Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Leading His Flock: Has the new archbishop of St. Louis crossed a line?
National Review Online ^ | January 29, 2004 | Robert P. George & Gerard V. Bradley

Posted on 01/29/2004 7:27:19 AM PST by xsysmgr

The Catholic Church proclaims the principle that every human being — without regard to age, size, stage of development, or condition of dependency — is entitled to the protection of the laws. In line with the indisputable facts of human embryogenesis and intrauterine human development, the Church teaches that children "hidden in the womb" are human beings. It is the obligation of legislators and other public officials to honor and protect their inalienable right to life. Yet many Catholic politicians, including the Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress, are staunch supporters of a "right to abortion." What should the leaders of the Church do about such people?

Raymond Burke, who was installed this past Monday as archbishop of St. Louis, has an answer. He has declared that public officials who act to expose the unborn to the violence of abortion may not receive Holy Communion, the sacramental symbolic of Church unity.

Pro-life citizens of every religious persuasion have applauded the bishop's action. Many commented that it is long past time for religious leaders to show that they are serious about their commitment to the sanctity of human life. Believers in "abortion rights," by contrast, were quick to condemn Bishop Burke. They denounced him for "crossing the line" separating church and state. In one of the wire stories we read, the partisans of abortion branded the rather mild-mannered Burke a "fanatic."

The "crossing the line" charge is silly. In acting on his authority as a bishop to discipline members of his flock, Bishop Burke is exercising his own constitutional right to the free exercise of religion; he is not depriving others of their rights. No one is compelled by law to accept his authority. But Bishop Burke has every right to exercise his spiritual authority over anyone who chooses to accept it. There is a name for such people: They are called "Catholics."

By demanding that Catholic legislators honor the rights of all human beings, the unborn not excluded, Bishop Burke may cause them to reconsider implicating themselves in the injustice of abortion. (Surely he hopes to do that.) But not even his harshest critics charge that the bishop said or implied that the law of the state should be used to compel anyone to accept his authority. Catholic legislators remain legally free to vote as they please. Bishop Burke, in turn, enjoys the legal right to exercise his spiritual authority as a bishop to order them to refrain from receiving communion so long as they persist in what the Church teaches are acts of profound injustice against their fellow human beings. Freedom is a two-way street.

What about the allegation that Burke's actions show that he is a fanatic?

The bishop said that he acted for two reasons. One was to warn Catholic legislators that their unjust acts were spiritually harmful to them — "a grave sin." The other was to prevent "scandal": that is, weakening the faith and moral resolution of others by one's bad example. Having made every effort to persuade pro-abortion Catholic legislators to fulfill their obligations in justice to the unborn, Bishop Burke articulated the obvious: Any Catholic who exercises political power to expose a disfavored class of human beings to unjust killing sets himself against the very faith he claims to share. The Church cannot permit such a person to pretend to share in the faith he publicly defies. By receiving communion — the sacrament of unity — pro-abortion Catholics are pretending exactly that. The bishop has called a halt to the pretense.

Scandal is not a peculiarly Catholic or even religious concern. Business executives who wink at accounting shenanigans or racist humor permit a corrupt or racist corporate culture to flourish. We have all heard of cases where male employees' sexual bantering was tolerated, despite a firm's pretense of wholesomeness and sexual equality. Actions speak louder than words. Where leaders do not act to uphold stated principles, everyone concludes that the principles are nothing more than cynical propaganda. No one need take them too seriously.

Scandal occurs in religious communities in the same way, and has the same effect. When Catholic Church officials did nothing about priests who abused children, those who knew the facts had to wonder: Do church authorities not really mean it when they say these acts are immoral? Are such acts really wrong, if nothing happens to those known to perform them? If they are wrong, wouldn't the bishops act decisively against those who commit them?

The same concern underlies the discussion of what Church leaders did and failed to do during the Holocaust. No serious person suggests that the German bishops or Vatican officials actively supported the Nazis' murderous policies. The suggestion, rather, is that by their (alleged) failure to denounce those policies and to excommunicate those Nazi leaders who had Catholic backgrounds, Church officials signaled that Catholics could legitimately support Nazi policies without peril to their souls or to their standing in the Church. Critics of those Church leaders suppose precisely what Bishop Burke supposes: If the Church is to be in solidarity with victims of injustice, bishops must not permit those Catholics who commit or abet the injustices to pretend to be Catholics in good standing with the Church.

What Bishop Burke's critics have failed to see is that he is not acting as a political partisan or lobbyist. He knows perfectly well that his actions might, in fact, redound to the political advantage of the legislators to whom his order is directed. His specific aim is not to win specific legislative battles over abortion (however much he would agree that these battles should be fought and won); his purpose, rather, is to defend the integrity of Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life and to confirm in the minds and hearts of the Catholic faithful their solemn moral obligation to oppose the killing of the innocent.

Most of Burke's critics — Catholic and non-Catholic alike — are liberals. Many insist that "separation of church and state" means that no religious leader may presume to tell public officials what their positions may and may not be on matters of public policy. But if we shift the focus from abortion to, say, genocide, slavery, or segregation, we see how implausible such a view is. When, in the late 1950s, the Catholic archbishop of New Orleans excommunicated Catholics who opposed the desegregation, liberals rightly applauded him. They were right then; they are wrong now.

Robert P. George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. Gerard V. Bradley is professor of law at the University of Notre Dame.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: abortion; abortionlist; catholic; catholiclist; catholicpoliticians; communion; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

1 posted on 01/29/2004 7:27:20 AM PST by xsysmgr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xsysmgr
Most of Burke's critics — Catholic and non-Catholic alike — are liberals. Many insist that "separation of church and state" means that no religious leader may presume to tell public officials what their positions may and may not be on matters of public policy.

Unless, of course, you are Bill Clinton giving a campaign speech in a Black church...

2 posted on 01/29/2004 7:30:40 AM PST by 2banana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsysmgr
abso-freakin'-lutely!
3 posted on 01/29/2004 7:30:47 AM PST by steve8714
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsysmgr
Robert P. George & Gerard V. Bradley are always worth listening to. We are fortunate to have such men fearlessly speaking out for the truth, from institutions where the truth is no longer often heard.
4 posted on 01/29/2004 7:34:54 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsysmgr
Any Catholic who exercises political power to expose a disfavored class of human beings to unjust killing sets himself against the very faith he claims to share. The Church cannot permit such a person to pretend to share in the faith he publicly defies. By receiving communion the sacrament of unity pro-abortion Catholics are pretending exactly that. The bishop has called a halt to the pretense.

BRAVO!

5 posted on 01/29/2004 7:35:09 AM PST by Between the Lines ("What Goes Into the Mind Comes Out in a Life")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsysmgr; *Abortion_list; *Pro_Life; *Catholic_list; cpforlife.org; Mr. Silverback; cgk; NYer
No serious person suggests that the German bishops or Vatican officials actively supported the Nazis' murderous policies. The suggestion, rather, is that by their (alleged) failure to denounce those policies and to excommunicate those Nazi leaders who had Catholic backgrounds, Church officials signaled that Catholics could legitimately support Nazi policies without peril to their souls or to their standing in the Church. Critics of those Church leaders suppose precisely what Bishop Burke supposes: If the Church is to be in solidarity with victims of injustice, bishops must not permit those Catholics who commit or abet the injustices to pretend to be Catholics in good standing with the Church.

EXCELLENT point!

6 posted on 01/29/2004 7:35:21 AM PST by Winston Smith Jr.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsysmgr; dansangel
Catholic legislators remain legally free to vote as they please

They have a free will, they have a right to choose whether they will be Catholics and politicians or politicians and agnostics. they are also free to choose whether they stay in God's good graces or not. Heaven or Hell it's their choice. And it's about time they were made to choose..

7 posted on 01/29/2004 7:36:20 AM PST by .45MAN ("I am what I am because of what I am")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsysmgr
What is this? Church discipline from a draconian fundamentalist Bishop who is power-mad foaming at the mouth and needs to be locked up? We must draft legislation to make this abhorrent and far too public display of church authority illegal. Doesn't the Bishop know that matters of faith are private and should not be expected to interfere with public matters and decisions?

In other news, roaches continue to scramble underneath the garbage can when the light gets turned on.
8 posted on 01/29/2004 7:40:28 AM PST by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsysmgr
read later
9 posted on 01/29/2004 7:42:49 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .45MAN
The same American brain who want to deny a Catholic leader the right to think or talk is negotiating with the "grand" fanatic Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq. They will do whatever he says. If he ordered the Americans to kill the Christian minority in Iraq, they will comply to please his holyness!
10 posted on 01/29/2004 7:44:51 AM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: xsysmgr
And just because this always comes up:

The Church's teaching on abortion is infallible. The Pope specifically and clearly cited the formulation for infallible doctrine in a way that has only been done two other times in history. Abortion "rights" are a perversion of democracy, and politicians who support them are directly causing the deaths of millions of babies.

On the other hand, the pope is merely of the opinion that the Iraq war did not meet "just war" standards, and thus, he opposed it. Such a conclusion required assumptions of which the Pope claims neither authority or expertise.

In other cases, the Pope has clearly stated that while Catholic leaders may have opinions of issues (welfare, income redistribution, etc.), those church leaders can offer only values, and cannot be authoritative on how to meet those values.

For instance, the church can insist that homelessness is bad. It cannot state whether the answer is the new liberal-fascist solution (ban construction of nice, new homes where "affordable housing" presently sits), liberal-socialist (government-funded slum construction) or free-market (encourage the creation of new housing, allowing high supply and low demand to keep older housing affordable). (My pastor is of the liberal-fascist school. I guess by my labels you can tell I am not. The church has, believe it or not, infallibly stated that the state has no right to confiscate property! [Vatican 1])
11 posted on 01/29/2004 7:53:46 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
Ahem... you're shouting.
12 posted on 01/29/2004 7:54:41 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: xsysmgr; NYer
Most of Burke's critics — Catholic and non-Catholic alike — are liberals.
13 posted on 01/29/2004 8:07:29 AM PST by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
Most of Burke's critics — Catholic and non-Catholic alike — are liberals.

I'm shocked... Shocked, I tell ya.

Prayers and thumbs up for Archbishop Burke.

14 posted on 01/29/2004 8:24:00 AM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xsysmgr; Desdemona; cebadams; Gophack; WriteOn; Salvation; patent; Siobhan; Polycarp; TotusTuus; ...
ping
15 posted on 01/29/2004 8:39:47 AM PST by pseudo-justin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsysmgr; Barnacle; CAtholic Family Association
FIGHT ABORTION PING!
16 posted on 01/29/2004 8:43:47 AM PST by Happy2BMe (U.S. borders - Controlled by CORRUPT Politicians and Slave-Labor Employers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsysmgr
Bishop Burke has spoken the TRUTH!! Liberals Despise Truth.
17 posted on 01/29/2004 8:46:29 AM PST by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Most of Burke's critics — Catholic and non-Catholic alike — are liberals. Many insist that "separation of church and state" means that no religious leader may presume to tell public officials what their positions may and may not be on matters of public policy.

That would be a violation of the priests free speech, and possibly the Catholic Church's right to free assembly, though I am not an expert in Constitutional Law.

But mark my words, someone will eventually sue the church for "violating their right to religious expression" because the church is keeping them out on account of an unrepentant sin. And who can doubt that they will find a sympathetic judge who wants to nail Christianity?

18 posted on 01/29/2004 8:46:40 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xsysmgr
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams
19 posted on 01/29/2004 9:00:27 AM PST by Barnacle ("It is as it was." JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
But mark my words, someone will eventually sue the church for "violating their right to religious expression" because the church is keeping them out on account of an unrepentant sin.

No one is keeping them out. Burke merely said that they should not receive Eucharist. That does not excuse them from a Sunday obligation or those on holy days. If these politicians were to repent, go to confession and serve their Penance, all would be forgiven. The door is not closed to them. The politicians do this to themselves.
20 posted on 01/29/2004 9:03:59 AM PST by Desdemona (Kempis' Imitation of Christ online! http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/imitation/imitation.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson