If it makes you happy…
This local story (which, I am thinking, has national repercussions) involves some of the topics I’ve written about recently–religion and speech. The background: a Saint Louis Children’s hospital runs a fundraiser, with Bob Costas (it is the Bob Costas Cancer Center at Cardinal Glennon). Missouri native Sheryl Crow was to sing at the event this weekend. The archbishop of Saint Louis, Raymond Burke, is on the board of the hospital. Or was.
He is not happy with Crow–specifically, her stance on stem cell research. As a result, he quit the board in protest of her involvement in the fundraiser. When asked about it, Burke made this comparison: “What if, for instance, there were someone appearing who we discovered was openly racist and who made statements and took actions to promote racism? Do you think that I would let that go on?”
It is this comparison that I’d like to look at; after all, with the Don Imus incident in our recent memory, perhaps Burke has a point.
First, let’s make it clear that this is not a discussion about the role of the church and the state. And Burke has not taken steps to prevent the fundraiser, although his influence will probably lead some Catholics to not attend.
The question is, how important are the beliefs of an individual when they are involved in supporting another cause? If a Ku Klux Klan leader wanted to support a fundraiser for sick children, would that pose an ethical problem for participants in the event?
Take racism as a first example. What is the problem with allowing a racist person, who espouses such beliefs, to perform in support of a cancer fundraiser? First, what is the problem with racist beliefs? (That seems apparent, but let’s dissect it a little.) Racism is, broadly speaking, a viewpoint which makes moral distinctions between human beings on the basis of non-moral properties (skin color or ethnic origin). It is not factually defensible–that is, it rests upon stereotypes or invalid inferences from race to moral qualities.
The instinct might be that allowing a racist person to perform at a fundraiser would: 1) legitimize their views to the level of other beliefs which we can debate on the basis of facts/interpretations or 2) give them a platform from which they will attract others to their cause.
Now, what about someone like Sheryl Crow, who speaks out for stem cell research and for pro-choice causes? Her stance is, in one way, not parallel to racism because these are live debates in our society. If she were a Holocaust denier, a racist, or (to use a ludicrous example) a denier of germ theory, then it could be harmful to legitimize those causes. Allowing them to spread as debatable issues is ethically irresponsible, as would be the possibility of bringing others to support them.
For Archbishop Burke, however, there is no room for such an understanding of “legitimately debatable moral issues.” Giving Crow a platform, from the position of the Catholic church, legitimizes “moral evils” and promotes the ”mass destruction of innocent human beings.” In trying to see why embryonic stem cell research might be parallel to racism, it could be argued that the former is a viewpoint which also makes moral distinctions between human beings on the basis of non-moral properties, with these properties being developmental, rather than skin color or ethnic.
Costas and the Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center, however, do not want to start applying a “litmus test” to people who support their cause. They are happy to have anyone involved who are can help. Of course, this kind of pragmatic approach could backfire if someone who were racist–to take Burke’s example–wanted to participate. Think back to the Ku Klux Klan offering to participate in a highway cleanup project in Missouri several years ago. People suggested the state should just drop the program rather than let them participate (which they eventually were allowed to do).
Ultimately, I think that Burke’s stance is one that can be defended–although the question does come down to what beliefs are so “scandalous” that he (and the Church) cannot be associated with them. In the case of a private organization and private individuals, these decisions are their responsibility. The KKK example is stickier, because of the government’s role.
I’ll admit, though, that my initial reaction last night, watching the news, was to yell at the TV, complaining at the focus of the church. Of course, that is because my position on embryonic stem cell research is not the same as Burke’s. When I’ve stepped back, and tried to understand his reasoning, I can appreciate his predicament.
Sheryl Crow image from SherylCrow.com, Raymond Burke photo from Archdiocese of STL site, highway image from Randy Olson/Aurora,