In All Things
Randall Terry's Interview with Archbishop Burke
At a press conference this morning at the Nation Press Club, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry released a video of an interview he had earlier this month with Archbishop Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura. The transcript is available here. The interview took place while Terry and others met with Vatican officials urging them to remove Washington D.C. Archbishop Donald Wuerl and Arlington Bishop Paul Loverde for their failure to deny Holy Communion to politicians because of their political stands on abortion laws.
Mr. Terry, who was introduced at the press conference as "a great warrior for life," boasted that the Vatican officials were sympathetic to his pleas. He had a copy of the document that was presented to the officials, including Archbishop Burke, which explicitly calls for the removal of Archbishop Wuerl and Bishop Loverde. The document is online here. During the press conference, Terry repeatedly called them "treacherous." During the interview, Terry specifically asked Archbishop Burke about "the bishops who stepped up such as in Washington, D.C. Virginia, others…Massachusetts…[and] said that we will serve communion." Burke did not endorse Terry’s call for the bishops’ removal but neither did he say anything in their defense. It was the Vatican equivalent of throwing them under the bus.
In the course of a Q-and-A, Terry also said Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley had "done a great disservice to the Church" for failing to excommunicate Sen. John Kerry. Terry did not, at first, object to Cardinal Edward Egan inviting candidate Obama to the Al Smith dinner, until it was pointed out to him that Obama did speak at the event. "That was very bad then," Terry concluded.
Mr. Terry basks in controversy and his criticisms of Archbishop Wuerl and Bishop Loverde can be dismissed. After all, it was Wuerl, not Terry, who I recall seeing next to Pope Benedict in the Popemobile last April. But, Archbishop Burke’s comments are more difficult to understand. In addition to saying that he saw no other interpretation of Canon 915 but his own, a view that is not shared by the vast majority of bishops in America or elsewhere, he called President Barack Obama "an agent of death."
I confess my bias here. Archbishop Wuerl is my bishop and Bishop Loverde has been to my home for dinner so I consider him a friend. But, me thinks they are owed an apology and not only from Mr. Terry.
Add Comments (registration required)
Comments
Report comment
thank you for confessing your bias.
-----------------Webster.com
SYCOPHANT
One entry found.
Main Entry: sy·co·phant
Pronunciation: \-f?nt also -?fant\
Function: noun
: a servile self-seeking flatterer
-------------wikipedia.com
A SYCOPHANT (from the Greek ?????????? sykophánt?s) is a servile person who, acting in his or her own self interest, attempts to win favor by flattering one or more influential persons, with an undertone that these actions are executed at the cost of his or her own personal pride, principles, and peer respect.
Report comment
In this case, Archbishop Wuerl and Bishop Loverde, are not derelict. They just wanted to defend the Truth while not alienating people from the Church who honestly struggle with a teaching. Terry had neither the right to insult them, nor to demand they be removed; it is especially inappropriate since they are not derelict in their duty, but trying different methods to fulfill that duty. If he wants the correct path of action clarified for bishops in this situation, he should have asked the Vatican for that.
As for Burke, he said what he said. He is the number 2 man on canon law, his interpretations should be given great weight. The aforementioned conundrum seems more or less solved, and it was kinda obvious before--lets be honest.
People say we should not use the Eucharist as a political weapon. Sure, but it is inaccurate to say that using the Eucharist as part of a threat is not OK. The threat of excommunication or interdict or other penalties are indeed using the Eucharist as part of a threat, as a means of confronting the person with a dilemma: 'Choose God or this evil, you cannot have both.' So long as the person is rejecting God, the Church will not help them perpetuate the lie; but she is always open to repentance, they recant, the Church is willing to reconcile. But none of this is possible when dealing with Canon 915 violators without the legitimate coercion of confronting them with the loss of the Sacraments if they stubbornly persist. No one of good will wants to punish them for spite, but call them to conversion, and to declare to the world that the Church will not put up with such nonsense.
Report comment
Part of me considers Burke's statements an answer to my prayer. He reinvigorates my hope that people within the Church hierarchy will step up and solidify the Church as a bulwark for the Gospel of Life. I hope, however, that those who share my zeal for the defense of the innocent won't be dragged down into personal battles which only hurt the cause.
Please pray that Archbishop Wuerl will follow Archbishop Naumann's wishes with regards to Ms. Sebelius. It would be a shame for that important stand to be abandoned, creating scandal.
Report comment
Report comment
Also, I believe Michael Sean Winters, by Mr. Landry's very definition of the word, would need to be flattering someone to be a sycophant. Who was being flattered here? I assume we are all Catholic and there is really no need to be so uncivil.
Report comment
Report comment
"To, respectfully and showing due deference, call them out or ask the Holy See to call them out for being derelict in their duty or failing to live up to their nature."
My point was that insulting them or calling them derelict is disrespectful. However, one may respectfully, filialy, voice concerns about the effectiveness of a given pastoral decision or appeal a decision to Rome. However, at the end of the day, they are the bishops, and we are not.
Report comment
Report comment
Report comment
Both may be good men, otherwise good bishops or even good friends of yours - but this does not change the fact that other bishops have fulfilled their duty and these two have not.
Report comment
Report comment
Report comment
I know Archbishop Burke personally. I have walked with him and talked with him about the state of our Church. He does what he does not because he is advancing some radical agenda. He places himself front and center because he knows that he has Jesus Christ as his sword and shield, and it is the Word of God and the Law of the Church which guide our faith. He keeps VERY good company, Mr. Binder. Jesus Christ stands beside him to guide him and uphold him when ignorant people bash him behind his back. I for one will not tolerate it. I hope others in the Church feel the same way.
God bless you, your Excellency!
Report comment
Archbishop Burke: The Canon is completely clear, it is not subject in my judgment to any other interpretations. When someone is publicly and obstinately in grave sin we may not administer Holy Communion to the person. And that, basically, for two reasons: number one, to prevent the person himself or herself from committing a sacrilege, and secondly, to protect the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist. In other words, to approach, to receive our Lord in Holy Communion, when one insists on remaining in grave sin, is such a violation of the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist, so that Communion must not be given to people who are publicly, obstinately, in grave sin.
Pretty clear to me. He's the head of the church supreme court, with more authority than your dinner companions. You decide whether to listen or not.
Report comment
Remember Archbishop Haas formerly of Chur, Switzerland? He was a good bishop and to protect him, he was removed from that diocese and given another. Remember Mgsr. Schwartz who was blackmailed into asking the Holy Father to not appoint him bishop of Linz? The bishop of Portland was removed. Bishop O'Connell of Knoxville also. I could go on and on with examples.
Loverde and Wuerl are not charitable to these recalcitrant politicians by giving them Holy Communion. Do both think that 'drinking death to the soul' of the politician is loving? If that is charity, what would be expressing hatred?
Look at the Mass in Nationals Stadium for the Pope Benedict. My sons have told me about the Verizon Center Mass which takes place before the March for Life. Bishops who do not take care of the liturgy are not good ones.
Yes, remove them Holy Father unless they agree to follow Canon 915!!
Report comment
Burke, and most pro-lifers, are not fully informed as to the nature of the pro-choice position. While it is against canon law to obtain or advocate abortion, simply allowing it in law is not the same thing. There was never a law that was passed to make abortion legal. What happened was that state laws which banned abortion were ruled unconstitutional. Consequently, there is no legislation to oppose or support. When there is some, Catholic politicians can be called upon to support it or justify their position. To aver that Roe, though tragic, was decided correctly, is also not sinful. Federal supremacy on equal protection is not sinful - in fact, overturning it by overturning Roe would be sinful as it would give states over to the tyranny of the mob without the ability of the aggreived to challenge their actions in federal court. Until the U.S. Congress, not the states, extend protection to the unborn, the states may not interpose themselves between women and their doctors.
Report comment
Report comment
Report comment
Exactly what would it take to cross the line so that "liberal Catholics" would consider denial of Communion justified, if advocationg, abetting and defending the slaughter of millions of inncoent humans does not?
The truth is, liberalism has so emasculated most American Bishops they have no courage left - they are afraid even to be criticized by the liberal press. Again, God bless Cardinal Burke. He may some day be canonized for doing his duty in the face of the same scorn, mockery and skepticism faced by Our Lord.
Report comment
Add Comments (registration required)
* The opinions expressed here are those of our contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of America magazine.