Bishop Burke: Just Doing His Job

The University News ^ | 1/23/04 | Brian Carl

[pseudo-ignatius]

"Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough, inasmuch as you are unleavened ... Therefore, let us celebrate the feast, not with the old yeast, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth ... I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person."

--1 Corinthians 5:7-8, 11, 13.

Bishop Raymond Burke, the Archbishop-elect of St. Louis who is to be installed on Jan. 26, is bringing with him some measure of controversy. In a series of letters and declarations, his excellency declared that any Catholic politicians who support abortion and euthanasia must either renounce their public support of these issues or stop receiving Holy Communion. He also instructed the pastors of his diocese to not give Communion to politicians who publicly support abortion or euthanasia.

Among the assertions made by those who are upset about the Bishop's actions is the claim that he is somehow "violating the separation of church and state." Many assert that the Bishop is merely meddling in politics, trying to exercise political power over duly elected legislators. Is this what his excellency is doing?

Perhaps the greatest misconception about Burke's action is that he has done something radically new, autocratically decreeing that pro-abortion Catholic politicians may not receive Holy Communion. This is not the case. The term for the letter he sent to the Catholic politicians in question is a "notification." That is, His Excellency was merely notifying the politicians in question--who are members of his flock--and his pastors of certain facts that are explicitly clear in Catholic teaching.

These facts are basically as follows: procuring or formally cooperating in an abortion is a grave sin. Someone in a position of public power and influence who uses his power "in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2287) "Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense ... Scandal can be provoked by laws." (paragraphs 2284, 2286)

Those in a state of grave sin may not receive Holy Communion, and bishops and pastors have the right and responsibility to refuse Holy Communion to those who publicly commit grave sin.

All of the above may be found in the Catechism and the Code of Canon Law. Quite frankly, politicians who claim to be Catholic should know the teaching of their Church; it shouldn't even be necessary for a bishop to tell them that they aren't welcome to receive Holy Communion until they have changed their positions and received absolution from a priest in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

While I certainly admire Burke for taking a clear stand as the shepherd of his flock, I lament that his action is seen as extravagant when he, as a successor of the Apostles, is simply doing his job.

I have to hold back the urge to laugh at the suggestion that what Burke has done is somehow a violation of the "separation of church and state." This particular phrase is found nowhere in the Constitution. What there is, however, is the First Amendment, which says the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

In no way does the Constitution forbid people from allowing their political views to be influenced by their religious views. In fact, a number of the founding fathers thought of religion as absolutely essential to the health of the Republic. John Adams once said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (I am aware that the majority of the founding fathers were virulently anti-Catholic--but that really has nothing to do with the question at hand).

The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion and the right of the people to free association. The right of the Catholic Church to make clear its own conditions for membership and participation is established first by the law of God, and it is protected legally in this country by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Politicians who far too long have supported the grave evils of abortion and euthanasia have been allowed to call themselves "faithful Catholics." For too long have the faithful members of the Church been scandalized and confused by this public sin. I make no judgment about the actual states of the souls of these politicians, but it is clear that their actions are scandalous.

Commend Bishop Burke for stepping in to state the clear facts of our faith in this matter. By doing so, he is both protecting the faithful from scandal and caring for the souls of these Catholic politicians, in the hope that they will stop their public sin and return to full union with the Church.

Brian Carl is a junior studying history and philosophy.

[pseudo-ignatius]

This is from the student newspaper of Saint Louis University.

[NYer]

It should be interesting to see whether or not his successor in the Diocese of LaCrosse, continues the Communion ban or caves in to 'political' pressure.

REMINDER - EWTN will provide live coverage of Archbishop elect Raymond Burke's installation, Monday afternoon beginning at 3pm EST. They have set aside 3 hours for the mass.

Published: Friday, Jan. 23 2004

Services on Sunday and Monday will welcome Archbishop-elect Raymond Burke to St. Louis. He is expected to drive from his current diocese of La Crosse, Wis., to St. Louis Saturday.

On Sunday, Burke will preach at a prayer service at 7:30 p.m. at the St. Louis Cathedral Basilica, 4431 Lindell Boulevard in the city's Central West End.

Near the end of the 90-minute service, 70 Catholic leaders, interfaith leaders and state, county and city elected officials will be escorted into the sanctuary to meet Burke. About 9 p.m., a reception will follow at Rosati-Kain High School, just east of the church.

At 2 p.m. Monday at the basilica, Monsignor Leopoldo Girelli of the Papal Nunciature in Washington will read the pope's message appointing Burke to the Archdiocese of St. Louis. The assembly will be asked to applaud as a gesture of giving its consent to the appointment. Then, in an ancient ritual, Burke will be seated formally in the cathedra - the chair - of the cathedral.

Many bishops from Wisconsin, Missouri and other states will concelebrate the Mass of St. Timothy and St. Titus immediately after the seating ceremony. A reception at Rosati-Kain will follow. Burke will preach at the Monday service also. The 100-voice Archdiocesan Choir, the Bell Choir and the cathedral orchestra will provide music.

The church doors will open at 11 a.m. and the clergy procession will begin at 1:30 p.m. for the Monday installation service. Interfaith leaders will be special guests at that service also.

Both services and receptions are open to the public.

Between Jan. 28 and Feb. 16, Burke will celebrate 10 evening Masses at churches in each of the 10 deaneries - geographical divisions - of the archdiocese. At each one, he will have dinner with the deanery priests before the Mass and remain afterward to meet the parishioners of that deanery.

For more information call (314) 792-7000.

[madprof98]

. . . 70 Catholic leaders, interfaith leaders and state, county and city elected officials will be escorted into the sanctuary to meet Burke . . .

Wonder how many of these folk are going to get some upsetting letters from the new archbishop.

[NYer]

From what I have been told, the Governor who is not catholic, will be in attendance. I guess the word has gotten out!

PS - would you like to be added to my catholic ping list? You'll get the news - at least "what's fit to print" of it ;-D

[Romulus]

It's the CINO politicians who're violating Church/State separation. They're attempting to extort her validation of objectively evil acts, in service of their political agendas.

[EODGUY]

The La Crosse area has a significant Catholic population and even the local newspaper has shown support for Archbishop Burke's act.

Your question is very pertinent. My daughter and son-in-law are members of the La Crosse diocese and pray earnestly that Archbishop Burke's successor will share his courage and devotion.

God Bless,


EODGUY

[dsc]

Bishop Burke looks like a good man.

Off topic, hope it won't be too irritating:

I really want to know whether I'm deceiving myself when I read character in the faces of priests. It seems to me that the abusers have evil in their faces, and some people have agreed with me on that, but are we really seeing it or just being "wise after the fact?"

Would anybody be interested in a little experiment to shed some light on that?

I was thinking that some number--maybe 20--of little-known photos of abusers and good priests could be assembled, and a number of people could try their hands at identifying the abusers with no information other than the photo.

Is anyone else interested in this?

[Salvation]

**"Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough, inasmuch as you are unleavened ... Therefore, let us celebrate the feast, not with the old yeast, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth ... I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person."


--1 Corinthians 5:7-8, 11, 13**

Exactly what needs to be done!

[Salvation]

How could we possibly judge?

[dsc]

"How could we possibly judge?"

That's what I want to find out.

Is there something in the face of abusers that allows people like you to identify them with better than random frequency?

Participants would just be looking at photos, and would make a determination about each one--yes, he's an abuser, or no, he's not. I'd like to see the data. If people are just guessing, then the results will show that.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

A.M.D.G.

[american colleen]

Is anyone else interested in this?

Dsc, if their faces showed evil then no one would have permitted their children around them... I am thinking of two well known abusers here... John Geoghan and Paul Shanley... particularly Geoghan looked like he couldn't and wouldn't hurt a fly. Part of the evil is that these priests looked normal and kind.

[american colleen]

A.M.D.G

I know I am slow but I don't know what this means!

[steve8714]

Thank goodness it looks like we will get an old-fashioned priest as our archbishop. Hopefully he will take a big stick to all the pervert priests in the archdiocese and get the Church out of the state's way for prosecution.
Telling off these so-called Catholic pro death pols would be a big deal too. Less manners, more agression are needed.

[dsc]

"Dsc, if their faces showed evil then no one would have permitted their children around them... I am thinking of two well known abusers here... John Geoghan and Paul Shanley... particularly Geoghan looked like he couldn't and wouldn't hurt a fly. Part of the evil is that these priests looked normal and kind."

I have said up front that I might be totally wrong about this, and the reason I want to do an experiment is to see if there is any support for the notion that I might not be wrong.

It just might be that the glamor of evil blinds people to the evil itself when in the presence of these priests. Or it could be the charisma of the priesthood. Perhaps it only shows in a photo taken in a moment of candor, or after public exposure.

When I saw photos of John Geoghan and Paul Shanley they looked evil to me, while Abp. Burke doesn't. I'd just like to see if there's anything to that, or if it's just imagination.

Other people have also made remarks about this, so who knows?

[dsc]

Ad majorem Dei gloriam.

For the greater glory of God.