Skip to comments.St. Louis media actively seeks public opinion about archbishop’s decision re Crow
Posted on 04/30/2007 1:20:31 PM PDT by NYer
New York, Apr 30, 2007 / 11:23 am (CNA).- The St. Louis media seems to be running a campaign against the Catholic Church, following Archbishop Raymond Burkes protest of abortion-activist Sheryl Crows performance at a Catholic hospital fundraiser.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch and KMOV (CBS affiliate), in particular, have invited the public to voice its opinion over the archbishops decision.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue says the voyeuristic posture assumed by these two media outlets is not legitimate.
According to Donohue, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is inviting non-Catholics to opine about an internal matter of the St. Louis Archdiocese, beckoning the bigots to post their hatred on its website.
It has even gone so far as to run a punch line cartoon on this issue, asking the public to submit a caption, reported Donohue.
KMOV is also playing voyeur by asking Protestants, Jews, Muslims, agnostics and atheists to stick their noses into the business of another religion, he added.
Furthermore, the station has four surveys on its website on the Catholic Church. However, Donohue notes, no other religion is open for question.
At first glance, the Cardinal Glennon-Sheryl Crow dispute might look like a power struggle between a hospital and an archbishop. In fact, it raises two important moral principles that all of us have to wrestle with in the ordinary choices we make every day.
The first is scandal. When we describe something as "scandalous," we usually mean shocking or disgraceful. A better understanding of the word is, as Archbishop Burke noted, to do something that leads another person into evil. Scandal is a "stumbling stone" — an action that gives respectability to moral wrong and leads me to make a bad choice. Individuals can cause scandal (e.g., by giving a bad example to a child or a subordinate). Corporate scandal is worse because corporations have more power, status and influence in society. It is worse still when it involves a faith-based corporation because these organizations have a religious mission and enjoy the public trust. We hold them and their leaders to a higher standard. They must assess their alliances very carefully to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing or ethical carelessness.
The second principle is cooperation, which asks, "How close can I get to the evil action or intention of another before I get morally implicated myself?" The simplest case is the driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery. Is she morally complicit if she not only drives the car but plans the robbery as well? Surely. Is she morally involved if she drives the getaway car but thinks the robber is just cashing a paycheck? Perhaps not. If she just loans her car not knowing what it will be used for or the car is used without her permission? Probably not. In each case, my lack of knowledge or shared intent diminishes my moral responsibility.
As citizens, all of us are called to work together for the common good. If we participate in a pluralistic society, however, absolute moral purity is impossible. We will inevitably find ourselves working with folks whose beliefs we do not share. This doesn't necessarily mean that we can't work side by side with other volunteers on a Habitat for Humanity build who might hold views we consider to be immoral.
May I contribute to an organization that supports two kinds of work, one morally good and the other morally objectionable, or see a movie produced by an anti-Semite, or buy a product made with child labor? Perhaps, but only if in my best judgment I can say that I do not share the intention of the evildoer and that I am not causing scandal by appearing to do so. Moral choices are rarely crystal clear. The Cardinal Glennon officials surely did not intend to endorse the performer's views when they invited her, but many feel the connection was too close for comfort. As a church leader, the Archbishop was obliged to clarify his stance to avoid scandal. For the rest of us — individuals and institutions alike — this controversy provides an opportunity to examine what we choose, whom we cooperate with, and how our choices may influence others.
Charles E. Bouchard, O.P., is president of Aquinas Institute of Theology.
POLL: Do you agree with the archbishop's stance?
1 man + the truth = majority
Do you agree with the archbishop’s stance?
I don’t know
Polls are unscientific, reflecting only the views of those who choose to participate.
Remember how the idol-makers in Ephesus tried to rouse the mob against Paul? Nothing new here.
"Welcome to Punch Line, our new Friday feature! We supply the unfinished cartoon, you supply the captions, and then you vote for the winner..."
I voted and apparently the masses think he is wrong. I voted he was right. To follow Jesus means we WILL be shunned by the world. So be it.
The cartoon SHOULD portray the bishop as praying for those entering. THEN it would be accurate.
He SHOULD have taken a swipe at her, provided he only used one square.
same results for me, including vote count.
God bless ArchBishop Burke.
Some update tallies on a periodic basis. Some “lock” results altogether.
I’ve actually seen the Atlanta Urinal-Constipation dump poll results when they didn’t go the way they wanted and started over.
It is no surprise the ultra-liberal St. Louis "slimedia", of which the Post-Dispatch is an anchoring member, would actively seek to dampen any moral certitude regardless the quarter of origination, including the Roman Catholic Church. That should speak volumes to everyone about the determination of the amoral, relativistic enemy, especially considering the majority catholic population of the St. Louis area.
Itâs not easy being Catholic. And, thatâs just one of the things I like about it.
It’s not easy being Catholic. And, that’s just one of the things I like about it.
Hey ... that’s great!!! Thanks for posting it to this thread!
It bears remembering that "the masses" voted for Barabbas too. Most of the time, I'm not impressed with the wisdom of the masses when they are whipped into an anti-Christian frenzy by the popular figures of the day.
The really sad thing (for those for whom the day will be a terrible judgment) for Sheryl Crow and those like her is that one day they will have to bow before Him Through Whom All Things Were Made and give account of their lives and actions. Being complicit in the slaughter of millions of innocent children is something I don't think will play very well with God.
Under the category of unintended consequences, this liberal media atttack may make the good Archbishop well known and popular among faithful Catholics. Wouldn’t that be nice.