Another Theologian "Wanna Be" writes for the Post

The Post Dispatch has opted to print another article from one who is opposed to Archbishop Burke's Pastoral Letter. The author is one Gary Siegel of Kirkwood, who, as the paper states, is the director of the Institute of Applied Research, a St. Louis public policy research firm that specializes in human services systems. He states he was in the seminary before and that Cardinal George was his teacher and spiritual advisor for a time. That certainly qualifies, I suppose, as sufficient reason to clutter the pages of the Post with his "logic". Unfortunately, having been in the seminary at one time or having Cardinal George as a teacher is not a guarantee that one proposes is credible or worthy of belief. This is especially the case when it openly contradicts the teaching of the Church as explained by the Archbishop.

One wonders why the Post chooses these people? At least, Frank Flinn has some credentials, even though the ideas in his article were similarly flawed.

Some excerpts of the three problems Gary has with understanding the Archbishop:

First, the problem of logic: As I understand the archbishop's position, when faced with two flawed candidates, one who supports acts that are "intrinsically evil," such as abortion and homosexuality, and a second who promotes acts that are evil but not intrinsically so, such as war and capital punishment, a Catholic must choose the second over the first. To do otherwise would be sinful.

Gary then procedes to create a hypothetical which would likely, in his mind, cause a problem for him...

Since Archbishop Burke clearly explained the problems in his pastoral letter, it is apparent that some cannot understand even the simplest language. In the current situation, we are dealing with facts - not hypotheticals intended to give one "wiggle room" to avoid doing what one is obliged to do, morally.

Next we have a "profound" insight as explained by Mr. Siegel.

With respect to politicians and public policy, capital punishment and war are explicitly institutional acts, acts of government; abortion and homosexuality are personal acts. Further, most politicians who support abortion rights do not advocate or promote abortion. Rather, they oppose the intrusion of government into this area, preferring legislation that allows individual women to exercise their own moral judgment.

One may wish to deceive oneself with these ideas, but the fact remains that those who support non-existent "rights" to abortion must also support abortion, either implicitly or explicitly.

Is the author so naive to think that the government does not interfere with people's private choices? This happens all of the time. There is nothing intrinsically noble about choice. There are many choices societies simply can't allow individuals to make. Total freedom for each individual is anarchy.

Third, a bishop may have an obligation to teach, but he still has choices. He can teach with words or through his example, with his arguments or with his actions. He can rant like a tent revivalist about the evils of sin, or he can model the life of Christ in his pastoral concern for the poor and the troubled.

Here we have the classic case of the "Either/Or" mindset so prevalent among protestants and many professed Catholics. As others have stated, Catholics should embrace a both/and mentality regarding things of this sort.

Regardless, I have yet to see Archbishop Burke "rant like a tent revivalist" so perhaps Nr. Siegel can provide us with an example rather than with baseless insinuations? If anything, it seems that Archbishop Burke models Christ in his dealings with others.

Lastly, the Post's newest theologian gives us this bit of advice:

Fortunately, a Catholic's first obligation in moral decisions is not to follow his bishop but his conscience. As Cardinal John Henry Newman stated it: "To conscience first, and to the pope afterwards."

Surely, Cardinal Newman appreciates the plug, however, I'm certain he would not appreciate being quoted in this context. He would understand, as do many, the need to properly form one's conscience BEFORE invoking the primacy of conscience defense. One would think that a person who claims to be a former seminarian would have, at least, a rudimetary understanding of the Church's basic teaching on "conscience" and other issues.

The Post-Dispatch should keep looking, they have yet to find anyone who can refute the truths explained to us by Archbishop Burke.

Article is here.