Archbishop Burke’s Press Release Doesn’t Go Far Enough

I greatly applaud Archbishop Burke’s decision regarding Sheryl Crow (who herself recently used the opportunity of a charity benefit to lash out at Karl Rove), and the diocesan press release was very insightful. However, there was one very seroius matter that was overlooked in discussion of this fund raiser.

It is an issue which should be almost of equally serious concern, in terms of our culture, to our fight for the dignity of human life, yet something which most Catholics, even very “good,” “orthodox,” “pro-life” Catholics, consider to be a non-issue.

Simply put, regardless of Sheryl Crow’s politics, it would be indecent and scandalous to have her performing her “music” at a Catholic benefit. Even if she could refrain from making overt political statements (which I doubt she could) from the stage, the lyrics to her songs themselves are variously immoral, anti-Catholic and “political.” I can’t imagine what she would sing that would be appropriate to a Catholic venue or a children’s charity.

I was only tangentially familiar with her work-I knew enough to know I wasn’t interested. But I just did a search for the lyrics of her songs. Here is a list of several songs from her first two albums. I don’t have the time or the stomach to go on.

1. “Run, Baby, Run”–a song about radicalism and drug use and people fleeing from responsibility
2. “Leaving Las Vegas”–a song about drunkenness and gambling (offering no moral evaluation of these matters)
3. “Can’t Cry Anymore”–a song about despair
4. “Strong Enough”–a song the begins with blasphemy
5. “Solidify”–I can’t make sense of the lyrics
6. “The Na-Na Song” includes the following anti-Catholic, anti-NFP lyrics:

“Panaflex Soloflex Genuflect PopeWhat the world needs now is babies, gun and hopeGuardian angel dust in the wind cries MaryWanna be Madonna but the price is too high, veryPerfect rhythm Nazis in the pagan rhythm nation”

7. “All I Wanna Do”: her “signature song,” an anthem to hedonism about a person sitting in a bar, bragging about being able to drink all day while others work for a living.

8. “Maybe Angels”: a song that dismisses “holy rollers who don’t know how to save me” and equates people who believe in Jesus with people who think Elvis is still alive.

9. “A Change”: refers to autoeroticism and ouija boards.
10. “Home”: a song that disparages marriage.
11. “Sweet Rosalyn”: To its credit, this one could at least be interpreted favorably to Catholicism.
12. “If It Makes You Happy”: as the name implies, this song advocates hedonism.
13. “Redemption Day”: a song advocating euthanasia.
14. “Every Day is a Winding Road”, another of her more famoous songs, includes the words:
“I’ve been swimming in a sea of anarchyI’ve been living on coffee and nicotineI’ve been wondering if all the things I’ve seenWere ever real, were ever really happening”

Various other songs deal with broken relationships and empty sexual encounters.

Anyway, as one of those people she calls “rhythm Nazis,” I find her work itself quite offensive.

Advertisement

I haven’t yet posted on last week’s decision because I don’t know what to think of it

But above is Judie Brown’s very insightful commentary. I commented on her blog, and she responded.

I really don’t think this decision does very much.

I don’t like how it is all based upon the Justices’ “medical diagnosis,” how they’re continuing to usurp not just the right to legislate but the right to make medical decisions, as well.

However, as I posted on Judie’s blog, I see one bright point. A few years ago, Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano sued a few years ago to have “their” verdicts overturned on the grounds that the facts showed the verdict to be wrong. As I recall, Kennedy was the justice in charge of whether the SC heard the case, and dismissed it. I also recall blogging about it rather heatedly.

Anyway, this decision says that the federal ban pashed by Bush meets and slightly alters the standards set in the _Nebraska_ decision, because the medical facts are different (or at least were presented differently to the Court). The Court ruled that the procedure commonly known as “partial-birth abortion” (which is just one form of late-term abortion) is never medically necessary, because there are other ways to kill the baby. However, they still acknowledged that a previous precedent can be modified by different facts.

To me, this seems that it’s a precedent for McCorvey and Cano to re-present their cases to the Court.

Of course, as anyone who knows the Constitution (and this blog) should be aware, the Constitution gives Congress the right to limit the jurisdiction of the federal (and Supreme) courts.
The Republicans could have settled the whole abortion issue totally by passing a law banning the federal courts from ruling on abortion cases. That would have nullified _Roe_ and all subsequent decisions, but they didn’t do it. In the Schiavo case, of course, they *used* that constitutional power to tell the courts *to* hear the Schiavo case, and the courts defied Congress. Threats of charging the relevant judges with contempt of Congress were met with a backlash from the liberals, and the milquetoast Republicans backed down. (Most of these events were discussed here when they happened; I simply don’t ahve time right now to cite all these things).

Sheryl Crow Eats Crow

Just the other day, I was reading anti-Catholic, anti-life, pro-hedonism (unless it’s rich Republican hedonism) hypocrite Rosie O’Donnell praising Sheryl Crow for “telling off” Karl Rove at a charity event.

Now, Archbishop Raymond Burke, a bishop who actually does his job, has resigned as chairman of the board of governors of the Cardinal Glennon Children’s Foundation, because Sheryl Crow is scheduled to be performing there.

Let’s see here, Sheryl Crow is one of the demon-worshippers of Lilith Fair.

She is a rabid pro-abortionist.

She supports embryonic stem cell research.

Her signature song is about laziness and hedonism and looking down on those poor slobs who have to actually work for a living.

Yet she thinks we use too much toilet paper. Oh, and she’s burning all sorts of gas travelling around the country trying to tell college students about globall warming (as if they don’t already hear about it from all their professors, campus “newspapers”, etc.).

So, what exactly is the problem here?