Apparently the other three cardinals aren't either. Although the other thirty cardinals claimed to be with them might be, since they remain anonymous. I'm just guessing of course.
Since the Four Cardinals with the Five Dubia want answers, and feel they haven't received them, and contradict Cardinal Mueller who says the Faith is not in danger, why don't they say something directly and in person to the Holy Father himself? They were face to face with him at Christmas, which everyone seems to think was another mean-spirited Christmas address to the curia. It wouldn't be like casting a pall over the reception afterward, if they would have broken protocol and spoke directly to the Pope, since they felt insulted already.
Nevertheless, they continue to give interviews and talk around the Pope without ever confronting him face to face.
The Pope lives in a hotel - he's not living in the Apostolic Palace, tucked safe away by miles of corridors and endless doors. Even if he was, these guys have the opportunity to break protocol and speak to the Pope man to man.
Remember Henry IV? How he stood penitent in the snow outside the Papal residence, for three days at Canossa? You'll say the Cardinals have nothing to repent for. Fine. But they need to get off their high horse, take off the cappas magna and maybe even put on penitent's garb - a Franciscan of the Immaculate habit would be awesome, and stand outside in the piazza and wait for the Pope to come out - or better yet - stand outside the dining room of Santa Marta and force the issue face to face. Dispense with protocol and the niceties of office they are so attached to, get offline, stop the phone calls and interviews, and talk to the Pope. I just read the outcries about the Bishops of Malta, and a post about an interview Cardinal Caffarra gave, again 'reportedly' contradicting Mueller, and discussing how confused and therefore unhappy, many priests are, and so on. Do something about it.
Speaking of unhappy priests, unfortunately it was Fr. Z who may have misinterpreted the interview - or at least the circumstance. (Here.) It may be that Caffarra was not contradicting Mueller's recent statements at all. Nevertheless, Fr. Z jumped on the story, which I found disturbing combined with the reports concerning the Maltese Bishops Conference letter. How often does this happen? How often are interviews taken out of context? How often is a sound bite enough to cause great confusion and argument? How often does a Catholic online scandalize readers?
Double talk, whispers in the loggia, gossip, back-stabbing complaints to save your soul without action to stop the spread of more gossip and attacks upon the Papacy, does nothing to quell the confusion and strengthen the faith or ordinary Catholics. Burke giving interviews to The Remnant doesn't help matters. He has plenty of opportunities to speak directly to the Pope. Since he's not worried about his title - drop the princely protocol and go to him disguised as a beggar. Perhaps he forgot his own admonition to Mary Therese Helmueller when she called him out?
I'm not scandalized by the Pope, but I am deeply scandalized by the controversies generated from interviews given by the Four Cardinals. Interviews given to news sources which are anti-Francis, anti-Vatican II, and anti-Novus Ordo.
In the meantime, I have my own repenting to do for stuff I've written and said. But I'm not selling out the Holy Father.
People who want a vision or
private revelation to apply
to our times maybe should
ponder this one.