Drawing Principled Lines
Written by Daniel on May 10, 2007 – 11:35 am - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
There has been a fair amount of buzz in the Catholic blogosphere in recent days around a pair of events that provide us an interesting foil for things here at Marquette.
First is St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, who quit as chairman of the board of a local Catholic hospital. NRO reports: Burke “disapprov[ed] of the decision by the Cardinal Glennon Children’s Foundation to feature abortion-rights activist [and music artist] Sheryl Crow at its Catholic fundraiser. Burke had privately asked the board to replace Crow because her public support for abortion rights and embryonic-stem-cell research could confuse or scandalize Catholics. The board refused his request. So Burke resigned and held a press conference to distance himself and his Church from Crow’s views.” See also CNA.
Conservative Catholic organizations like Human Life International and Fox’s Fr. Jonathan have come to Archbishop Burke’s defense after the criticism that he was being too hard-line, hurting the kids at the hospital, etc.
A little closer to Milwaukee, conservative Catholics are jumping on the Mercy Home for Boys and Girls in Chicago, which is hosting a fundraiser featuring Senator Hillary Clinton. In this instance, Francis Cardinal George questioned if the event would be political, and was satisfied that it would not. Conservative Catholics were pretty outraged, plan to protest, and charged that the event, “is in direct opposition to the Bishops statement opposing awards, honors, or platforms for those who oppose the fundamental moral principals of the Church.”
I disagree. I do not believe that allowing Senator Clinton or Sheryl Crow to headline events of a non-political nature that raise money for charities falls within the USCCB’s stricture, which says, “Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” [emphasis original].
To headline certain events (such as keynoting Marquette’s Mission Week) are, in my opinion, honors even though their is no medal given out or honorary doctorate bestowed. I do not think that these two events fall within that same catergory.
Moreover, I’ll note here that I do not believe Vel Phillips should not be given an honorary degree. While she is clearly a liberal Democrat, and every circumstance suggests she support abortion, there’s no particular essay or speech or other act that’s definitive and disqualifying. I’m also rather ambivalent about whether Dave Obey gets the Aspin Center Award - his voting record on abortion is much more of a mixed bag than that of Gwen Moore, for instance, or John Lewis. I’m more annoyed with the streak of Democrats than violation of the USCCB rule…
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Why Van's the Man - January 5th, 2009
- 9th Cir. Screws up Scouts' Case - January 5th, 2009
- Favorite Moment in the Final Days - December 29th, 2008
- Over on MULS Faculty Blog - December 29th, 2008
- The Race for DPI Superintendent - December 29th, 2008
Posted in Marquette Golden Chickens |
May 10th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
What’s this? Thought and and an effort at discernment? Applying the actual language to these situations? Real Catho-bloggers never miss an opportunity for Cardinal-bashing, so the the credentialing committee will probably be paying you a visit.
Good post.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Good post, Daniel!
May 10th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
“Burke had privately asked the board to replace Crow because her public support for abortion rights and embryonic-stem-cell research could confuse or scandalize Catholics.”
Honestly, how stupid does he think we Catholics are? We all know the Church’s position on abortion, and having Sheryl Crow at a fundraiser wouldn’t confuse anyone. It’s just a bad argument on the Archbishop’s part.
May 11th, 2007 at 8:26 am
After all, what’s more important? The MONEY, or who raises it?
Your Jesuit education is showing–casuistry is regarded as a virtue in the halls labeled “S.J.”
Affording HRC, Crow, and the insouciant and pro-abort Obey a platform at a Roman Catholic-sponsored event, other than to hear them recant and abjectly beg forgiveness, is to prioritize with a major deficit of right order.
For those whose objective is merely to raise money, I remind you that one cannot serve both God and Mammon.
Take your choice.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:55 am
“For those whose objective is merely to raise money, I remind you that one cannot serve both God and Mammon.
Take your choice.”
I don’t know about you, but I would choose to help the children. Somehow, I think Jesus would have healed the children rather than squabbling with his followers over politics.
I don’t understand one bit why preventing people who have done bad deeds from doing good deeds makes any sense. Shouldn’t we encourage people to lend a hand and do charitable works?
May 12th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Jessica, your elision is showing.
You are correct that Jesus may well have healed the children, rather than discussing politics. Your analogy does not apply to the situation at hand, of course, but I’m sure it felt good for you to try that one.
Nor would any “supping with sinners” analogy apply (although I’m sure that you’d love to try that poppycock, too.)
You see, your analogy works if and only if you strictly use the example you (inadvertently) provided: Christ did the work–just as the Catholic hospital in St Louis and children’s agency in Chicago do.
You will NOT find an example of Christ providing a platform for a public sinner to “raise funds” for His mission. Nor will you find an example of Christ directly or indirectly ‘blessing’ an unrepentant public sinner.
That’s because He didn’t. (In fact, He was rather explicit about the fate of those who give scandal, although their “good works” may mitigate…)
A Catholic institution should not directly or indirectly ‘bless’ someone who is unrepentant by providing a platform for them.
THAT is ‘following the example and teaching’ of Christ.
May 12th, 2007 at 8:16 am
To return to the point you avoided, Jessica: when did utilitarianism become a Catholic tenet?
May 16th, 2007 at 3:11 am
I’m sure I sound uninformed to you, so I might as well go whole hog. What’s elision?
I don’t see how having somebody take part in a fundraiser blesses anyone, especially since I was under the impression that only God has the power to bless. When did playing God become a Catholic tenet?
As for Jesus’s method of healing children, I really don’t see how we can exactly follow that example. If I could heal with my touch, I would be out there in the hospital right now. But I can’t, and I don’t think anybody else on this earth can, either. I’m not a doctor or a miracle worker; I’m just a college student. I can only heal in the way that every layperson can heal: prayer, visiting the sick, donating blood, getting my First Aid and CPR certifications renewed when they expire, and donating money.
I’m not a Catholic. But does that mean that if I want to help out at a Christian fundraiser, I can’t? That just doesn’t fit with my view of God at all. And I know for a fact those kids don’t care where the money or the supplies come from, as long as they come. I would rather save children’s lives with dirty money or by humbling myself before sinners than let the children suffer to keep my pride. Christians are told to value life above everything else, and all this “elision” and “utilitarianism” and “causistry” talk is unimportant beside that. That’s pride; it isn’t virtue.
If somebody wants to do a good deed or get involved with charity, God forbid I be the one to stop him, whoever he may be!
May 16th, 2007 at 3:13 am
And incidentally, what about the non-Israelite woman who came to ask Jesus to heal her sick child? She was an idolator and didn’t convert, nor did Jesus ask her to. But he healed her child and sent her off with a benediction all the same. So he did “bless” nonrepentent sinners, at least in one instance!
May 16th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Umnnnhh….incidentally, it was the CHILD that Xt. healed, not the mom.
Your ideals are just fine. Your methodology must be a bit more carefully thought out.
The Church ‘thinks stuff out,’ which is one of Her missions.
Elision usually refers to “skipping a syllable”–the term is principally used in discussions of poetry. It’s a technique often used by Virgil and Homer to make the scansion work.
In my post, I used the term to indicate that you had skipped a step in logic. As to “casuistry” and “utilitarianism,”–they have to do with the nature (and effects) of your argumentation. They are not complimentary terms, sorry.
Finally, while only God can “bless,” He also uses human instruments to do so–e.g., ordained priests. I used the term more casually than I should have. The longer and more precise form would be:
The Catholic service agency in question has bestowed an honor on a notorious pro-abortion politician. Since the agency is explicitly “Catholic,” their honoring of this woman is inappropriate, because the Church’s position on abortion is clear. Their action COULD be viewed as ‘endorsement’ of the politician and her views. In the long run, many people will see this as another example of “the Church is wrong” in the same way that many people now say “the Church is wrong” because of actions of Her members–e.g., the Borgia Pope.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Thanks for the explanation. By the way, I do know that “causistry” and “utilitarianism” weren’t intended as compliments. I may not be an English major, but I do know about context clues!
Yes, Jesus healed the child, not the mother. But he did it knowing that neither the child nor the mother would ever be Christian, and he then defended the mother’s request for help to the disciples who though that agreeing to the request of an idolator was wrong. So it was definitely an indirect blessing, at the very least.
As you said, those who want to say that the Church is wrong already have plenty of incidents to support their view, such as the Borgia Pope or the Church’s policies during the Holocaust. They are going to believe that the Church is wrong no matter what it does now. You and I have no idea what will or could or might happen as a result of anything we do; only God has that kind of knowledge. We should be making our decision based on what we know now, on a case by case basis. We can deal with consequences in the same way when they come. Unless we can see the future, how can we do otherwise?
Thanks for being so patient with me, I’m really not much of a debater.
I just know what I believe, is all.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:21 am
But he did it knowing that neither the child nor the mother would ever be Christian, and he then defended the mother’s request for help to the disciples who though that agreeing to the request of an idolator was wrong
Wrong conclusion. You and I do not know ‘whether the mother/child would ever become Christian.’ There is no record. Christ knew, but hasn’t told us or anybody else. For all we know, they could have Poped just after the first Pentecost…
Beyond that, Christ did not “honor” the mother (or the child) by curing the child. He showed that seeing to physical needs was Christian–just as these institutions have done and continue to do.
But–to the point–He did NOT call in Caesar, or Herod, to raise funds.
As to “making the decision based on what we know now,” that’s a recipe for disaster. Decisions must be based on principles–in this case, the principle that the Church will not, directly or indirectly, “honor” (”bless”) an individual who stands proudly against First Things–such as “choose Life.”
In other words, neither Expediency, nor its cousin Utilitarianism, should drive a decision, although Expediency provides more moral latitude. However, in both these cases, Expediency is not the question, since there was no “instant life-or-death” decision process.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
But what do you do when your values conflict? What do you do if you have to choose between two evils? What you’re saying seems to assume that every choice is black and white and that all we need to do is follow our principles, but that doesn’t always work because sometimes principles come in conflict. Like, I don’t know, the death penalty. Choose life or pursue justice? Either one could be morally defensible, I suppose, so how do you choose?
He did honor the mother, though. She asked him the first time, and he told her it wasn’t appropriate to heal non-Israelite children before the Israelite children. So she told him, “But once the master has finished eating, shall not the dogs have the scaps off the master’s table?” And then Jesus granted her request, because she was humble, and returned to healing Israelites. If it was just seeing to physical needs, why didn’t he grant her request the first time? Also, when a sinner is redeemed in the Bible, it makes some reference to the fact that they changed their ways. There is no such statement here, so I think it’s safe to assume that they didn’t change.
And as for Herod, he didn’t need to raise funds because he could heal with his hands. We can’t. We need to heal with medicines, and medicines cost money. That’s one of the things I know. I’m sure Herod was giving money to charities at the time, since Israelite law required ten percent of all incomes to be given to charity. Should Herod have been prevented, then, from giving or from overseeing the raising of funds?
May 18th, 2007 at 8:00 am
The fund-raisers were not “expedient”–as in a life-or-death-make-the-decision-NOW question. They were considered, and the wrong decision was made.
The obvious answer in a limited number of cases is to “choose the least evil”–but I say this is “limited” because, in fact, it IS. You’re trying to cloud the point with “what ifs” that are not present in the case at hand.
I happen to agree with JPII that the death penalty is NOT required–but note that JPII also said that “life in prison” should be the alternative. He did not state that “Life in prison means 10 years plus probation.”
The mother’s humility (and, by the way, her faith in Jesus) was what Xt ‘honored;’ THAT was the ‘conversion’ He wished to make into an example for Christians. It can also be argued that the CHILD was without blame (or, perhaps, without sin.)
So, yes, Catholic hospitals and institutions should (and DO) heal. But that’s not the question, either.
The question is, simply, the method of finance. And the method of finance is NOT “expedient;” it is utilitarian. Somehow, for 1400+ years, Catholic hospitals have managed without giving honor to abortion-promoters.
It’s a record which can and should be continued.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:24 am
[...] that Marquette brings in lecturers who are decidedly leftist in their political ideology (unless circumstances move us into the Catholics in Political Life framework). I object that the overwhelming majority of [...]
August 30th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
[...] of “Catholics in Political Life.” Some academically-oriented lectures and events are not honors, some are. I note also that the defense, “Well, the speaker will not be talking about [...]