Cardinal Burke Responds to Recent Criticisms

[Irenaeus]

I think I understand and appreciate your concern here, but I think I would rather see folks who need it have food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare guaranteed to them than to have some portion of them feel warm fuzzies because people seem to care enough to provide it to them voluntarily while the rest die because it's not enough. I do agree that we need to make sure to still care for our fellow humans as people, but I think that can done through other forms of charity, and even through basic human consideration and compassion. You know, we could do things like fight class-ism and that kind of stuff, because even if you guarantee a minimum income and such, there are still people who are going to look down their noses at those who have to take it, and we could fight back against efforts to make fun of them or denigrate them.

Hey Fish and Bread,

I'm sure you agree that to have to choose between the two is a false choice. However, CST is very clear: the right to life first is fundamental, and although we shouldn't have to choose, an abortionless society is a lesser evil.

@ Fantine:

Thank you for finding the quotes. I'm not so sure I share your conclusions, nor do I find Burke's comments terribly controversial in and of themselves, but I can see how certain people would find them to be so.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Awwwww, David, dang it! I always love your posts....but altar girls? Really? Dang you sir! LOL....

gurney hangs head low...altar girls, ugh

Let me be clear I fully reject the cardinals view on altar girls and have constantly supported them existing. I often find the thought that they inhibit vocations to be totally off base. So I do not agree with him. But he is not some malicious monster who is the face of all catholic problems. Which is how he gets painted

 

[Fish and Bread]

Hey Fish and Bread,

I'm sure you agree that to have to choose between the two is a false choice.

I do agree, when it comes to personal ideology- we can be against abortion and for preserving and expanding social programs for the poor, elderly, and vulnerable.

However, often we are faced with a choice of candidates that do force us to make a choice, though it isn't even as simple as that choice- because we also must evaluate how likely candidates are to achieve their objectives and weight things accordingly. Elections are not a philosophy competition, we are electing real people who will face barriers and restrictions in what they can accomplish in their positions, and who also have their own policy priorities.

I was happy to vote for Bob Casey, Jr, an anti-abortion Democratic Senator, twice when I lived in Pennsylvania, though.

However, CST is very clear: the right to life first is fundamental, and although we shouldn't have to choose, an abortionless society is a lesser evil.

Electing Republican Presidents gave America the Supreme Court majority that ruled that abortion was a constitutional right in Roe vs. Wade (Look it up, those were Republican appointed justices). I do not believe that a court will overturn Roe, and if they did overturn it, I believe most states would legalize abortion within their borders and that charities and other organizations would provide transportation out of state to those seeking abortions, and even if somehow, as pigs were flying over a frozen over hell, all 50 states banned abortion, I believe women would get them in back alleys or by buying abortion pills from drug dealers. I do not consider abortion a political issue at this time and in this place. It's a hearts and minds issue.

To the extent there is a political solution that will bring down abortion rates, it is making sure that we provide food, shelter, health care, and the opportunity for a good life to single mothers and their children so that they choose not to have abortions.

 

[Te Deum Laudamus]

I do not believe that a court will overturn Roe, and if they did overturn it, I believe most states would legalize abortion within their borders and that charities would provide organizations would provide transportation out of state to those seeking abortions, and even if somehow, as pigs were flying over a frozen over hell, all 50 states banned abortion, I believe women would get them in back alleys or by buying abortion pills from drug dealers. I do not consider abortion a political issue at this time and in this place. It's a hearts and minds issue.

Do you believe, then, that abortion should be accessible for woman in a safe and healthy environment, administered by qualified medical professionals, to lower the risk to their health and well-being?

 

[Fantine]

What F&B believes, as he said, is that voting for someone who promises something that can't be delivered (i.e. ending abortion) whose other views are a combination of Simon Legree's, Marie Antoinette's, and Darwin's (i.e. cruel slave driver, callous privileged empress, and survival of the fittest promoter) is foolish.

He feels it is better to vote for someone who works to eradicate income inequality, environmental pollution, unsafe workplaces and to promote good education, infrastructure repair, and healthcare, all goals that can be accomplished to a significant degree.

 

[Te Deum Laudamus]

What F&B believes, as he said, is that voting for someone who promises something that can't be delivered (i.e. ending abortion) whose other views are a combination of Simon Legree's, Marie Antoinette's, and Darwin's (i.e. cruel slave driver, callous privileged empress, and survival of the fittest promoter) is foolish.

That is not the question that I asked Fish and Bread.

Do you believe, then, that abortion should be accessible for woman in a safe and healthy environment, administered by qualified medical professionals, to lower the risk to their health and well-being?

But I would ask you to withdraw your calumnious description of Marie Antoinette as a "callous privileged empress." Just because an individual is dead does not then give us free reign to characterise them however we wish.

 

[isshinwhat]

Any one of many beautiful expositions on the Faith of the Fathers

Wonderful to see you here sharing that which has been believed always, everywhere, by all, in such a clear and kind manner.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Awwwww, David, dang it! I always love your posts....but altar girls? Really? Dang you sir! LOL....

gurney hangs head low...altar girls, ugh

Technically, in contemporary Catholicism, alter server or acolyte is no longer a "minor order". In the past, it was exclusively conferred upon males (along with reader, etc.) because it WAS a "minor order" leading to the "full holy orders" of the priesthood. Because of this, it was obviously a road to ordination that would help boys understand part of what priestly liturgical life is a like.

But it's not a minor order anymore. It doesn't have to be instituted. It doesn't have to be conferred. So now males AND females can read, and males AND females can serve, since there is no direct link to ordination, and it's open.

So with that reality, there is nothing preventing girls from serving. Technically.

But because the mental association between serving and priesthood is still strong, and because a LOT of people won't encourage their boys if their boys are reluctant to do something with girls (come on, tell your children to suck it up, God is more important than cooties)... this is still hotly debated.

Personally, I'm in favour of male servers only, but with the way Latin Catholicism is right now, there is technically no reason girls can't serve.

 

[Fantine]

Marie Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake..."

Maybe that DOES put her a cut above the state legislator (who is, I believe, from Wisconsin) who wants to prohibit welfare recipients from ever eating cake or doing anything that is the slightest bit frivolous or fun....

I suppose next he'll want to start charging for parades, street fairs, and public parks to make their deprivation complete.

 

[Te Deum Laudamus]

Marie Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake..."

Maybe that DOES put her a cut above the state legislator

No, she did not. "Let them eat cake..." is an anecdotal device created by Rousseau, a French Humanist, anti-Catholic, Republican, when Marie Antoinette was an infant. You have publicly committed calumny against an individual and detracted from their good name. That she is long dead is of no consequence, it is not fitting for a Christian to do this against any individual. In the interests of justice, please apologise and retract your statement.

I also feel that you have judged me as being a Republican. That concerns me greatly. I am first and foremost a Catholic. I am not even an American, and I find both of your political parties to be horrible, with neither of them conforming themselves to the social teachings of the Catholic Church. No, I do not believe that welfare recipients should be ashamed of spending that money on things like steak, cake, or even a bottle of wine. As a Catholic I believe that recreation is a fundamental human right, I also believe, as a Catholic, following the example of the Church's liturgy, that we must have days of celebration, days of feasts. Days where we put in that little bit extra. Conversely I am not entirely convinced that government welfare is a sufficient means of providing support to the less fortunate. Support which I believe we have an obligation as individuals and as society to provide.

Because you have politicised the issue of abortion, you now bare your teeth at an individual that mentions it. You have preconceived notions now because you have allowed American politics to dominate your life. I would strongly urge you to consider that perhaps it would be best to withdraw from political discussions for a while.

 

[St_Barnabus]

No, she did not. "Let them eat cake..." is an anecdotal device created by Rousseau, a French Humanist, anti-Catholic, Republican, when Marie Antoinette was an infant.

No allowance for her not knowing this alleged fact? Worse yet, with assumptions that she should have known?

You have publicly committed calumny against an individual and detracted from their good name. That she is long dead is of no consequence, it is not fitting for a Christian to do this against any individual. In the interests of justice, please apologise and retract your statement.

I find your demands as an overbearing warden browbeating a prisoner to be unconscionable and unbefitting a newbie with less than ten posts. Please let go of the attitude.

I would strongly urge you to consider that perhaps it would be best to withdraw from political discussions for a while.

Again, it is not your duty to moderate others. Let it go.

 

[Anhelyna]

Guys - I know I don't have an Ambassadorial Hat , but can I suggest we all calm down a bit ?

It's clear that some of us have more in depth knowledge of history than others - that's always the way of course.

 

[Te Deum Laudamus]

No allowance for her not knowing this alleged fact? Worse yet, with assumptions that she should have known?

I'm sorry, but please, it is my understanding that as Christians we should thoroughly research the truth behind statements we make about individuals, especially when the statement can detract from an individual's good name. I do not feel that her ignorance of the truth is a valid defence for calumny. It is all the worse, in fact. She gossiped about another person without even trying to verify the truth. Especially in today's age when we have Google a mere click away, there is no excuse for her statement and mischaracterisation of an individual.

I find your demands as an overbearing warden browbeating a prisoner to be unconscionable and unbefitting a newbie with less than ten posts. Please let go of the attitude.

Do I need 15 posts to admonish someone who has done public wrong? 150? 15,000? I don't believe "be a member for three months with a post count exceeding 150" to be one of the qualifications for admonishing a fellow Christian.

Again, it is not your duty to moderate others. Let it go.

I am not moderating this forum, I am admonishing a fellow Christian who has committed a public wrong. She committed calumny and detracted from another's good name. How can I let that go? Would Christ let it go? "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice." All I am asking is that in justice she apologise and retract her words. I don't think calumny is a matter to be taken lightly, do you?

 

[ebia]

Do I need 15 posts to admonish someone who has done public wrong? 150? 15,000? I don't believe "be a member for three months with a post count exceeding 150" to be one of the qualifications for admonishing a fellow Christian.

I'm most situations it's not etiquette to walk into a fresh place and start berating the regulars.

 

[Te Deum Laudamus]

I'm most situations it's not etiquette to walk into a fresh place and start berating the regulars.

Saint Louis Marie de Montfort once knelt and prayed his rosary in a tavern frequented by drunkards and prostitutes. I don't think he was a regular.

 

[ebia]

Saint Louis Marie de Montfort once knelt and prayed his rosary in a tavern frequented by drunkards and prostitutes. I don't think he was a regular.

Are you sure that's the picture of how you see yourself here that you want to set up?

 

[Te Deum Laudamus]

Are you sure that's the picture of how you see yourself here that you want to set up?

Are you sure you wish to try and convince a Christian that they should allow their actions to be ruled by worldly affairs like public image? Or that we should hold silence on sin and errors for the sake of etiquette? I would ask you and St_Barnabus to consider why you have responded to my posts.

Fantine committed a grave injustice against another individual, in public no less. I rebuked her for it and asked her to publicly apologise for her offense. You, and St_Barnabus, have taken exception to my rebuke.

Why is it that you feel a greater need to address my lack of etiquette rather than a public injustice? Do you feel that committing calumny against a dead individual is of little consequence? I am sorry, but... why would a Christian make more of a fuss about public image and etiquette rather than the evils of sin...?

 

[Te Deum Laudamus]

No, ebia, I do not mean to imply that you are all drunkards and prostitutes. Edit: Nor do I mean to imply that I am a saint amongst sinners. It was an ill-chosen attempt at humour to defuse the situation.

Fantine, I apologise. Yes, your words were a calumny against another, but I should have paused in my haste to rebuke injustice. I did not weigh the merits of context. That the individual is dead does not mitigate the injustice, but it does mitigate how the injustice should be addressed. It would have been wiser to have contacted you privately. Or better yet, to have simply corrected your factual error rather than publicly humiliate you. There are times when a harsh public rebuke is necessary. There are times when it is not.

In this case, I think it is evident that I was overzealous. For that, I do sincerely apologise.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Admin Hat...

Rebukes; enough already!

This is a reminder to keep it civil; failing to do so will result in "rebukes" of the moderation type.

I can "rebuke" right along with the very best; however I save them for when they are really needed... it's getting very close.

We all know better, so let's start acting like it, OK?

Mark
CF Admin

 

[ebia]

Do you feel that committing calumny against a dead individual is of little consequence?

When they've been dead a long time and "person" commented upon is effectively a symbolic figure of myth largely divorced from the historical person, yes.