bonwich Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I too agree with both Majerus's beliefs and the stance he is taking. IMO, it would be more insulting if Majerus would allow the church or SOB Burke to dictate his beliefs instead of thinking for himself. I commend Majerus for doing so. My kids will likely go to Catholic schools, but they will always be taught to think and form (and stand up for) their own views and beliefs, not to rely upon others to do so for them. BTW, how hypocritical can Burke be? Is he banning communion for Catholics who publicly support the many, many political candidates who support the death penalty, another high-profile political topic in which the Catholic Church has strong and clear views? Does anyone have any Catholic doctrine they want to cite to explain that hypocrisy? David, David, David. You really need to stop sleeping through the pastoral letters that are read during the homily. Luckily, the current teaching was recently printed in our anti-Catholic newspaper: Six weeks before the first presidential primaries, the nation's Catholic bishops voted almost unanimously Wednesday to adopt a 40-page statement on voting and conscience. The document states more clearly than ever before that Catholics should weigh abortion, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia more heavily than other issues such as war and poverty when they enter the voting booth. Racism, the death penalty, unjust war, torture, war crimes, "the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger, or a lack of health care or an unjust immigration policy," write the bishops, "are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act." But, they continue, "The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many." Kinda sorta looks like it's hard to nail His Eminence for hypocrisy here. And speaking of the bish, he said this of Majerus' statements: It is "not possible to be a Catholic and hold those positions." And that's pretty much what it comes down to. Go back to the tape -- Majerus said "I'm a Catholic." Once he said that, Burke was on Tu es Petrus-rock-solid ground for, at very least, demanding penitence from Coach, and arguably, for demanding of SLU that it reprimand Majerus. Arguably, because SLU canonically claims to be a Catholic university according to the laws of the church, even if it legally claims not to be "controlled by a religion" according to the laws of the State of Missouri or the United States of America. You wanna claim "thinking for oneself" or "matters of conscience" or the ability to ignore an edict of faith from the Pope's direct representative to the St. Louis archdiocese, fine. You have no standing for these arguments under the laws of the Catholic church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Well, well, we have two posts in a row by lawyers talking about hypocrisy, and yet they are blind to the blatant ones in their own posts. "..but they will always be taught to think and form (and stand up for) their own views and beliefs, not to rely upon others to do so for them." David, how can you commend Rickma for standing up for his own personal beliefs, yet you condemn Burke for doing exactly the same thing. If you went to Catholic schools, you should have heard about the difference between personal and public apostacy. While both are states of sin, public apostacy requires some action of the bishopric toward reconciliation and resolution. Likewise, pro-life forces advocate for a constitutional ban of abortions, while pro-choice forces support a constitutional right for abortions. It seems the clever manipulation is actually sought by forces who support the right for abortion services, but don't want the words pro-abortion to define their advocacy. And BTW, if their are any prominent Catholics who want to challenge Burke re. executions publicly in print and broadcast media, I'm sure he would get around to them as well. He's done a bang up job excommunicating people so far Skip and Ace, try to get things right. I dislike some of RM's methods, and definitely dislike some of the game results, but I'll be among the happiest if he eventually delivers. At times he can be a jackass, just as Brad was in years and practices past. In the meantime, I'll hold his feet to the fire as rational criticism is warranted. He is driving the largest vehicle we have for positive public relations for the University(the basketball team,) and right now the PR bus is driving all over the freaking road. If I was Catholic and wasn't allowed to have my own opinion that didn't 100% agree with the thoughts of the Church ... I'd consider excommunication a blessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Likewise, pro-life forces advocate for a constitutional ban of abortions, while pro-choice forces support a constitutional right for abortions. It seems the clever manipulation is actually sought by forces who support the right for abortion services, but don't want the words pro-abortion to define their advocacy. Huh? The pro-choicers i know are like RM and don't personally support abortion, but support a person's right to choose. Are you asserting that most people who support pro-choice are, in fact, pro-abortion? On the flip side, most pro-lifers i have run across generally equate pro-abortion with pro-choice. I'm not getting into the righteousness of abortion, i'm merely talking about the way the pro-lifers have framed the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts