That people on this thread are calling this woman (or what she is doing) “reprehensible” is… well, reprehensible. The article clearly has its own slant. You can see that with this snippet: “Cardinal Raymond Burke, the American leader of the anti-Francis resistance…”
If anyone here really thinks Cardinal Burke is truly a leader on “anti-Francis resistance”, and that von Thurn’s association with certain bishops restricts her from being a defender of the faith and therefore “disobedient to the pope”, then they are clearly mistaken.
Praise God that von Thurn has had such a powerful conversion. And it’s calumny on the part of the New York Times to make it seem that Cardinal Burke is somehow “against” the Holy Father when he has expressly denied such charges:
"Yes, it is a source of anguish for me to hear this – people suggesting that I would lead a schism.
“What frightens me a great deal about the present situation of the Church is what I would call a politicization of Church life and of Church doctrine. This is easily done by the secular media but it is also being aided and abetted in the present time by certain Church leaders and theologians and other commentators. This is not a question of being in favor of the “Francis Revolution”, as it is popularly called. It is not a question of being “pro-” Pope Francis or “contra-” Pope Francis. It is a question of defending the Catholic faith, and that means defending the Office of Peter to which the Pope has succeeded. And so, to defend what the Church has constantly taught and practiced can never be seen as some kind of political action against the “other” political movement, as it is called – the “Revolution” in the Church – and can never be seen as being contrary to the Papal office.”