Rebutting Burke

Checking my email the other day, I noticed a message from an Anonymous source commenting on one of my blog articles. Wow, a comment. I tore into the inbox like a kid into his neatly wrapped present on Christmas Morning. The mail contained a letter written by the St. Stanislaus Kostka Advisory Committee (hereinafter, SAC) The letter gives the alternative argument in the continuing property dispute between St. Stan's Parish and the Archbishop of St. Louis Raymond Burke. My best friend, who coincidentally is not my dog, said I should just delete the comment and treat it as spam. My blog is there to provide the public with both sides of the issue and let the public decide based on the truth. And so I feel compelled to give rebuttal. Not just as a comment to a comment, but a full fledged rambling. Grab your favorite beverage, smoke em if you got em and have a seat and read.

In the first instance SAC, you complain about the secular media placing the spotlight on the Board of Directors at St. Stan's (hereinafter BOD) and ignoring those with opposing views, like you. The same can be said about the St. Louis Review, the Archdiocese Newspaper, not allowing statements by the BOD to be printed. Face it Sac, the secular media covers stories where they can interview living and breathing human beings.The BOD members have an identity. They have names. They are flesh and blood. They don't hide behind a cloak of secrecy. The shroud of anonymity brings no credibility. Anonymity conjures up notions of people in the Federal Witness Protection Program. Get a spokesperson who can articulate the issues and you just might get exposure.

The main issues as I see it are Property and Pastoral. The property issue is a closer call, but I think that the BOD provides a more persuasive argument for their stance. Although I have studied Canon Law, I readily exclaim I'm not an expert in the field. But as the BOD has said, there are sections of the Canon that address the issue and it appears that the property in question is the property of the parish. The Archbishop wants to place the property and assets in a irrevocable trust and claims that he won't be privy to the purse strings. Well, if that is truly the case, why not just leave well enough alone as it has been for all these years. (More about this in the pastoral issue).

SAC claims that an audit of the accounts held at St. Stan's is necessary to assure that no hanky-panky is in the works. BOD agrees with them and also provides evidence that the funds under their management were the subject of a professional audit and all was found to be in order. SAC argues that the BOD usurped the authority and demonstrated disrespect to the former pastor by taking away the control of parish funds from the reverend. From what I have read, the pastor demonstrated disrespect for his flock by expending the monies like a kid in a candy store. Of course that's just what I have read and I imagine that the actual evidence will be presented in an almost certain to go to trial situation.

Property issues of this type are not really new to St. Louis. Archbishop, now Cardinal, Rigali attempted to foil the sale of St. Louis University Hospital to a private for profit group, Tenet. Rigali claimed that the hospital was the property of the archdiocese since it was situated in same. Fr. Lawrence Biondi, head of SLU, countered that the board of directors was comprised of lay people and as such was out side the authority of the bishop. The deal finally went through, but only after a compromise was reached and a black bag was dropped off at the Vatican.
The more important issue is that of Pastoral Care. The Shepherd leading his flock. Want to get into Canon Law? Pastoral care is the principle of the Canon. Through it all other laws of the church follow. It means compassion, love, giving and caring. It doesn't start with the Pope and end there. It works its way up and down the ladder of authority.
There is no doubt that Burke's behavior and attitudes shocked many St. Louis Catholics upon his arrival. He is to church law as to what we would call a strict constructionist in dealing with constitutional law. He immediately gave his views on political candidates and church teachings. Support the teachings or be denied the sacraments. He even went as far as considering imposing the same penalty on those who would vote for these candidates, but did the little side step when he found he may have gone just a bit too far. He views gays and same sex marriage with disdain. Stem cell research is out of line. Pro-choice, not to mention abortion, is a ticket out of the church. While these issues are actually not in line with the official church teachings, many Catholics support them without a feeling of shame or being sinful.

Burke worked the same wonders in LaCrosse, WI where he closed parishes and schools and made good on threats to politicians running afoul of church law. However, he found the money to build and operate a shrine that I have trouble finding having any connection whatsoever to the area. Then again when you are da boss, you are da bomb. Burke's legacy follows him as he continues to close parishes and schools here in St. Louis.
SAC claims that the media has distorted the issues and failed to provide impartial and unbiased coverage. Seems to me that all of the coverage has been to the favor of the bishop. A recent "day in the life" account of Burke gives him the appearance of a kindly cleric presupposed only to the wants and needs of his people. So what's your beef? But is he so kindly as depicted? He took away the priests and the rituals of the church from St. Stan's. He reached into his back pocket and pulled out the age old punishment of interdict, a sort of mini-excommunication, imposing same on the BOD. I imagine SAC is exclaiming that it served them right. But Burke's behavior reminds me of all that I found wrong with the church when I and other boomers were young. I remember being taught that the God of those days was still a vengeful vindictive God. There were no rewards for compliance, but many punishments for non compliance. But the image of God changed to that of a loving compassionate and caring father who bestowed upon his children an unconditional love. A God who forgives and understands.

SAC also contends that the issue has been decided by the Vatican in favor of the Archdiocese. From what I remember, only the Pope is infallible in issues of faith and morals by virtue of position as successor to Peter. Does a property issue fall into either category? Even if one waives argument on that issue, was the Pope actually consulted on the matter? While all in the Vatican dismiss any concern on the Pope's health and state that he is in charge and making the decisions, did he actually receive the case or did one of his assistants? I love the man and wish no less than the best for him, but he is frail and I'm sure not capable of running the church full time. If he didn't and the matter is one concerning faith and morals, then there is the possibility of fallibility. Or was the decision made where it was stated that this concerns the American bishop, let him handle it?

Finally, SAC claims that the actions of the BOD are shameful disobedience to the bishop. Give me a break. If the BOD is being disobedient, think of the countless number of cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose what is a sin and what is not. They rationalize that God made commandments and the church laws are only man made, so they are not that important. Believe me, I'm not a Bible thumper, but I know the workings of the Catholic church.

As I ready to post this blog, breaking news hits that the Vatican may be named a co-defendant in a class action lawsuit involving sexual abuse.

SAC, THE TRUTH IS... if you are going to post a comment on my blog, at least have some facts which can be substantiated and not just bald assertions. We have bigger fish to fry and greater multitudes to feed.