Majerus and Burke
January 24, 2008, 4:42 pm
Posted by Paul Lauritzen
In case you missed the flap over Rick Majerus’ statements about abortion and stem cell research and Archbishop Burke’s response, you can find coverage of this on the ESPN website. That’s right, ESPN. For those of you who don’t waste countless hours watching college sports, Majerus is basketball coach at St. Louis University. At a rally for Hillary Clinton last weekend, Majerus stated his personal view about abortion and stem cell research. Archbishop Burke was not happy and called on SLU to take appropriate disciplinary action.
You can read the ESPN story here.
Majerus quote . . .
It’s hard to imagine even the most naive Catholic saying that!
But what is the appropriate discipline?
The perils of public financing . . .
The university has declined to comment beyond an official statement that reads as though the school isn’t interested in punishing Majerus: “Coach Majerus’ comments were his own personal views and he was not speaking for Saint Louis University. The comments were made at a non-university event and he was not there as university representative.”
The school would look terrible if it sanctioned Majerus for expressing opinions that are inconsistent with the Catholic Church, since it just won a lawsuit last year that allowed it to collect $8 million in tax increment financing for its new basketball arena on the grounds that it’s not an organ of the Catholic Church. Opponents of the plan had sued, arguing that the subsidy violates a church-state clause in the state constitution, but the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that SLU “is not controlled by a religious creed.”
http://www.salon.com/sports/col/kaufman/2008/01/23/wednesday/
I think firing or censoring the coach was probably not an option–not only for the reasons Barbara said, but also because his employment terms are probably governed by a contract that specifies the termination provisions.
But the more troublesome thing is that the Apb. missed a chance to show real pastoral sensitivity–to meet people where they live. If your read the article, the Coach has been traumatized by watching someone die of ALS. Not a good experience. For anyone.
Rather analogous to talking to a woman about abortion who had had a friend die from a coat hanger abortion.
The abstract moral issues are the same –they don’t change just because of a hard case. But people aren’t reducible to abstract issues.
So couldn’t this been an occasion the Apb. to make his point in a more positive, pastoral way–”I understand how horrible suffering is. . . I am praying for the family. .. I ask the coach to consider . .. the issue in another way. . . . We Christians have a way of understanding suffering that might be helpful”
There was a major article on Majerus in last week’s Sports Illustrated – he’s quite a complex guy.
St. Louis brought him in as a big name coach when things had gone sour in the basketball program there and, I guess, it’s the biggest thing in the athletic department there.
Majerus had been an ESPN analyst for a number of years (after a very successful set of stints at Marquette and Utah) before taking the job this season. Suppose his comments had been made whenhe was an anaylst? What impact would they have made beyond what he says as a coach?
By the by, this matter came up on the VOTF blog today and the sense I got was Burke was viewed as heavy handed(as usual) in his approach to things.
I guess we’ll find out if there is free speech in the Catholic Church. There doesn’t have to be. A lot of countries don’t allow it. The Catholiec Church doesn’t have to allow it. He wasn’t teaching in a classroom. He wasn’t putting this forth as Catholic teaching. He was just exercising his right to his opinion, even if he’s wrong. ESPN is a pretty secular forum.
“I guess we’ll find out if there is free speech in the Catholic Church”.
Anyone can say whatever they want, whenever they want. But sometimes what we say has consequences – a necessary adjunct of freedom. It appears that in St. Louis, those consequences can be swift and punitive.
Public figures also have a responsibility to the institutions that employ them. When an ESPN employee recently publicly stated “(sex act) Jesus”, she was suspended by the same secular network. An infringement of free speech?
Hereis a column that ran in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Make that yesterday’s paper.
Jim, You raise an interesting question. The Coach didn’t insult Jesus. The coach didn’t insult the church. He expressed a different viewpoint.
My guess is that if the Coach said “expletive deleted” Apb Burke we’d be in a different situation. Similarly, if the ESPN lady had said in an interview, “I really disagree with Notre Dame’s policy X on sports. .. . ” I think we’d be in a different situation.
So the question is, from my perspective as a contracts professor, not a theology prof, here, is the reasonable expectations of the parties. It seems to me that ESPN could reasonably expect the anchor not to swear at a school, and Jesus, while drunk and on the air–even if it’s not part of the contract, you could argue it’s part of good faith performance –compliance with broadcast standards (maybe even FCC standards).
The question is, assuming this was not explicitly negotiated, was it reasonable for the University to expect this football coach not to say anything publicly critical but in a respectful manner of church teaching? If it’s explicitly negotiated, that’s one thing. If it’s not, I don’t think you could imply it as term required in good faith. So translated into legal reality, you might say that Apb. Burke was saying, “Loyola, negotiate a “you’re a coach, not a theologian” provision in every contract.”
Rather than discipline or take punitive measures against the coach, would it be wiser for the university to put together a statement showing why the coaches is position is untenable and wrong. Then, he gets the freedom to be wrong, but he gets proven to be wrong. This, I think would strenghten the Church’s position more than a disciplinary action.
I think it’s interesting how the coach characterizes his moral theology training at a Jesuit University (in the article Fr. O’Neal pointed to).
“I’m very respectful to the archbishop,” Majerus said. “But I rely on my value judgments, thanks to my education at Marquette, which is a Jesuit institution, just like St. Louis. And that Jesuit education led me to believe that I can make a value judgment. And my value judgment happens to differ from the archbishop’s.”
This strikes me as a highly individualistic take-away understanding of moral judgment. Doesn’t a bishop have a unique role as a moral teacher in his diocese? “Respectful to” and “respectful of”–those are two different things. The second acknowledges the bishop’s authority.
“These pastors, chosen to shepherd the Lord’s flock of the elect, are servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God, to whom has been assigned the bearing of witness to the Gospel of the grace of God, and the ministration of the Spirit and of justice in glory.” Lumen Gentium 21
What’s appalling to me, as so often, is the absence of direct communication between the archbishop and the coach. “Majerus said he has not heard from Burke.” Once the lawyers get involved the options are few, but why not give him a call at the very beginning.
Reminds me of de Lubac’s very bitter complaint:
“During all these years I was never questioned, I did not have a single discussion with Roman authorities about the main issues, neither with the papal curia nor with the Society of Jesus. I was never told what I was accused of; I was never asked to provide something equivalent to a “retraction” or declaration. Even in 1953, when I finally saw the Father General, he continually evaded the issue, both a discussion of the fundamental questions and a discussion of particular facts.”
It seems to me the consulting firm of Cathy, Kathy, and Andrew (“C, K & A” for short) has offered the best course of action for the Archbishop and the university to follow.
A bishop does have a unique role as a moral teacher in his diocese (Kathy). However, in exercising that role in this specific situation, it would have been best in the first instance for the Abp. to have made his point in a positive, pastoral way (Cathy), especially by having direct communication with Majerus (Kathy). The university should issue a statement (1) recognizing the coach’s right to give his individual opinion in a non-university setting, but also (2) setting forth its opposition to the substance of the coach’s comment (Andrew).
Anyone have the addresses for the Abp. and the university so that C, K & A can bill them?
On Majerus:
if you look at the NCAA news, you’ll se all lte ads for coaches have loads of EEO statements included.
The legalities of muzzling a coach for his private views is legally quite suspect as already noted here.
On speech in the Church:
I can’t help but note that yesterday, John Dear S.j was sentenced in NM Federal Court for his protest at the Sen. Domenici’s office last year.
In his weekly column (on line at NCR) he notes during the case he explained to a “stunned judge” that he was just doing his job according the rules of the Congregation -I suggest you look at the column.
Yesterday, Dear, who was convicted of “not obeying signs in a Federal building.” was sentenced to 40 hrs. comunity service, a $500 fine and to remain here in New Mexico for six mnonths. Dear told the judge he would defy the order and continue his public speaking around the world. The jedge told him,”You’re no Ghandi, you’re a fraud.”
Several years ago in this Atomic City, our beloved pastor urged the Bishop to have Dear refuse to come here.The Bishop complied fotr a while. The then head of our Right to Life parish group wrote on line that Paxhrist iwas made up of well intentioned but dillusional folk.
I thought of the poor old nuns who went to jail for protesting at the former School For the Americas, protests that continue each year.
I bring this all up because -we’ve had a lot of talk lately about how we educate our young adults.
A recent survey of “unchurched” young adults show the rationale of vast majority see the Church institutions as hypocritical.
I’d suggest that that perception is quite understandable if heavy handed by the book approaches continue to be how we do and argue buisness should be done.
Whether the issue of what happens to Mahjerus is settled on the basis of what’s legally doable or not, the issue of speech and How the Church promotes it’s values requires thought not only about “protecting” values but how we educate effectively!
If we substitute the word “murder” for “abortion” [which is the Church's position] would that make a difference?
Certainly a woman is free to kill the creature in her womb. That is also the Church’s position – free will. She is free to commit sin. Just as free as any man.
How do we relate the fact that Jesus was crucifed by the bishops (overseers, scribes and pharisees) of his time? Maybe the problem is that there are not enough John Dears around.
Gabriel,
Has the Church ever said “abortion is murder”? I am not trying to deny the Church has made it crystal clear that abortion is a grave moral offense and, in its view, is the unjust taking of an innocent human life. There’s no question about where the Church stands. But has the Church ever said in an official pronouncement that abortion is “murder”?
I want to get very hypothetical here. Imagine if Majerus went to Baylor and said, “I don’t know what the big deal is against drinking and dancing.” Where would he be now?
I agree with the C, K, & A mindset here. Why no phone call? I thank anyone who personally confronts me. In truth, it has often led to great reconciliation and understanding.
“I want to get very hypothetical here. Imagine if Majerus went to Baylor and said, ‘I don’t know what the big deal is against drinking and dancing.’ Where would he be now?”
Possibly still on the bench, especially if there was a recent win versus Texas. The better hypothetical would be if Majerus had said that after having gone drinking and dancing with students.
What’s unfortunate is that Burke won’t be enjoying any sort of victory on this. His one-track mind has put the university in a no-win situation. His heavy-handedness continues to reinforce the Catholic-hierarchy-as-ogres mindset among fence-sitters on the abortion issue. He may be right, but he’s ceded compassion to the pro-choice side. And his supporters are cheering? So what; they’re just the 99.
David,
You ask if the Church has ever said that abortion is murder.
You answer your question with
“I am not trying to deny the Church has made it crystal clear that abortion is a grave moral offense and, in its view, is the unjust taking of an innocent human life”.
Is not “unjust taking of life” a clear definition of murder?
The debate among the Democratic candidates about who is more pro-abortion than the other seems to me as it were an echo from another period: who will build more camps?.
It seems to me that there are several assumptions in this discussion.
Does one know that Abp. Burke did not talk with the coach? Does one know that he did not talk with the president of the college? When the coach reported that his mother was worried that he would be excommunicated, he failed to recognize that she was right: he excommunicated himself.
Why all the complaints about event in another diocese? Have we not enough problems in our own dioceses?
For Todd, I ask what is a fence-sitter on abortion? Is this something like being half-pregnant?
Bob Nunz is correct with his comment about how we educate. The coach boasts of his Jesuit education which he believes allows him to have his own theology.
Chesterton noted the tendency to change the subject from the important to the trivial when it is the manner of rebuke which is criticized rather than the matter. In this he is in accord with Cardinal Newman in his sarcastic comment that “a gentleman is one who never offends”,
44 Then, the total action sports enthusiast can have satellite TV action sports package jordan heels, this package offers much more than 35 professionals and regional sports cheap high heelsaction approach, provided that the total includes many sports products from availability entire action of the lover a wide range of action sports, observe their mood or a special event to catch up with the game. For action sports fans will not get this package to provide appropriate treatment high heels for women, may also choose to confirm the Setanta Sports jordan heels for women action from around the world and European action sports, among them football is also called a
s calcium, but also other sporting activities including sports action is a component of the United States States.Then know, there are transactions, including calcium, along with a complete action within the film much more like about ESPN 30 college nike high heels throughout the country every 1 week of the game, 10 college football games on the movie line of ESPN game plan each week of total football season through the channels of the court.