|
the Stem Cell Page time and ignorance are the enemies |
|
A prayer for the Archbishop |
|
May 7, 2007
Not being Catholic, I am not well versed in the politics of the local archdiocese. Being an embryonic stem cell advocate from Missouri, however, I am fairly well versed in the politics of this research. In recent days the two collided in my neck of the woods, but this is nothing novel. In St. Louis, there were back to back incidents that had no direct link to the embryonic stem cell issue. That is, until Archbishop Raymond Burke had his say.
Burke has long been using his position to battle the new medical frontier of embryonic stem cell research on the basis of the church’s religious objections. But if there was ever an example of the origin of the phrase “bully pulpit,” it was provided by Burke.
Entertainer Sheryl Crow was tapped to headline an annual fundraiser for the Bob Costas Cancer Center at Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital. Actually, Ms. Crow was supposed to headline last year’s fundraiser, but had to cancel due a “scheduling conflict.” The conflict was that Crow herself had become a cancer victim and had to turn her attention to becoming a cancer survivor. Nobody thought the less of her and all wished her a full and speedy recovery.
Of course, cancer patients often read and learn everything they can about their disease. Many, if not most, learn how embryonic stem cell research may be the key process to identifying the origins of the disease, perhaps the first step toward finding a cure. Crow was no exception. She became an outspoken advocate. Here in Missouri, Crow’s home state, that translates into becoming an archenemy of the archbishop.
The archbishop served on the board of the hospital’s foundation. When he learned that Crow was to be the event’s headliner, he requested that she be “uninvited” from performing. When the request was refused, the archbishop resigned his post on the board and went to the press, where he described Crow’s fund-raising appearance as "an affront to the identity and mission of the medical center, dedicated as it is to the service of life and Christ's healing mission." Bully pulpit indeed.
There was also an announcement that though in previous years the archdiocese scheduled special collection drives for the Costas Cancer Center (raising about $3 million annually), such activity would cease. Later, a spokesperson amended that announcement. It was true that with his resignation Burke was slamming the door to the Costas Cancer Center on his way out, but henceforth the funds raised would go straight to the hospital. So officially, Catholics would support the hospital, just not its efforts to cure kids with cancer - and all because Sheryl Crow, a cancer survivor herself, had volunteered to help.
As I mentioned I’m not a Catholic, but I did want to know what Catholics thought about all this. I asked a few of my Catholic friends. Of the dozen or so I spoke to, one talked about having to respect a man who maintains his convictions. The remainder expressed disappointment, shame and even outrage. The opinion I found most profound was expressed by a young man, who told me, “What a chance he missed to reach out to those he disagreed with. He was surrounded by opportunity for common ground and chose to divisively walk away. And who suffers as the result of his choice? Children with cancer. That’s not how I view God’s work or Christ’s teachings. That’s not what’s meant by ‘Suffer little children…’”
The archbishop’s actions focused the attention of the community and the press on the event. The St. Louis Post Dispatch reported:
Archbishop Raymond Burke made it to the Fox Theatre Saturday — but only as a punch line.
"Sheryl Crow made it clear that she is coming here for three reasons," Costas told the crowd. The singer wanted to help children, put on a good show and, Costas said, "get me ex-communicated."
Reading the newspaper account reminded me of Matthew Harrison Brady, the prosecutor in the play Inherit the Wind; so predisposed to stopping scientific teaching in the name of God that, once exposed, he was reduced to a pitiful character. In the play, Brady’s preaching from the bully pulpit was halted by his death. The archbishop, however, continues his.
In the second of the incidents, St. Joseph’s Academy, a parochial high school for girls, the graduating class requested that a special speaker be invited to make the commencement address. The requested speaker was both a public figure and the mom of one of the graduates, Senator Claire McCaskill. School officials welcomed the suggestion and extended the invitation. Naturally, the Senator readily agreed.
Then it was leaked that the heavy hand of Archbishop Raymond Burke once again intervened. As he had attempted to treat Sheryl Crow, the archbishop wanted no part of a supporter of embryonic stem cell research, regardless of the circumstances and in this case he had more control. This time the Senator was indeed uninvited and, once again, the stated reason included her support of embryonic stem cell research. And again, who would suffer? The senator’s daughter, Maddie.
Once more, the Post Dispatch carried the story:
McCaskill had been chosen to speak at the graduation this month at St. Joseph's Academy in Frontenac.
Sue Brown, a spokeswoman for the Catholic Education Office of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, said the education office had recommended to the president of St. Joseph's Academy that McCaskill not be permitted to speak because McCaskill's positions are contradictory to church teaching.
McCaskill's spokeswoman, Adrianne Marsh, said that St. Joseph's officials had made the initial invitation after the students had requested the senator. Officials then called McCaskill to say that they were rescinding it. Marsh said McCaskill's people were told Burke made the decision.
The disinvitation of McCaskill comes less than a week after Burke resigned from the board of the Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center Foundation because singer Sheryl Crow — an outspoken supporter of embryonic stem cell research — was scheduled to headline the annual fundraiser and concert.
In a separate article the Post reported:
St. Joseph’s president, Sr. Michaela Zahner, said she was told by the archdiocese’s education office that by inviting McCaskill to speak she was violating archdiocesan policy and was “strongly urged to reconsider.” Zahner said she’d “rather not” repeat what she was told would happen if she refused the archdiocese’s request.
I wonder how the Archbishop would react if the situation were reversed. What if he’d been invited to participate in a forum or speak - on a topic unrelated to embryonic stem cell research - at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Stanford or Washington University, and was then uninvited because his ESCR position was the opposite of that institution’s? Would he decry their poor manners?
I wonder if he would refuse to minister to Catholic patients in hospitals that support embryonic stem cell research. I wonder if he would he refuse to minister to any dying Catholic that supports ESCR. Where exactly does Burke draw the line?
As a non-Catholic, I wonder what happens when kids with cancer or their parents learn that the archdiocese pulled its resources from the Bob Costas Cancer Center. I wonder what message the church sends to young women when a mom is barred from addressing her daughter’s graduation class.
I’ve drawn my own conclusion and central to it is this: At neither the cancer center fund-raiser nor the high school graduation exercises was embryonic stem cell research an issue. It wouldn’t have received a mention.
Allow me to suggest we all pray for the archbishop - to come to his senses.
- Jeff Eisen
—— To be notified by email of new editorials, CLICK HERE —— |
|
To contact us: Click Here |