CLAY OR CARNAHAN??? — If you were running for office and had to pick between Congressmen Lacy Clay and Russ Carnahan for a leadership role in your campaign, who would you pick?
Judging from a leaked memo, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s people are betting on Lacy.
According to the internal campaign memo, first reported by Newsweek (but a hat tip to Jo Mannies for the local posting), Obama’s staff advised him to tell Clay that “he will be one of the main leaders in Missouri for your campaign.”
But they advised Obama “DO NOT lead [Carnahan] to believe that he will be in an exclusive role.”
Both St. Louis Congressmen got to Washington with the help of their fathers’ last names. Clay in 2000. Carnahan in 2004. Clay’s four years of seniority may be what Obama’s people are focusing on. But some may argue that the Carnahan name is more valuable for any Democrat looking for votes across Missouri.
BURKE DISSES CLAIRE? — Fresh off of dissing singer Sheryl Crow, Archbishop Raymond Burke seems to have a new pro-choice Missouri woman to practice his passive aggressiveness on.
U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill’s people are pointing Burke’s way after the Missouri representative was un-invited as the commencement speaker at St. Joseph’s Academy, where her daughter is graduating later this month.
“It was a special opportunity because my daughter is one of the graduates. I’m disappointed that the archbishop has made this decision,” McCaskill said in a statement.
But Burke’s people say it wasn’t him. They say the decision was all St. Joseph’s.
DR. DOCTOR — Respected newsman Tim Russert of NBC’s “Meet the Press” (remember when PubDef was on “Meet the Press”?) and Dr. Henry Givens, president of Harris-Stowe State University, are among the six men and women slated to receive honorary degrees from Wash U this month.
Russert will deliver the Commencement address and receive an honorary doctor of humane letters degree. Givens, who already holds a Ph.D., will add another doctorate to his wall when he gets his honorary doctor of humanities degree.
ABC News broadcaster Paul Harvey; David C. Farrell, the former CEO of the May Department Stores; William S. Sly, M.D., chairman of SLU’s Dept. of Biochemistry; and Shirley M. Tilghman, Ph.D., president of Princeton University, round out the list of overachievers.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:26 am
In terms of speaking ability, I’d much rather Clay than Carnahan. In terms of connections, I might want Carnahan, if that indeed meant the Carnahan family was getting behind Obama. Either way, I seriously doubt that Russ’ endorsement alone does much for Obama, really.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:16 am
“BURKE DISSES CLAIRE? — Fresh off of dissing singer Sheryl Crow, Archbishop Raymond Burke seems to have a new pro-choice Missouri woman to practice his passive aggressiveness on.
U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill’s people are pointing Burke’s way after the Missouri representative was un-invited as the commencement speaker at St. Joseph’s Academy, where her daughter is graduating later this month.
‘It was a special opportunity because my daughter is one of the graduates. I’m disappointed that the archbishop has made this decision,’ McCaskill said in a statement.
But Burke’s people say it wasn’t him. They say the decision was all St. Joseph’s.”
Imagine that! A church leader and a Christian/church school opting to remain faithful to the Scriptures and first century Christian teachings! Why they’re almost as bad as Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, or Shintoists remaining faithful to their teachings. What is this world coming to?
Aren’t Christians expected to deny or diminish Biblical and moral teachings that pertain to life and death? Don’t they know they are the chosen by the secular world to be the one world religion or faith to denigrate or deny their basic doctrines and practices?
The archbishop and St. Joseph’s are certainly the most serious threat to modern, sophisticated life, aren’t they?
Shame on them for remaining so genuine and resolute in their faith. Shame on them for hurting so many as to be comparable to crushing a ready-to-be born baby’s skull and sucking out its brains.
What a threat to our society!
May 1st, 2007 at 8:25 am
Question for Helen - when is Burke going to denounce Giuliani?
May 1st, 2007 at 11:18 am
clarkent said…
Question for Helen - when is Burke going to denounce Giuliani?
5/01/2007 9:25 AM
Probably the same day he goes after Danforth and Tim McGraw. I don’t think he had anything to do with this.
The level of intolerance established, reinforced by his dramatic disparagement of another uppity woman–Sheryl Crow–makes it unnecessary for his direct involvement.
This is their business, but in a free society, when we see a clergyman acting like an a hypocritical asshole, there is nothing in the first amendment that requires us to remain silent, civil, or restrained, whether it is Burke, Jesse Jackson, or Father Coughlin on a 1930′2 radio show.
Given the state of intolerance already established by Burke, even prior to last week’s concert, uninviting Claire was a no brainer.
Which is pretty much what they used.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:42 am
kjoe, my thoughts exactly.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:01 pm
So what exactly is hypocritical about upholding a Church’s over two millenial position on morality and a doctrinal issue?
Are priests, pastors, rabbis, imams, or monks no longer supposed to speak up for their religion’s beliefs?
Don’t they answer to either God, Yaweh, Allah, or a higher power rather than to society?
I just wish they had been more vocal when Naziism and Communism were at their zeniths.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Carnahan supports the Patriot Act. I wouldn’t want his support.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:18 pm
“I just wish they had been more vocal when Naziism and Communism were at their zeniths.”
Most of the opposition to stem-cell and choice issues involve attacks on women.
Maybe they were squeamish about challenging men.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Some of us women (and we are many) don’t feel they are attacks on us but on a separate life. Remember, not all women are in agreement with Planned Parenthood.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Doug, are you running for president?
May 1st, 2007 at 2:44 pm
“So what exactly is hypocritical about upholding a Church’s over two millenial (sic) position on morality and a doctrinal issue?” - Helen Louise
I don’t think you actually want this question answered. Why, The church to attend was formed because its leaders decided that Catholic Church was hypocritical.
The real issue here is that both McCaskil and Crow are public figures that are more popular or famous than the figures that are criticizing them.
Crow is a cancer survivor and wants to help others with cancer. McCaskil is a mother of two young women at St. Joseph’s Academy.
I think Crow and McCaskil are wonderful role models and philanthropist.
Neither of these women have chosen to define themselves by one issue yet the leadership of Catholic institutions have chosen to define them by one issue.
The leaders of the Catholic Church have shown thought history to be resilient, but many shortsighted decisions have caused people to leave.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
As a recovering Catholic, I agree with kjoe’s take on the treatment of women and Jason’s comment on the hypocritical thinking by some who share Burke’s views. Decades ago, when I saw our priest at the Country Club (where I worked mowing grass) taking the finest clubs on the market out of his shiny new Cadillac trunk, I asked him why the nuns who taught my son were not even allowed to own personal care items (something my wife learned while volunteering at the school). He said that nuns took a vow of poverty so that children like mine could have a good Catholic education (implying that Tithing on wages as low as our family’s was inadequate). Yet he did not seem to see the discrepency that I was witnessing with his lifestyle of luxury! Still, today there are no female priests, bishops, or cardinals - even with the shortage of priests. You would think that welcoming women into the priesthood would be a no-brainer for reducing this shortage.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:06 am
I completely understand the lifestyle discrepancies and issues. Such touch various religions and denominations.
A struggling African American friend of mine attended a church where the congregation showered the pastor with a Rolex watch, a Cadillac, and expensive suits. Here so many in the congregation could hardly make it financially themselves.
In my own church, the pastor is paid well over $90,000 and gets a tax-exempt housing allowance of $35,000.
I think all of this hurts the image of the Christian faith because Christ and the early disciples did not live sumptious lives. They don’t have to live in poverty, but they certainly should try to live circumspectly and modestly.
However, as to “I agree with kjoe’s take on the treatment of women and Jason’s comment on the hypocritical thinking by some who share Burke’s views,” I still believe standing firm on a church’s moral, doctrinal, and from the first century teachings , is not hypocritical.
Neither the archbishop nor St. Joseph’s criticized these women. They only acknowledged that they are in sharp disagreement on a very serious and moral issue. That is not criticism of the individual–it is disagreement with a position.
Others may believe as Crow and McCaskill do, but probably are not vocal proponents or activists of the position.
The archbishop is a spiritual leader; and as such, he does not have the luxury that others have of being wishy washy on what the church considers a serious moral matter. Remember, that is not only the position of the Roman Catholic Church. It is also the position of most evangelical, Reformed churches, and I believe also the Orthodox churches.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
clarkent asks
> when is Burke going to denounce Giuliani?
He already has in a general way. In a specific way, perhaps when hizzonor appears in the Archdiocese trading on his (former) Catholicism.
> Decades ago, when I saw our
> priest at the Country Club…
Not all religious communities in the Church have the same character — the nuns at your school evidently take vows of poverty, but many priests do not. The reason he didn’t see a discrepancy is probably that there isn’t one. You got a straightforward answer to the question you asked.
You should have asked what his handicap is. If it was below 10 or so he’s probably playing too much golf and neglecting his duties. That’s something to complain about.
t
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
It is rather sad (ironic?) that the Catholic Church will accept money from McCaskill (and anyone else) regardless of their opinions on abortion, stem cell research, capital punishment, etc…while at the same time hampering efforts to raise money for other causes. (Although I think the St. Louis Catholic community gave Burke the one-finger salute by selling out the recent benefit)
McCaskill’s daughter and money are good enough for SJA. Sheryl Crow’s money is sure as hell good enough for cancer research.
Burke is obligated to follow the official position of the Catholic Church…all the way to oblivian.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:10 am
Sorry, Jim, to have to disagree with you on this one recognizing we agree on so much else.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is so many belong to organizations, such as churches, without researching what that organization or church believes. In Christianity, doctrine is the whole foundation for everything else that takes place in a particular church.
If people like McCaskill disagree with one of the fundamental teachings of their church, they should search out one with which they agree. I have done this in the past, which is why I am in the particular church to which I now belong.
Unless someone’s understanding of Scripture, Church History, and theology is comprehensive, that person cannot even begin to understand the position and sometimes painful responsibility any church leader might have.
The U.S. government and many public entities, such as public schools, take the tax dollars of many that disagree with their policies. They will not return money either given or taken to people that disagree with them.
Most churches don’t cull through their collections to see exactly who gave what in order to discipline or offend them. Records are kept mainly for proof of giving for the individual’s tax deductions affirmation.
Christian churchs, such as the Roman Catholic Church, have the same right as other religious groups to stand by their teachings and convictions despite what others may think. It would be hypocritical on their part to not do so. Throughout history, Christians have been willing to die for their faith; hence, some are willing to be misunderstood and to take public criticism and humiliation for their faith.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:37 am
“If people like McCaskill disagree with one of the fundamental teachings of their church, they should search out one with which they agree. I have done this in the past, which is why I am in the particular church to which I now belong.”
Congratulations to you, but is that realistic? If catholics did that, how many members would remain catholic?
How much power and influence would Burke and his ilk end up with?
Like it or not, they have to play a public relations game, calculating who to target and how forcefully and aggressively to press for the church’s position. Sheryl Crow—easy. John Danforth—-be wary of getting too technical about or loud.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:33 am
“Congratulations to you, but is that realistic? If catholics did that, how many members would remain catholic?
How much power and influence would Burke and his ilk end up with?”
I would think it is totally realistic for intelligent and educated men and women. We are not talking about illiterates and uneducated people. Claire McCaskill is a very intelligent woman (and one with whom I agree on various issues) and I would think fairly highly educated.
The issue isn’t how many Catholics would remain Catholic and the archbishop retaining ecclesiastical power and influence.
Despite being baptized and raised in a particular faith or religion, every adult should give such an important issue as to what they believe about God and what He has revealed serious priority and choose from there. We are not like Muslims who would be assassinated if we left our particular church.
Who is more hypocritical? A Church leader who stands firm with his Church’s doctrine, traditions or teachings, or someone who renounces the church’s teachings but remains a member? I personally left a church with which I disagreed on some cardinal doctrines and principles. Many others have done the same.
Personally, I feel Ted Kennedy is the biggest hypocrite of all because he wants to remain Catholic yet does everything in his power to go against the basic teachings of his “religion.”
My opinion.
I think people should metaphorically “put their money where their mouth is.”
And to think, I’m not even Catholic! Who would expect a Baptist or a Christian Scientist to stay with a church they disagree with? Not me.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 am
My apologies for returning so soon, but a thought occurred to me.
Following is a statement in one of the earliest Christian documents outside of New Testament writings, the Didache written in the latter half of the first century: “There are two ways, a way of life and a way of death; there is a great difference between them….In accordance with the precept of the teaching ‘You shall not kill,’ you shall not put a child to death by abortion or kill it once it is born….The way of death is this: They show no compassion for the poor, they do not suffer with the suffering, they do not acknowledge their Creator, they kill their children and by abortion cause God’s creatures to perish; they drive away the needy, oppress the suffering, they are advocates of the rich and unjust judges of the poor, they are filled with every sin. May you be ever guiltless of all these sins!â€
Those were the days when the young Christian church was growing in the midst of one of the most pagan cultures, Roman, where abortion was standard and normal. Today, we are more pagan on the whole in our society than many others. This is often referred to as the post-Christian age. Saying that, however, doesn’t negate the responsibility of those who claim to be Christian, Catholic, evangelical, or whatever from being consistent with the church to which they belong. I believe that is called congruence in psychology.
But the whole weight of both Old and New Testaments is on the sacredness of life, and the embryo or fetus is considered separate life from the mother who houses it and nurtures it until it is ready for birth. This is not just the belief of the Roman Catholic Church but of most orthodox groups.
I just share this to show how far back the issue of abortion goes. It is not a recent or modern phenomena other than it has become a type of birth control.
St. Joseph High School and Archbishop Burke in this particular case remain faithful to Christian doctrine and practice. In that regard, neither are hypocrites.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I googled didache. Wikipedia had a fascinating account—I do not know how good an account it is.
This jumped out at me:
Considered lost, the Didache was rediscovered in 1873
chapter 2 is pretty tough:
Chapter 2 contains the commandments against murder, adultery, corrupting boys, sexual promiscuity, theft, magic, sorcery, abortion, infanticide, coveting, perjury, false testimony, speaking evil, holding grudges, being double-minded, not acting as you speak, greed, avarice, hypocrisy, maliciousness, arrogance, plotting evil against neighbors, hate, narcissism and expansions on these generally, with references to the words of Jesus.
I am openly disrespectful in my attitude towards Burke, I am trying not to be here. I will say reading about the didache was….interesting to me.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
> If catholics did that [searched
> out a church with which they
> agree], how many members
> would remain catholic?
The great majority of them! And many, many more would be attracted to the Faith by their knowledgable witness.
One problem is most have not searched — as in made a serious inquiry. Most were born into Catholic families, but never really considered the faith and (most embarassingly) have not been taught the whys behind the Church’s moral teachings or much of anything else. They liked having the parochial schools and the sports teams, and some of them even like the rules that say they have to show up once a week so long as nobody asks them to do anything else.
I am convinced that most people, especially cultural Catholics, upon making a serious inquiry would become fully convinced of the Church’s claims. A great number have — here are some you may have heard of. My personal favorite is GK Chesterton.
Our last couple of Archbishops have been trying to undo the enormous damage done especially during the May administration in the wake of Second Vatican. I do not blame Archbishop May for everything we have suffered, but his leadership on the question of truth was weak, and therefore his discipline was weak. He wanted the Church to be a big social service agency without quite saying why it ought to be one. But it was “nice” and non-threatening and not controversial.
As for influence — the Mormons are pretty influential with 13M members worldwide. When there are a dozen bishops in the USA like Archbishop Burke, then Catholic influence will be felt. People were afraid of this in 1850, and they’re still afraid or it today.
t
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Actually, no one on that interesting list was a “cultural Catholic.” That was a list of Catholic converts.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
“Chapter 2 contains the commandments against murder, adultery, corrupting boys, sexual promiscuity, theft, magic, sorcery, abortion, infanticide, coveting, perjury, false testimony, speaking evil, holding grudges, being double-minded, not acting as you speak, greed, avarice, hypocrisy, maliciousness, arrogance, plotting evil against neighbors, hate, narcissism and expansions on these generally, with references to the words of Jesus.”
Well, you can see how out of sync genuine Christianity is with a lot that goes on today as it did in ancient times. By the way, all of the above are expressed somewhere or several times in the New Testament. The Didache mainly shows us how the New Testament teachings were considered valid and practical.
Tom, G. K. Chesterton is certainly one of Catholicism’s greats. I believe all of us, Catholic or whatever, should take time to acquaint ourselves with the teachings of our particular branch of the Universal Church. If we are in accord and agreement, we should stay despite its weaknesses or failings in some areas. If we do not agree with the basic doctrines or tenets, we should move on.
As a Reformed Christian (by personal quest and choice), I have come to realize that, when it comes to cardinal doctrines, we have more in agreement with each other than areas of disagreement.
Much is taking place in our society today that makes it more difficult to live the Christian life as openly or boldly as one might wish. But we still have the commandments of our Lord to be light and salt in this life.
What I don’t understand is, since life is so very brief for most, why what it’s all about doesn’t seem to interest many.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
> no one on that interesting
> list was a “cultural Catholic.”
I see that was awkwardly worded. Mea maxima culpa. But your remark only strengthens my point.
t
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Helen said:
> As a Reformed Christian
> (by personal quest and choice)
I understand many people will make a serious inquiry and land somewhere else. I think a great deal of this is due to the failure of many Catholics to live integrated Christian lives. But where sin abounds…
I fear we have more in common with Moslems than we have with the pagan culture we’re immersed in today. They at least do not question their own existence or whether truth is apprehensible. Sigh.
t
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Hi Helen,
I agree that the Archbishop should follow church doctrine…he has devoted his life to it. The trouble is that I don’t agree with the church doctrine in the first place!
But I respect the Archbishop’s right to believe. I think he is helping to bury the Catholic faith…but respect his commitment.
As far as the rest of the religious-based commentary…I am not interested. I do not believe in the “popular” Gods. I believe in respect for our fellow human beings for more simple reasons. Human dignity is enough for me…I don’t need scare tactics and stories designed to appease/control the “lower classes” centuries ago.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Jim,
I think secular humanism has actually been an improvement over some religious dogmas. I decided a long time ago that if I did harm in any way, I needed to do more than pray for forgiveness from a diety to make it right. It is up to me to make amends right here, right now. It has really helped me to avoid hurting others by thinking things through from the other person’s perspective before I do something that will need forgiving!
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Anon,
I would feel like a hypocrite saying “Amen” so how about…”Rah, Rah!”
May 4th, 2007 at 7:06 am
Jim, hi again. Glad to see you at least understand the archbishop has to follow church doctrine. This would be true of any religious leader regardless of the religion.
As for scare tactics, neither I nor any of my Christian friends came to faith in Christ through scare tactics or fear. For me personally, I questioned why I am here, for what purpose, what is it all about, and what follows. I searched in various religions before embracing Christianity as described in the New Testament. I was drawn by the love of Christ.
Anonymous, many nonbelieving people do good works toward others and appear to be good people. However, for those of us who are Christians, we believe Christ summed it all up very well by telling us to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind and our neighbor as ourselves. The how to do this is further described throughout the New Testament.
Dogma may not be a pretty word, but it simply means beliefs or tenets. Sadly, some throughout history have missed the mark on what Christ called us to be; but there are more examples of those who did fulfill His first and great commandment along with the second one.
To relate this all back to the issues related to the archbishop, doing good to one’s neighbor encompasses not purposefully harming an unborn child, especially not crushing its skull and sucking its brains out as takes place in partial-birth abortion.
Both the woman and the child merit concern, compassion, and care–not one over the other. The archbishop and most, if not all, genuine Christians believe God loves the mother and the child (and the father too)–they are all made in His image.
Ok, fellows. I’ll leave it at that. This is not meant to be preaching but clarification of the issues from a Christian point of view.