Thursday, October 04, 2007

The Archbishop's "Secret Agenda"

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord." 1 Corinthians 11:27

Once again, our Archbishop, Raymond Burke, finds himself in the news. The topic is a familiar one, whether someone in a state of mortal sin should be allowed to receive the Eucharist. Somehow, the news media has focused the spotlight on the Archbishop for doing his job, which is to lead the faithful to salvation.

Paul's words seem pretty clear to me. If you're not worthy to receive the Body and Blood, and that means free from mortal sin, you should abstain until you've had the chance to make things right. Where's the controversy?

Well, the controversy comes from two sources. One is the news media who always try to stir up a controversy where none exists. The second is a group of American bishops who don't have the cajones (It's Spanish. Look it up.) to stand up for Church teaching. It's these weak shepherds who are leaving their flock defenseless when they fail to take a strong stand against evil. And, make no mistake, abortion is evil. Facilitating abortion is evil, and that includes voting to pass laws that make the process legal.

But to get back to the media, here are some of the absurd statements and outright lies that have appeared recently concerning Archbishop Burke. Let's start with the biggest lie, the one that's getting the most play in the press. From the Associated Press, "Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke, who made headlines last presidential season by saying he'd refuse Holy Communion to John Kerry, has his eye on Rudy Giuliani this year." (Emphasis mine)

What are the facts? A St. Louis Post Dispatch reporter asked the Archbishop if he would deny Communion to Giuliani. He answered, "If the question is about a Catholic who is publicly espousing positions contrary to moral law, and I know that person knows it, yes I would." Does that sound to you like he "has his eye" on the former mayor? In fact, he didn't even mention him. His response was a general answer to the question of giving the Eucharist to someone unworthy. In fact, there are several candidates from both parties who have questionable records on the killing of unborn children and would fall into the same category as Rudy.

In an article in today's Post Dispatch, entitled "Giuliani Deflects Burke's Jab in Clayton" , Guiliani is quoted as saying, " “Archbishops have a right to their opinion.” But he added, “I'm not running for a religious office.” Giuliani noted that he is a Republican running for president."

Giuliani's flippant response shows just how little regard he has for the Church and its leaders.

I think it's ironic that during the last presidential campaign, when the Archbishop made a similar statement about John Kerry, his critics called it an attempt to get George Bush reelected; that he had a secret conservative agenda. The same critics said he should stay out of politics. Based on these current events, if he does have a secret conservative agenda, then, yes, he should stay out of politics because he's not very good at it. At the present time, more than a year from the 2008 election, Giuliani is the front-runner for the Republican nomination and some say the only one who has a chance of winning. If the Archbishop's motives are political, then he has played right into the Democrat's hands.

In a really bizarre twist, local television station, KMOV, reported this week that SNAP (Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests) would be picketing Giuliani's apperance in St. Louis today because a former priest who was accused, but never charged, with child molestation works for Giuliani. In a quantum leap of logic the anchor introduced the story by saying that SNAP and the Archdiocese have found some common ground, their opposition to Rudy.

Amazing! The Archbishop wants to save Giuliani's soul. SNAP wants to derail his political campaign. I don't see much agreement there.

On an obscure blog called "The Political Chase" the author made this statement. "Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke denied John Kerry the sacraments of the church during his presidential bid in 2004 and intends to do the same with Rudy Giuliani." See, here's the thing. Archbishop Burke has NEVER denied the sacraments to Kerry. Kerry never asked for them. Likewise, there's no reason to think that Giuliani will attend mass in St. Louis, so it's highly unlikely that the Archbishop INTENDS to do anything of the kind. The link is to an ABC News story that is also misleading in its tone.

I could go on, but you get my drift. If you want more, Google "Giuliani Burke" and you'll get more bad reporting than you'll ever need.

But, suppose for a moment that Raymond Burke takes his obligation to the faithful seriously. Giuliani, like Kerry before him, is not a member of the Archbishop's flock. The chances of Giuliani (or Kerry) showing up at the St. Louis Cathedral Basilica are nearly zero. Could it be that the Archbishop is speaking to his own people when he makes the statement quoted above? Could he really be concerned with his congregation's well-being?

Here's a slightly silly illustration, but I think it makes the point. Some people are allergic to peanuts, so much so that schools are now banning them from student's lunches. For the majority of us peanuts are a tasty snack, but for some they are potentially lethal. Suppose the Archbishop attended a party where dishes of peanuts were sitting around for people to enjoy. Suppose that a friend of his, who he knows to have a peanut allergy were to reach for a handful. Don't you imagine that, as a compassionate human being, the Archbishop might warn his friend, "Don't eat those. They're poison to you." He might even reach out and slap the nuts out of his friend's hand if it looked like the only way to stop him.

The Eucharist is like those peanuts. For most Catholics it's life-giving nourishment. But for some, those in a state of moral sin, it's spiritual poison. But, instead of ending this life, it could endanger their moral soul. As a spiritual leader, as a pastor, even as a friend, doesn't Abp. Burke have the same obligation to save a life? Wouldn't he be derilict in his duty if he didn't speak out? I believe he would.

Which brings us back to those bishops who refuse to act in their people's best interest. What are thinking? Would they let an allergic friend endanger his life? I don't know. You'll have to ask them.

Labels: , , , ,