AmericanPapist Comments
I've seen the comments made on that show referred to as offensive and even comical. I agree with the above that when the source is considered, it is hard to be offended. And yet, it concerns me, as much of non-Catholic, main stream America will assimilate this drivel into their view of the Catholic Church.
We can't be too hard on Hasselbeck at least. She did go to Boston College, so she really had no hope of learning anything TRUE about Catholicism.
Anon,
Not no hope! The philosophy dept is excellent. The rest, well...barely catholic.
Just for the record -
I'm sure it was just a typo but "The View" is on ABC, not NBC. As for the content of that particular program: the less said, the better.
Ed
Unfortunately, this could have been easily avoidable had Burke simply handled this in a different, private manner. He could have relayed his views to Giuliani without doing so publicly. Then when a reporter asks about Giuliani's pro-choice, Burke could say, "I've relayed the Church's position to him, and he's clear about where I stand, and that's all I will say." When the reporter asks why he didn't do that in '04, Burke responds, "I've learned there's a different way of doing things." Seems pretty simple to me, and I would bet a lot of bishops do it like so. Cardinals Keeler and Rigali, the former and current chairs of the USCCB Right to Life Committee, respectively, can hardly be said to be less committed to the right to life, and I don't ever recall their becoming embroiled in such an issue (perhaps they have taken such a public position, but I can't remember if they have). Again, it seems as though the motive behind Burke's outspokenness is to promote himself just as much as it is to promote Catholic teachings.
Oh, and Melissa Hasselbeck is easy on the eyes, so she can say what she wants. :)
Nathan--
In your scenario, does Burke also send a memo to all his priests and their Eucharistic Ministers so that, should Giuliani present himself for communion, they know what to do? That, I think, might be a good reason to go public.
There's a priest (my brother served as a transitional deacon at this priest's parish--really good guy) back in Wichita who was holding a retreat for Eucharistic Ministers that my parents went to, and this discussion came up. Kathleen Sebelius, the Kansas governor, is pro-choice Catholic, and Father Joe told the Ministers what he would do if she entered his church: "I would meet her before Mass and thank her for joining us, and then I would tell her not to present herself for communion because she'll be embarrassed if she does so." Bishop Jackels hasn't made any such public proclamations for the priests to do that, but this priest not only knew to do this on his own, but he also knows that there's a private, respectful manner of doing it.
I think Burke sending a memo to his priests is an excellent idea. For all I know, Jackels might have sent one to the priests of Wichita, but he might not have. I have confidence that individual priests are just like Father Joe and are smart enough to uphold Catholic teachings on their own. But for those who aren't smart enough, a memo to priests from the bishop is a great idea. I'm all for anything that keeps the issue quiet and yet allows for everyone involved to know where the Church stands. If the bishops feel otherwise, then we should be prepared to accept that many are going to criticize the Church for what it believes.
Nathan, RG is a public figure and his conduct in office is matter of public record, as is much of his conduct as a Catholic. RG has disqualified himself in several ways from reception of Communion under 1983 CIC 915. An advance memo from Abp. Burke to RG is is no way required on these facts.
I understand that he's automatically disqualified. So why is Ray speaking out publicly when there's no need to do so? I've briefly looked into what Cardinal O'Connor had to say about Giuliani, and I'm not coming up with anything. That Burke is throwing himself into the fray, when as you and I agree he has no need to do so, is awfully curious.
I read the article linked below and it seems clear that the press came to Abp. Burke with the question, not Burke to the press. I don't know how that leaves Burke susceptible to the charge of "going public" with this, if any comments about RG can be challenged for being "public" at all.
Also, the notion of "automatic" in canon law is controverted, but it has nothing to do with the operation of c. 915. No one is "automatically" barred from reception under c. 915. It requires a decision. In brief, it's a different topic altogether.
I don't think Archbishop Burke simply made a public statement that he would not give Communion to Rudy Giuliani. Recently, a very thorough and scholarly article by the Archbishop on the proper interpretation of the relevant portions of Canon Law, was published in Periodica de re Canonica, described by Ed Peters as "perhaps the world's prestigious canon law journal." AmP blogged on it back in September, as did many others, including Pro Ecclesia, which links to Catholics Against Rudy. As a result, I think, reporters then went to the Archbishop with the specific question would he deny Communion to Rudy Giuliani, and he answered their question.
But he didn't have to answer the question. Simply say to the reporter, "This election cycle, I've decided to handle these matters privately rather than publicly." Pretty simple to me even if the reporter approached him. Make the decision privately, communicate it privately, and not give those critical of the Church's position on this any ammunition to fire.
Nathan, you can't be serious. Hide church teaching so we "don't give the other side ammunition"?! Since when is that ever the solution? You're really arguing yourself into a corner. Stop while you're behind.
Obviously no one saw this gem from The View last week. Elisabeth is such a marvelous conservative representative on the show. Honestly, these ladies remind me of those annoying women my grandmother hangs out with that I get stuck listening to at various functions. Yap yap yap - all idiotic. But this is scary - Whoopi lambasts Elisabeth for being pro-life - because she was never FORCED to have an abortion. Check it:
http://ianschwartz.com/2007/10/0...ty-of-abortion/
Hide church teaching? Who's saying that? I really don't know where you can infer that from what I said. Just because you teach quietly doesn't mean that you're hiding it. Your dad pointed out that Giuliani's public statements disqualify him from communion and Burke really doesn't need to say anything as a result. He goes ahead and does so, and when people criticize him for it, you label the story as falling under "anti-Catholicism" when it's not. By the way, no one has bothered to answer why few other bishops take Ray's approach. There's more to it than just Ray writing a little article on the subject.
Nathan, why do you repeatedly refer to a sitting archbishop of the Church by a diminutive nickname? You come a across as rude, but that's your choice, I suppose.
I do wonder what principles guide your thinking vis a vis criticism of bishops. In the CONN bishops posts earlier, you repeatedly warned us that expressing disagreement with bishops would lead to disagreement with Rome. I thought you were and are wrong on that, but it's your position.
Now you are publically criticizing "Ray" for his decision. So what's next, by your theory, publicly criticizing Bennie?
It is really hard to repond cogently to people who argue as you do, becuase the grounds for their positions shift so easily.
What can I say? You convinced me to see the error of my ways and accept that criticism is okay. Like you said in the Connecticut thread, debate clarifies, not undermines. I don't see why Burke is doing this when bishops like Wuerl and Zubik prefer to persuade rather than denounce, i.e., actually teach. So are they weaker defenders of Church teaching? I, for one, think not, and I think their way is much more effective than looking like an authoritarian tyrant. And it's apparent that the overwhelming majority of the hierarchy seem to agree.
Are you really getting wound up that I'm referring to someone colloquially on the Internet? I've referred to President Bush without addressing him as such. It's not a matter of disrespect. It's not like I'd ever not call him "Mr. President" to his face. This is an Internet comment page, not a formal function. Let's stick to the topic at hand.
Okay, I'm not feeding the troll anymore. And if he doesn't shape up I'm putting a gag on him. Sheesh.
What have I said that's inappropriate? I'm rebutting challenges in a reasonable manner. If you want to ban me because I don't agree with you, that's fine. I enjoy taking part in the discussions here. I don't know what's been objectionable in this thread, or the Ron Paul thread, or the preemptive war thread. Is it because I'm just not agreeing like an automaton? If this is my last post on here, I feel bad you feel the need to resort to this. But no hard feelings.
For the record, while I largely disagree with Nathan on the merits, I do not think he is behaving like a troll. His comments are germane and temperate, even if I also winced at the diminutive "Ray." I actually think there are merits to the private/quiet approach suggested by Nathan, but at this juncture I think it is outweighed by the merits of the public approach chosen by Arch. Burke. It is important to teach the faithful with forceful clarity in these times, and Giuliani can hardly credibly claim surprise or unfair injury. That said, it perfectly fair to disagree with Burke's reasoning, as long as such disagreement does not devolve to ridicule, etc., and I don't think that Nathan has done that.
Abp. Burke's public comments are not meant to educate Mr. Giuliani, they're meant to educate all of the confused faithful who see the Church say "one can't support abortion and receive communion", but see Catholics in public office who support abortion receiving communion. Giuliani, Kennedy, Kerry, Granholm, etc. They publicly announce their support for abortion (hidden behind the right to "choose", as if one can choose to kill another person), and publicly announce their "Catholic" faith, even though the two are incompatible.
Rudy Giuliani already knows he's not in the proper state of grace to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, so Abp. Burke or any other Church official isn't going to be telling him something new. Such public comments seem to be more intended for clarifying the Church's position to the rest of the faithful. It's to help those who think "Did the Church change its position on abortion? Can I receive communion while in a state of mortal sin?"
Nathan, if you're banned, it won't be because you disagree with Thomas, it'll be because you're showing such contempt for the Archbishop. I didn't like Bill Clinton's presidency, but I wouldn't stoop to calling him "Billy-boy" or some other diminutive in order to reduce his stature and show my contempt. And it doesn't matter how you'd refer to him to his face...actions "behind his back" speak volumes about your character.
Just so's the slowpoke from Alabam can get this straight...
A successor to the apostles should not publically answer direct questions resulting from a scholarly paper, because it gives the Church's enemies ammunition? But it is dandy to refer to a successor to the apostles by a diminutive nickname, so long as you show him the respect his position deserves to his face?
A man who behaves one way to a fellow man's face, and another behind his back, is a man who lacks integrity. An integrated man does no such thing.
Of course, Archbishop Burke did have the integrity to answer questions in a forthright manner. There may be other approaches, even more effective approaches. But there is certainly not a thing wrong with Archbishop Burke's position. It is a position of integrity at least.
I'm still a little confused about the dimensions of Rudy's errors here, from the perspective of Church teaching on abortion.
What if a Catholic politician, after examining Roe v. Wade, comes to the conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court correctly decided that the U.S. Constitution contains within it a right to privacy that precludes states from prohibiting most abortions?
If that politician were asked "do you agree with Roe?" would an affirmative answer be contrary to Church teaching?
(I know, Blackmun's opinion is horrible and contrary to sound constitutional reasoning, but let's put that aside for a moment)
Does the Catholic politician have the obligation to work toward the undoing of Roe by constitutional amendment?
I guess my point is that saying you think Roe was rightly decided is not the same thing as saying that you support an unlimited abortion license -- it's simply saying that the U.S. Constitution supports such a license.
brassband,
I pretty much agree. But I think the problem is that G's record is prety clear in that he supports abortion rights as a policy matter, not just as a constitutional matter.
I'm afraid that more or less moots the more interesting and complicated questions you were trying to raise.
Frankly, Mike, I think the Mayor has been all over the lot on the issue of abortion.
We are at a critical juncture in the life of Roe and Casey. One more sensible conservative Justice will mean an end to thirty-five years of constitutional butchery.
I will not support Mayor G. for the nomination, but if he wins it I will listen very closely to his promises with regard to the Supreme Court.
If Sen. Clinton is the alternative, I will have to consider voting for the Mayor in the general.
Giuliani's views on abortion are actually beside the point, since he is living in an irregular marriage and can't receive Holy Communion regardless of his public support for abortion.
That said, a public sinner should be corrected publicly.
Giuliani should at least have the honesty to respect the Church's requirements and not present himself to receive the Eucharist. But he alas I guess he does go up when he is at Mass, and Abp. Burke has to do what he has to do.
I find it funny when I read people's comments that basically say Abp. Burke is a fool for not simply handlingly this less publicly, or by simply letting Guiliani decide for himself. These folks, God Bless 'em, seem to forget that that simply isn't how the Church was built and maintained in a society which was even more anti-Christian than our own: The Roman Empire. St. Ambrose didn't allow blatant lapsed Catholics just waltz into Mass and jeopardize their own souls just to save face and make his pagan critics happy. It's time we wised up and realized just how serious this Jesus and Catholic Church business actually is.
Commenting by HaloScan
