Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
06.30.2008 8:58 am

The Jewish community and Archbishop Burke

SPECIAL TO THE POST-DISPATCH
  • Email this
  • Print this

Over the weekend, I have been reflecting on the news of Archbishop Burke’s transfer to Rome. As an active participant in interfaith activities in St. Louis, I have encountered Archbishop Burke in a number of community settings. The first time was at a small dinner of welcome arranged by the Jewish Federation of St. Louis and the Jewish Community Relations Council. He carried himself as a warm and somewhat shy person, but comfortable in the midst of the Jewish community. He reflected on his interactions with the Jewish community of La Cross, Wisconsin his former diocese, and looked forward to working with the St. Louis Jewish community on matters of mutual concern.

burke.jpg For the media in St. Louis, Archbishop Burke was a blessing. His denial of communion to supporters of “choice” in the national debate on abortion, made the national news. It was an election year. As a rabbi, I was more focused on his interaction with the local interfaith community. During that first year, he eagerly joined a panel of the Interfaith Partnership discussing the proper role of religion in the public square. This would be a respectful audience for the Archbishop to make his case. In that discussion he forthrightly stated the official Catholic Church positions and then attempted to make a case for those positions being the only logical ones that one could hold, if one understood the concept of the Natural Law. He implied that even Judaism accepted the concept of Natural Law. It was a very revealing insight into how Archbishop Burke would deal with ethical and moral dilemmas. There would be very little room for shades of gray. It also demonstrated a willingness to overlook the reality of Jewish life. There is more than one thoughtful Jewish approach to most ethical and moral problems. Many of these approaches conflict with one another and there is no supreme pontiff to declare which is the official teaching of Judaism. Natural Law arguments were not going to impress many in the interfaith community.

vince.jpgLast December Archbishop Burke suddenly, and without prior warning, removed Father Vincent Heier from his post as the Chief Ecumenical and Interfaith Officer of the St. Louis Archdiocese. Father Heier requested some time off to deal with some personal issues. Burke used the request as an opportunity to replace Father Heier altogether. Heier had become a nationally recognized player in the interfaith arena. He and our own beloved Rabbi Robert P. Jacobs, (may his memory be for a blessing) co-hosted a national interfaith meeting here in St. Louis, during the time of Archbishop John May (may his memory be for a blessing). The Jewish community was stunned at the shabby treatment of our dear friend. The interfaith community could not make any sense of this action, in light of the fact that Father Heier had served with distinction under two previous Archbishops.

rosalindmoss.jpgIn recent weeks, Archbishop Burke’s personal support for the newly created religious community to be headquartered here in St. Louis, known as the Daughters of Mary, Mother of Israel’s Hope, gave me reason to wonder at the Archbishop’s current intentions with regard to the Jewish community. The new religious community was founded by Rosalind Moss, a host on the Eternal Word Television Network. Moss was born and raised in a Jewish home and for a time was an Evangelical Protestant, before her conversion to Catholicism. Her husband brother, David Moss is also a convert to Catholicism from a Jewish home. The new community appears to be a proseltyzing effort directed especially towards Jews. I view this, at best, as a misguided effort at saving the Jews from damnation and at worst, as yet another attempt to water down or disregard altogether the last forty years of dialogue and cooperation between The Catholic Church and the Jews, under the Vatican II document known as Nostra Aetate. Simply put, Jews understand the Church’s need to gain converts, but find programs which target Jews as Jews, to be offensive and contrary to recent Church statements. Now, this will be an item on the agenda for the next Archbishop.

33 comments

Comments are closed.

So, because it was founded by two former Jews turned Catholics, it MUST be some sinister group whose only purpose is to gut the Jewish population of St Louis? Innuendo is a dangerous toy to play with rabbi, and you would be better off getting some sort of document that you could quote from to prove your conspiracy theory, like a brochure from Daughters of Mary. I find your deductions lacking in reason and fact.

Burke may have been controversial, but his tough stance on many issues is what he felt needed to be done. As I recall, his first responsibility is to Catholics, not interfaith dialouges. While respect and understanding between the faiths is a positive, it is also a road that can only lead so far before coming to the inevitable dead end. Meanwhile, there were tough issues to be dealt with and, whether or not Catholics liked his decisions, he had the courage to address them and stand up for the Church.

I don’t recall the last time a man of the cloth took the time to criticize a holy man from another faith, but it seems to be a popular pastime among other religions and faiths to comment on the workings of the Catholic Church. Perhaps the good rabbi should tend to his own flock instead of telling other flocks his perceived shortcomings that their Archbishop had.

— Tim
11:18 am June 30th, 2008

I have to agree with Tim. This laundry list of the good rabbi’s objections to the way Archbishop Burke performed his job hardly represents the interfaith dialogue he claims to prefer.

With all due respect, internal personnel issues of the Archdiocese are hardly the rabbi’s concern. Fr. Heier is not the only priest in the Archdiocese qualified to run the ecumenical office. Does the writer consult with the Archbishop when HE makes a personnel decision?

As far as Mrs. Moss is concerned, while I’m not her biggest fan, there is no question that she believes she has found a pearl of great price in the Catholic faith and is ready, willing, and able to share that gift with others. I’m not sure I understand the rabbi’s objection to her ministry. What is he afraid of?

Finally, this blog is called “Civil Religion”. I find the writer’s comments to be anything but civil and that they display a very disturbing anti-Catholic bias.

— Mike
11:45 am June 30th, 2008

From two sections of Nostra Aetate:

Nostra Aetate
DECLARATION ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
Second Council

Section 2:

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. It has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from its own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men and women. Yet it proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn.14:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (see 2 Cor -19), people find the fullness of their religious life.”

Section 4:

“Since Christians and Jews have such a common spiritual heritage, this sacred council wishes to encourage and further mutual understanding and appreciation. This can be achieved, especially, by way of biblical and theological enquiry and through friendly discussions.”

Though it seems to be against the spirit Nostra Aetate, I see nothing, specifically, that rules out proseltyzing.

I find it slightly amusing that members of the “Church” that claims to be universal get upset when people outside their religion take the claim seriously.

— davel
1:39 pm June 30th, 2008

Davel, I find your comment baseless. Neither Mike or myself are questioning the validity or the seriousness with which the interfaith dialouges should be regarded. Our problem is that the good rabbi used this tool of interfaith understanding as a thin veil from which to launch his personal bitch about Burke. Like any change in administration, be it a company or the governor’s office or elsewhere, the people representing the organization may change. That doesn’t mean that the Archdiocese is no longer taking the issue of interfaith respect seriously.

As Mike said we are not privy to the internal information in Burke’s office and probably don’t know the details. That didn’t stop the rabbi from taking a couple of pot shots at Burke, and it didn’t stop you from believing his every word…

— Tim
2:05 pm June 30th, 2008

I’ll admit that this does appear to be proseltyzing effort aimed at the Jewish community.

I’m curious, though, if this wasn’t Burkes reaction to the female ordination incident from this past year. If memory serves, it was a rather maverick female Rabbi that held the symbolic ceremony.

I’ve always wondered what the Jewish reaction was to that event. Clearly, there is a very public view from Catholics and non-Catholics that the Church is in “the dark ages” on this issue. Regardless of what your view is on this subject, isn’t it fair to say that the issue should be between the Church and its followers. Shouldn’t outsiders care little about the issue? I’ve always wondered why non-Catholics feel the need to butt in on the issue. In this spirit and the spirit of inter-faith dialogue wasn’t it extremely poor form for a Rabbi to get involved in the issue? It’s a direct undermining of another faiths teachings. Inter faith dialogue should be about having open civil discussion about the difference between faiths, not disagreement and hostile action to undermine the other faith.

What is the Jewish opinion of the Rabbi involved? Are they sorry, happy or ambivalent? I’d personally say that that sort of action is on par with direct targeting for conversion. And while absolutely childish, some light may leak onto Burkes action in this case.

Should a faith directly target another faith for a campaign of conversion, I don’t think so. But neither should a faith actively seek to undermine the teachings of another in a climate of inter-faith dialogue. While it may be the act of a lone person, it certainly drew little to no condemnation from fellow scholars.

As political dialogue is breaking down in this climate of “activism”, it seems religious dialogue is heading the same way. No one wants to understand and tolerate anymore, they only want to tell people how it should be.

— RCJ
3:44 pm June 30th, 2008

Honestly!

First of all, the Archbishop is no longer the Archbishop of St Louis; can’t the Burke-bashing–thinly veiled or otherwise–come to an end?!

Secondly, Ms. Moss’s arrival in St Louis has absolutely nothing to DO with the attempt to covert the Jews or anyone else! SHE, as a now CATHOLIC woman wants to start a CATHOLIC order of nuns and SHE asked the then-Archbishop of St Louis if she could come here to do so. The End. Full Stop.

Thirdly, we have absolutely no idea why Fr Heier left St Louis, so let’s not speculate, shall we?

Finally, David Moss is not Rosalind’s husband, he is her brother.

I am so happy for Archbishop Burke that he is leaving this bastion of rubes that makes Mayberry look like a think tank!

— Isobelle
4:13 pm June 30th, 2008

Jesus came 2,000 years ago to save the Jews. Maybe He thinks it’s time to try again.

— Mike
4:18 pm June 30th, 2008

Mike & Tim-

This post strikes me as something more than simply “bitching about Archbishop Burke,” all that you both seem to imply that the post does. But I think it does more than that. It offers a valuable window into the way that Archbishop Burke chose to lead and a huge problem with the Church today (I suspect this was not the writer’s intention, but the evidence is nevertheless there).

Three sentences are particularly insightful: “It was a very revealing insight into how Archbishop Burke would deal with ethical and moral dilemmas. There would be very little room for shades of gray. It also demonstrated a willingness to overlook the reality of Jewish life.”

In those three sentences, you have Archbishop Burke’s leadership style in a nutshell: my way or the highway. Is that a bad leadership style? Mr. Shook seemingly thinks so. Archbishop Burke is a divider, not a uniter, and his dealings with interfaith dialogue are but one symptom of the problem. The American Church is sick, and I think both theological conservatives and theological liberals can agree that JPII’s policy of appointing bishops and archbishops based on theology rather than leadership ability did little to solve that problem. In that regard, this post transcends interfaith dialogues and speaks (or should speak) about something which frankly has nothing to do with interfaith relations but everything to do with the state of the Church today.

— RNC
4:27 pm June 30th, 2008

So, the simple hiring of Ms. Moss reverses “forty years of dialogue and cooperation between The Catholic Church and the Jews”? That’s a bit shrill, don’t you think? Wouldn’t it be better to hear a few words from Ms. Moss before she is summarily dismissed?

To think one would deny employment to someone based upon their religious background. That’s a bigotry I thought we were trying to move past.
And what for all the good works of Archbishop Burke, stretching all the way back to his days in La CROSSE, Wisconsin? Ash-canned by one in an instant for the mere appearance of impropriety.

Wouldn’t it be better to state a concern but express optimism for the future? Instead we have an “agenda item”.

Rabbi Shook is unclear if Archbishop Burke has an agenda but has made very clear that he has.

Finally, I find it inappropriate how often the Catholic Church is viewed as a business seeking more customers, whether it is CNN willingly twisting Pope Benedict’s statements on immigration during his visit last spring, or Rabbi Shook’s comments here. Rabbi Shook states the Church’s “need to gain converts”, as if the Church needs to improve sales if it ever hopes to meet third quarter sales projections.

I am not sure how much faith is infusing this process when such a cynical statement can be made.

— GFame7
4:33 pm June 30th, 2008

GFame7 said: “Finally, I find it inappropriate how often the Catholic Church is viewed as a business seeking more customers, whether it is CNN willingly twisting Pope Benedict’s statements on immigration during his visit last spring, or Rabbi Shook’s comments here. Rabbi Shook states the Church’s “need to gain converts”, as if the Church needs to improve sales if it ever hopes to meet third quarter sales projections.”

The Church itself acts that way. Resurrection and promotion of the Tridentine Mass is arguably the best example. It has no purpose other than to gather those disillusioned with Vatican II back in to the fold. Some churches in the Archdiocese of St. Louis saw their weekly collection double or triple when it was reintroduced (while mass attendance numbers are harder to come by, it’s reasonable to assume that the effect on attendance was similar). If the Church acts as though it wants to increase the roles of active parishoners, isn’t it reasonable for outsiders to assume that that is, in fact, what the Church wants?

— RNC
4:53 pm June 30th, 2008

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All