Rick Majerus, the Catholic Church and Free Speech

Earlier this week Rick Majerus, the coach of the St. Louis Billikens men’s basketball team was asked by a reporter his views on abortion. Majerus said that he was pro-choice but indicated that it was/is a decision more for women than men and that it was very personal and that a lot of people could have a genuine disagreement of conscience over the subject.

The next thing you know, Raymond Burke, Archbishop of St. Louis, was calling Majerus on the carpet for expressing his opinions while he works for a Catholic university. According to Burke “It's not possible to be a Catholic and hold those positions. 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."
OK, first, the Archbishop cannot make this argument. It violates Majerus’ rights to free speech. I know you’re thinking that Majerus is an employee of a private school and they can put any kind of muzzle on him they want. The problem with this is that SLU just got a big dose of public financing for a new basketball place and they got that money by, essentially, arguing that they served the public of St. Louis and were a public facility/utility that warranted public funding. Now, I am not sure I agree with that reasoning, but the fact of the matter is that the Archbishop cannot have it both ways: He cannot say that SLU needs public money and then try to muzzle free speech. If you want public money, you have to live with the public responsibilities. That means that Coach Majerus gets to say what he wants.

But more important to me is how the fuck did Majerus public statements about being pro-choice call into question the identity and mission of the Catholic Church? Now, I am a Catholic although you could say I have lapsed quite a bit and you would be correct. But I do not recall EVER hearing that the “identity and mission” of the Church was being anti-abortion. True, the official position of the Church is to be anti-choice on the subject of abortion and a lot has been said and written by at least the last two Popes about the subject of abortion, but I always thought that the “identity” of the Church was “Christian,” not Anti-Abortion.” And, similarly, I had always thought that the “mission” of the Church was to bring people, souls more precisely, closer to God through his son, Jesus Christ by teaching the Gospel of Christ. And, while I am a bad Catholic, I do not recall Jesus ever saying a word about abortion.

So, to be blunt, according to Burke, the Catholic Church has gone from being a body in Christ whose message is to spread the gospel to being an anti-abortion group whose reason for existence is to stop abortion. That is not the church I signed up for.
I am sure someone out there will say that maybe Jesus didn’t talk about abortion but he sure did talk about how killing people is wrong. True enough. But why is it that Burke has never said anything like this about people who are in favor of the death penalty? I know that Majerus never said anything about the death penalty, but there are plenty of people in Missouri (their governor, Matt Blunt for one, former Senator Jim Talent, a Catholic, I believe, for another) who are against abortion but in favor of capital punishment and have stated their opinions thusly, but the Archbishop has never scolded them in public. And what about pro-choice Catholics like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger; why hasn’t the Archbishop talked about them?
I know that this has ranged a bit far afield but Burke really needs to take a step back and decide if he feels comfortable trying to muzzle public opinion, even if that opinion is of employees of Catholic universities in his bishopric. The First Amendment protects not only Majerus’ right to say what he wants, it protects Burke and his flock’s right to practice whatever religion they want. He should be careful about weakening that Amendment lest it weaken him in the long run.

Spike

Roger Clemens is Guilty. I Think.

Poor, poor Roger Clemens. He gets named by his former trainer and is implicated in the streoid probe that George Mitchell has ben conducting. Now, after the report is out and he has been named as a drug cheat, he goes on the offensive and bitches on 60 Minutes about how this used to be America and you used to be innocent until proven guilty but he just doesn't get that smae respect anymore. This coming from one of the biggest bullies and pains in the ass ever to play the game of baseball.

Don't get me wrong: Clemens was a brilliant pitcher, maybe the best I have personally ever seen and certainly he has the best and longest career of anyone in my lifetime. I will be 42 years old next month. Still, Clemens is a whiny-ass crybaby who should shut his punk ass up. This is the same guy who threw a hunk of broken bat at a runner and who made intimidation-as-pitching an art form.

But more importantly, this is the same guy who chose not to speak with George Mitchell when he was doing his investigation in the first place. he had every opportunity to tell his side of the story, to try and spin it if he had wanted to. Clemens could have taken a cue from politicians and gone out and gotten on message if he had wanted to. He just figured he didn't need to.

And boo-fucking-hoo about his condemnation prior to his conviction. First of all, Roger, that applies to criminal cases and this most certainly is NOT one of those. Yes, I suppose technically you run the risk of true legal jeopardy, but you aren't going to be charged in a criminal case and we all know that. You do have the right to be innocent until proven guilty, just as I have the right to have whatever fucking opinion about you I want to have. You don't go to jail based on what I think but you don't get to stop me from thinking whatever I want, you cheating piece of shit.

And do you know who created this problem in the first place? Drug-cheat athletes and their enabling union, that's who. if you don't want to be pilloried by the public then you should have met with Mitchell. It was your right not to do so but you cannot have it both ways. You can't complain about this perception of you when this is the perception you helped create.

And that goes for all of you cheating jocks out there. Shawne Merriman, I don't care if you served your suspension or not; you're a cheating piece of shit too. I don't care if you took some "dietary supplement" and that is what made you test positive because you are responsible for what goes into your body. Barry Bonds, I've got my eye on you, you drug-tainted cheat.

Look, if a player wants to not talk with a special investogator about his past drug use, that is his right. And I won't quarrel with the guys who chose not to help an investigation unless they refuse to help but them start complaining about how they weren't accurately represented or portrayed in all of this. You want my sympathy? Get out from behind your lawyer and start answering questions honestly. America is a very forgiving place if you ask for forgiveness and admit to being wrong. But these jocks have been in a culture that gives them everything and demands nothing for so long that they have no idea how to actually admit they were wrong. Even Michael Vick denied all the dogfighting stuff untill he was good and caught.

And this reminds me of Mark McGwire, another drug-cheat. Mark, I hope you nevermake it into the Hall of Fame. I was entrhalled that summer you set the record and I never thought you were a cheater. But I think so now. That Congressional testimony was so awesome that it shoudl doom you to chetaer's hell forever and ever. The best part of all was where you knew you couldn't lie because of perjury but you couldn't admit the truth because you are an unrepentant drug cheat. So, whenever you were asked if you did steroids or other illegal drugs you answered that you weren't there to talk about the past, you were there to talk about the present. Which is ridiculous but it also exposed that there are some bad lawyers in Congress. If I were able to ask you questions under oath and you decided to give me that "not the past, the present" line I would have asked you if your name was still in any record books. Do you still possess the Cardinal's team record for home runs in a season? Are there any other records you possess despite being retured? And your name is "presently" in the record book? That would seem to make the questions about your steroid use pretty fucking pertinent to the present, wouldn't it Mark?

I hope Bonds, McGwire, CLemens and all the rest of you drug cheats never make it into the Hall. You should all be ashamed of yourselves you miserable drug cheats.