Man Bites Blog

via the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Also a rare somewhat favorable treatment of Archbishop Burke.

If Archbishop Burke were a college basketball coach, this would be the year when his first recruiting class becomes seniors.

The article takes more of a conservative/liberal tack than I would prefer, allowing those who wish to believe that these are Abp. Burke’s conservative foot soldiers to do so.  I think this is the fruit of the Holy Spirit, the prayers of the faithful, and the archbishop’s emphasis on vocations.

In essence, my prayers are with these men, and all those considering the priesthood.

Bernie Miklasz reveals his ignorance of Catholicism and what different people’s roles are in a blog post yeasterday.

It is important to remember that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that abortion is killing, and that embryonic research qualifies as abortion. And it is Abp. Burke’s sworn duty to ensure keep his flock in line with Catholic teaching.

With that in mind, some exceprts…

Majerus reiterated that he doesn’t speak for Saint Louis University or the Archdiocese. He doesn’t demand that anyone agrees with him though he would like to rally folks around the cause of stem-cell research.

Um, excuse me? We’re supposed to give credit to a Catholic coach at a Catholic institution for not insisting that others take a position oppose to that of the Catholic Church.

Again, what Majerus would like to “rally people around,” is, in his Church’s view, the deliberate killing of persons. It is well within his bishop’s authority to correct that.

As much as Majerus enjoys conversations with people who agree with him, he draws more enjoyment from discussing the issues of the day with those who disagree with him. Majerus doesn’t try to squash dissenting opinion; he encourages it. (OK, this doesn’t necessarily apply to basketball practice, if his players pop off. But that’s a different dynamic).

No, it’s precisely the same dynamic. Burke:Majerus on matters of faith and morals = Majerus:SLU basketball players on basketball matters. Why should the reaction of a bishop to a Catholic is his archdiocese advocating intrinsic evil be that much different from the reaction of a basketball coach to player “popping off”?

“…And I never want to impose my views on someone else. I will share my views, certainly. But not impose them, as if I have all the answers, and that I am always right. So I want to discover all that I can. Maybe there is something I don’t know.

The polarizing Burke, on the other hand, has adopted a zero-tolerance policy. According to Burke, it’s the Catholic Church’s way; or the proverbial highway. Those who don’t comply strictly with the Vatican’s teachings aren’t about to receive a warm welcome from the Archbishop.

Maybe that’s because Archbishop Burke is a bishop and Rick Majerus is a basketball coach. I mean, come on. We’re supposed to think Majerus is Burke’s superior becuase Majerus doesn’t insist on agreement with his political views?

Exactly what kind of welcome would the oh-so-tolerant Majerus put up with a player who insisted on playing zone defense when he had directed them to play man-to-man? Or decided to keep playing when he was calling for a timeout? I’m guessing the welcome would amount to a cold stare and a seat on the bench.

And that’s perfectly appropriate — it’s Majerus’s job to ensure that his players follow his direction on the court. And it’s Burke’s job to ensure that Catholics in his Archdiocese, particularly ones with high profiles, give proper deference to the Church’s position.

If we’re going to give credit to Majerus for not insisting that others share his political views, then it seems we ought to also give Burke credit for not insisting that Majerus follow his basketball strategy.

If that sounds ridiculous, it’s because it is.

Majerus doesn’t understand that. He believes churches should be inclusive. He doesn’t understand why any church would take a hostile position that could drive worshipers, or potential worshipers, away.

Supporting civil rights in the 1960’s probably drove some worshippers away. Preaching forgiveness toward terrorsits and against torture probably drives worshippers away. That doesn’t make it wrong for the Church to take those positions.

Jesus Himself took some pretty hostile positions that drove potential worshippers away, too.

“If religion speaks to anything, it should be optimism and hope,” Majerus said. “In some cases, those patients who are suffering, and their families; all they have left is hope and faith. And I’ve witnessesed this, first hand. So, yeah, I personalize these issues. But why take away that hope? If stem cell research could lead to a dramatic breakthrough that would save lives or improve lives, then don’t we owe that to these brave people?”

Except that resorting to embryonic research is the direct opposite of hope — it is declaring that we cannot bear these dieseases without turning on the least among us. It is letting the diseases win.

Recent scientific advances have shown that embryonic stem cells can be derived without killing embryos. So I ask — who is giving up hope — those who insist on embryo-destructive research, or those who believe that we can find ways to confront these diseases without destroying embryos?

My purpose here isn’t to attack Majerus, but to defend Burke. Majerus seems to have arrived at his position out of genuine concern for those who are sick, and I pray that he will find his way to express that concern in a manner that is in harmony with the Church.

But Abp. Burke is not only correct, but bound to correct Majerus when he’s off course, just as it is Majerus’s job to correct a player who decides to run a different play than the one Majerus called.

It’s always a treat when people loudly proclaim how they no longer listen to the Catholic Church teachings in their moral lives, and then proceed to lecture the Church on how is should manage itself.

Our latest example: morning DJ J.C. Corcoran’s commentary on Channel 2 last night. (link is to Channel 2’s discussion — I couldn’t find the original).

Corcoran says that Archbishop Burke has become a joke, compares the archidiocese with the final days of the Nixon Administration, and says that the Church should move him out to regain credibility.

Now why would this be?  Could it have anything to do with the local media’s relentless campaign against the Abp. Burke?  How eager they are to portray him as an ultraconservative firebrand? 

Now that they have pummelled him, they “helpfully suggest” to us Catholics that we replace him because we are losing creibility.  Oh, how thoughtful of you. 

Of course, Corcoran doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.  St. Louis Catholics are hardly quaking in fear of what the Archbishop will do to us next.  Those of us who have experienced the Archibishop through means other than the local media have met a men who cares deeply about the flock that he shepherds, and has great personal warmth, and gives equal stress to the Gospel’s demands for charity toward all.  Contrary to what the media would have us believe, Archbishop Burke does not wake up every morning thinking of who else he can deny communion to.

And it is bearing fruit already.  Revealing his ignorance, Corcoran said something to the effect that young men are note exactly beating down the seminary doors.   I guess he didn’t know that the seminary is having to renovate itself to accommodate a surge in enrollment.  Many Catholics are grateful for the support of an archbishop who will strongly support Church teaching.  The media doesn’t report those kind of things, though; they’d rather just post a sound bite from Burke about women being ordained “Catholic priests” in synagogue.

Do I sometimes wish Archbishop Burke had a defter pastoral touch and did a better job of presenting Church teaching in a way that could be well-received by the wide culture?  Sure.  But that the culture is hostile to messages about the dignity of human life is a defect of the culture, not Archbishop Burke.

You know, I don’t watch the TV news much any more, and pray the rosary instead of listening to morning radio.  Normally, I would think this would disqualify me from telling TV and radio stations from running their business, but following Corcoran’s example, I would tell them they are losing their voice by broadcasting commentaries by people that don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.

• What does Abp. Burke mean that this charity event to benefit children with cancer is a “scandal?”
  Abp. Burke didn’t say that the event itself is a scandal. He said he would be giving scandal if he were to remain a chair of the event with Crow performing. This has a very specific meaning for Catholics — he would be giving the appearance that Ms. Crow’s support for embryonic research is not a big deal (see below for why it is).

  If you think that giving scandal by being associated with those advocating policies one considers evil isn’t a problem, you probably haven’t seen this picture or this one or this one or this one.

• But those are evil people. Sheryl Crow is just a singer who holds political views which are very much in the American mainstream.
  Sheryl Crow appeared in an ad urging Missouri voters to vote for an Amendment that stripped the state of any ability to regulate research on embryos. The orthodox Catholic belief is that these are human persons, so from our perspective, what Ms. Crow supported is the moral equivalent of supporting something like slavery. Abp. Burke feels he cannot go along with it.
• But that’s Abp. Burke’s personal religious belief. He has no right to impose that on others.
  First, it is the belief of the Catholic Church, with which Cdl. Glennon is associated. Second, he’s not imposing anything. He’s just saying he can’t personally go along with it.
• But the organizers say they don’t impose any political litmus tests.
  The hell they don’t. I stongly suspect that if Don Imus had been scheduled to appear, he would have been nudged aside. I don’t think they would have put on the Dixie Chicks at the height of their controversy. They wouldn’t put up a white supremacist, homophobe, or sexist.
• This is to help kids with cancer. Can’t we put aside our political differences and come together on this?
  Abp. Burke likely believes that Cd. Glennon Hospital is able to help the children with cancer in part because of its Catholic identity, which includes seeing human life in all stages as a gift from God. To move away from that would be to disconnect from the driving force of its mission.

Unfortunately, the relationship between Abp. Burke and the local media has never been good, and they seem to relish every opportunity to portray him as an ultraconservative jerk who’s primarily interested in promoting Republicans. Would this were not so.