I am grateful to Almighty God for the witness be given by Archbishop Burke. I hope his brother Bishops come to his defense.You'll notice that I haven't blogged about the situation yet, in no small part because so many others have done a fine job of it already.
The Curt Jester (from whom I took the picture) has a piece here and here and here.
Amy has good coverage here.
Rocco, too, has information here.
Don't forget the Archdiocesan information here.
I love my Archbishop. What a strong and courageous man who never shies from standing for Truth. He speaks gently and kindly, but firmly. Deo Gratias!
ReplyDeleteAnd for that I admire and respect him greatly.
ReplyDeleteI have heard that the St. Louis paper blog comments have been running about 15 to 1 against him. I think that makes him successful! Or at least right!!! I am humbled by a man in his position that speaks out against such hipocracy. He has a far bigger target on his back than I do.
ReplyDeleteSharon, I think you're right. Sometimes I wonder if we aren't doing something quite right if we aren't involved in some controversy or another. The media uses controversy with the Church always as a bad thing, as though the Church should simply shut up and leave everybody alone.
ReplyDeleteI am an orthodox, pro-life Catholic, yet I find the Archbishop's action highly regretable. Part of his rationale for his action is that the public would interprete Crow's donation to Glennon Hospital as an Catholic endorsement of abortion. While I think not a single soul would have so understood it, the Archbishop's claim does show that the issue here is what message the public is receiving. Rather than dismiss public reaction running 15:1 against Burke's action, here we have evidence that the public (including many pro-life Catholics like myself) were not edified.
ReplyDeleteKatherine,
ReplyDeleteI must respectfully disagree with you. The truth is not subject to popular approval or consensus, nor can the Church sway to popular appeal when it comes to the truth. This Archbishop Burke knows.
He understands profoundly that he is singularly answerable to God for what occurs within Catholic institutions within the Archdiocese so long as he is
the Archbishop. Too often do we forget that we are answerable to God for the actions we take and the words we say.
Crowe's donation to the hospital is not what was at stake; the invitation offered her to perform was. It makes no sense for someone who publicly does not support life at all of its stages to perform within a Catholic instition who rightly respects and defends life at all of its
stages. Allowing Crowe to perform would give the impression that the Church does not care what people think, say, or do, so long as money is brought in. The ends do not justify the means.
Archbishop Burke seeks to avoid all instance of scandal by distancing himself and Catholic institions from immoral choices; had he said nothing would give the impression of tacit approval, despite what is found in the
media. It must be remembered that the media is often at odds with the
Gospel. What is sad is the fact that the board did not follow the lead of their shepherd, nor does it seem they sought to understand his teaching; it seems they simply dismissed him.
In the end, while public opinion may be important in some areas, it cannot be used as the guide for pastoral activity, for the public does not often support the truth of the Gospel.
Some of the public - take myself as one small part of this public - was greatly edified by His Excellency's actions.
Dear father,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the respectful disagreement. Please allow me to respond to a few points:
The truth is not subject to popular approval or consensus, nor can the Church sway to popular appeal when it comes to the truth.
Of course, that is true of the truth. Scandal, however, is defined by the CC as that which leds others to sin. Therefore to be scandal, it does require a specific popular reaction to a deed. It is not a truth of the Catholic Church that having a performer sing at an event is a endorsement of that performers political views.
It makes no sense for someone who publicly does not support life at all of its stages to perform within a Catholic instition who rightly respects and defends life at all of its stages.
I agree that Crow's views do not have sense. We don't shun people for lack of sense.
Allowing Crowe to perform would give the impression that the Church does not care what people think, say, or do,
What impression people have from a particular action is depend, well..., on what impression people have. Not what you or I or Burke decree. The evidence seems overwhelming that few if any had this impression and many had an impression that Burke was quite wrongheaded in his action.
Archbishop Burke seeks to avoid all instance of scandal
We have already been over the Church's defination of scandal.
...distancing himself and Catholic institions from immoral choices;
Having an abortion is an immoral choice. Allowing a person with regretable views on abortion policy to assist in a benefit is not an immoral choice. Even Burke never said Mr. Costas and organizers of this event were immoral for disagreeing with him.
What is sad is the fact that the board did not follow the lead of their shepherd, nor does it seem they sought to understand his teaching; it seems they simply dismissed him.
All evidence is that the Board seriously considered Burke's view and agonized over it. Burke was Chairman of the Board of the Foundation. Given its membership (without objection from Burke)includes Protestants and Jews, I'm not sure the Board viewed him as their shepherd in the religious sense.