Cardinal Burke Responds to Recent Criticisms

[frenchdefense]

Hi Fish and Bread,



The only reason we have hungry people in the first place is because they were allowed to live.

Additionally, whether a particular war was unjust or just is an argument regarding which we may legitimately disagree. Such wars rarely feature in the average person's daily examination of conscience (if they do it as well). Torture is a similar thing. Capital Punishment...opposition to it in principle is simply not found in either Scripture or Tradition. The average person will probably never encounter Capital Punishment either. But abortion, that is something where at least 50 million lives have been taken in the United States alone. Even if we were pure Utilitarians, and were doing calculations solely based on numbers, that is a shocking statistic.

But again, you have to have people born, before we can even talk about warfare with them. They must exist for them to be tortured. They must live and breathe before we can even discuss execution. Abortion and our response to it is ontologically, logically and morally prior to discussion of the other topics, even though I do not deny they are important.

Finally, I don't think your portrayal of Burke is fair. I also don't think he would disagree with you about feeding the poor and such...what good Christian would disagree with you?

Cliff-notes summary:

We can discuss about your issues as long as you agree to mine unconditionally.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Two things, FD:

Don't make this personal. Keep "me" out of it. Debate the statements, keeping me out.

Secondly, how in the world do I seem "awfully political in my thinking?" Are you saying because I have a knowledge OF politics that makes ME political? That hardly makes sense if that is the argument. I think you're not making sense. I spent two posts at length showing the futility of putting one's faith in political parties and pointed out that WE CHRISTIANS must make our own mark in the world through Christian love and action, not expecting politicians to do things for us. And I said Christ isn't a politician. I also pointed out the inadequacies of the system. How in the world you got "gurney's a political animal" out of those posts, I'll NEVER know. Crazy.

For a person who claims Catholics should not be political you seems awfully political in your thinking.

I think the Church should be out of politics too.

I also think how I vote is none of anyone's business and is between me and my conscience.

And that's all I have to say.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Cliff's Notes of these Cliff's Notes: unnecessarily sarcastic and silly.

Cliff-notes summary:

We can discuss about your issues as long as you agree to mine unconditionally.

 

[frenchdefense]

Two things, FD:

Don't make this personal. Keep "me" out of it. Debate the statements, keeping me out.

Secondly, how in the world do I seem "awfully political in my thinking?" Are you saying because I have a knowledge OF politics that makes ME political? That hardly makes sense if that is the argument. I think you're not making sense. I spent two posts at length showing the futility of putting one's faith in political parties and pointed out that WE CHRISTIANS must make our own mark in the world through Christian love and action, not expecting politicians to do things for us. And I said Christ isn't a politician. I also pointed out the inadequacies of the system. How in the world you got "gurney's a political animal" out of those posts, I'll NEVER know. Crazy.

All I'm saying is that the argument you put forth seemed awfully passionately political.

But I will say this:

and only for me and my world view

I think failure to take part in the democratic political process because no party meets my particular moral standards completely is, in itself, immoral.

 

[frenchdefense]

Cliff's Notes of these Cliff's Notes: unnecessarily sarcastic and silly.

Well, maybe.

I just really sick of people telling me we, as Christians, can't do anything but wail against "non-nogoicable" issues while simultaneously giving half-hearted lip service to other issues of great moral import with the rationalization that these other matter can be discussed when we're dang go and ready and after we get what we want.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

How in the world would it be immoral? I get to choose between abortion-supporting, LGBT propagandists, big government folks who want to take away my 2nd amendment rights OR warmongering corporate goons who wish to keep 1% of the nation holding all the wealth why we keep wages stagnating way under inflation? You're seriously telling me if I don't choose one of those freak parties I'm immoral? FD, that's one majorly thin argument. Not taking part in a political process has absolutely NOTHING to do with morality. By voting Republican, I might get us into a war with Iran, get thousands of our troops killed in wars with ISIS, and create a more unstable middle east. By voting Democrat I ensure the abortion mills continue and the gay propaganda continues and our countries morals stay in the gutter. Vote GOP you're immoral. Vote Democrat, you're immoral.

How can a third option: abstaining from it all, be immoral?

All I'm saying is that the argument you put forth seemed awfully passionately political.

But I will say this:

and only for me and my world view

I think failure to take part in the democratic political process because no party meets my particular moral standards completely is, in itself, immoral.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I'm just sick of the illusion of democracy. We live in an oligarchy. Anyone knows that. We're run by world banking, we're run by corporations, lobbyists call the shots, and ultimately your vote is an illusion. Thinking we live in a democracy really plays right into the hands of these goons.

Well, maybe.

I just really sick of people telling me we, as Christians, can't do anything but wail against "non-nogoicable" issues while simultaneously giving half-hearted lip service to other issues of great moral import with the rationalization that these other matter can be discussed when we're dang go and ready and after we get what we want.

 

[ebia]

For a person who claims Catholics should not be political you seems awfully political in your thinking.

I think the Church should be out of politics too.

I also think how I vote is none of anyone's business and is between me and my conscience.

And that's all I have to say.

the church has to be involved in political issues. The very words kingdom and gospel are political words.

But no political party is going to be a good representation of all the right set of values. Representative democracy assumes that we involve ourselves in the political debate and use the way we vote to influence the parties or individuals that offer to represent us. A vote one way or another should not be seen as supporting or even condoning each and every position and action by the person/party voted for.

To step out of that democratic process, to exit the debate and chose not to vote is failure to be part of the change we should be. But neither should we be in the position where we automatically trust and back one party over another. We need to be involved in the debate on individual issues from a Kingdom perspective, and use our vote as best we can within the limitations and design of the system. And, where appropriate, press for change in the system.

 

[ebia]

Hi Fish and Bread,



The only reason we have hungry people in the first place is because they were allowed to live.

Additionally, whether a particular war was unjust or just is an argument regarding which we may legitimately disagree.

In the case of some wars that may be the case. In the case of others its cut and dried. The "War on Terror", for instance, didn't even begin to approach the criteria for just war.

Such wars rarely feature in the average person's daily examination of conscience (if they do it as well). Torture is a similar thing.

Hopefully, they aren't things we do as individuals. But we have a duty to call ourselves collectively to account on them as a society and as a nation. If a government ignores an aspect of human rights that isn't something to be ignored, or overridden by something one might do as an individual.

Capital Punishment...opposition to it in principle is simply not found in either Scripture or Tradition.

The church has a pretty clear position on it.

The average person will probably never encounter Capital Punishment either. But abortion, that is something where at least 50 million lives have been taken in the United States alone. Even if we were pure Utilitarians, and were doing calculations solely based on numbers, that is a shocking statistic.

But we are not unitarians. We should be following a virtue ethic. One that recognises that both abortion and failure to care for the poor both corrupt the sense of the value of human life.

But again, you have to have people born, before we can even talk about warfare with them. They must exist for them to be tortured. They must live and breathe before we can even discuss execution. Abortion and our response to it is ontologically, logically and morally prior to discussion of the other topics, even though I do not deny they are important.

well, no.
Birth precedes going hungry, being tortured or being executed for each individual.
But all of those problems are happening simultaneously and feed off each other. Neither can override the other concerns carte-blanche because none of them will actually ever be fixed to allow attention to move on to the others. All have to be addressed simultaneously.

Finally, I don't think your portrayal of Burke is fair. I also don't think he would disagree with you about feeding the poor and such...what good Christian would disagree with you?

Well, you get someone very occasionally who says that straight.
But mostly it gets buried in lip-service and "after we've fixed this [insoluble] problem".

 

[Irenaeus]

Ebia,

Thank you for a considerate and thoughtful reply.

In the case of some wars that may be the case. In the case of others its cut and dried. The "War on Terror", for instance, didn't even begin to approach the criteria for just war.

And I would agree with you on this.

Hopefully, they aren't things we do as individuals. But we have a duty to call ourselves collectively to account on them as a society and as a nation. If a government ignores an aspect of human rights that isn't something to be ignored, or overridden by something one might do as an individual.

This is also fairly stated. However, there is a considerable amount of moral ambiguity present in terms of material cooperation.

The church has a pretty clear position on it.

If by the Church, you mean several influential Western Hierarchs in the past 50 years, yes, that is true. However, the Church has not always taught that position, and thus is not in the category of those things "semper, ubique et ab omnibus" which in the Catholic Tradition constitute things as stemming from Apostolic Tradition, or dogma. It is a prudential judgment, as even St. Pope John Paul II acknowledged, based upon modern insights into incarceration and the moral rehabilitation of the person. It is not an intrinsic moral evil, as is, say, an unjust war, or an abortion.

But we are not unitarians. We should be following a virtue ethic. One that recognises that both abortion and failure to care for the poor both corrupt the sense of the value of human life.

Firstly, I was using the subjunctive mood. We are obviously not Utilitarians (nor Unitarians, which we aren't either). A virtue framework of ethics is of course is very important, and indispensable in Catholic Theology. My point is more this, which I made earlier, which even people like Mother Teresa made, someone who served the poor all her life: what is the logically, ontologically and morally prior principle? That of life, or that of solidarity with the poor? Life, or the fact that a human being is allowed to exist, is the foundational, fundamental principle before which nothing else can even be coherently discussed. That little human being can become either a Fortune 500 CEO or a beggar in the streets - regardless, without the right to life, it is meaningless to discuss him as a subject or an object at all.

well, no.
Birth precedes going hungry, being tortured or being executed for each individual.
But all of those problems are happening simultaneously and feed off each other. Neither can override the other concerns carte-blanche because none of them will actually ever be fixed to allow attention to move on to the others. All have to be addressed simultaneously.

I agree with the latter statement. But your conclusion does not negate my premise that life is ontologically, logically and morally prior to any other right. That is, even though practically we may tackle them together, all things flow from that one principle of life. Mother Teresa, whom I mentioned earlier, made her famous remark that killing an unborn child is connected, spiritually and logically, to a culture that promotes unjust war, torture, and every other form of inhumanity. I would probably at that the converse is probably also true. However, on the logical and ontological level, the principle of life qua life is primary.

Well, you get someone very occasionally who says that straight.
But mostly it gets buried in lip-service and "after we've fixed this [insoluble] problem".

Fair enough also. However, even Jesus Christ did not see the care of the poor as the non-negotiable. We remember that he did say "the poor you will always have with you," when expensive ointment was poured upon him. In that case, an act of pure love for his person, a saving love, was first.

I just don't see why Burke is attacked as somehow being too political. Certainly that's a valid opinion, and I think we can agree to disagree on his methods, but I think in terms of his reasoning (with which I am mostly concerned) he rightly embraces the discipline of the Church in regard to the Sacraments and reminds Catholics, politicians included, of their duties in obligations with regard to the Law of Christ and of His Church. Obviously he sees that as his moral duty, just as much as many of us see devotion to the poor as our proximate moral duty. As a Bishop, he has the munus/burden/gift of teaching and governing. We do not have those charisms in the Church. Therefore, his concerns are naturally with issues of discipline and Church Teaching.

Thank you again.

 

[ebia]

Firstly, I was using the subjunctive mood. We are obviously not Utilitarians (nor Unitarians, which we aren't either). A virtue framework of ethics is of course is very important, and indispensable in Catholic Theology. My point is more this, which I made earlier, which even people like Mother Teresa made, someone who served the poor all her life: what is the logically, ontologically and morally prior principle? That of life, or that of solidarity with the poor? Life, or the fact that a human being is allowed to exist, is the foundational, fundamental principle before which nothing else can even be coherently discussed.

I don't see that those two can be distinguished. Human life matters completely in both its existence and its quality. To separate the two is to destroy both values.

Jesus doesn't take existence of life and quality of life as being distinct things, one dependent or subservient to the other, but declares "I came so that you might have life to the full".

Fair enough also. However, even Jesus Christ did not see the care of the poor as the non-negotiable. We remember that he did say "the poor you will always have with you," when expensive ointment was poured upon him. In that case, an act of pure love for his person, a saving love, was first.

I think you're pulling something out of that that isn't there.

(Note I'm commenting only on your general points. I don't know any of the American cardinals well enough to say much about them individually.)

 

[Rhamiel]

wow, this thread got intense

 

[Fantine]

wow, this thread got intense

It got intense because Burke is a polarizing figure who inspires discord and incites controversy.

Pope Francis, who has made so many efforts to include the disenfranchised, the poor, the excluded, and people of other faiths, wants the Church to reflect Jesus' gentle outreach.

 

[frenchdefense]

the church has to be involved in political issues. The very words kingdom and gospel are political words.

But no political party is going to be a good representation of all the right set of values. Representative democracy assumes that we involve ourselves in the political debate and use the way we vote to influence the parties or individuals that offer to represent us. A vote one way or another should not be seen as supporting or even condoning each and every position and action by the person/party voted for.

To step out of that democratic process, to exit the debate and chose not to vote is failure to be part of the change we should be. But neither should we be in the position where we automatically trust and back one party over another. We need to be involved in the debate on individual issues from a Kingdom perspective, and use our vote as best we can within the limitations and design of the system. And, where appropriate, press for change in the system.

Well, yes, you're correct. Allow me to rephrase:

I wish the corporate church wasn't in bed with the Republican party.

Now, go tell this to Gurney because I just made the same statement and he's all over me on it.

You've done a much better job of explaining it.

 

[Irenaeus]

Hello again, Ebia!

I don't see that those two can be distinguished. Human life matters completely in both its existence and its quality. To separate the two is to destroy both values.

I think it is a bit extreme to say to separate them would be to destroy them. Like any good Thomist, (and I pray I am worthy of the title) we use distinctions in order to clarify and unite, rather than to separate.

I made a distinction between ontology, logic and morality and our practical opposition to these things in the public sphere. Could you please supply a rebuttal for how life qua life is not ontologically and/or logically prior (that is, a thing must exist in order to have any predicate attached to it whatsoever) to any other human right.

Jesus doesn't take existence of life and quality of life as being distinct things, one dependent or subservient to the other, but declares "I came so that you might have life to the full".

Although I accept your argument, I do not accept it for the allusion you made from the Gospel of John, but for other reasons. I believe that Jesus' first concern was primarily for human persons and their salvation. Full of compassion, he also cared deeply for us in all our miseries, poverty included.

However, I would still like some sort of rebuttal of the point that life is ontologically and logically prior to any other right. The Church in her Magisterium has declared as such and in doing so has placed her seal on a principle which is founded in both reason and the fullness of faith.

 

[Irenaeus]

To Frenchdefense:

Cliff-notes summary:

We can discuss about your issues as long as you agree to mine unconditionally.

Although I believe that summary to be extremely disingenuous, as I (and Burke) would no doubt be eager to discuss many things on the docket of Catholic Social Teaching, his reasoning, my reasoning, and that of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, is that the right to life is always primary, because it is the principle from which every other one flows. To threaten it, relativize it, or to equivocate it deeply weakens the logical and conceptual power of our arguments.

As I stated before, Mother Teresa, who spent her life in the service of the poorest of the poor, rightly identified that if a society will not value its most vulnerable, that is, the life of an unborn child, can we be surprised if they do not value it in the old, the incurably ill, the immigrant, or the indigent?

 

[Fish and Bread]

Like any good Thomist, (and I pray I am worthy of the title) we use distinctions in order to clarify and unite, rather than to separate.

True unity doesn't come from threats and condemnations. That's the false unity of fear. Vatican II represents a break from that in ways as simple and as easy to spot as it's use of positive language rather than the traditional listing of heresies to be condemned. That's why some hate it. That's why some hated Jesus. He brought a message of love and inclusion rather than of subjugation and power. Indeed, Christ was a very different model of servant-leadership that subverted existing notions of power. I still don't think that's fully been internalized by Christendom almost 2,000 years later.

Further, one has to be careful about using cold internal theological logic to subvert the spirit of the divine message. That's another thing that Jesus often preached about by implication. When we're told to elect politicians taking a set position on something that is unlikely to even be legislated on in a way that'll hold up in the courts, over making sure we elect people who will stand up for and provide for those who think and a feel and love and hate who's issues will definitely come up and can be legislated on for better or worse, that is an example to me of legalism.

 

[Fish and Bread]

the right to life is always primary

But that is not really what these people are saying. They are saying the right to life of a single-celled embroyo, 2/3rds of which naturally with no birth control or intervention whatsoever, fall off the uterine wall and die, and the very very thin unlikely prospect that something could be done about that in the courts, takes precedent over the lives of living breathing thinking feeling undeniably full human beings walking the earth. I believe in better funding social programs because I believe in people's right to live and survive. I don't support those anti-abortion politicians who's policies would take away life sustaining health care, food, payments that can be used to pay to keep roofs over people's heads, and so on and so forth from people who would otherwise die simply because these ghoulish plutocrats have cynically co-opted people's opposition to abortion to force people to vote against the moral good on every other issue.

As I stated before, Mother Teresa, who spent her life in the service of the poorest of the poor, rightly identified that if a society will not value its most vulnerable, that is, the life of an unborn child, can we be surprised if they do not value it in the old, the incurably ill, the immigrant, or the indigent?

She's wrong. She was also wrong to deny her terminally ill patients pain killers that could have been provided for them (She did have funding to do this. It was offered to her.) and tell them they must offer up their suffering to a God some of them didn't even believe in as they screamed their way towards death. Giving over her life to work with the poor and the dying in poverty does make her a Saint, but it doesn't not make her infallible.

 

[Gwendolyn]

It got intense because Burke is a polarizing figure who inspires discord and incites controversy.

Pope Francis, who has made so many efforts to include the disenfranchised, the poor, the excluded, and people of other faiths, wants the Church to reflect Jesus' gentle outreach.

It got intense because OBOB is incapable of having a thread that does not somehow involve American politics.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I'm sorry you feel I did a lousy job of explaining it. I think I was as clear as a bell.

You said you wish the Church wasn't in bed with the GOP. I agree. I said that in my post. I think I said it 3 times. Very clear. I also said I wish Catholic politicians weren't in bed with the Democratic Party as well!

I think you're not listening, and no I'm not "all over you." You said anyone who isn't involved in the political process is "immoral." I take exception to that and find it insulting.

GK Chesterton talked about conservatives and liberals being two sides of the same coin. I think he knows far better than you or I. Do you remember "Hudge and Gudge?"

We are not called as Christians to be political junkies and make idols of politics. Look at OBOB: Exhibit A! People in here are driven by their politics over their faith. They talk more about Democrat talking points and agendas than the faith. They want the CC to mirror secular humanist Democratic values. The Republicans in here can get off the hook, too. They want to pretend the Church should be a bunch of warmongering, Muslim butt-kickin', union-bustin' low-tax good ole boys.

I submit, and I've said this over and over, that BOTH are so fundamentally flawed that it's just a joke.

We are called as Christians to feed the poor. So GO DO IT! Get off your tukus and go down and volunteer at the soup kitchen! Donate money to Catholic Charities!

We are called to fight abortion. So GO DO IT! Go march in a walk for life, give money to pregnancy care centers, counsel folks, and PRAY FOR THEM!

We are called to clothe the naked. SO DO IT.

We are called to visit prisoners. SO DO IT. It's called prison ministry!

We are called to make change in people's lives, so we do it. Doesn't matter if we live in a Soviet communist regime, a monarchy, a democracy, or the Martian Colonies, we just live as Christians making a difference.

Trust me, I have changed my position on this. If you had known me back circa 2002, I was a HARDCORE Republican! I mean HARD-----CORE! I was more conservative than you could imagine! I was passionately into the pro-life cause, totally thinking that my vote was the huge difference-maker and that the morality Christ calls us to live could be lorded over everyone through my vote. I could make a difference at the ballot box! I totally bought it!

When I became Orthodox, I really came to a series of epiphanies about a lot of things. One thing was politics. I realized how much of idol it is for so many as it had been for me. I realized how futile it is to think I can affect change through legislation and politicians. I realized that I felt prayer to somehow "not be enough" that we need political boots on the ground for everything.

Prayer and my own direct interaction with other human beings isn't something to be undervalued.

I vote in EVERY election, more out of habit and the fact that I'm a sucker. I worked on the Clinton campaign in high school. I voted for him, later voted for Dole. I voted twice for George W. Bush and twice for Obama. In statewide California elections, I usually vote about 50-50 for GOP and Dem. This election I voted more Democrat by far. I often vote Independent as well. If you want to get SUPER technical, I'm a registered Republican, but I am willing to lambast the living snot out of them at will.

I am not naive. I don't think my votes say much. In the end it's the lobbyists, the world banking order, corporations, and the 1% calling the shots. It's called oligarchy, and it's been in effect in America for decades now. I just don't drink the Kool-Aid and pretend somehow it's otherwise. In the next election I'm seriously considering not voting. I probably will. But if I don't, I'm not "immoral" in not doing so.

My apologies if you felt I was 'all over you.' I felt a bit taken aback when you talked up the immorality of things and felt you were being pretty sarcastic with me and others. Again, my apologies.

And don't worry about telling Ebia to 'tell it to Gurney.' He would disagree with me about gravity if he could!

Well, yes, you're correct. Allow me to rephrase:

I wish the corporate church wasn't in bed with the Republican party.

Now, go tell this to Gurney because I just made the same statement and he's all over me on it.

You've done a much better job of explaining it.