AmericanPapist Comments
The link to the Canon Law page is broken.
Thank you - fixed.
I'm not quite following what conduct of Majerus would justify the sanctions discussed.
As I understand it, he (foolishly) answered some questions on video tape at a Hillary Clinton rally, and he said that he is pro-abortion and pro-ESCR.
Well, his views are certainly contra Church teaching on those points, but it's not as if he is a government official in a position to enact legislation liberalizing abortion laws or appropriating funds to support abortion or ESCR.
He's a basketball coach. The only people who give a hoot about his opinions on these subjects are people who already support abortion and ESCR.
So what is his offense? Making widely disseminated public statements contrary to Church teaching?
Did Majerus seek to draw attention to his erroneous views? Is he out there promoting abortion or ESCR?
Excuse me, but did anybody hear anything about this controversy until Archbishop Burke weighed in suggesting punishment?
Archbishop Burke is absolutely right to focus attention on the errors of Catholic politicians (or professors) who advocate and act to support such grave matters as abortion and ESCR. There are quite a few of these characters out there at large.
But basketball coaches?
I'd respectfully suggest that the Archbishop put 'em a little further down the list and get to them after His Excellency wraps up all the politicians.
I disagree, brassband. No one would care about Majerus's views on abortion and embryonic stem cell research but for his role as a basketball coach. Strange perhaps, but nonetheless true. Majerus should stick to using his position to coach basketball. Once he starts using it as a bully pulpit to promote moral outrages, the Archbishop is spot on correct to call a technical.
"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."
I couldn't care less about his Clinton support. I continue to believe that pro-life Catholics can morally justify voting for pro-choice candidates. But Majerus's statement cannot be left to stand without response. Burke is being a shepherd.
brassband, I think Mike is right here. I mean, I would say that, I know, but, his reasoning is spot on.
Say that I, as a basketball coach, stood up at a political rally and said, "As a Catholic, I want to let you all know that the Archbishop's position on rape and steroid use being a sin for athletes, and his support of sanctions against these activities, is silly. Athletes should be able to rape and dope as much as they want." Would this not be a problem?
It should also be pointed out that a good many women athletes who've gotten pregnant at college have reported that coaches pressure them to abort. If I were a parent or administration member, I would be seriously wondering if the male basketball coach's comments were based in the unofficial policy of the women's basketball team. And if I were a coach of women's sports, I'd be afraid that girls would take it that way, and that my own reputation had been sullied by implication.
Exactly Maureen! This particular coach's "opinions" on these matters go way beyond just that, his "opinions." We are glad he left Milwaukee to wreak havoc elsewhere. We have enough problems here and Marquette, like St. Louis University ceased to be Catholic a long time ago.
Well I'm not saying that I agree with Majerus, and I was unaware that he is using his position as coach as a "bully pulpit."
He was asked a question in a public meeting, and he answered. His position is openly contrary to Church teaching. But does he pace the sideline wearing a pro-choice t-shirt? Does he regularly speak out publicly on these matters? Not that I was aware of.
My point was that I don't think that anybody paid a whole lot of attention to Majerus' views until the Archbishop weighed in.
Just because the Archbishop has the clear authority to do something, and just because he happens to be right on the merits in this instance, it does not mean that it is wise or prudent to exercise that authority in all circumstances.
Sometimes ignoring a problem is the best way of dealing with it . . .
Burke is the abortion lobby's best friend. Planned Parenthood's own debating manual syays at all costs keep the debate away from the issue of the biological develoment of the fetus. Every distraction from this is a win for the abortionists. Burke plays into their hand like a two-bit fool.
Burke needs to decide which is more important, the unborn or getting his name in the paper.
Fair point, brassband, and I acknowledge that it is a judgment call. But I still disagree. Majerus's view is terribly wrong, and he compounds his error by sharing it with a TV audience. Such public utterances from a Catholic official employed by a Catholic institution should not go unanswered, and the fact that the Archbishop's response may have generated more attention tham Majerus's remark is good, since the response was more in keeping with the Truth than the remark.
Yes, Katherine, in response to Majerus's remark, the Archbishop should have issued a press release discussing fetal developement. Can't imagine what he was thinking.
I'm kind of with Brassband on this. It at least certainly wouldn't have been the national story that it is had the Archbishop not gotten involved. Maybe it's an uproar Majerus or Burke intended to create to stimulate discussion? I'd be curious how other archbishops would've responded had Skinner, Robinson III, Miller, Wright, or Crean expressed views contrary to Catholic teachings (lots of good basketball at Catholic schools, it seems). Even at less successful programs like SLU, would the archbishops say anything if Wainwright or Whittenburg voiced contrarian views? I'm kind of doubting it.
The big difference, though, is that those other coaches are smart enough to know that their position isn't to be used as a political pulpit, especially at a Catholic school. Even coaches at state institutions, like Self, Gillespie, and Williams keep their views to themselves, because they know that their fanbases hang on every word they say and can do without the ensuing uproar. Even Catholic coaches like Dixon and K properly keep their mouths shut, even if they do support Church teachings. All of these coaches are smart to be aware of the weight their words carry. Majerus should've been, and maybe was, just as aware.
Interesting note here from the little reading I've actually done on the topic (I've avoided most of it because I figured it's been a big Catholic-bash fest as the sports message boards I frequent have been). The Missouri Supreme Court says that SLU is an entity outside the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of St. Louis (it was a lawsuit over taxpayers paying for SLU's new arena), so Burke's calls for disciplining Majerus can be ignored by the university. As I said, a bit interesting.
Nathan, two points:
First, I do not see why the national coverage is a bad thing. While it is sad that Majerus holds and shares his pro-abort views, it isn't all that surprising. But it is good for the flock to see a shepherd stand up without equivocation. I really don't see the problem here.
Second, while Archbishop Burke may have no authority over SLU under civil law, I'm not so sure that is so under canon law. Ultimately, all Catholics and Catholic institutions are under the canonical jurisdiction of their bishop.
It seems wise to consider all of this with an eye towards Chancery-University relations. SLU may not directly answer to Abp. Burke, but they still have to work with him.
Then there are parishes in the area the Jesuits may run, plus SLU Prep (and possibly other Jesuit High Schools). Many seminarians in the diocese take classes at SLU, and those classes aren't free.
Burke's history has also shown he will use all the tools at his disposal, and a bishop has a very formidable toolbox. In the last few years Burke has denied Communion, excommunicated, interdicted, and revoked Catholicity.
All things being equal, I'd say this is very much about Chancery-University relations. No pun intended, but the ball is now in Fr. Biondi's court.
LCB,
I think the pun is a good but sad one. In a better world, Fr. Biondi would not be assumed to be on the opposite court from Archbishop Burke.
Mightn't it have gone a little better if the Archbishop had called Coach for a little "friendly talk?"
It could have sounded something like this . . .
B: Coach, this is Archbishop Burke?
M: Yes, Excellency, good to speak with you.
B: Coach, I was troubled by the comments about abortion and stem cell research that you made on television.
M: Oh?
B: Well, Coach, you know you are a high-profile figure at a major Catholic institution in my Diocese. You really shouldn't be speaking publicly to advance positions that are contrary to Church teaching.
M: Are you trying to silence me, Excellency?
B: Well, you might look at it that way. Or you might give some thought to how you would react if one of the players on your team spoke out publicly against one of his teammates, or you personally.
M: Hmm.
B: Would you keep that player on your team, Coach? Would you at least ask him to keep his thoughts to himself?
M: I'm beginning to see your point, Excellency . . .
B: I thought you would . . . God bless, Coach.
M: Thanks, Excellency.
Ah, the "Can't we all just get along?" approach.
I guess some just don't understand why people, such as Archbishop Burke, who have spines, act as they do.
It's not the archbishop's responsibility to make sure that Majerus gets to heaven;that's Majerus' responsibility. But it is the archbishop's responsibility to make sure that, should Majerus wake up in hell one morning, he won't have to wonder how he got there.
the problem is that, it's easy to forget this, majerus started this. he is no stranger to the media, and he is no stranger to church teaching. he knew what he said was going to provoke a reactions, yet he made it publicly.
of course the bishop can repsond publically to a public attack on church teaching. not mention on unborn chidlren.
Once again, I fully back Brassband's approach. It's no less effective.
"I guess some just don't understand why people, such as Archbishop Burke, who have spines, act as they do."
I don't like that statement, because it implies that other bishops who face these issues lack spines. If you think this stuff isn't going on at other Catholic universities, albeit in a much less public manner, you're sorely mistaken. I remember awhile back when a priest at St. Joseph's announces he's a homosexual during a homily, but I don't recall Cardinal Rigali's response. Is the archbishop simply not a defender of the faith or do you suppose he handled the matter quietly with the priest's superiors? I have friends at DePaul and Boston College, not to mention Georgetown, who say that some professors voice their support for reproductive choice and gay rights while in class. Should Cardinals George and O'Malley and Archbishop Wuerl get involved with a university when liberal professors openly support causes contrary to Church teachings? Probably, and perhaps they do. Just because they aren't addressing the matter using the media doesn't mean they have no spine when it comes to defending Church teachings. I'm sure not going to be the one who accuses them of lacking fortitude on behalf of the Church.
" Yes, Katherine, in response to Majerus's remark, the Archbishop should have issued a press release discussing fetal developement. Can't imagine what he was thinking.
Mike Petrik "
I don't imagine he was doing much thinking at all, except how he can advance his ego.
Has Archbishop Burke's "media first" approach been effective?
In the context of Senator (not, by the grace of God, President) Kerry one might persuasively argue that it has. Kerry did not win the election, did not carry Missouri, and as I recall, did not do particularly well with Catholic voters.
I guess that it remains to be seen whether the same can be said about the Coach.
Mightn't it have gone a little better if the Archbishop had called Coach for a little "friendly talk?"
It could have sounded something like this . . .
B: Coach, this is Archbishop Burke?
M: Yes, Excellency, good to speak with you.
B: Coach, I was troubled by the comments about abortion and stem cell research that you made on television.
M: Oh?
B: Well, Coach, you know you are a high-profile figure at a major Catholic institution in my Diocese. You really shouldn't be speaking publicly to advance positions that are contrary to Church teaching.
M: Are you trying to silence me, Excellency?
B: Well, you might look at it that way. Or you might give some thought to how you would react if one of the players on your team spoke out publicly against one of his teammates, or you personally.
M: Hmm.
"B: Would you keep that player on your team, Coach? Would you at least ask him to keep his thoughts to himself?
M: I'm beginning to see your point, Excellency . . .
B: I thought you would . . . God bless, Coach.
M: Thanks, Excellency."
Even if some variant of this ridiculously unlikely exchange would have happened, how exactly would this had benefited the faithful?
How exactly would the faithful have been adversely affected had he not responded in a public manner? If they're faithful to Church teachings, they'll remain faithful rather than stray because of the stance of a basketball coach of an insignificant program and a bishop that didn't publicly chastise him--unless you think that little of the rest of us average Catholics. In my opinion, Archbishop Burke should've expressed outrage that SLU could only score 20 points in a whole game earlier this year!
Brassband, Mike Petrick, Nathan, bill912: Is Majerus a nominal Catholic? If so: He has spouted heresy in public. He should be instructed not to approach for Communion until he publicly retracts his heresy. If he does approach Communion, Canon 915 imposes on every minister of Communion the OBLIGATION not to give it to him. This is NOT a "sanction" or a "penalty." It is precisely the same "policy" that applies to any other Catholic who is conscious of unrepented and/or unconfessed grave sin: He is not to receive Communion.
Those bishops who have ignored their grave obligation to obey Canon 915 in the case of other notorious grave sinners, notably pro-abortion politicians, are THEMSELVES notorious grave sinners, and commit sacrilege every time they receive Communion, which, of course, they do each time they celebrate Mass.
We have a hierarchy in which the majority of bishops are demonstrably and indubitably committing sacrilege each time they celebrate Mass.
If the Pope does nothing to stop them, and then depose them if they refuse to obey Canon 915, then we have a Pope who is himself a notorious grave sinner.
An extreme position? Not an extreme position. Just a situation of extreme evil.
Archbishop Burke is NOT making a "judgment call" or implementing a "personal policy" in his diocese. He is fulfilling a grave, utterly minimal, rock-bottom obligation of the office he holds. Burke has only two choices: 1) do what he is doing, or 2) commit a grave sin in public. Burke has written an exhaustive and now-famous article making precisely the point that this NOT a matter of a bishop's "style," or "judgment call," or any kind of option whatsoever--except the option of doing his duty versus committing a grave offense against his duty.
Wow, Father, that's pretty strong stuff. I can't say I can dispute any of it when put in those terms. But it does raise troubling questions. What does that say about our Church when so many priests and bishops dole out the Host to all comers? (It should be noted that for all we know, Majerus will be taking Communion tomorrow, placing Archbishop Burke in that same group guilty of sacrilige.) If the Host is devalued because of these sinning priests, are we getting spiritual sustenance from it? What does it say about our Pope who signs off on bishop appointments and elevates some to the rank of cardinal when they're guilty of sacrilige? Is Pope Benedict himself guilty for knowingly placing such bishops in prominent dioceses?
My whole point in this whole situation is that Archbishop Burke could've performed his job as shepherd and still avoided an outcry that simply did little if anything to serve the Church's interests. If the Church's interests have been served in this matter, I guess I need to have it pointed out to me as to exactly those would be. A priest in my home diocese was giving a talk to Eucharistic Ministers, and someone asked what he would do if our pro-choice Catholic governor showed up for Mass. He said he would greet the governor as she entered and welcome her and then sternly tell her not to present herself to receive the Eucharist because he would deny her it. He didn't say he'd do that from the pulpit, but in private. Now is anyone going to tell me that an archbishop couldn't arrange a private meeting with a basketball coach to say the same thing? It'd be just as pastoral as what the simple parish priest would do, no? Or is that priest I mentioned simply spineless?
A private warning such as you describe is required by Canon 915.
Unless a sin is known to the congregation, then the minister of Communion must give Communion, even if he knows about the sin. Refusing Communion would reveal the sin to those who are unaware of it, and that is always forbidden. Even if the sinner has been spoken to privately, and told not to approach for Communion, if he does approach, the minister of Communion must give it to him.
A pro-abortion politician is a public sinner. In the case of a publicly known grave sinner, the minister of Communion must tell him privately not to approach for Communion, and if he does, the minister must refuse it, because the entire congregation will witness the sacrilege, and know what they are seeing, and be scandalized.
All Communion ministers (priests, deacons, and laypersons) have long had the obligation to refuse Communion to all pro-abortion politicians. The Canon says nothing about the obligations' being contingent on the local bishop's decision to implement the policy of obeying Canon Law. A bishop comes into the picture because a bishop ought to instruct all Communion ministers in his diocese to carry out their duty, and back them up when they do so. In the case of a prominent person such as a politician, a bishop comes into the picture also because of the habit politicians have of traveling widely, and receiving Communion in many places.
When pro-abortion politicians say that "if the bishops REALLY BELIEVED it was a sin for me to be pro-choice, then they wouldn't allow me to receive Communion," they are absolutely correct. And tens of millions of Catholic voters have drawn precisely the same correct conclusion.
Sooo . . . . if it is the Bishop who has called wide attention to the grave sin by virtue of his public statement . . . well where does that leave us?
brassband,
Give me a break. Majerus's statement was made on TV for cryin' outloud. The concern of detraction is based on a myriad of conditions not applicable in this case.
Nathan,
I'm not worried about faithful Catholics changing their minds because of a basketball coach. I do, however, think bishops should use every opportunity to shake up the moral sensibilities of nominal Catholics, including, apparently, Majerus. This "outcry" that you are so concerned about just doesn't seem to me to be a bad thing.
I agree with Father on all counts. And I can't help but find it amusing that many people today look back at similar statements made by Catholic bishops regarding early 20th century Jim Crow laws in the US and extermination of the Jews in Europe and find them appallingly anemic.
Well let me ask you this . . . had you heard about Majerus' statement before the Archbishop brought it to your attention?
On another note, of course, but doesn't this further illustrate the complete hypocrisy that is "intercollegiate" sports?
Rick Majerus is not an educator, he's a professional basketball coach, for crying out loud; he's only an "official" of a Catholic university by virtue of the fraud that is NCAA Division I basketball.
Let's face it, these big (and even mid-size) NCAA Division I programs are really poorly disguised minor league professional teams . . . where self-righteous phonies in the NCAA have conspired make it illegal to compensate the players who actually genereate the revenue that accrues to the institution!
Why would a Bishop tolerate such an injustice in an institution within his jurisdiction?
brassband: i would guess that Majerus is the highest paid official of St. Louis University, and the most nationally recognizable name associated with the univeristy. If those two points don't put Majerus on notice NOT to (1) publically dissent from Church teaching, and (2) tell an archbishop who calls you on dissnet to mind his own business, then what. pray tell, would?
brassband,
You miss my point. I'm PLEASED that more people heard about the episode because the Archbishop weighed in. Indeed, I WANT Catholics and non-Catholics to know that when it comes to teaching the importance of protecting innocent life the Church is serious.
And on the anthill of human injustices, Division I basketball doesn't even merit my notice. I'm not convinced it's an injustice at all, and don't see the issue as germane anyway.
"...illegal to compensate the players..."
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a full four-year college scholarship worth tens of thousands of dollars? Maybe over $100,000?
"brassband: i would guess that Majerus is the highest paid official of St. Louis University, and the most nationally recognizable name associated with the univeristy. If those two points don't put Majerus on notice NOT to (1) publically dissent from Church teaching, and (2) tell an archbishop who calls you on dissnet to mind his own business, then what. pray tell, would?"
This.
In addition, some may criticize Abp. Burke and claim he is not effective. However, we are not called to be effective, we are called to be faithful.
In my humble opinion, vocations are an excellent way of measuring effectiveness. St. Louis (the diocese, not the University) has so many vocations that they're building a new seminary. Maybe Abp. Burke's approach is worth emulating by others, if they seek to increase vocations?
Perhaps God rewards Orthodoxy?
$100,000? HA!
My guess is that the tuition and fees at SLU, if it is anything like its counterparts in my region, is something like $40,000 per year. That's $160,000 over four years, plus all of the other "perks" of being an NCAA Division I player.
But what if a player would prefer to take the cash and skip the Intro to Basket Weaving classes?
Oh no, that would be immoral a violation of NCAA policy . . . the kind of thing that would be certain to get Coach Majerus fired post haste. (Oh yeah, we care that he opposes Church teaching . . . but if he jeopardizes our access to NCAA TV revenue . . . well then he'd have to go).
The fact is, with very, very few exceptions, if a young man wants to play professional basketball at a high level in this country, there is simply no alternative but for him to indenture himself to a Division I school, under the tutelage of someone like Coach Majerus, for one, two, three or four years.
NCAA football, by the way, is probably far worse than basketball in its monopolistic grip on young talent.
Are there greater injustices in the world? Undoubtedly . . . but this is one in which plenty of Catholic colleges and universities are active participants.
brassband: That's just sniping. I didn't say "call attention to" but "reveal." Majerus's sin was not private. It was "notorious," both in the word's common meaning, and the way it is used in Canon Law.
"That's $160,000 over four years..." plus a college education and a bachelor's degree, if the player is so inclined.
Thanks.
"'That's $160,000 over four years...' plus a college education and a bachelor's degree, if the player is so inclined."
Plus free coaching, television exposure, etc.
All in all, the NCAA players get a better deal than minor league ballplayers.
In any event, the notion that Archbishop Burke should be concentrating on this perceived "injustice" rather than issues pertaining to the protection of the unborn is absurd beyond measure.
Katherine,
You seem to question Archbishop Burke sincerity and motivation.(What is yours?)
If only we had more clergy who were not intimidated by the 'frowns' of 'Katherine', we might have more STAND UP Catholics. Example and zealousness are to be applauded, not chastized. Catholics who attack clergy that stand up, are the ENEMY's best allies.
Katherine: Should a Catholic who has committed a mortal sin, which he has not repented, and not confessed, receive Communion? I assume that you know that the answer is No. My question is: Why should some Catholics be exempt from this principle? Anyone who says that pro-abortion politicians and pro-abortion basketball coaches SHOULD be receiving Communion is saying that these particular Catholics ARE exempt from the general principle regarding reception of Communion while in the state of sin. Why? What justifies this? Where does this exemption come from?
So what do you think about Archbishop Burke permitting Majerus to continue receiving Communion? His lack of public condemnation makes him as bad as all the other "sacreligious" prelates mentioned earlier in this post, correct? I don't think our bishops are any less staunch in defending the integrity of the Eucharist as Archbishop Burke is, but I think they simply prefer to handle matters in a quiet fashion. I don't know why that's so bad in the eyes of so many.
Katherine: I don't know whether Majerus is continuing to receive Communion or not--or whether, if he is, he is doing so in defiance of the Abp. Or, if he is, how long it will continue. It's a developing situation. Certainly it is too early for flinging charges at Abp. Burke, as you do. After all, you have extended all the other bishops a grace period of thirty-five-or-so years before questioning their integrity.
But my question wasn't about the situation as it may stand at this moment. My question was about the principle at issue. And you didn't answer it.
If you believe that other bishops are "handling matters in a quiet fashion"--in the sense of "actually doing anything meaningful on this issue in a quiet fashion"--I have this neat bridge over the East River you should snap up as soon as possible.
Fr. Joe --
I don't know how in the loop you are on certain matters, but we need to talk on April 18 about the activities of a nice Italian-American grandmother the preceding day. I think this will resolve this matter.
Nathan, the requirements for actually withholding the Eucharist from Majerus have not been met. Yet. And Abp. Burke knows that and, as usual, is acting in accord with the law, a law he understands much better than his critics do.
That's fair. I would hope that a bishop would know the law. But what are those requirements? The average lay Catholic doesn't know this stuff, nor should we since we have jobs to work and families to raise, so if this is truly an opportunity to teach, why aren't we being taught? This is, of course, assuming that Burke hasn't further addressed this in the diocesan paper or something--I'm not from St. Louis, so I don't know if he has explained how things work or not. Have the requirements for withholding Communion from pro-choice Catholic politicians not been met in many cases just like here? I don't know why it is for them and not here in the case of Majerus. I don't really care what Archbishop Burke decides to do here, but I certainly don't think it's fair to criticize 90% of our hierarchy when the grounds seem baseless.
Canon 915 requires that Majerus be spoken to privately, and given the opportunity to end the situation of objective grave sin. In his case, since the sin was committed in public, a retraction of his pro-abortion position must be public. If he refuses, then the Abp. is OBLIGED (as are all other ministers of Communion in a similar situation) to withhold Communion.
The point that needs emphasis is that this is NOT a matter of policy or judgment, but the requirement of Canon 915. It needs emphasis because numerous bishops have been asserting that this is all a matter of "pastoral style," or "prudential judgment." Other bishops have gone farther, and falsely claimed that it is a matter of "using the Eucharist as a weapon," or "bringing politics to the Communion rail," or "imposing a sanction." It is none of these things. It is a matter of preventing the scandal of 1) manifest unworthy reception of the Eucharist, and 2) teaching, by inaction, that the Church accepts the murder of some people as a good. This is what the bishops HAVE been teaching, by inaction, ever since the early sixties, when Dr. John Rock (one of the inventors of The Pill) of Boston was permitted to continue posing as a practicing Catholic despite his notorious experimentation with in vitro fertilization.
Burke has published a thorough exposition of this topic already.
http://tinyurl.com/ywr48p
He will publish a treatment geared to the layman in the near future. The fact that many in the Church have absorbed the false teaching of the majority of bishops has been made very clear by the attacks on Abp. Burke on this board.
So how quickly does the apology need to come? If Majerus gets a month to retract his comments, isn't that a month of desecrating the Eucharist? Furthermore, would you care to list the "other bishops" who ignore Catholic teachings on this matter?
Nathan: It seems odd that, on the one hand, Burke is subject to criticism for obeying Canon 915 AT ALL, while on the other hand, he is subject to criticism because he might not enforce it INSTANTLY. It seems as though you like the "heads-I-win, tails-you-lose" principle.
There are several bishops and canon lawyers who have issued statements on this question, in which several false propositions are embedded. Among them are Abp. Wuerl and Cardinal Mahony. They are quoted, and refuted, in Abp. Burke's article.
Among the egregious misrepresentations in their statements are:
1) Denying Communion is a "sanction" or a "penalty." It is not. Canon 915 is not even in the penal section of the Code. It is in the section dealing with the proper celebration and administration of the sacraments.
2) Obeying or not obeying Canon 915 is a matter of a bishop's "pastoral style." It is not. The prohibition against giving Communion to manifest public sinners is a matter of grave obligation. This is why I say that those bishops who refuse to obey Canon 915 are refusing to carry out a grave obligation--and thus, by definition, are manifest public sinners. Such bishops, according to the same Canon 915, should themselves not be permitted to receive Communion. (Obviously, therefore, they should not be permitted to continue to celebrate the Eucharist, since a celebrant is necessarily a communicant.)
3) A bishop must weigh the political ramifications of obeying Canon 915. Abp. Wuerl published a 3,000-word essay precisely in order to promote this assertion. To take this position is to say that a bishop must disobey Canon Law, and refuse to acknowledge a grave obligation directly connected with the Blessed Sacrament, if he finds the possible reaction of editorialists or politicians sufficiently unpleasant. Since Catholics are expected to accept death rather than commit a grave sin, it is hard to imagine what any editorialist or politician could say or do that would be WORSE than death. Evidently we DO have many bishops who view hostile newspaper articles as a greater evil than the commission of a grave sin.
I don't know how you're misconstruing my questions as criticism. I haven't criticized Archbishop Burke in this thread. I just happen to believe that there's a different approach he could have taken--one I would have taken had I been in his shoes--but I don't think that that is criticism, and if it is, it's extremely mild. I just figured that if Coach Majerus is in violation of Canon 915, that would constitute an automatic denial of Communion in order to protect the integrity of the Eucharist. The failure of enforcing Canon 915 is, after all, your complaint about the "majority" of the hierarchy. You're the one demanding rigidity on this.
Ed Peters helpfully stated that the requirements for denying Communion haven't been met yet. Forgive me for being a graduate student and not having much spare time for studying canon law (I'm more interested in theology, anyway), but I don't know what those requirements are and no one who does know have bothered to inform me or anyone else. For all I know, pro-choice Catholic politicians aren't being denied Communion because the requirements haven't been met.
I'm not criticizing Burke, or at least not intending to, but I'm sure as hell not criticizing the remainder of the hierarchy, either. I don't see why there can only be only one approach in applying Canon 915, and the only way is the public way. I also know that a lot of people despise Archbishop Wuerl because he takes a pastoral approach that is different from Burke's, but Pope Benedict knew exactly the kind of archbishop he would be after eighteen years in Pittsburgh and promoted him anyway. So much for the Pope closing the cafeteria, eh?
There can be "only one approach" to applying Canon 915 because there IS no "private" way to end a PUBLIC scandal. There is no such thing as a bishop who is "dealing privately" with pro-abortion politicians, because their sin is public.
I emphasize: I do not "disagree" with "bishops who are dealing with this differently than Abp. Burke." I am saying that there ARE no bishops who are dealing with the issue, except Abp. Burke. There are bishops who are DODGING their duty, or DENYING their duty. But there is NO SUCH THING as a bishop who is carrying out this duty "privately," because a public scandal cannot be ended except by public actions and statements. Criticizing Abp. Burke for handling this "publicly" is like criticizing a bobsledding team for using a bobsled.
The reception of Communion by these politicians is causing/has caused the Catholic people as a whole to "learn" that being pro-abortion is not a sin. This is an additional reason that the scandal is grave, urgent, and PUBLIC.
I construed your question about "desecrating the Eucharist for a month" to be criticism of Abp. Burke--i.e., as implying that he was wrong for obeying Canon 915, and also wrong for not acting immediately rather than giving Majerus some time to repent/retract.
If Abp. Wuerl is immune from criticism because he was appointed by the Pope, then, so is Abp. Burke. So, how dare YOU question Abp. Burke's recent actions? If Wuerl's appointment proves that the cafeteria is still open, then Burke's appointment proves that the cafeteria is closed.
The requirements for finally stopping a person from receiving Communion even though the person in question, in this case, Coach Majerus, is known to be in a grave state of sin still haven't been explained. I suppose I'll rely on Ed Peters to help me out on that. As of this moment, with no pronouncement from Archbishop Burke, I'm assuming that every time Majerus receives Communion, the Eucharist is being desecrated since we all know he's a grave sinner. I guess I don't really understand how there's a grace period before desecration formally begins.
There's no private way to end a public scandal? From Burke's writing that you linked (I'll admit I only read his conclusions, so maybe I missed something in the main body), he said, "The person who sins gravely and publicly must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The memorandum, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion", of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in its fifth principle, gives the perennial pastoral instruction in the matter. This, in fact, is done effectively in a pastoral conversation with the person, so that the person knows that he is not to approach to receive Holy Communion and, therefore, the distribution of Holy Communion does not become an occasion of conflict."
In my interpretation, "pastoral conversation" means in a private manner, like the good priest I spoke of previously would've done with the pro-choice Catholic governor.
The Archbishop continues: "No matter how often a Bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow. To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law. Confusion, of course, is one of the most insidious fruits of scandalous behavior."
I couldn't agree more. But again, I don't see anything where he says the sinner must be condemned publicly. "To remain silent" seems to mean that to not say anything to the sinner permits serious confusion. Although I could see where it could also be interpreted to mean that the bishop is to use his pulpit to announce the news that a sinner amongst us.
All I've questioned is the necessity of publicly condemning sinners, even if they publicly announce themselves to be sinners. What am I missing from the Archbishop's words, including other parts of the conclusion that I didn't directly cite, that you and others are seeing?
I gotta say you're the first person I've ever heard claim that 177 ordinaries don't know how to do their job on behalf of the Catholic Church. The Congregation for Bishops apparently needs to get their act together.
I never said they didn't know how to do their job. I said they aren't doing their job.
The CONVERSATION between the bishop and the sinner, of course, occurs in private. But the whole point of such a conversation is to STOP a situation in which the public is being misled. So, there's no way the ENTIRE matter can or should be private.
If what you're objecting to is Abp. Burke's "condemning sinners," then, be troubled no further. He's never condemned a sinner, ever, and I'm confident he never will.
April 18th, Fr. Joe, April 18th. We need to talk then. Francesco Rutelli under Jonn Paul the Great and another person of Italian heritage from B16.
And then where do you go? SSPX?
Commenting by HaloScan
