Archbishop Burke Apologizes

I think he realized that his hopes for a red hat have ended, although he may still think his move to Rome was a promotion. I am sure this Holiness will shortly disabuse him of that notion. He was talking to Randall Terry, a known whack job. What does he expect? Given that the Bishops who were attacked are heavy hitters in the pro-life movement and not shriking violets, I don't expect to see Terry anywhere near the inner circle of the movement any time soon - so some good has come of this incident.

It is truly a shame for people to abuse Archbishop Burke's good faith. Way to go Archbishop Burke!!! Thanks for standing up for the true Faith. We love you in Saint Louis!!!

Burke is another Rush Limbaugh, a self-promoting, ultra-conservative blowhard from Missouri. I cringe to think that he might have proteges.

Of course he doesn't retract the statements! What he said was the truth! He was apologizing that Terry deceived him and the public by using Archbishop Burke's commentary to attack two bishops that were just doing their jobs. If Terry has a problem with how a bishop shepherds his people, he should take it up with that bishop, not go behind his back to Rome (without first taking it up with the bishop). However, what Burke said was true. While it is not his job to tell bishops how to govern their dioceses or teach and uphold the consistent and universal teaching of the Church (aside from some of his official canonical rulings), that does not change one iota the fact that what he said was true. What he said about can 915 was accurate.

I now read that the request of Bishop Nauman of Kansas City is to follow Secretary Sebelius to Washington and to be promulgated by Archbishop Wuerl. The hierarchy has co-opted the Eucharist as a reward for a public anti-abortion stance as the chief, if not only, litmus test of fidelity. It saddens and sickens me to this type of thinking on the rise among prelates that are so clueless about day to day life and human needs. Christ has promised His spirit always with us, but this continued wedge issue is shaping a church which fewer and fewer will want to be a part of -- even if they essentially agree upon the ontic evil of abortion.

The Archbishop is an excellent canonist with a poor appreciation of American civil law - a flaw shared by much of the pro-life organization in the American Church. Scandal occur because someone has behaved improperly. The question is who? The situation of American pro-choice politicians is scandalous, but the scandal is on the Archbishop and his brother Bishops who have been inadequately educated on the issues involved and who expect modern American Catholics to back their political play but who have not first asked for our input, which is also improper in a democratic society. If the Bishops refuse to listen to all sides of the issue, they cannot be scandalized when Catholics who are better informed refuse to listen to them.

Amen to Michael Binder. Burke may be an "excellent canonist," but I wonder if he ever took an introductory political science class.

Greetings, It is absolutely bizarre that you would claim that Archbishop Burke is relative unto the truth when he has steadfastly done nothing but inculcate objectivity into a culture with deaf ears. I hope that you have ears to hear. I bet you do. Timothy+

''That is what passes, in this age of moral relativism, for an apology.'' Are you crazy? He apologized! What else do you want? The crux of his interview was right on, regardless of how Terry used it. Winters needs to take off his jaded lenses so he can see reality...

An apology? That's quite a stretch in logic, as it requires in the first instance some sort of knowledge on the part of the Archbishop that Terry had such plans. Clearly, the former did not (hence the statement). I think you're better served by accepting things for what they are rather than attempting to twist them into something to advance whatever agenda or grudge you hold. Otherwise, you tend to lose whatever journalistic credibility you have.

I am guilty of schadenfreude.... I can't think of a better person to be hoisted on his own petard of judgmentalism and selective interpretation than that great canon lawyer(!)Randall Terry who's now managed to alientate his most fervent backer! And the Archbishop joins him -- hoisted as well with egg on his zucchetto! Is he that crazy to think that you give an interview...in robes... in the Signatura apparently...to Randall Terry... on videotape (!!!)...and that there's going to be some discretion used at how it is disseminated?! And then there's his apparent public and private face! He apparently wants to agree in private about his disdain for his fellow bishops but not have it shared except in "pro-life" circles? Isn't this all a bit much and even those of us snorters have had enough... This is the Church?

Randall Terry has a long history of wacky behavior so this incident is hardly surprising. The church hierarchy needs to keep their distance from him or further embarrassments will surely follow. This reminds me of the wacky canon laywer from Los Angeles who tried to use the Vatican to get Kerry excommunicated during the 04 campaign. Rightwing (''catholic'') bloggers were drooling with expectancy---until their hero was slapped down by the Vatican and had to slink home with his tail between his legs.

He did not apologize for defending life but rather for the misuse of the interview by Randall Terry, of which he was not informed. He cannot apologize for defending life and we should not label Catholics "conservative"; there should be only one adjective for Catholics---"faithful". Faithful Catholics adhere to all the teachings of the Church, not just the ones that suit them.

Did the Archbishop say anything that was untrue? No. So why should he retract his words? I can refer to someone whose parents were never married as a bastard. The term would be true, how I used them may hurt the person. An apology for causing hurt in this case is correct, apologising for what is true would be wrong. When I say something that is not true, cause offence and then apologise only for causing harm, that is a false apology? As for what was not said, defending a fellow bishop, it is as rare as hens teeth to get one bishop to comment on another in public, it is bad form. He did say they should not be removed. Archbishop Burke has his view on Canon 915, the correct one I might add, others disagree, fine. But what would you have the Archbishop do on his belief that his view of Canon 915 is the correct one? Waver? Waffle? That my friend is what has the Catholic Church in America in such trouble, waffling.

Your snarky reference to "moral relativism" is uncalled for. The good archbishop obviously has read the Gospel: "Let your yes be yes." There is no need for an apology: he did not lie. Why would he retract his statements? He only regrets that he was taken advantage of under false pretenses.

He needn't apologize. He only made statements that he believes are true. And, his reading of Canon 915 certainly seems to be along the lines of what's written there, whether you like it or not. I'm glad that he clarified that his intention was never to make a personal attack. This corrects my one complaint from my comment on your previous blog entry.