From left) Lawrence Biondi, Raymond L. Burke and Rick Majerus
Posted on 01/23/2008 6:43:48 AM PST by NYer
ST. LOUIS - Comments made by Saint Louis University menb's basketball coach Rick Majerus have him in hot water with Archbishop Raymond Burke.
Burke said Tuesday that he will ask officials of SLU to take "appropriate action" against its basketball coach, who said in a television interview that he supports abortion rights.
One of the game’s winningest coaches, Majerus made the comment at a weekend rally for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Burke declined to say what the action against Majerus should be, saying that was a decision for the Jesuit university. But he said the coach is a leader and shouldn’t support views in opposition to church teaching.
“I’m concerned that a leader at a Catholic university made these comments. It can lead Catholics astray,” Burke said by telephone as he attended March for Life anti-abortion events in Washington. “I just believe that it’s of the essence for people to understand as a Catholic you just cannot hold these beliefs.”
Burke said he will seek to speak with university president Rev. Lawrence Biondi, or a representative, when he returns to St. Louis.
During an interview with KMOV-TV at Saturday’s Clinton rally in suburban St. Louis, the first-year Billikens coach identified himself as a Catholic and called himself pro-choice. At first when asked for his views on abortion, he said he didn’t want to “go there,” but then said he is personally “pro-choice.”
Saint Louis University spokesman Clayton Berry said Majerus was at the rally as an individual, not as a representative of the school.
Majerus has one of the best winning percentages among active college basketball coaches with a 432-154 career record. Most of those wins, and a 1998 Final Four appearance, came at the University of Utah, which he left in 2004 due to health concerns. Before taking the Saint Louis job he worked as an ESPN analyst, and accepted and quickly gave up the coaching job at Southern California.
Burke set off a national debate in 2004 when he said he would deny Holy Communion to John Kerry, then the Democratic presidential nominee, because the Catholic Massachusetts senator supports abortion rights.
The archbishop resigned last year as board chairman for the Cardinal Glennon Children’s Foundation because of a benefit-concert appearance by Sheryl Crow, a native Missourian who supports abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research.
I guess Majerus DID learn something after all his years living in Utah.
The same coach who led his team to the lowest point total ever in an NCAA basketball game, since the shot clock was introduced.
Hmmm.
>During an interview with KMOV-TV at Saturday’s Clinton rally in suburban St. Louis, the first-year Billikens coach identified himself as a Catholic and called himself pro-choice. At first when asked for his views on abortion, he said he didn’t want to “go there,” but then said he is personally “pro-choice.”
The LDS Church does not take action against members who hold a political position opposite that taken by the LDS Church. I’m aware that the RC Church does regarding political leaders, e.g., abortion rights. Is it also true that it takes action against educators and coaches?
What about taking action against an individual Catholic who does not have any leadership position?
The Utah Legislature passed an anti-abortion bill that was tougher than any of the other 50 states. And the Utah Governor signed the bill into law.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7DB1E3FF935A15752C0A967958260
So on what basis do you diss Utah for being pro-abortion rights?
Both Catholics and LDSers have internal legal procedures for kicking members out of their respective organizations.
That's pretty well-known.
Sure. My question isn’t whether there is the ability. The question is whether it would happen.
The LDS position is that it is not a basis to excommunicate a member (or withhold the sacrament via disfellowship) based on a political position. Even when the LDS Church and the RC Church have joined forces to oppose gay marriage, the LDS Church did not take action against an LDS politician or member for taking the opposite view.
Abortion isn't politics. It is at base a moral issue issue that has been politicized.
If you believe that abortion is moral, you are - by definition - not a Catholic. If you keep lying to people by publicly asserting that you are a Catholic, steps will be taken to remind people that you are a liar.
Majerus didn’t argue that abortion is moral. He stated that he disagrees with it. So he’s not taking an opposite view as to the “morality” of abortion.
He’s taking an opposite view on whether the state should have the right to prohibit an abortion. That’s a separate question.
No, it isn't.
It is the same as saying: "I personally have no desire to murder anyone, but the government shouldn't have a right to tell me who I can or cannot murder."
“Majerus has one of the best winning percentages among active college basketball coaches with a 432-154 career record.”
Satan takes care of his own...for a while.
As a further example. I would assume that the RC Church would take issue with the view that it is moral to deny that Christ is the Son of God, right? (Seems patently obvious.) Well, the LDS Church would as well (and in fact if you denied that Christ was the Son of God you could not go to the temple and it would be grounds for excommunication - whether a leader or not).
But is it wrong for a RC to support the right of a person to deny the Christ, i.e., freedom of religion? I believe in Christ. He is my Savior, the literal Son of God. But I strongly support the right of my brother to deny Christ. (Just won’t go so well for him in the after life, but that’s not a matter for the State to decide.)
If Mr. Majerus had kept his yap shut, there wouldn’t be an issue.
Look at what Archbishop Burke actually said:
“’I’m concerned that a leader at a Catholic university made these comments. It can lead Catholics astray,’ Burke said...”
The problem is one of public scandal, of a leader in a Catholic institution taking a public position diametrically at odds with settled, authoritative Catholic moral teaching.
I wish more of our bishops had the guts to do this.
sitetest
By not recognizing the truth about Jesus you are inadvertently harming yourself, you are not deliberately murdering or deliberately encouraging the murder of anyone else.
So you could deny the Christ and remain a member in good standing of the RC Church? I find that hard to believe.
I fully understand the import. That is why I asked if the RC rule applied to educators and coaches, as opposed to solely politicians.
Apparently it does.
Does it also apply to regular members? Seems that I am getting a mixed response, but based on what you posted it suggests that a member who is not in the public eye (let’s just call him a “public figure”) would be disciplined for stating the opinion, while a non-public figure would not.
That's not what I am saying.
I am pointing out that if not believing in Jesus is sufficient grounds for excommunication, then clearly not believing in Jesus plus advocating the murder of the helpless innocent is all the more justified.
And yes, I am saying that if someone advocates abortion and claims to believe in Jesus, then they are lying about believing in Jesus.
Where is the crosier with a spine graphic?
But bringing us back to THIS situation. Recall that Majerus does not support abortion. He opposes the state making it illegal.
I find it possible to support the right of a person to have an abortion, while finding abortion morally wrong. Though I think to have that view, you have to believe that the child is not a person during pregnanacy.
I find it possible to support the right to deny Christ while finding such denial the epitome of immorality (for you are denying God who defines morality).
I think it is unfair to Majerus to suggest that he supports abortion because he supports abortion rights, especially when he opined that he believes abortion is wrong.
He identified himself publicly as a Catholic. Why do that if he does not believe the basic principles of the Church? I know nothing in the Scriptures or the Creeds says “Thou shall not kill the unborn.”but the Pope has spoken Ex Cathedra about this. If you “are a Catholic” you submit to the wisdom of the Church on this. If you have any sense you always default to the life of the innocent. If you do otherwise you are publicly in defiance and should be denied the sacraments. Even a lapsed Catholic like me knows that.
I am certain that just as “thou shall not kill the unborn,” it is also said that “thou shall not engage in pornography.”
Does that mean that one has offended the RC Church by supporting “free speech” and the right of pornographers to sell their wares?*
*For the record, I do not believe that the First Amendment’s right of “free speech” protects the right of pornographers, but apparently the courts think the Constitution says otherwise (though the agree obscene speech is unprotected - go figure).
You give Majerus too much credit. He has two religions from birth; the Church and the Democratic party. Chances are he has not resolved the conflict yet, and remember that for years the Church didn’t press the issue.
Advocating the legality of murder means that you support murder. There is no distinction at all between the two positions.
Which is ridiculous belief on its face.
I think it is unfair to Majerus to suggest that he supports abortion because he supports abortion rights
It's quite fair.
If someone supports the decriminalization of murder, they clearly are supporting and advocating murder.
There is no right to murder.
Though I think to have that view, you have to believe that the child is not a person during pregnanacy.
Which is a ridiculous belief on its face.
Perhaps you should read my post again.
Personally, I am ecstatic that the RC Church presses the issue (though it is certainly inconsistent in that regard). I wish that we would hold more people’s feet to the fire.
That doesn’t change my curiosity as to how far the RC Church will take this (holding a political* view against a non-public figure who is a member).
*Note: I’m calling this a political view because most of society sees it as such, though I could easily see the viewpoint that this is not about politics but about morals and thus the RC Church is not imposing political beliefs on its members, but insisting the members uphold the morals of the RC Church.
Where are you getting this? All I see in the article is:
At first when asked for his views on abortion, he said he didn’t want to “go there,” but then said he is personally “pro-choice.”
In my neck of the woods "didn't want to 'go there'" means he didn't want to talk about it. But -- pressed, apparently -- he said only that he is pro-"choice".
>Which is a ridiculous belief on its face.
I don’t know. While I oppose abortion, I’m not sure if “life” begins the day of the first cell division or sometime later. I’d point to evidence of John jumping in the womb as clear evidence of it happening before birth, but not sure “when” it happens.
I certainly would not consider the sperm/egg prior to conception to have life (only the potential).
Nonetheless, I’m not willing to take a gamble (though my own church excuses abortion in cases of rape and incest).
So the gamete is a dead cell and not a living cell, then?
I think it is unfair to Majerus John Kerry to suggest that he supports abortion because he supports abortion rights, especially when he opined that he believes abortion is wrong.
The Church(in caps we know what you mean)does not discipline members for political positions. It defines its members in good standing by their actions and beliefs in relation to Church laws. Majerus identified himself as a Catholic. He didn’t have to do that.
He also stated:
>You know, you can be for people making a choice without yourself wanting to engage in it. Easy for me to say.
In my read, it seems clear that he does not believe abortion to be correct, but that he is for people making a choice themselves.
http://www.salon.com/sports/col/kaufman/2008/01/23/wednesday/
Being pro or anti abortion has little to do with biology. New human life begins at conception, period. That is the science of the matter.
I’d point to evidence of John jumping in the womb as clear evidence of it happening before birth, but not sure “when” it happens.
Doesn't matter how high John jumped, biologically the process begins at conception and the human continuum of life ends at death for each particular human organism. Not hard stuff.
I certainly would not consider the sperm/egg prior to conception to have life (only the potential).
Sperm and egg are living cells but they are not unique human beings/organisms.
Nonetheless, I’m not willing to take a gamble (though my own church excuses abortion in cases of rape and incest).
Good, defend life.
As for Majerus, he can not be a leader of young Catholics while shilling for the abortionists. Terminate his employment and tell him to get right with the Lord.
I’d agree on John Kerry (wrong saying he supports abortions). But I also fully understand the RC Church withholding communion because of his position as a Catholic public figure.
“Does it also apply to regular members?”
Certainly, anyone who denies Catholic Truth who purports to be a member of the Catholic Church puts his membership in jeopardy.
However, individual bishops have wide latitude in how to discipline their flocks.
Nonetheless, in this case, the archbishop has provided the grounds for action:
“’I’m concerned that a leader at a Catholic university made these comments. It can lead Catholics astray,’ Burke said...”
The two grounds are the person’s leadership position in a Catholic institution and his public statements contrary to Catholic Faith. Thus, the issue is to be dealt with publicly, to provide clarity to the Catholic faithful that this man’s personal opinions are not acceptable, not congruent to Catholic Faith.
The ordinary means by which the Church would deal with an ordinary layperson who expressed firm opinions at odds with Catholic Faith would be for the layperson’s priest to work with him to clarify Catholic teaching, to call the person to a more faithful submission to Catholic teaching, and to work individually with that person over time to help him to be a better Catholic.
But that presupposes that the layperson wasn’t running around telling the media that he opposed authoritative Catholic teaching, and that the layperson wasn't in a leadership position in a Catholic institution.
sitetest
That seems very reasonable.
No one is talking about “excommunicating” this guy (at least at this point). The question is whether it’s appropriate for someone with pro-abortion (and thus anti-Catholic) views to have a prominent job at a Catholic university. Would BYU keep a coach around if he was going around saying that Joseph Smith was a con man and the gold tablets were bogus?
>No one is talking about “excommunicating” this guy (at least at this point). The question is whether it’s appropriate for someone with pro-abortion (and thus anti-Catholic) views to have a prominent job at a Catholic university. Would BYU keep a coach around if he was going around saying that Joseph Smith was a con man and the gold tablets were bogus?
A better example would be apples to apples: Would BYU keep a coach around who stated that he was personally pro-abortion rights?
I honestly don’t know the answer to that one.
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.(71)
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. (72)
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth .(73)
This is Catholic teaching. Rick can not stand by while the rights of unborn children are violated and be in good standing with the Church. The two are simply incompatible.
Now there’s an argument you’ll hear from a number of “pro-choicers”. Tell one them (presumably someone you know) you want to have an abortion.... they will spit and spudder and tell you it’s wrong. A number of people who consider themselves ‘pro-choice’ do so so they won’t be labeled intolerant. Lipservice for popularity.
I disagree that it’s necessarily lip service. I can see a strong argument that it’s not up to the state to make this choice for a woman.
I have no problem believing that many people who tout that line are as sincere in that belief as those who oppose abortion rights are in theirs.
You are either pro-abortion or you’re not. Killing a baby is either wrong or it’s not. There is no middle ground. There is no “it’s okay for you to kill your kid but it’s morally wrong for me to kill mine”.
Would you support the right of your child to murder your grandchild because it’s inconvenient?
The official LDS position is:
>Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.
Further, while “exceptional circumstances” may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth, even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion.
I do not see anything from the LDS Church that prevents any member (public figure or otherwise) from taking a pro-abortion rights position. Nonetheless, most LDS are firmly against it (even Senator Reid, a Democrat).
No, a non-public figure would be disciplined as well - if the Bishop or Pastor had the stomache for it. To many leaders don’t have the stomache for it today, in my opinion.
I think the point is, not that Majerus is simply a member of the Catholic church, but that he is an employee of a Catholic university.
BYU has fired professors who have taken public positions in opposition to the LDS church’s teachings. That’s BYU’s right, and it’s SLU’s right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.