Jesuit, sì; Catholic, not so sure (source: David O’Brien, who coined the phrase many years ago)

I begin by thanking Rick and Michael P. for their postings on the matter Majerus at Saint Louis University. I am inclined, not because of how I feel but because of who I am—a Catholic and a Jesuit (I hold that the latter must embrace and fall within the former identity)—to say that Coach Majerus has ventured into a realm where he should not have gone. I defer to the great wisdom of Ed Peters [HERE] who is both a civil lawyer and a canonist on the pertinent legal issues raised in this matter and has intelligently commented on the controversy involving Coach Majerus.

While being an admirer of the game of basketball, a coach I am not. I cannot critique Coach Majerus for things he has said and done on the basketball court in his capacity as a basketball expert. He has the authority to direct his team, but this does not mean he is beyond authority even on the basketball court. When he or a member of his team does something improper, the appropriate authority, i.e., the referee, can call a foul. And when it comes to matters of faith and Coach Majerus’s beliefs regarding the Catholic faith, he can also be held accountable by those who have the authority to judge such matters. In this latter context, Archbishop Burke possesses the proper authority to rule on matters of faith that emerge within his proper jurisdiction where someone has committed a foul. While I appreciate the coach’s assertion that he was educated by Jesuits, that does not mean he is above reproach on matters theological. In the past, a number of famous persons who led people astray were educated in schools where members of the Society of Jesus taught. That does not mean that former-students-now-famous-persons are beyond reproach on questions of faith regardless of the pedigree of their education.

Michael was kind enough to link a post to Professor Howard Wasserman’s views on this matter concerning Coach Majerus. I dutifully read all of Professor Wasserman’s careful thoughts along with the web log comments responding to what he had to say. I think Professor W. does not appreciate or understand some major issues regarding the Catholic faith in spite of his being a visiting professor this year at Saint Louis University, and, I am sorry to say, I guess Michael doesn’t either since he expressed his concurrence with the good Professor W.

Having said that, I am of the view that Professor Wasserman has explained his view in a helpful way so that I can take stock of his perspective even though I consider that it is wrong. But I cannot say the same of one commenter to the Wasserman posting who has this to say:

This post regards the hypocrisy of the Church, and specifically Burke; so, this is your heads up (to quell the pending psuedo[sic]-religious debate): Burke has no right. No. [sic] Right. The Court found that SLU does not control the school so Burke should keep his Kerry-hating lid trapped. Yes, you have the right to spew your hate (as does anyone) but no right to influence it’s President to fire the Fat Man. The Catholic Church has an unrivaled history of murder, bigotry, hate, expulsions, crusades, massacres, forced conversion and pogroms—many say which continue to this day. How quick we are to forget, Rev. Anyone rememebr [sic] the Second Vatican? [sic] The Society of St. Pius X? Hypocrites should shut the hell up.

This quotation is a direct one. I have not changed or corrected anything in it, although I have noted some mistakes in its expression. I hasten to add that these are not the views of Professor Wasserman since he expressed his position in a different manner. Sadly, the author of this response has little or no understanding of the Catholic faith or the proper role of a bishop in matters of faith. But, this view is out in the blogosphere taking its toll and making its impact on those who can be impressed by this kind of rhetoric. This posting reveals a kind of sentiment that one encounters more and more today: if you don’t agree with me, you hate me! Nothing could be farther from the truth when it comes to what Archbishop Burke has said and may do regarding Coach Majerus. Still, the author of this commentary holds a radical and erroneous view that the Church (our Church, to borrow from earlier postings) cannot correct those whose views depart from the faith and its vital, essential teachings. And this is what Coach Majerus has done: his views on important issues (such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research) depart from the teachings of the Church to which he claims membership. It therefore becomes the responsibility of the principal teacher, i.e., the local ordinary—Archbishop Burke, to correct those whom he has been ordained to teach and to lead when they fall into error. Coach Majerus has the responsibility to lead his team on the basketball court and to steer his charges away from making mistakes involving the game of basketball. When they do make mistakes, he has the duty and the authority of their coach to correct the mistakes made by members of the basketball team. In a parallel fashion, Archbishop Burke has his duty to lead the faithful and those who claim that they belong to the faith, and if Coach Majerus has different views on these matters which differ from those of the Church, he has committed a foul to which Archbishop Burke is the referee who has the corresponding obligation to take corrective action.    RJA sj