Burke’s Agent of Death

It’s hard to know where to start in this embarassing escapade. Randall Terry, office renter, captures Archbishop Burke on camera, supposedly to reinforce morale for the troops. And the video ends up at a press conference. This would be one prime example of how the political pro-lifers have gone way off the deep end. So what happened here? Did Mr Terry realize he had a gem on his hands so he used it, breaking a promise? Did he give no promise and Archbishop Burke just reconsidered when his video visage popped up at the National Press Club?

The politicians on the pro-life side have shown that any means are justified if the end is just. Throw out promises, and in comes mistrust, lies, fraud, and what-have-you.

Yes, I’m sure as a tenant Randall Terry is a fine guy: comes up with his deposit, pays his bills on time, keeps the noise level down for the neighbors, and is a charming and sweet guy to have a beer or a coffee with. But if he wants to take your picture, be careful because you won’t know where it might end up.

On the other hand, we have an archbishop who has been very easily used by a politician. Used to the point of having to make an embarrassing apology attempt to fellow bishops. He really should apologize to the president, but if he did that it would set the movement back decades, no doubt.

Would you trust either of these gentlemen? Would you?

Here’s the apology:

I am deeply sorry for the confusion and hurt which the wrong use of the videotape has caused to anyone, particularly, to my brother bishops.

Someone on the NCR page nailed it:

I’m sorry. I was only offering my criticisms behind your backs.

With friends like this in the pro-life movement, who needs an agent of death?


About catholicsensibility

Todd lives in the Pacific Northwest, serving a Catholic parish as a lay minister.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Burke’s Agent of Death

  1. Fran says:

    My thought was this – what on earth was Burke thinking when he did this in the first place.

    This is so sad at every level.

  2. JC says:

    Backtracking on the “brother bishops” part is sad.

    After the outright heretics like Mahony and Gregory, Loverde is one of the worst bishops in this country. He single handedly destroyed the work that Bishops Welsh and Keating did to make the diocese of Arlington what it used to be. He opened up face-to-face confessionals,permitted lay reception of the Precious Blood; forbade kneelers, fired Fr. Gould as vocations director because Fr. Gould refused to admit an active homosexual to the seminary, refused to take canonical action against Fr. Verecchia (now a practicing Episcopal “priest”) for his acts of adultery and scandal, yet persecutes outspokenly orthodox priests.
    Oh, yes, and if you’re a liberal politician who supports abortion, you won’t be denied communion in Arlington Diocese. But if you’re a conservative who kneels to receive Communion, you will be denied Communion.

    That Mahony hasn’t been defrocked and handed over to the civil authorities–per Pope St. Pius V’s instruction on dealing with gay priests–is one of the worst scandals in the Church today.

    Wuerl supports, among other things, the use of vaccines derived from fetal tissue research.

  3. Todd says:

    Readers here know I’m no fan of Cardinal Mahony, but to be a heretic, one has to be found guilty by an official and traditional Church process of canon law. Otherwise, the use of “heretic” as a descriptor is just name-calling, like stupidhead or poopypants.

    That bishops don’t call out brother bishops and haul them off to ecclesiastical court is a witness to another value we hold dear: unity.

  4. Jimmy Mac says:


    Pius V (1566-1572)’s instructions on dealing with “gay priests?” The concept of gay per se was unknown in the 16th century.

    What is the specific source (chapter and verse, please) for your statement?

  5. Jimmy Mac says:

    JC: what is the meaning of your silence to my question above?

  6. Jimmy Mac writes : “Pius V (1566-1572)’s instructions on dealing with “gay priests?” The concept of gay per se was unknown in the 16th century.”

    What?? Well certainly homosexuality wasn’t considered a synonym for joyful celebration, but the unnatural act was known well enough.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s