The truth shall set us free: Responding to the sex abuse crisis

[Beau_Ouiville]

Anne Burke is a Catholic, a justice on the IL Supreme Court, and a liberal Democrat and has also adopted a baby addicted to crack cocaine (which cost her dearly when it became a political cause celebre). She also served as the interim chair of the National Review Board, the board of lay Catholics that was charged by the U.S. bishops to oversee their compliance with the reforms they had pledged to institute in response to the sex abuse crisis.

The following are excerpts from her recent speech at a Catholic university where she castigated criticism of Catholic politicians and propounded on other subjects. Her view is that the sex abuse scandal was marked by a departure from the truth.:

"Issues of very complicated moral probity have become the lightening rod by which Catholics in public office have been set upon by those who believe that Catholic Church teachings should be enforced on all Americans – disregarding the treasured principal of the separation of Church and state that underpins the Republic…

Look at what happened in Denver last week. A Catholic elementary school child was expelled from school when it was revealed her parents were a lesbian couple. "They have set themselves apart from Church teaching, " Denver’s Archbishop Capuet [sic] said.

Is this what is has come to, harassing a child and those who love her and attempt to do the right thing for faith? (You should have seen the letter Cahpuet [sic] sent me a few years ago when we had 55 retired FBI agents asking questions of bishops across the country. I believe the Bishops have strayed from church teaching in being far more obsequious with truthfulness over the past few years than they should. Who holds their feet to the fire?"

uscatholic.org/church/2010/03/truth-shall-set-us-free-responding-sex-abuse-crisis?page=1

(The entire speech is not available on line.)

 

[manygift1spirit]

A list of accomplishments which are spliced together to give the impression of a somewhat idiosyncratic woman. Followed by excerpts (admitted, to be fair) of her response in two situations which (assuming no abuse of context) paint her as quite logically challenged at best.

I am not trying to be an itch, but what exactly is the point? It appears to me to be a really, really roundabout vilification of Ms. Burke. Yet she was right in saying (if it was indeed her saying it) the scandal was marked by a departure from the truth. Several departures in fact. This isn’t quite computing for me.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

A list of accomplishments which are spliced together to give the impression of a somewhat idiosyncratic woman. Followed by excerpts (admitted, to be fair) of her response in two situations which (assuming no abuse of context) paint her as quite logically challenged at best.

She’s a Supreme Court justice! How much more straight-laced would you want a woman?

I am not trying to be an itch, but what exactly is the point? It appears to me to be a really, really roundabout vilification of Ms. Burke. Yet she was right in saying (if it was indeed her saying it) the scandal was marked by a departure from the truth. Several departures in fact. This isn’t quite computing for me.

She says the bishops got away from the truth. While serving on the abuse panel, she was really frustrated by the obstinacy of the American bishops and their protecting personal fiefdoms.

She also says that life is too complicated to try to force some kind of orthodoxy on Catholic politicians.

 

[manygift1spirit]

…]

She says the bishops got away from the truth. While serving on the abuse panel, she was really frustrated by the obstinacy of the American bishops and their protecting personal fiefdoms.

She also says that life is too complicated to try to force some kind of orthodoxy on Catholic politicians.

I got the truth part. She obviously had a point; indeed there were plenty of points to be had. But the pointing out of her classic misunderstanding of orthodoxy seemed pretty below the belt.

We cannot see the whole speech, OK. But from reading the original piece it becomes clear that she is not totally off the hook for sometimes appearing clueless. Some of here language choices were quite problematic. Oh well, God does write with a crooked stick.

 

[Adeodatus]

Anne Burke is a Catholic… and a liberal Democrat

And a meat packer and president of PETA? And a bartender and a temperance advocate? And an astronaut and a flat-earther?

Wow. Nothing like being multi-talented, huh?

 

[Dale_M]

We cannot see the whole speech, OK.

Here is a 48 minute video of her March 23, 2010 speech at St. Xavier University: I suppose it may have been edited, but 48 minutes is a pretty long speech.
youtube.com/watch?v=93Z1beI6f9U

She’s a Supreme Court justice! How much more straight-laced would you want a woman?

She is also a Dame of the Sovereign Order of Malta and a Dame Commander of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

She is also a Dame of the Sovereign Order of Malta and a Dame Commander of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem.

A sister from moderate circumstances on the south side who became a lawyer – just like you know who!

 

[BobCatholic]

She’s a Supreme Court justice! How much more straight-laced would you want a woman?

description from the article:

and a liberal Democrat

I always thought leftists couldn’t be straight-laced, according to the stereotype, only conservatives were straight-laced

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I always thought leftists couldn’t be straight-laced, according to the stereotype, only conservatives were straight-laced

Judges are straight-laced.

 

[Gillian2]

Hi, I haven’t posted in a while. This is a general comment about the sex abuse scandal.

I don’t think it was a coincidence that the media storm reached the height of its fury during Holy Week and Easter. Obviously this was a way to make things seem as bad as possible. And indeed, things are bad, but the Church will weather this storm I believe.

I read an article in the Canadian Globe and Mail on April 3 (Holy Saturday) by John Bentley Mays, on this subject, and was so impressed with it, that I wrote to him congratulating him on his optimism.

Good priests – we need more good priests! Pray for this to happen! Soon!

 

[mlund]

Judges are straight-laced.

No. The only thing that status as a judge implies in most states is that:

A.) You are a lawyer.
B.) You are well-connected to politicians.
C.) You are a person of means.

Judges can be extremely unethical, abusive, and otherwise “not straight-laced” in their lives. As long as they avoid accruing enough public scandal to burden their political backers until after they are sworn in they are all set. After they get sworn in all they have to do is avoid any significant legal breaches that could leave them liable for removal from office.

Elected judges are another kettle of fish, but run into the same problems as regular politicians, by and large.

Remember well that Pilate sat as judge over our Lord.

The critical point here is this: being installed as a State Supreme Court Justice does not imply any sort of moral or theological authority, only legal authority limited under the purview of the State’s Constitution and the Federal Constitution.

• Marty Lund

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

No. The only thing that status as a judge implies in most states is that:

A.) You are a lawyer.
B.) You are well-connected to politicians.
C.) You are a person of means.

You may be unfamiliar with the Cook County sub-circuits which elect judges, even though Anne Burke did not go this route.

Judges can be extremely unethical, abusive, and otherwise “not straight-laced” in their lives. As long as they avoid accruing enough public scandal to burden their political backers until after they are sworn in they are all set.

There is something known as the Judicial Inquiry Board and the general attoreny disciplinary bodies, however.

After they get sworn in all they have to do is avoid any significant legal breaches that could leave them liable for removal from office.

Actually, not true. Judges have been removed for DUI’s, arguing with the police and even other conduct which was not even illegal.

Elected judges are another kettle of fish, but run into the same problems as regular politicians, by and large.

Well, all this is very nice but irrelevant to the point of this thread.

The critical point here is this: being installed as a State Supreme Court Justice does not imply any sort of moral or theological authority, only legal authority limited under the purview of the State’s Constitution and the Federal Constitution.

It denotes a certain prominence in the community. Then you couple that with Anne Burke’s prominence as a Catholic. After that, weigh her statements as coming from an authoritative figure.

 

[mlund]

Yes, I went back and reviewed the Illinois State Constitution to review this specific case.

The Illinois Supreme Judicial Court is indeed populated by elected politicians who must be part of the State Bar. They do indeed have a political review board that can prosecute and remove them.

There is a similar process for Governor’s and State Senators. None of those have prevented Illinois from producing a mountain of political corruption and immorality.

So, no, being a State Supreme Court justice doesn’t prove anything other than one being a well-connected lawyer and successful politician.

It denotes a certain prominence in the community.

As does being a Senator who votes to oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. That can help you become President of the United States, but it’ll never give you moral or theological prominence. Those are worldly accolades, amounting to nothing but dust upon the wind.

Then you couple that with Anne Burke’s prominence as a Catholic.

Prominent how? She’s not ordained. I’m not aware of her being a commissioned apologist or a theologian. Her “prominence” as you’ve put forth here, is worldly.

After that, weigh her statements as coming from an authoritative figure.

She has no teaching authority within the context of the Roman Catholic Church.

Her being a successful politician who self-labels as Catholic adds exactly zero gravitas to anything she says about Faith and Morals that conflicts with our Bishops. Appealing to her as a theological and moral authority is nothing but a logic fallacy. The same thing goes for Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius.

Putting her contrary opinions forward as some sort of authoritative Catholic belief or teaching would be to commit grave scandal under the CCC.

Likewise Valens was Roman Emperor and self-proclaimed Christian. He had great worldly authority and was a law-giver. He was also an Arian heretic who brought scandal down on the Church. The power of Caesar (governmental law) gives no one authority to speak for that which belongs to the Lord (in this case matters of Faith and Morality).

• Marty Lund

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

So, no, being a State Supreme Court justice doesn’t prove anything other than one being a well-connected lawyer and successful politician.

You have just down-graded every US president in history. They don’t even have to be lawyers.

Prominent how? She’s not ordained. I’m not aware of her being a commissioned apologist or a theologian. Her “prominence” as you’ve put forth here, is worldly.

"She also served as the interim chair of the National Review Board, the board of lay Catholics that was charged by the U.S. bishops to oversee their compliance with the reforms they had pledged to institute in response to the sex abuse crisis. "

That’s Catholic prominence.

 

[mlund]

You have just down-graded every US president in history.

We’ve had good ones and bad ones. If you think that democratic elections can confer greater moral clarity and superior moral authority to men you’re in for a lot of disappointment. That’s basically an ideology of worshiping the State.

I hear it was quite the rage with the Romans in Christ’s time.

They don’t even have to be lawyers.

Perhaps I misunderstood the Illinois State Constitution, then?

“SECTION 11. ELIGIBILITY FOR OFFICE
No person shall be eligible to be a Judge or Associate
Judge unless he is a United States citizen, a licensed
attorney-at-law of this State, and a resident of the unit
which selects him. No change in the boundaries of a unit
shall affect the tenure in office of a Judge or Associate
Judge incumbent at the time of such change.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)”

"She also served as the interim chair of the National Review Board, the board of lay Catholics that was charged by the U.S. bishops to oversee their compliance with the reforms they had pledged to institute in response to the sex abuse crisis. "

That’s Catholic prominence.

She was brought in to help resolve legal compliance issues. They bring in people to help repair buildings and certify them for code as well. These things convey prominence in worldly matters.

She wasn’t ordained or given any commission or authority to teach or speak for the Catholic Church on matters of Faith or Morality. Nothing she says or does in conflict with the teaching authority of our Bishops can ever be marketed or appealed to as authoritatively Catholic. Such thing is defined as Scandal in the CCC and is explicitly illicit.

• Marty Lund

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Perhaps I misunderstood the Illinois State Constitution, then?

No, you misunderstood that I was talking about presidents.

She was brought in to help resolve legal compliance issues. They bring in people to help repair buildings and certify them for code as well. These things convey prominence in worldly matters.

She wasn’t ordained or given any commission or authority to teach or speak for the Catholic Church on matters of Faith or Morality. Nothing she says or does in conflict with the teaching authority of our Bishops can ever be marketed or appealed to as authoritatively Catholic. Such thing is defined as Scandal in the CCC and is explicitly illicit.

She has not said anything in conflict with Catholic teaching – she has mentioned her conflicts with Catholic bishops. As for her statements and lack of ordination, in the words of Archbishop Chaput, “the truth is the truth no matter who speaks it.”

And I think that American Catholic bishops have failed the laity on worldly (and ethical) matters, hence the abuse scandal.

 

[mlund]

No, you misunderstood that I was talking about presidents.

Except that we were talking about Court Justices in the first place, and how the judge is a lawyer who is well connected to politicians.

She has not said anything in conflict with Catholic teaching – she has mentioned her conflicts with Catholic bishops.

No, she specifically said something in conflict with the Bishop’s authority:

"Look at what happened in Denver last week. A Catholic elementary school child was expelled from school when it was revealed her parents were a lesbian couple. "They have set themselves apart from Church teaching, " Denver’s Archbishop Capuet [sic] said.

Is this what is has come to, harassing a child and those who love her and attempt to do the right thing for faith?"

You cited it yourself.

She reveals herself as either painfully ignorant or dishonest when she incorrectly interjects the terms “harassment” and “expelled” into the discussion. The child was not invited back after completing her school year her parents were unabashedly modeling a disordered and immoral lifestyle incompatible with the Catholic ministry the family was participating in.

She contradicts the Bishop’s teaching on the proper course of Charity within this Catholic ministry which is a primary venue for Catechesis.

That is an issue of Faith and Morals, and promoting her view as virtuous and moral Catholic teaching would be a scandal.

And that’s not even beginning to address the undisguised slap at the authority of the USCCB and local Bishops for their teachings denying communion to politicians who support abortion through the legislative process and executive orders.

While the gentlewoman makes some good observations, she has no legs to stand on for either of these prominent assertions.

As for her statements and lack of ordination, in the words of Archbishop Chaput, “the truth is the truth no matter who speaks it.”

OK, good thing to know that all the wind up of false prestige and authority that wasted line upon line of posts can be written off as either hypocrisy or deception.

• Marty Lund

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

OK, good thing to know that all the wind up of false prestige and authority that wasted line upon line of posts can be written off as either hypocrisy or deception.

Actually, what that means is that it is time to leave off the ad hominem attacks on the good woman and deal with the issues here.

 

[recondelta]

Except that we were talking about Court Justices in the first place, and how the judge is a lawyer who is well connected to politicians.

No, she specifically said something in conflict with the Bishop’s authority:

"Look at what happened in Denver last week. A Catholic elementary school child was expelled from school when it was revealed her parents were a lesbian couple. "They have set themselves apart from Church teaching, " Denver’s Archbishop Capuet [sic] said.

Is this what is has come to, harassing a child and those who love her and attempt to do the right thing for faith?"

As far as I know, there is no doctrine in the Catholic Church forbidding someone to say something in conflict with a Bishop’s authority. Archbishop Chaput’s authority covers only the Archdiocese of Denver. There are other diocese where the presence of the child under discussion are welcome. This action is just another instance of the archbishop proving to his followers how “orthodox” he is. It also is useful to note that the child is welcome to attend Religious Education Classes and as far as I know there has been no mention of the couple being excluded from Mass or from the Eucharist. Justice Burke’s statement

           Is this what is has come to, harassing a child and those who love her 
           and attempt to do the right thing for faith?"

is spot on.

She reveals herself as either painfully ignorant or dishonest when she incorrectly interjects the terms “harassment” and “expelled” into the discussion. The child was not invited back after completing her school year her parents were unabashedly modeling a disordered and immoral lifestyle incompatible with the Catholic ministry the family was participating in.

She contradicts the Bishop’s teaching on the proper course of Charity within this Catholic ministry which is a primary venue for Catechesis.

That is an issue of Faith and Morals, and promoting her view as virtuous and moral Catholic teaching would be a scandal.

Justice Burke does neither. It is an issue of how the local bishop chooses to run his Catholic School System. No faith and morals are involved.

And that’s not even beginning to address the undisguised slap at the authority of the USCCB and local Bishops for their teachings denying communion to politicians who support abortion through the legislative process and executive orders.

Maybe there should be a well-aimed slap or two. Both the Jay Report (for the USCCB) and the Murphy Report (for the Archdiocese of Dublin) note that the hierarchy put their concern for the sex abusers and their desire to avoid Scandal ahead of the well-being of the victims. Archbishop Charles - they’re in it for the money - Chaput fits right in.

 

[mlund]

As far as I know, there is no doctrine in the Catholic Church forbidding someone to say something in conflict with a Bishop’s authority.

You aren’t forbidden to dissent.

You are forbidden to present dissent as Catholic teachings and morality.

That is why what the honorable State Supreme Court Justice did is not explicitly illicit, but trying to put forward those excerpts of dissent as “Catholic” teachings and morality is illicit. Trying to add aims of legitimacy to those incorrect positions by promoting her as a “prominent Catholic,” lends itself to scandal.

Archbishop Chaput’s authority covers only the Archdiocese of Denver.

Archbishop Chaput’s authority does not override the authority of other Bishops outside his See, certainly. It does override the Catholic teaching authority of any member of the laity anywhere in the world - including this judge - since the laity (even religious laity like nuns) aren’t invested with such authority.

It also is useful to note that the child is welcome to attend Religious Education Classes and as far as I know there has been no mention of the couple being excluded from Mass or from the Eucharist.

Yes, it goes to show that the purpose of this decision is not to deny the Faith to the child, but rather not to permit her guardians to promote scandal within the Parish School’s cooperative ministry with the parents.

As far as I’m aware, no one is excluded from the Mass - including non-believers, ex-communicants, and apostates. Well, I suppose people trying to disrupt the Mass, vandalize the building, or steal from it would naturally be removed on practical grounds - but that’s not the same thing.

The couple in question should already know, definitively, from the CCC that they must not receive Holy Communion in the state of Grave Sin that their intrinsically disordered lifestyle promotes - at the peril of their own immortal souls.

Justice Burke’s statement

           Is this what is has come to, harassing a child and those who love her 
           and attempt to do the right thing for faith?"

is spot on.

Actually, Justice Burke’s statement implies falsehoods - though phrased in the form of a question so I’m not sure if that qualifies as a lie. There is no harassment of the child. the parents were informed that they would not be eligible to re-enroll their children into the school for the following school year.

It was a timely and charitable decision to make considering the eldest is going to start the first grade next year.

The claim that the guardians of the child “attempt to do the right thing for faith,” is meaningless. It does not lend moral gravitas to a position. Plenty of people do plenty of awful things in an “attempt to the right thing for faith.” There is such a thing as a bad faith.

The good Archbishop says it quite clearly himself:
“Many of our schools also accept students of other faiths and no faith, and from single parent and divorced parent families. These students are always welcome so long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions.” (Emphasis mine)

The Archbishop decided that the parents in question offered a serious counter-witness to the mission. That’s his decision, under his teaching authority on Faith and Morals, ruling in his Diocese. No member of the laity can licitly try to pass a dissenting opinion on that particular matter off as Catholic teaching. No outside Bishop can undermine the Archbishop’s authority over the matter as it falls within Denver.

Only contradiction from the authority of the Vatican itself would be legitimate Catholic instruction. The present anything else as such would be scandal and illicit.

Louie Verrecchio has a very good take on this after the guardians released their public statement:

“We will continue to raise our children with strong Catholic values and hold faith that through our actions, we are doing our part to create a more loving, inclusive world,” the statement concluded.

Allow me to translate; the guardians are saying, “we will define ‘Catholic values’ as we see fit, and in the process we will teach the Church a thing or two about what it means to be loving and inclusive.”

I’ve seen no indication that the couple were repentant, celibate, or otherwise rejecting the immorality of their lifestyle. Rather, it appears to be a case of “Cafeteria Catholicism” where misguided laity start defining “strong Catholic values” as everything they like without any of the pesky teachings on sexual morality. That’s not authentically Catholic. That’s also way more harmful than being of a dissenting denomination (say a Protestant) because it still tries to label itself “Catholic” and thus gives rise to scandal.

• Marty Lund