Majerus vs the Arch Bishop of St. Louis

[BBC 08]

Found this article over on stltoday.com, http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/slu/story/8A3A84A2F45BAE60862573D8005B256B?OpenDocument

It's an interesting issue. I don't have a problem with the statements as a whole mainly because I agree with them but I agree with the Bishop on the fact that a major player in a Catholic University shouldn't say things that go against the core beliefs of the University.

Thought's?

[Drew's Crew]

Yeah I agree. If you teach or coach at a Catholic University, especially when you are a public figurehead. These statements are undermining the true focus and goals of the university.

[Fred Garvin]

Isn't Archbishop Burke the one who refused to give John Kerry the communion sacrament?

[PM Thor]

They answered the question in the article. Majerus wasn't appearing as a representative of the university, and so they are his own personal views. They don't have to be in line with one another to be employed at the school, otherwise they would only employ Catholics. No Muslims, Jewish, Hindu, none, because some of their views wouldn't coincide with the universitys'.

[XUglow]

Hello. He is the f'ing basketball coach. 1) What he thinks is no big deal. 2) Handle it with a phone call.

[Miller'sTale]

Seems odd that the Archbishop would get wound up over those comments when a story like this was published in Sports Illustrated last week...here are a few of the gems:

"Another player remembers Majerus calling him up to his hotel room on various occasions, and "he'd answer the door in his towel and I'd come in and the towel would fall off and it was like nothing had happened. He'd just be standing there buck naked. One year he had this lower-back injury, and he would have the trainer massage it with ultrasound. But instead of just lowering his pants a little bit, Majerus would pull his pants down to his ankles and sit in a chair and coach us. Sometimes he'd be like, 'Guys, bring it in, take a knee.' We'd come in, and we're just like, No way this is happening."

"Majerus kept telling Doleac that he needed to keep six inches between himself and his opponent in the post. When Doleac was caught shortly after leaning on his man, the coach erupted. " 'Jesus f------ Christ, Doleac! When a guy catches the ball in the post, you gap him six inches!' " Doleac recalls Majerus yelling. "Then he turns to the guys sitting on the baseline and says, 'Six f------ inches,' and he says, 'the size of the average white d---!' and pulls it out. That story spread like wildfire, but at the time it's not funny. At the time you're terrified."

[OX09]

The statement I find more disturbing is the statement about the whole of the University and their court case last year:

"Last year, St. Louis U. celebrated a legal victory that affirmed it is not controlled by the Catholic church or by its Catholic beliefs."

Yet, the University maintains the label as being "Jesuit". Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned, but the Jesuits take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Does obedience not include the beliefs of the Catholic Church: the beliefs of St. Ignatius, St. Louis de Montfort, St. Francis Xavier, and all other Jesuit saints?

The Jesuits have been excommunicated three times throughout their history. I recall Creighton (another Jesuit institution) ruffling the feathers of Omaha's Archbishop over the summer (also about pro-life issues). Are the Jesuits trying for four?

It seems the Jesuits are either being persecuted by the people they are converting or being prosecuted by the Church they represent.

[ATL Muskie]

the Jesuits take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.


DC Muskie, S.J.

[American X]

No matter how bad he might want Hillary to win, maybe Rick should have asked himself if such actions were a good idea. It dones not seem he has much of a mental filter.

[xeus]

"It's not possible to be a Catholic and hold those positions," Burke said. "When you take a position in a Catholic university, you don't have to embrace everything the Catholic church teaches. But you can't make statements which call into question the identity and mission of the Catholic church."

Well, he's right about that. Ex Corde Ecclesiae baby.

Burke is controversial not just for being very conservative, but for being outwardly and vocally conservative. He is the bishop who said Catholic politicians who support abortion should be denied Communion.

But - Glow is right - handle it with a phone call.

[LA Muskie]

First, a Catholic institution doesn't employ only Catholics, and those who are so employed do not have to accept a muzzle with their paycheck. Xavier, for example, employed a rabbi to teach a class on Judaism when I was there. Not a perfect analogy, but you get the point.

More importantly, what the hell is the Archbishop thinking? If people in the Archdiocese of St. Louis are looking to a college basketball coach on issues of religion and faith (and not just any coach, but Rick Majerus), methinks the Archbishop has far more significant issues to concern himself with, than the fact that Majerus is pro-choice.

[X-band '01]

This is the reason why coaches and athletes rarely put themselves out on the line to take a stand on social issues. I know it's a different issue, but I've heard from many media outlets that Tiger Woods needed to speak publicly about a) the lady from the Golf Channel who got suspended 2 weeks for her lynching comments and b)the GolfWeek magazine that posted a picture of a noose for no other reason than to put themselves into the public eye.

While I don't agree with Majerus's views, it does seem that he was speaking from his own heart and instincts. But in the case of a Tiger Woods, why would I want to make public my personal views when the media is looking to build up and tear down prominent athletes and coaches for their moral and political beliefs?

[xeus]

This is the reason why coaches and athletes rarely put themselves out on the line to take a stand on social issues. I know it's a different issue, but I've heard from many media outlets that Tiger Woods needed to speak publicly about a) the lady from the Golf Channel who got suspended 2 weeks for her lynching comments and b)the GolfWeek magazine that posted a picture of a noose for no other reason than to put themselves into the public eye.

While I don't agree with Majerus's views, it does seem that he was speaking from his own heart and instincts. But in the case of a Tiger Woods, why would I want to make public my personal views when the media is looking to build up and tear down prominent athletes and coaches for their moral and political beliefs?

Great post X-band.

Nike has coached their most valuable spokesperson very well. Tiger knows better than to let himself become a political football.

[D-West & PO-Z]

This Bishop seems to be somewhat of a headline grabber.

[xeus]

This Bishop seems to be somewhat of a headline grabber.

No question about that.

[Fred Garvin]

Great post X-band.

Nike has coached their most valuable spokesperson very well. Tiger knows better than to let himself become a political football.

It has nothing to do with Nike. Charles Barkley was a Nike guy and he was never muzzled. But you are right that Tiger won't allow himself to be used for political purposes.

The media wants to politicize athletes so they can advance the media agenda. Don't like Nike and their alleged sweatshop practices? Attack Michael Jordan. Don't like a war in Vietnam? Then mythologize a draft-dodging criminal who only opposed the war because he was frightened of the Nation of Islam(Ali).

[Lasser83]

I find the whole situation to be ugly. The bishop knows that SLU cannot take any action against Majerus. That would establish an insane precedence that would rock the university to its core. SLU cannot demand all of it's employees to be on board with all the doctrines of the Catholic church. Many employees are not catholic.

Yet, the bishop decided to go on with his rant to get his name in the tabloids.

its awful.

it divides the Catholic community in St. Louis. all for the purpose of a bishop who likes to see his name in the national press.

[XU Fan in DC]

Yeah I agree. If you teach or coach at a Catholic University, especially when you are a public figurehead. These statements are undermining the true focus and goals of the university.

Agree 100%.

[Lasser83]

"Yeah I agree. If you teach or coach at a Catholic University, especially when you are a public figurehead. These statements are undermining the true focus and goals of the university."

I don't know.

if the bishop wasn't so needy of press, this would be a non-issue. Unfortunately, now the national press reports a dramatic breach within the catholic community in St. Louis.

Let's not be naive. There are many pro choice professors and administrators at Xavier. I don't agree with their position.

But Xavier is a better place for having them. yes, that might sound like a contradiction to some people. But remember, professors and administrators are hard working employees who don't flaunt their pro choice beliefs to students.

[XU Fan in DC]

We're not talking about privately held beliefs - Majerus is a public figure who made his statements in a public forum. Are you saying Majerus can speak his mind, and the Archbishop can't? After all, who caused the original beach? It isn't Burke, and frankly, if he said nothing, he wouldn't be doing his job. Burke could have spoken to him privately and said later publicly that he talked to Majerus about his remarks, I guess.

However, it is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect Church officials to say nothing. Both Majerus and Burke have every right to speak their minds.

[Lasser83]

I don't want to sound anti-catholic.

To this day, I picture the Church as a family. And the bishop of St. Louis should be a father figure in this situation.

Meaning, he should speak to Majerus in private and disagree with his statement.

But to seek the national media in this situation....it's just an attempt to further his own character.

This is simply not a good thing for the Catholic family in St. Louis.

[X Communicator]

Archbishop Burke is a clown with a funny red hat. Burke played politics with John Kerry, plain and simple. If Burke had a real and consistent position on the pro-life issue, then why didn't he tell Giuliani the same thing? After all, Rudy considers himself a Catholic despite his remarriage(s) and his pro-choice position.

Majerus giving Jesuits a bad name? Don't think so. SJ is not only less doctrinnaire than any other religious order, it actually respects the notion of dissent more than any other group or order that claims itself to be Catholic.

Burke is an intolerant anachronism. The last book he read was the Baltimore Catechism, and that was in 1958. He gives humanity a bad name.

[OX09]

Burke played politics with John Kerry, plain and simple. If Burke had a real and consistent position on the pro-life issue, then why didn't he tell Giuliani the same thing?

Perhaps because Giuliani hasn't won the nomination (like Kerry), or yet garnered the attention of local news (like Majerus). Giuliani just hasn't become relevant yet to the archdiocese of St. Louis. I'm sure Burke would prove to be "real and consistent" if you asked him though.

[D-West & PO-Z]

For this bishop to say that SLU should discipline Majerus is way off base. SLU wouldnt dream of doing that, to any member of the faculty or staff at SLU. Now if Burke feels he really needs to speak out and say something publicly then dont demand or even recommend anything to SLU, but if he really needs to, call out Majerus as a Catholic. Ask Majerus if he considers himself Catholic, and tell him that he may want to rethink his views on the subject if he really believes himself Catholic. But to suggest SLU to do something is absurd. Burke probably has a bias against the Jesuits, and is upset he cannot control them.

[Muskie]

I agree SLU probably shouldn't discipline Majerus. But this whole concept that Majerus was there representing himself is kinda laughable. The guy is a public figure (a pretty well known one) as a basketball coach. He represents SLU whether he's in line at the grocery, or on the sidelines.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I agree SLU probably shouldn't discipline Majerus. But this whole concept that Majerus was there representing himself is kinda laughable. The guy is a public figure (a pretty well known one) as a basketball coach. He represents SLU whether he's in line at the grocery, or on the sidelines.

So when you read his opinions, you think to yourself, "Man SLU must be pro choice, and support stem cell research."?? Because thats what people who believe he is representing SLU would have to think.

[Muskie]

Personally, I don't. But there's a certain percentage of people who will. The situation may not be totally analogous but look at the Huggins DUI thing. How poorly did that reflect on UC?

All of these coaches, whether it's Sean Miller, Bob Knight, Huggins, Majerus, Tim Floyd, or Todd Lickliter are representatives of their employers all the time, it's the nature of the business. Most people don't separate the acts of Private Citizen Majerus from Coach Majerus.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Personally, I don't. But there's a certain percentage of people who will.

Those people are stupid. Plain and simple. But I guess in a world where the average person really isnt all that smart, its a possibility.

[Muskie]

So... Bob Huggins getting drunk and puking on the side of a police car didn't/wouldn't reflect poorly on his employer?

[xeus]

If anyone is interested, here is the text of Ex Corde Ecclesiae:

Ex COrde Ecclesiae (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-ecclesiae_en.html)

[Lamont Sanford]

If anyone is interested, here is the text of Ex Corde Ecclesiae:

Ex COrde Ecclesiae (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-ecclesiae_en.html)

xeus -

Shouldn't this be in the Crossroads Forum?

YAWN!

[Raoul Duke]

So... Bob Huggins getting drunk and puking on the side of a police car didn't/wouldn't reflect poorly on his employer?

Being a voice of dissent and being a drunk asshole are two different things.

[D-West & PO-Z]

nnnnnnnnnnn

[D-West & PO-Z]

So... Bob Huggins getting drunk and puking on the side of a police car didn't/wouldn't reflect poorly on his employer?

Muskie, it is completely different. Bob Huggins broke the law. He drove drunk. Majerus expressed an opinion of HIS. Not exactly a federal crime. As SLU has come out and said, Majerus was at an event on his own behalf speaking his own opinions. The only person that speaks for SLU is Fr. Biondi or someone who he appoints to speak for him.

Also someone who thinks that because Majerus is pro choice that SLU is pro choice is a moron. It doesnt reflect poorly on the school because Majerus holds these views. If anything it shows that the school employs people of different opinions and religions, and views, other than its own. That is a good thing. It DOES reflect badly on a school when you coach BREAKS THE LAW, like Huggins did.

[XUglow]

Being a voice of dissent and being a drunk asshole are two different things.

I think some of our posters disprove this statement.

[XU Fan in DC]

Muskie, it is completely different. Bob Huggins broke the law. He drove drunk. Majerus expressed an opinion of HIS. Not exactly a federal crime. As SLU has come out and said, Majerus was at an event on his own behalf speaking his own opinions. The only person that speaks for SLU is Fr. Biondi or someone who he appoints to speak for him.

Also someone who thinks that because Majerus is pro choice that SLU is pro choice is a moron. It doesnt reflect poorly on the school because Majerus holds these views. If anything it shows that the school employs people of different opinions and religions, and views, other than its own. That is a good thing. It DOES reflect badly on a school when you coach BREAKS THE LAW, like Huggins did.

I get the impression from many here that it's okay for Majerus, a Catholic public representative of a Catholic university, to dissent publicly, yet it's not okay for Archbishop Burke to assert the Church's position publicly in response. Think Majerus was invited to Hillary's event because he's a simple private citizen? Come on, people, he's a celebrity coach!

Majerus is entitled to hold his views and express them in a public forum, but it's unreasonable to expect they can or should go unanswered. As I said, Burke wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't point out that Majerus' publicly stated views are not consistent with a core Catholic teaching - abortion's not one you can leave off the cafeteria tray. FWIW none of the Jesuits I knew at Georgetown (I didn't know Drinan) said it was okay to be Catholic and be pro-choice, and that included Jesuits whose views were considered liberal on other subjects, including one who was active in antiwar protests for many years.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I get the impression from many here that it's okay for Majerus to dissent publicly, yet not okay for Archbishop Burke to assert the Church's position publicly in response. Is free speech only granted to one? Majerus is entitled to hold his views, but it's unreasonable to think they'll go unanswered. As I said, Burke wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't point out that Majerus' publicly stated views are not consistent with a core Catholic teaching - abortion's not one you can leave off the cafeteria tray. None of the Jesuits I knew at Georgetown (I didn't know Drinan) said it was okay to be Catholic and be pro-choice, and that included Jesuits whose views were considered liberal on other subjects, including one who was active in antiwar protests for many years.

I think he should be able to voice his opinion also, I have no problem with that. What I have the problem with, as I stated in an earlier post, was that he should not have demanded, or even suggested that SLU discipline Majerus for his comments. Majerus was not speaking for the University in any way shape or form. I said before if Burke felt the need and responsibility to speak out, it should have been directed toward Majerus as a Catholic, and have nothing to do with the University.

[X-band '01]

I'm not saying that the Archbishop isn't entitled to his views (although I'm not sure if everyone agrees with that) and that Majerus is. I'm just saying that I'm not going to base my religious views based on what a basketball coach says and does in public. My beliefs will stem from my education from preschool up until college, my experiences, and my morals (and lack thereof in some cases).

Then again, we were taught in HS that you can't really be a "cafeteria" Catholic in general, not just in terms of major issues like abortion.

[Muskie]

Muskie, it is completely different. Bob Huggins broke the law. He drove drunk. Majerus expressed an opinion of HIS. Not exactly a federal crime. As SLU has come out and said, Majerus was at an event on his own behalf speaking his own opinions. The only person that speaks for SLU is Fr. Biondi or someone who he appoints to speak for him.

Also someone who thinks that because Majerus is pro choice that SLU is pro choice is a moron. It doesnt reflect poorly on the school because Majerus holds these views. If anything it shows that the school employs people of different opinions and religions, and views, other than its own. That is a good thing. It DOES reflect badly on a school when you coach BREAKS THE LAW, like Huggins did.


All I'm saying is that Majerus was foolish to think that his anti-Catholic stance wouldn't draw criticism from people, especially in light of who employs him. That was irresponsible in my mind.

For those that think Majerus' affiliation with SLU had nothing to do with his appearance. Would Rick Majerus, private citizen, been interviewed by a St. Louis TV station at Hillary's fund raiser if he was just a regular joe? I doubt it. Rick should have known better.

[Muskie]

I think he should be able to voice his opinion also, I have no problem with that. What I have the problem with, as I stated in an earlier post, was that he should not have demanded, or even suggested that SLU discipline Majerus for his comments. Majerus was not speaking for the University in any way shape or form. I said before if Burke felt the need and responsibility to speak out, it should have been directed toward Majerus as a Catholic, and have nothing to do with the University.

If SLU decided to discipline Majerus, would you object?

[XU Fan in DC]

D-West, we agree on that with respect to Majerus as far as his being Catholic goes. It is up to SLU to decide what to do ultimately. What I objected to was the idea that Burke is somehow a bully, and Majerus a hero, for expressing strongly held positions publicly. That seems to be the way it's getting portrayed in the media and by some on here.

[XU Fan in DC]

I agree SLU probably shouldn't discipline Majerus. But this whole concept that Majerus was there representing himself is kinda laughable. The guy is a public figure (a pretty well known one) as a basketball coach. He represents SLU whether he's in line at the grocery, or on the sidelines.


All I'm saying is that Majerus was foolish to think that his anti-Catholic stance wouldn't draw criticism from people, especially in light of who employs him. That was irresponsible in my mind.

For those that think Majerus' affiliation with SLU had nothing to do with his appearance. Would Rick Majerus, private citizen, been interviewed by a St. Louis TV station at Hillary's fund raiser if he was just a regular joe? I doubt it. Rick should have known better.

Agree that he should have known better, or at least should not expect that his remarks weren't going to have consequences.

[Lasser83]

I still believe that the Bishop should speak to Majerus in private.

I guess there is an endgame in this whole debate:

DO WE HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT CATHOLIC SCHOOLS SHOULD NOT EMPLOY ANYONE WHO IS PRO-CHOICE.

I disagree with the statement above. The Catholic hierarchy should remain firm and encourage those associated with the Church to be Pro-Life.

BUT WE SHOULDN'T ABANDON (and that's what punishing and ex-communicating Majerus would lead to) CATHOLIC EMPLOYEES WHO ARE CURRENTLY PRO-CHOICE.

And lets face it, the St. Louis Bishop loves to see his name in the tabloids. AND THERE SOMETHING VERY UNCATHOLIC ABOUT THAT.

[DC Muskie]

This is a ridiculous subject. It's a ridiculous subject matter that the Catholic Church spends waaaay too much time harping about. At some point you grow tired of the grandstanding. And this is grandstanding at it's worst.

Rick Majerus is also divorced. I believe he was married in the church. He may or may not be capable of receiving communion. Why doesn't Burke object to SLU hiring a man who is divorced? Or may be taking communion improperly?

Why doesn't Burke bring this up? Because the Catholic Church is blindly obsessed with this single issue. It is the world leader in social services, but here in America, you are defined as "Catholic" on whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. And half the people in the debate can't physically participate in the actual act.

I don't understand why someone asked Majerus his thoughts on the subject. Not sure why he answered. But I am sure about why Burke responded.

And the whole thing is ridiculous.

[XU Fan in DC]

This is a ridiculous subject. It's a ridiculous subject matter that the Catholic Church spends waaaay too much time harping about. At some point you grow tired of the grandstanding. And this is grandstanding at it's worst.

Rick Majerus is also divorced. I believe he was married in the church. He may or may not be capable of receiving communion. Why doesn't Burke object to SLU hiring a man who is divorced? Or may be taking communion improperly?

Why doesn't Burke bring this up? Because the Catholic Church is blindly obsessed with this single issue. It is the world leader in social services, but here in America, you are defined as "Catholic" on whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. And half the people in the debate can't physically participate in the actual act.

I don't understand why someone asked Majerus his thoughts on the subject. Not sure why he answered. But I am sure about why Burke responded.

And the whole thing is ridiculous.]

Majerus isn't grandstanding when he poses for his photo ops with Hillary, but Burke somehow is? Gotta love how the double standard on the issue of abortion persists when it comes to public debate.

And what a logical assertion about not being able to participate physically - I am not sure if you mean priests or men in general not having babies, but if it's the latter, that viewpoint relieves men of all responsibility toward their children, since they have no say in the matter of whether they are born. That's the logical conclusion of your comment.

Never mind, too, that every one of us is the product of a sexual act, but men (or just those who are priests) can't have opinions on the subject of procreation and how our fates are decided in the womb? Unreal, DC - just unreal.

I don't see how Christianity gets more basic than the subject of human life itself, but whatever. Yeah, I know; global warming and immigration reform are far more important. Never mind worrying about how (or whether) we all get here in the first place.

[DC Muskie]

Rick Majerus was supporting the person he would like to be president. He was grandstanding. That was his objective.

Burke on the other hand wanted to discipline someone he felt was in disregard of the Catholic Church and do it publicly. He was most definitely grandstanding. That's what the church does on this subject. It elevates it above all others, it is the litmus test. Never mind the thousands of other important dogma, abortion is numero uno. Sometimes I think we should be called, The Roman Catholic Anti Abortion Church.

When I was at Loyola, Rudy spoke at the graduation. People flipped. Keeler announced he wasn't coming. Why? Because Rudy is pro-choice. He's also for guns, is divorced, hasn't been to mass in how long, and probably pines for other men's wives. None that mattered though. It was a stance on a position he had no control over, no influence over, nothing. Loyola's graduation that year was about abortion. That's what drives me nuts.

My viewpoint doesn't relive men of the responsibility of the children. That's a conclusion you pulled out of right field. Men can't stop women from aborting babies. Men can't force women into aborting babies. Men are perfectly capable of having opinions and influence the lawfulness of the act, but that's pretty much it.

The Church could do a million things better on changing the attitudes towards this issue. But rather then doing something worthwhile, it's leaders rail at every opportunity it can towards people who in the end don't shape legislation.

Good job Burke! You saved another life!

[XU Fan in DC]

Fathers have every right to weigh in on a decision that involves them - it's their child, too, DC, and its nine-month residence in the mom's womb doesn't change that fact. My view is that women can't cut men out of the decision and then expect men to provide financial support if they have the baby - it's a contradictory position. You can't have it both ways.

Elected officials don't influence legislation? WTF? Rudy and Rick are entitled to their opinions, and Burke and Keeler are entitled to call them out for it. By being pro-choice, you're essentially saying it's all right for someone else to take a human life if so choose. The reason the Church stresses it is that all of our other rights stem from our right to life. I'm sorry that you can't see that - even the US Constitution acknowledges our right to life as our first one (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). It is that basic.

What really is wrong with the Catholic Church being the Anti-Abortion Church? Are you upset when church leaders speak out against the Iraq war or capital punishment, or in favor of humane policies toward illegal immigrants? If not, why the double standard? I don't know whether this applies to you, but I get the feeling that the more liberal out there are mortified by the Church's strong views on abortion, but have no problem with the Church taking a strongly help position on the left side of the political equation. Again, you can't have it both ways.

Finally, I'm sorry about what happened at Loyola, but they should never have invited Rudy in the first place, imo - he's an embarrassment on many counts, including the ones you mention. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

PS The Church and prolife groups in general do a lot to shape hearts and minds, as well as help women and their babies. I encourage you to check out Feminists for Life and The Northwest Center in DC, which helps women with crisis pregnancies and runs a maternity home; they've worked over 30,000 area women since its founding in 1983. It was started by a bunch of Georgetown students (including yours truly), many of whom would describe themselves as Republican. Don't be sucked in by NARAL bs on this subject about prolifers not caring about women. It's flat-out untrue.

Thanks for the good exchange, as always. GO MUSKIES!

[DC Muskie]

I'm not sure where I said elected officials can't influence legislation. When Rudy spoke at Loyola he did it as a private citizen to a school that was heavily populated by kids from New York who experienced 9/11 their first week away from home. To me, having Rudy speak about making it through tough times was a good call. I didn't appreciate that others turned it into something that it wasn't. I'm sorry, he wasn't talking about gaining votes from people, he was there to give a speech on those kids most important day.

Plenty of people voice their opinions that are contradictory to the Church. However none of those are actually brought up. That's my issue. The Church ONLY makes a statement when a basketball coach, a freaking basketball coach says in an interview that he is pro-choice. Why he was asked, I'll never know. Why he answered I'll never know. Why Burke felt a need to respond publicly, simple, he needs to respond to a divorced Catholic on his views. Makes PERFECT sense. I'm sure thousands of women in St. Louis were unsure about going through it, now can knowing that Rick Majerus is on their side.

Church leaders need to do as much work in these other areas as they do in the abortion debate. Where is Church on these issues and why are they not calling out people on a regular basis. I don't see it. I certainly wouldn't begrudge the Church for being adamant about a lot of these issues. I think they shoot their mouths off a little too much when it comes to abortion. Basically they need a better strategy then "Public response due to this person's view on this one issue."

I'm not sucked in NARAL or Planned Parenthood or any of these organizations. I simply believe that the Church needs to do a little more in the PR stance then what Burke and Keeler have done, and sending high school kids down to the Supreme Court on the anniversary of Roe V. Wade.

[Kahns Krazy]

Interesting debate.

I think some people are confusing "beliefs" and "outspokenness". Rick is certainly entitled to believe whatever he wants. Once he takes his beliefs public, though, it's a whole different story.

It's an overly simplified example, but they didn't fire this guy for drinking a coke, they fired him for where he drank it:

http://www.guy-sports.com/fun_pictures/coke_pepsi.jpg