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

The Jewish community was split over the use of CRC for the ordination of the female priests. Many, myself inlcluded, felt it was inappropriate for a rabbi to insert herself or her congregation into the issue. This is an issue for catholics and the catholic church to deal with internally and I was upset that this rabbi put me and others into such an awkward position.

— Pam
5:34 pm June 30th, 2008

RNC, is the Catholic religeon the only one not allowed to allow both Orthodox and reformed practices?

— GFame7
5:53 pm June 30th, 2008

RNC, is the Catholic religion the only one not allowed both Orthodox and reformed practices?

How does trying to reconnect with members of one’s own church correlate with meeting “sales figures”: my observation of the position of CNN and Rabbi Shook that you apparently agree with?

The Catholic Church has been lectured on the “correct” interpretation of its own scriptures by other faiths, so it is comes as no surprise that there should be critiques over personnel decisions or, here, variances in ritual.

Is it OK we still use Sunday?

— GFame7
5:54 pm June 30th, 2008

GFame7, if the Church is in fact trying to reconnect with people who have been gone since V-II through Tridentine Mass (and, as I said, it’s pretty clear that that’s what they’re doing), we’re talking about folks who have been lapsed Catholics for 40+ years. I’m not sure there’s really a difference between those people and those who never were Catholic. If I smoked marijuana 40 years ago, is it less wrong for a drug dealer to try to sell me marijuana than for him to try to sell it to someone who has never smoked marijuana? It’s the same question.

All churches need numbers because all churches need money for the good work they do. It’s arguably not an ideal situation but it’s a fact of life. Denying that basic fact is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest.

— RNC
9:18 pm June 30th, 2008

Perhaps I can throw some light on this discussion by addressing a few of the points Rabbi Shook made.

1. My name is David Moss and I am the BROTHER of Rosalind.

2. The new religious community which is being formed by my sister is the fruit of many years of her prayers, discussions, and study. Believing that she was led by God to start this community, and after consultations with her spiritual director in California and a multitude of others, Rosalind approached Archbishop Burke as the ordinary of this archdiocese regarding her desire to relocate here.

3. Regarding the purpose of the new community, let me quote a few words from the new community’s “Spiritual Directory” at its current stage of development.

” ‘Daughters of Mary, Mother of Israel’s Hope’ is to be a contemplative-active evangelistic and teaching community of religious sisters, under perpetual vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, given to a life of prayer and outreach to individuals and families of every race and creed. …

“Our greatest desire is to be signs of God’s mercy, love, presence, and truth in the world where people live, work, and play, regardless of age, race, religion or status.”

4. So you might ask, Why include in the name of the community the expression “Israel’s Hope”? Rosalind is the best one to answer that question. I know she has been thinking about the name of the group for a number of years. But let me suggest what I think might be one reason.

Israel’s hope has often focused on the Messiah and His coming. That was the case 2,000 years ago; it is the case among many Jewish people today. Jews in the Church believe that Israel’s hope has in fact been realized in Jesus, the Jewish Messiah who came 2,000 years ago, who is present today, and who will come again. That is the faith and witness of the Catholic Church. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Therefore, she is also the mother of Israel’s Hope. And because Catholics have a very special love for the mother of the Messiah, it is fitting to honor her in the names of various Church organizations and communities.

5. The statement that the Church has a “need to gain converts” mischaracterizes the mission of the Church. Rather, as the statement from the Spiritual Directory above indicates, it is the Church’s mission to bring “God’s mercy, love, presence, and truth” to a world that is lost and hurting.

6. Finally, I endorse the teaching of ‘Nostrae Aetate.’ I also believe that dialogue is essential in the relationship between the Synagogue and the Church. Thus, I can affirm, along with Archbishop Burke and many others in the Church, that there is nothing in the formation and mission of this new community which violates the letter or spirit of ‘Nostra Aetate.’

I hope my comments are of some help.

David Moss
President, Association of Hebrew Catholics

— David Moss
11:11 pm June 30th, 2008

I’m a secular Jew with strong ties to my tribe but I’m not relgious. As it happens I met Rabbi Shook for the first time almost 50 years ago when we were in the Boy Scouts and went on a trip to Israel together in 1961. Gentile readers should consider the following:

1. There is no such thing as “The Jews”. We are a tribe which is like an eight lane highway with many different ideas about our heritage and religion. We have no pope. Its often said that the only thing two Jews can agree upon is what the other shold give to the Jewish Federation (the community wide Jewish Charity).

2. There was a wide disagreement in our community about the “ordination” of the women priests. I think its fair to say that many people including myself thought the Catholic Church’s policy (although it didn’t seem logicial) was not a matter for our community. Furthermore it seemed to me personally that a generic member of the Christian community who did not like the authority of the Catholic church was a Prostestant. I’ll add that while I understand the feelings of the St. Stanislaw members it seems to me that its none of my business-they are a franchise and the franchisor wanted them to toe the line-when they didn’t they couldn’t use the trademark anymore.

3. The issue of prosetlyzing our community and our children goes beyond minding our own business-and is a major concern for each of our eight lanes. While I undertand the Church’s interpretation of scripture which requires it to spread the gospel this activity is in essence the Church not minding its own business. The historic practice of the two major Abrahamic relgious (Muslim and Chritianity) leaves a very bad taste for many of us whether it wasthe Dominican Inquisition or the Muslim forced conversions over the centuries doesn’t sit well.
4. The Latin mass and the version which refers to “perfidious Jews” doesn’t give us a warm and cozy feeling.

For those who asked, Rabbi Shook is the leader of the largest reform synagoge in STL. (I’m not a member)and is well regarded by most of the community. He is not afraid to deal with difficult issues like this one. I remember many years ago as assistant Rabbi he came out against the “Right to Work” Amendment not by opposing it directly but by saying its name was false advertising. I assume that that sermon caused him to be banished from Temple Israelwhhich later realized that he was a good rabbi and they then brought him back.

In short people should be respectful of the others relgion and feelings but that doesn’t mean not expressing thoughts that the other’s actiiities are offensive. Christians have every right to try to convert me and my children but they should know why this is offensive.

— Ultrafish
6:36 am July 1st, 2008

***”Her husband, 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.”***

The two sentences above from Rabbi Shook are unfortunately blatant errors that bely a real lack of familiarity with the Mosses and with the religious order in question. First, David Moss and Rosalind Moss are *siblings*–certainly not married!

Second, the name Rosalind chose for her religious order was meant to *honor* her Jewish roots and the Jewish roots of Catholicism–the order is by no means going to “target” Jewish people for “proselytizing”! Members of her order are to wear the full “habits” associated with Catholic *nuns*–how on earth will this “target” Jewish people?

So, how can it possibly harm Jewish-Catholic relations when individuals who *freely* choose to become Catholic pay homage to the rich and ancient cultural heritage of Judaism, from which sprung the Christian faith?

JimR

— JimR
7:30 am July 1st, 2008

Isn’t it remarkable how critics of the Church can come up with “statistics” to justify their position where no such figures actually exist? For example, RNC, have you actually attended a Latin mass? Have you conducted exit polling to determine that those in attendance are “lapsed” Catholics who haven’t been to mass in forty years? Or, are you privy to some secret polling conducted by the spies for the Roman Catholic Church? (Everyone knows that we have a top secret intelligence agency that spies on us to make sure we’re toeing the RCC line.)

The more likely answer is that a large number of Catholics are coming from other parishes either out of nostalgia for the old rite or out of curiosity.

Here’s another fact for you and the rabbi: the Church and Archbishop Burke do have an agenda, to save as many souls as possible.

— Mike
9:19 am July 1st, 2008

The Archdiocese of St. Louis does not engage in the proselytism of Jews or any other group of people. It does not sponsor or support groups or organizations that do. The Archdiocese does not seek to impose the Gospel and the Catholic Faith on anyone. In the words of Pope John Paul II: “The Church proposes; she imposes nothing. She respects individuals and cultures, and she honors the sanctuary of conscience.” (Redemptoris misso, 39).

Rabbi Shook questions Archbishop Burke s intentions toward the Jewish community during his time as Archbishop in St. Louis. I can say that Archbishop Burke expressed to me repeatedly that he had no intention of sponsoring or supporting efforts by anyone to proselytize members of the Jewish community. The Archbishop also stated to me that the new order Daughters of Mary Mother of Israel Hope does not exist for the purpose of proselytizing Jews or anyone else.

Lawrence J. Welch, Ph.D.
Director, Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs
Archdiocese of St. Louis

— Lawrence J. Welch
10:58 am July 1st, 2008

Mike, I sort of like the Tridentine Mass but on the whole I’m ambivalent toward it. I think it’s a really beautiful service but its use is extremely divisive, which (in my opinion, anyway) isn’t what the Church needs right now. Celebrating the Tridentine Mass essentially sends the message that the celebrant repudiates Vatican II. The Church is confused enough already. I see no reason to add more confusion.

To your other question, my (purely anecdotal) sense of those attending Tridentine Mass is that you have two groups: the long-lapsed Catholics (those that the Church is seemingly targeting) and those who, like me, are more curious (this group tends to be, though is not exclusively, younger, say under 30 and also, perhaps not coincidentally, is includes a lot of Catholics who are unhappy with the Church and are prone to trying new denominations that may allay some of their concerns with organized religion in general or the Church in particular). The enormous increase in collections likely comes from the former group. The Church apparently resurrected Tridentine Mass in an effort to reach out to those who are disillusioned with the vernacular mass. The price of that is the contemporaneous resurrection of theological debates that should have been dead for 40 years.

— RNC
1:01 pm July 1st, 2008

We will start from the bottom up…

Ultrafish - Except the rabbi is offering his opinion on matters and issues that he obviously was not well informed on. I have no doubt that we is an intelligent and well-educated man, but can he honestly speak for the internal happenings of Burke’s office or the reasons behind them? People have posted that obviously were closer to the situation than he was and have dismissed what he said. Is it right to be offended by something when you are forming your opinion on misinformation and leaps of faith (pun intended)? I do not doubt your statement that the rabbi is well respected, but no man is perfect. This blog was a mistake on his part. It happens.

RNC - I regularly attend a Latin mass because I find it interesting. My dad goes because it was how mass was said when he was an altar boy. A lot of the people I see in these masses are older, and quite frankly I think it is more a trip down memory lane than anything else. We are not a member of the parish but I do throw a few bucks in if I attend mass there that weekend. Your claim that it is a way to bring back wayward Catholics or increase revenues is idiotic at best. If you want to make an argument then be my guest but do not make up stats like “double or triple” their collections because it invalidates anything you write, unless you can prove it.

Pam - Please understand that no one blames your congregation or any part of its membership. Yes the ordination of a female “priest” was offensive but that particular rabbi was acting on their own behalf. No one things less of you because of the actions of one person. For that matter, the whole thing was more of a political statement (feminist in basis) than religion in my opinion anyway. But regardless, there is no ill will towards you or your community.

RNC - How, exactly, should bishops be appointed? Should we appoint Al Gore the new CEO of Microsoft because he is leader??? Or maybe someone with a background in the software business? (he did invent the internet though LOL). Burke was a leader, just not necessarily a popular leader. You equate being popular with being a leader. A leader does what needs to be done, and I certainly think Burke did that. Burke may not be liked by the good rabbi either, but his appeal to leaders in other religions can’t be the first thing considered. Don’t forget that the rabbi himself said that his faith often has multiple moral stances, so the Church’s standard operating procedure would be unfamiliar to him to begin with.

To all - This may be the best written and argued blog I have ever been a part of on the P-D site. Nice work all.

— Tim
1:34 pm July 1st, 2008

Tim, let’s address a couple of points.

“If you want to make an argument then be my guest but do not make up stats like “double or triple” their collections because it invalidates anything you write, unless you can prove it.”

Little Flower in Richmond Heights is one such parish. They put weekly collections in the bulletin (or at least they did this fall), so those numbers are out there (I don’t recall the exact increase there but weekly collections more than doubled). Those are probably the easiest numbers to find.

“RNC - How, exactly, should bishops be appointed? ”

Bishops should be appointed for their ability to lead. Period. Archbishop Burke did not have (and does not have) a track record of effective leadership. He is incredibly intelligent (that should be obvious to anyone who has ever spoken with him or heard him speak). He is a fantastic canon lawyer. Unfortunately, he lacks interpersonal skills; as I said before, he does a great job of dividing people (i.e. over the John Kerry Eucharist fiasco) and a lousy job of uniting people. That doesn’t make him a bad person or a bad priest, but it does make him an inappropriate choice to lead an archdiocese as large and diverse as ours. Like most large archdioceses, ours enjoys enormous diversity of parishoners and viewpoints. Disagreement with Archbishop Burke does not necessarily make someone a bad Catholic.

— RNC
3:50 pm July 1st, 2008

“Like most large archdioceses, ours enjoys enormous diversity of parishoners and viewpoints. Disagreement with Archbishop Burke does not necessarily make someone a bad Catholic.”

RNC, Archbishop Burke simply upholds and enforces (which is his JOB) the basic (and given the mind-numbing issues [and knee-jerk reactions based on ignorance] he’s had to deal with in light of his intellect, I refer to them as “basic”) tenets and beliefs of the Roman Catholic faith, which, given the nature of the Roman Catholic faith, should be held by all Roman Catholics.

So, in fact, disagreeing with Archbishop Burke does make you a bad Catholic.

— Mizzmonsoon
4:04 pm July 1st, 2008

I think all parishes put their collection totals in the bulletin…at least I have never gone to one that didn’t. I will see if there is a way to verify your claim, maybe you should do the same. Some hard numbers will make the point either way.

As to leadership, just because you don’t like what he did doesn’t mean everyone agrees with you. A good leader does not always compromise. FDR is considered a great leader, and he bullied and pushed around everyone he could, especially the Supreme Court. Lincoln is considered a great leader and half the country hated him. Leadership has multiple definitions too, and I think we are using different ones. I see Burke as a leader because he did what needed to be done. He stuck up for the Catholic Church instead of apologizing for it like the non-Catholics want. He didn’t take attacks on the Church laying down. He upheld the rules. He did what he was supposed to do.

He also made people made, he ticked off at least one Jewish rabbi that I know of, and made a lot of “negative” headlines. In your mind he was not a good leader.

There is diversity in our archdiocese, but not in our canon laws. I can’t see how he could have decided things any other way. Be nicer about it? Sure, but in the end the results were going to be the same.

— Tim
4:45 pm July 1st, 2008

Tim, you’ve said exactly what Archbishop Burke should have done about the Kerry issue: be nicer about it. Church teaching on abortion is relatively unambiguous, and Archbishop Burke was probably right (there’s a reasonable argument that he was wrong, but let’s assume for the moment that he was right). The issue wasn’t Archbishop Burke’s decision but rather the fact that he shouted it to the media. Instructing clergy not to serve Communion to John Kerry is one thing (and it’s perfectly defensible; in fact, I’ve not spoken to any practicing Catholics who would have had a problem with Archbishop Burke doing that). Making a spectacle of it is another. We might make the same argument about the Sheryl Crow or Rick Majerus fiascoes as well.

— RNC
7:20 pm July 1st, 2008

RNC,

While it’s generous of you to concede that Archbishop Burke might have been right about John Kerry, especially since his words have been echoed by the Holy Father himself, and since he has now been appointed to the highest legal position in the Church, your statement that he “shouted it to the media is badly mistaken.

Shortly after he arrived in St. Louis the Archbishop was ambushed by a local reporter who asked him point blank, “Would you give communion to John Kerry?” He responded that any Catholic politician who votes to support abortion should refrain from receiving communion. When pressed he agreed that, yes, John Kerry would be one such politician. There was no shouting and since Kerry never attended mass in St. Louis, it was never an issue in spite of several media sources reporting that the Archbishop had refused Kerry communion.

What you refer to as the Sheryl Crowe and Rick Majerus “fiascos” were also situations where Catholics publicly defied Church teaching and were admonished by the Archbishop, as they should have been. The fund raising board of Cardinal Glennon Hospital defied his request to replace Crowe with an entertainer who hadn’t taken public stands against Church teaching while Majerus opened his big mouth when he shouldn’t have (which is most of the time). Once again, the Archbishop wasn’t the one doing the shouting.

Exactly how “nice” should a member of the clergy be to a public sinner? In all three cases you mention, they were made public by either the media or the sinners themselves, not by Abp. Burke. There was a time when people were ashamed to commit (or at least admit) sin, but that’s no longer the case. Today they brag about it and their accomplices in the media are more than willing to support them by assaulting Church authority.

By the way, what does any of this have to do with the good rabbi’s rant against the Archbishop?

— Mike
8:57 pm July 1st, 2008

Mike, it has everything to do with the blog post… both are a symptom of the same problem (Archbishop Burke’s divisive leadership style).

In order to deal with you question about how Archbishop Burke should have acted toward Kerry/Crowe/Marjerus, there are two questions to consider:

1) Is it sinful to (privately) hold pro-choice beliefs? The answer to that question is pretty clearly no. (You’ll see statements from the Church along the lines of “what a person holds privately is a matter of conscience.”)

2) If the answer to that question is no, is it sinful for someone to articulate (not act on) that belief? That’s a much, much harder question, and I don’t pretend to have the answer. There isn’t any specific prohibition in canon law or elsewhere on those who are not leaders in the church sharing the views in their conscience. To me, that suggests (though does not determine) that the answer to this question is also no.

If the answer to both of those questions is no, I have a hard time defending the Archbishop’s public pronouncements, especially with regard to Crowe and Majerus. I think it’s a somewhat different question with respect to Kerry since Kerry was arguably in a position to influence abortion policy, though there’s still no requirement that the Archbishop or anyone else answer a question posed by the media. While attacking Kerry is perhaps defensible (though arguably unwise), there’s no similar justification for Crowe or Majerus. Again, holding pro-choice beliefs (not acting on those beliefs) is NOT sinful.

— RNC
10:09 pm July 1st, 2008

It most certainly sinful to hold pro-choice beliefs. Killing babies is a sin. Facilitating the killing of babies is a sin. Thinking it’s ok to kill babies is a sin. This is not negotiable and your statement that it is betrays a lack of understanding of the faith.

Unless someone’s been in a coma for the last fifty years, there can’t be a single person alive, Catholic or otherwise, who doesn’t know the Church’s teaching on abortion. You conveniently left out the word “informed” in your reference to conscience. A Catholic must have an INFORMED conscience. An uninformed conscience, or worse, a conscience that refuses to accept Church teaching, is not an excuse for the commission of sin. (Article 6. Catechism of the Catholic Church)

I suggest you read at least Article 6 of the Catechism and preferably the whole thing before you take it upon yourself to decide what is and what isn’t a sin.

— Mike
10:58 am July 2nd, 2008

I have read the bog by Rabbi Shook and the comments that have followed. I have also prayed for the guidance to share my thoughts with all concerned.

First, I am a committed Catholic married to a committed Jew. We each respect the others traditions and beliefs.

I will admit to not being a fan of Archbishop Burke but give him credit for consistency and intelligence. His people skills leave a great deal to be desired. However, this is not a personality issue, anymore than the BOARD of Central Reform Congregation permitting the use of their building to the WomenPriests group. This was not a decision by Rabbi Talve, nor did she make any comments on the Roman Catholic Church’s position on ordaining women. She received a request from some women whom she felt were sincere in wanting to serve God and took this issue to her Board. The members of the CRC Board, who hire and can fire her at any time, made the decision to permit this use of their building.

Judaism, of whatever branch, are not subject to a hierarchical structure as we members of the Catholic Church are. There is no ultimate authority as we have in the Holy Father. Each congregation in Judaism is free to set its own path. Whatever, you make think of their choices.

I know Rabbi Talve personally and she is a committed, Godly person. Any attacks on the sincerity of her faith, is disingenious and disrespectful as attacks on the sincerity and good intentions of Archbishop Burke.

While I accept the Church’s teachings on the role of women in the Church, I like many of my Catholic sisters who came of age during the Pontificate of the Blessed John XXXIII, continue to pray that the Church will someday recognize an increased role for women in the sacrement of ordination. After all the first people to see our Lord after His resurrection were women. If we as a gender were worthy of that honor, perhaps someday, those who feel so called will be permitted to serve Him now, as they did during His life.

Please let us return to a civil dialogue between Catholics and Jews, so that we can all await the Messiah — whether we believe He is returning or coming for the first time!

Baruch attah Adoshem, Elokeinu Melech ha’olam yotzar adam B’Tzelem Elohim. Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe who creates all of us in His image.

Gen. 1:27 “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

B’Shalom and Pax vobiscum.

— sam
12:26 pm July 2nd, 2008

Catholics worldwide were angered when the St. Louis Jewish rabbbi Susan Talve sponsored a mock Catholic ordination ceremony in her synogogue. (Catholics who actively participated in this ceremony were either penalized or were even ex-communicated.) The good archbishop asked this rabbi not to allow this service, which had mocked the Catholic faith, to take place in her sysnogogue; he asked this Jewish community to respect the interfaith protocol which had been in place for years. In that protocol, most places of worship would avoid involving themselves in the internal affairs of another place of worship, especially in granting religious space to renegade sects of these particular places.

The offical Jewish response was nil. Here we had an offical representative of the Jewish faith involving itself in what was an internal Catholic conflict. This rabbi did not stop there. Later, Rabbi Talve decided to participate in a another Christian prayer service with these some people just so that she could show her solidarity with the women who had mock the Catholic faith just weeks before that. Why couldn’t this rabbi respect Catholicism and the wishes of the archbishop?

The author of this blog loves to point out what he perceives as the archbishop’s flaws. For once, I would like to see him acknowledge the flaws of his own community. (They are always lecturing us and it is getting very annoying.)

Maybe the words of Jesus are applicable here: “why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye when you have a log in yours.”

— DJP
7:18 am July 3rd, 2008

“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.” It is not because this new order of daughters (not nuns) is being founded by a brother and sister who were former Jews. Rabbi Shook’s statement was that “The new community appears to be a proselytizing effort directed especially at Jews.”, and in that I find no fault. Look at the name of the new order: “Daughters of Mary, Mother of Israel’s Hope”. I can see his problem with it. Catholics, understandable, take exception to organizations that claim to be “Rome’s Hope.” He states, in fairly clear English, that Jews find programs that target Jews as Jews for conversion to be harassment based on religion. This is directly contrary to letter, as well as the spirit, of the last paragraph of “Nostra Aetate” which states that: “The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.” Since this document was published over 40 years ago, he is justified in his critique that it drives dialogue back at least that long.

But this new community was not the focus of this piece. In his article, Rabbi Shook only documented a deterioration of the relationship between the Archdiocese and the diverse Jewish community in St. Louis, providing examples from his own interaction with Archbishop Burke. As he is one of the leading voices in this relationship, the Archdiocese would do well to listen (a necessary component of the dialogue referred to in “Nostra Aetate”) to what he says about that relationship. “Nostra Aetate” calls for a spirit of brotherhood of equals, between Catholics and those people of faith outside of Christianity. When the Church becomes so inflexible as to state that what we as Catholics believe is the only truth in our dealings with people of other faiths, she has stopped listening to what view of Truth the other can be bring. Such interaction then, from that point on, is not dialogue but monologue. It need not be spoken that a person of a particular faith believes that system to hold all Truth. It should be an a priori assumption. Stating it shows little regard for the “other” in the interchange as being equal and implies a second class status.

As Catholics, we would do well to head the warning of writer of Proverbs: “Pride goes before disaster, and a haughty spirit before a fall. It is better to be humble with the meek than to share plunder with the proud.” (Prov. 16:18-19, NAB) The author bids us to look for Truth everywhere and not to be overly proud of our own knowledge. We are but finite beings trying to touch the infinite. We see Truth from a particular perspective that may not necessarily be shared by others. Because of our own limitedness, we are called, by the Fathers of the Vatican II to cooperate and dialogue with people of all faiths. When this is done openly, we have a great deal to learn from our brothers and sisters who hold themselves to these other systems. When we go in like a bull in a china shop, we only end up with discord, suspicion and broken relationships.

— elorden
10:36 am July 12th, 2008

Mr. Moss, I truly appreciate your poistion, but, at the same time, I have to ask whether we can we say, in our dealings with other faiths, that just because we see a particular truth from a specific perspective that all others must see it that way to? As a logical argument, that falls flat and, in essence, shuts down dialogue. You state as a priori, that Jesus was the Messiah, expected by the Jews. Yet, Rabbi Shook, because of his own, different, faith in the same God (though, he may disagree with that assertion) does not accept your premise. Therefore, his conclusion is different than yours and mine.

In deed, the statement that Jesus is the Messiah, has a great of argumentation, found in the uniquely Christian Scriptures, what is known as the New Testament, behind that conclusion. It cannot be stated a priori at all, and, therefore, should not form a premise of any discussion with Jewish faithful.

But, we do need to be cognizant of the fact that at least this one voice from the Jewish community sees your sister’s new order as harassment based on his knowledge of it. Harassment is a strange beast because there really is no objective definition of it. It is based on the reaction of its target. The victim is the one defining the term. Rabbi Shook, in his blog, stated clearly that he sees the goals of Rosalind’s new community as being harassment, even if you, her and the Pope state that the intention is otherwise. The reality is, if the Jewish community sees it as harassment, it is harassment, until that community can be set at ease in the matter.

— elorden
11:24 am July 12th, 2008

Why is Tim Townsend editing out views herein that folks, especially some parishioners and Catholics that I know have posted, that seemingly and truthfully vocally dilutes the anti-Catholic poisonous propellant and stance represented here, and projected by the Post-Dispatch. Isn’t something wrong here? Sheer hypocrisy!!! Many folks I have known have posted their reactions which are not visible herein. If you are giving voices to multiple opinion why delete opinions in favor of the Catholic Church and Archbishop Burke. Wonders shall never end! This ongoing ‘idolatry of the media’ making itself the object of worship and attention reflects the hypocrisy of the Post-Dispatch and its devil advocates’ especially Tim Townsend. I will see, if this posts.

— Rev. Victor
10:16 am July 16th, 2008