 2, 1836, the rebels declared Texas an independent republic and claimed the Catholic priesthood to be one of “the eternal enemies of civil liberty, and the usual instruments of tyrants.” They chased the Franciscan friars and native Indian converts away from the Mission Church of St. Anthony- San Antonio de Valero (mis- named the Alamo) and the Mission Church of Our Lady of the Holy Spirit, where sacrileges were committed against Our Lord in the tabernacle. The Mexican government granted them independence provided they be the Lone Star state, prohibit slavery, and allow Catholics to freely practice their Faith. Once independent, they immediately violated these conditions.

    Because the boundaries of Texas were never settled back in 1836, new disputes arose concerning just what constituted the Texas border in the south. Mexico claimed that the border was at the Nueces River, which would make Texas half the size it is now. The Americans maintained that the boundary was the Rio Grande, which would give them more land than they already had gained. The issue was resolved when Freemason President Polk invaded Mexico and stretched the Rio Grande boundary line to the Pacific Ocean, acquiring New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah and California. The U.S. Army marched in and took the capital of Mexico while Franciscan friars and Catholic Indians helplessly looked on as Catholic cathedrals, churches and convents were deliberately bombarded. There was a very large body of Catholic men fighting on the American side against Mexico. Upon reaching Mexico they discovered that they had been hired by anti-Catholic Protestants to slaughter brethren of their own Faith. Several hundred of them took their arms and quietly, under cover of night, marched away and joined the Mexican side of the conflict. Among them were fifty-two Army recruits newly arrived from Ireland who, at the end of the invasion, were hung by General Winfield Scott at Montezuma.

    In 1873, a rebellion against Spain was begun by Cubans who rejected the Catholic influence in politics and society, if not in religion itself. The U.S. supported this rebellion against the Catholic monarchy of Spain by sending the American ship Virginius with arms for the rebels. In 1898, a tragedy occurred which directed U.S. involvement in the Cuban conflict. The U.S. Navy battleship Maine blew up while anchored in the harbor at Havana, Cuba. Two hundred sixty American sailors were killed. Spain mourned and requested an impartial investigation. The U.S. rejected it. Then, due to American media “Remember the Maine! To Hell with Spain!” propaganda, the U.S. set up a blockade around Cuba, began sending arms ashore, and declared war on Catholic Spain, which led to the U.S. acquisition of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines—more lands made available for the Pilgrim anti-Catholic Manifest Destiny.

    Thus began the diminution of Catholic influence on American political and social life.


    1. Anger, Matthew., Chojnowski, Peter, Ph.D., and Novak, Rev. Fr. Kenneth. Puritans’ Progress: A Catholic Perspective. Kansas City: Angelus Press. 1996. Print.

    2. Miller, Adam S. Discovering a Lost Heritage. Monrova: Marian Publications, Inc., 2006. Print.

    3. Leo XIII. Testem Benevolentiae Nostre [Encyclical letter on Virtue, Nature and Grace, and Americanism]. January 22, 1899.

  2. Why Would Rome’s ‘Doctors of the Law’ Want the SSPX Regularized?

    Written by Patrick Archbold

    The admonishment is stated so often in discussions about inner Church workings that many people treat it as axiomatic: Do not view the Church through a political lens, the Church is different.

    Yes, the Church is different. You cannot view the Church as simply aligning with your local political situation, but the Church is inherently political. Where there are people involved, there is politics. And I venture to say that not only is this current period no exception, it is quickly setting new levels.

    A fair amount of ink has been spilled in recent weeks over the controversy that erupted after Cardinal Sarah’s London speech suggesting that priests might want to check out ad orientem worship this coming advent.

    In all likelihood, the Cardinal’s suggestion would have been mostly ignored by the vast majority of priests. Of the few that may have been interested, most of those under Modernist Bishops are too well-versed in the consequences of such things to even consider such a move. Perhaps there exists a tiny subset of priests willing to try ad orientem that exists under the few bishops who would look kindly upon such a thing, but the response to Cardinal Sarah’s suggestion would have been minuscule. So why even pay any attention to it?

    Well, the powers and principalities in the hierarchy did much more than pay attention to it. Although the Vatican Press office has shown itself completely incapable over the last 3 years of dispelling any of the confusion that arises from the calculated ambiguity of the Pope, suddenly the Holy See Press office develops “quick reaction force” capabilities when someone in the Vatican machinery accidently speaks like a Catholic.

    Equally amazing is how those who daily disparage the ‘Doctors of the Law’ have suddenly morphed into strict rubricists unwilling to brook even the slightest perceived deviation from the GIRM. This sudden reactionary rubricism seems limited only to false interpretations of the GIRM, because anyone who has spent more than five minutes looking at the question understands that the ‘wherever possible’ of GIRM 299 applies to the placement of the altar and not the orientation of the priest. But mass ‘facing the people’ is the pre-eminent unwritten rubric of the Spirit of Vatican II, and thus turning together toward God will not be allowed and so the NuChurch ninjas were quickly deployed. But, no worries, the Vatican shows no signs of giving a hoot about any of the other daily violations of the GIRM so commonplace at the empty masses of today.

    A reasonable person must look at the situation and the response and ask the simple question, “Why? Why such a reaction?”

    The answer, in part, is politics.

    It has been suggested that the Vatican and the Pope must really be afraid of ad orientem worship, of people turning back to God. I suppose that is true to a point, but they certainly didn’t fear that happening on account of Cardinal Sarah’s remarks. So again, why?

    That is what this whole versus populum dustup is all about. It isn’t that they fear ad orientem, quite the opposite, they fear the temporal power in Rome. Cardinal Sarah was crushed, not because they fear the spread of ad orientem, that wouldn’t have happened even if the Vatican did nothing. They crushed him because they could. And now bishops and their toady conferences are rushing to join in because it is a consequence-free way of publicly pledging allegiance to the Novus Ordo regime without consequence. The only people who actually care about such things are few and far between, out of power, and easily marginalized. This is about power, pure and simple. Those who have it wield it, and those who want to keep theirs pledge allegiance to NuChurch by making a show of public obeisance to its cardinal unwritten rubric.

    They are sending a political message. Continued opposition to NuChurch will not be tolerated. If we are willing to publicly oppose and humiliate a highly-placed Cardinal in the Church for saying something obviously good, true, and traditional, think of what we are willing to do to bishops of whom nobody has ever heard. Get on board or get out. Resistance is futile.

    I think this is probably true of the new Apostolic Constitution, Vultum Dei quaerere, on women’s contemplative life (VDQ). People may be tempted to think that they must really fear these few little pockets of traditional orders since they’ll go to all this trouble to quash them. But again, it is, in part, about the exercise of pure political power. They don’t like the fact that bishops and little orders under their control can resist. These pockets of resistance are few and far between and pose no real threat to the vast edifice of NuChurch, but the idea that resistance is even possible is intolerable to them. They have the power to squash it and they will use that power because they can.

    All this is why I still think it is entirely possible that, even though it looks like talks with the SSPX have completely fallen apart, the Pope might still do something unilaterally to recognize the traditional order. You see, when it comes to resistance to NuChurch, there is no greater real threat than the SSPX. Under the current circumstances, the Vatican Machinery can exercise very little control over them. That cannot sit well with them. They have pulled the bait and switch on the SSPX twice now, bringing them to the edge of reconciliation only to try and have them sell their souls on the Vatican II altar. The have failed both times. The SSPX did not cave like NuChurchers do. So now something new is required. They want some control over the SSPX so that they can crush opposition. They very well may come to the conclusion that the only path to control is to grant recognition without much pre-condition in hopes that they will not want to lose what they have. Don’t be surprised if this happens. In the end, it is all about politics in NuChurch and politics is about power, and power unused is power lost.

Leave a Reply