Thursday, January 29, 2004
Robert P. George & Gerard V. Bradley on Archbishop Raymond Burke
Robert P. George & Gerard V. Bradley on Archbishop Raymond Burke on National Review Online: "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."
...
"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 adisfavoredd 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?"
...
"...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. ..."
The separation of Church and State means that they are separate and cannot influence the doctrine of one and the policy of the other. It means that the church is free to decide who is a member and who is not. By implying that separation means that one cannot excommunicate straying sheep if they have turned into wolves is to turn the meaning separation of church and state on its head.
...
"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 adisfavoredd 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?"
...
"...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. ..."
The separation of Church and State means that they are separate and cannot influence the doctrine of one and the policy of the other. It means that the church is free to decide who is a member and who is not. By implying that separation means that one cannot excommunicate straying sheep if they have turned into wolves is to turn the meaning separation of church and state on its head.
Comments:
Post a Comment
