Friday, April 27, 2007

Thank you, Archbishop Burke!

Archbishop Burke, who acted in a manner rarely seen among leaders in general, resigned from a local charity upon their insistance of having Sheryl Crowe remain among those celebrities to perform for a benefit. This is the type of leadership we need in the Catholic Church. City of St. Louis, you should be proud. Bob Costas, you're nothing but a wuss.

7 Comments:

At 9:28 AM, Anonymous Katherine said...

Crow giving her time and talent to this cause is no more an endorsement of abortion by Glennon Hospital than Burke is endorsing racism by being on the Board of an institution named for his segregationist predecessor.

The truth is that the late Cardinal O’Connor of New York, whose pro-life bona fides were clear, invited pro-choicers like Jeanne Kilpatrick and Ed Koch to assist with Catholic fundraising. Maybe the rules are different if you are pro-choice and a neo-con.

 
At 1:41 PM, Anonymous undergroundlogician said...

Katherine:

Thanks for dropping by.

I sense your conclusion of hypocrisy and your anti-neocon attitude. I'm sure your conclusion would have merit if it was Archbishop Burke was the one who used Kilpatrick or Koch. Since O'Connor saw fit to include those who are pro-abortion, that's his problem to work out in purgatory.

As I see it, the issue is not so much Glennon Hospital endorsing abortion with Crowe coming; I'm confident that that was far removed from their minds. What's at stake is the "meta" message that people come away with, including Catholics especially, when they see this type of action on the part of Catholics, or Catholic institutions lead by prelates like Burke. Archbishop Burke is being responsible as a shepherd to make sure the message is clear and not contradictory--Catholic charities are working to promote the culture of life and need not enlist the support of those who promote the culture of death. Plain and simple, not convoluted and complex as you propose.

Thanks Katherine, though, for your thoughts! Discussion like this makes for clarification of the issues.

 
At 11:11 AM, Anonymous Katherine said...

Yet there is scant evidence that any person thought that by Crow performing, the Catholic Church was accepting abortion. Whatever Archbishop Burke intended, the message that has been received was one that did not put the Church and her pro-life witness in a good light. Many orthodox, pro-life Catholic such as myself have been very much put off by the Archbishop's actions.

 
At 4:33 PM, Anonymous undergroundlogician said...

Scant evidence?

It's more the principle than how people will respond. The Archbishop is looking at this as a pastor. If we allow Crowe in the concert to make money for the charity, it would look as though we validate someone who is pro-death, and give a message to Sheryl that her position in the pro-death culture is not as critical as we have previously stated. It would be a stumbling block for those in the Church; certainly it would be confusing and enabling the Sheryl Crowes in our country. No doubt people could take it wrong.

Secondly, who cares if the Archbishop's decision puts him and the Church in a bad light. The light that we are so used to in this country is a light that shines from the Deceiver himself, masquerading as an angel of light. Do we need the "light" from this monster angel to shine favorably on us in order for us to be good witnesses? I think not. We must commit ourselves to piss off this angel as much as we possibly can with our commitment to the truth and the gospel. He's the author of the culture of death and we must never waver in battling this dangerous enemy.

This brings me to my question to you...tell me why are you put off by his actions if you are an orthodox Roman Catholic?

 
At 4:36 PM, Anonymous undergroundlogician said...

An addendum:

Also, allowing Sheryl Crowe to raise money for a charity the Church supports tells the world that when it comes to money, we'll sacrifice our principles. Not Jesus, and not Archbishop Burke.

 
At 11:33 AM, Anonymous Katherine said...

You write: "It's more the principle than how people will respond."

Well, the meaning of scandal is the response of people. So we have agreed that the issue here is not scandal.

You write: "If we allow Crowe in the concert to make money for the charity, it would look as though we validate someone who is pro-death,"

Well, we are back already to how people respond. On this point, you are incorrect. People did not look upon Crow's signing as a validation of he rviews on abortion policy.

"Secondly, who cares if the Archbishop's decision puts him and the Church in a bad light."

Well, if the issue is how people look at this, then that is a concern. You seems to be bobing and weaving here.

 
At 10:13 PM, Anonymous undergroundlogician said...

I may need to be more clear or remove clutter from my explanation.

I'm not denying the fact that people's response is involved here. What I'm saying is that people's response is not the first consideration in determining what to do. Certainly we want people see why the Bishop did what he did, and we would love it if they would agree with him. But, he didn't formulate his words and actions to try and produce a favorable response.

Let's clarify the meaning of scandal. It is not simply the response of people. More precisely, a scandal is caused by an immoral or disgraceful act that damages the offenders reputation and warrants a negative public reaction. In this case, Bishop Burke did not commit an immoral or disgraceful act, and the negative response certainly is not warranted. What he did was certainly controversial, but not if you look at the principle of the matter. Just because people don't like it doesn't mean that it is a scandal. The Bishop did nothing wrong.

However, if a scandal did occur, and the people's response was negative, even THAT would not be the first consideration. The possibility that people fall away from faith due to the Bishop's actions is more the consideration. So, more precisely, we don't want to do things that would cause the faithful, and weak in faith to stumble. To prevent this, we ACT IN PRINCIPLE. If principle causes people to leave the Catholic Church, it is not the Bishop's fault.

Katherine, we do not change our principles simply because money is involved. We also don't change our principles if negative publicity comes of it. Sheryl Crowe has been an advocate for the culture of death for a long time. She has been very vocal for a woman's right to choose death for their unborn babies. She may even damaged our cause with her popularity. How much, we don't know. She may even had drawn some of our own towards her way of thinking. However, to do an about face and draw her in because we want to use her name recognition for raising money is hypocritical, superficial, immoral and inexcusable. If Bishop Burke would have approved Crowe's involvement, THAT most certainly would have caused a scandal, and an angry response by the Catholic faithful would indeed have been just. If Catholics leave the Church because of Bishop Burke's actions, then they aren't very Catholic in the first place. That is their problem.

You still haven't answered my question: If you are a pro-life Orthodox Roman Catholic, what was it about the actions of Bishop Burke that were so offensive, which obviously produces such irritation in you?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home