I think Archbishop Burke is well-intentioned and from what I can see, a man of principle. He also strikes me as tenacious, if not stubborn. And I think this is where he gets into trouble. We saw it in the case of the excommunication of the laity of St Stanislaus Church in St Louis. I think the pattern repeats itself with his recent tussle with Crow through the Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center.

To begin with, I am an Archbishop Burke partisan, in fact I coordinate the Defenders of Archbishop Burke, a lay group of 400+ Catholics here in St. Louis.

The article "Another Stumble For The Pro-Life Cause" makes many points that I would like to address. As a St. Louisan who has witnessed closely the actions of Archbishop Burke and come to know him I would like to offer a perspective that those outside this archdiocese may not have.

I will take the article point-by-point.

The title, "Another Stumble For the Pro-Life Cause" misses the point. Although this controversy will affect the Pro-life cause and other causes to some degree it is not about the Pro-Life cause. It is about a bishop of the Church administering his diocese responsibly on a matter that will, as do all decisions by leaders, affect many causes. Archbishop Burke did not take action in order to help the Pro-Life cause. This was not part of the decision. He took action because he is a shepherd responsible to God for the souls of those entrusted to him. He is acutely aware of this to a degree that perhaps no other bishop is. His sole motivation in the Cardinal Glennon matter was to prevent scandal, the scandal that inevitably comes when a public dissenter is invited to headline a Catholic event.

this was a pretty stupid move…it clearly backfired

. Oh, really? Whether or not this was a stupid move will only become clear over time. As a person who has been publicly involved in both the St. Stanislaus controversy and the Sheryl Crow controversy I assure you that although the archbishop was roundly condemned and had few defenders in the first crisis the landscape has changed dramatically now. I have received many emails from all over the world in the last two days pouring out praise and thanks on Archbishop Burke. Scotland, Argentina, the Phillipines, Australia etc, the list goes on and on. Here are some sample comments:

• "I am not a Catholic…I only wish there was a bishop like you in my city"
• "I applaud your stand and I write this all the way from Australia"
• "Thank you very much for being a shining example and standing for TRUTH!"
• "I am a Zimbabwean expat living in the Philippines, and just want to let Bishop Burke know that we thank and Bless him even over here."
• "it sure is good to ears to hear from you and may God bless you."
• "I do pray daily for the Church and the Shepherds in these turbulent times and from now on , I WILL DO IT SPECIALLY FOR YOU "(from Argentina)
• "You're a hero to me and to everyone that is faithful to Christ and His Church.

The media here in St. Louis reports that public comments are split 50/50. The archdiocese gets five positive responses for every negative. Stupid? Isn’t it a little premature, pompous and uninformed to call the actions of His Excellency "stupid"? I detect the strong scent of conventional wisdom here. To understand this man you must observe not pontificate.

This kind of ham-fisted intervention just creates sympathy for Crow.

And what is wrong with creating sympathy for Sheryl Crow? As he stated repeatedly, the archbishop acted to avert scandal. How it benefited or hurt Sheryl Crow was not part of the decision. When a holy and responsible person like Archbishop Burke makes a decision based on principle it does not matter how the decision may help someone on the "other side", because to him, nobody is on the other side. Remember "Love Your Enemy"? This is not a political calculation for him, although it may be for you.

My main problem, though, is the inconsistency…the inconsistent approach of the hierarchy.

Do you really expect an individual bishop to be limited by the consensus of a bishop’s conference? Isn't it much more important for a bishop to fulfill his duties as delineated by Canon Law than to suppress his knowledge of his clear responsibility simply because the some bishops are too cowardly to fulfill their duties? Given this standard no bishop could ever say anything on any matter of substance. Isn't it much more important for an individual bishop to be consistent in word and action than for a group of individuals to be consistent (as if any group of people can be consistent - this is simply pie-in-the-sky nonsense) This opinion also betrays a misunderstanding of the canonical status of bishops conferences. Pssst: they may not survive the papacy of Benedict XVI. They have no authority in Church history.

we have criticism of a public figure…based on opposition to selective moral principles, in this case, abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.

What exactly is a "selective moral principle"? Is it different than a moral principle? Are moral principles less valid when they stand alone? Must they be in a group (like the bishops in a bishops conference) to be more true? This is nonsense. A single moral principle, if it is true, does not lose its veracity by being selected. We seem to have discomfort with individuality and specificity here. Bishops and morals must act in concert or they don't count. Hmmm... That's a good way to render the hierarchy totally impotent.

He also strikes me as tenacious, if not stubborn…this is where he gets into trouble

Would you be more comfortable with a weak, vascilating bishop? Actually, those who know Archbishop Burke know that he is anything but stubborn. He is superbly formed in his duty and has the courage to act. He feels just as passionately about abolishing capital punishment and restrictive immigration laws as he does about outlawing embryonic stem cell research. This man walks the walk. Most bishops are self-deformed in their duties and lack the courage to act. He stands out by virtue of his excellence. His actions really have nothing to do with tenacity although, if I remember rightly tenacity is a virtue, part of fortitude, one of the Cardinal Virtues. Again, would you prefer a bishop who is willing to "get into trouble" for the sake of truth, or a man who won't take a step unless he can please every constituent in his diocese? Those kinds make me ill.

We should realize by now that withdrawing an invitation to a specific person is covered not as an issue of principle, but as a one-on-one confrontation.

I assume that by "is covered" you are referring to the media. Do you realize that you are suggesting that a bishop should be governed by the level of ignorance of the media? And that in a matter involving the eternal destiny of thousands of souls he should first ask himself "What will the Times think?" Just wondering.

The previous bishop didn’t resort to excommunication. And other bishops with problems don’t excommunicate. But Burke did. Can we completely rule out that it didn’t get personal for him? Given his track record, I think not.

So... other bishops don't excommunicate. Does this automatically indicate that Archbishop Burke is therefore in the wrong? Does might make right? Is the majority position the moral position? Either Archbishop Burke did the right thing or he didn't. And either these other bishops did the right thing or they didn't. On certain matters these things are spelled out in canon law. I submit to you that most bishops are too cowardly to implement the obvious directives of canon law, and that Archbishop Burke is not. This is why he stands out. When dealing with human beings we cannot "rule out" the intrusion of personal feelings in any of us. But ask anyone who personally knows Archbishop Burke. They will tell you that he is the calmest, gentlest, kindest, most serene man they have ever known. Of all men I have ever known he is the least likely to let personal considerations influence him. If he were not, why would he take action that brings the condemnation of the world down around him? Do you think he is a masochist? I suggest that it is "personal feelings" that make weaker bishops walk on egg shells. They cannot stand the heat. In Archbishop Burke we have a profile in courage, not "personal feelings". Some people are just too cynical to see it.

Burke picked a bad setting for his protest. A children’s hospital? One named after a cardinal?

So, he should ignore the welfare of his flock merely because of the "setting", even though the "setting" was actually a fundraiser for the hospital and was conducted by a group separate from the hospital? And he should dishonor the legacy of Cardinal John Glennon by being disobedient to his responsibilities as a bishop? This gets weirder and weirder.

I think they’ve lost another battle by hauling out that old war plan that has cost them so much in the past. "Let's make a principled stand in the public eye that makes us look like jerks."

How about the truth "Let's make a principled stand even though it will be misunderstood by some people who don’t like us and the Church anyway"

public opinion will begin regarding it more as an exercise in one’s personality flaws rather than a stand forged in sacrifice and principle.

This is sad. Do you realize that you are suggesting that a bishop of the Catholic Church, a successor of the apostles, a shepherd of the very Body of Christ should forsake principle because "public opinion" will misconceive it? Is this how the Church of the martyrs became the most enduring and transforming force in the history of the world? By courting public opinion? For your information we make public opinion, we don't follow it. The Catholic Church is led by the Lord of History. We don't follow anybody but Him.

You haven't heard the last of Archbishop Burke. He is not going to change. And you will see his influence transform both the American Church and American society in the years to come. He is not going to change, but he's changing everything around him. Stand back and be amazed.