 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2459 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 05:45 pm |
|
| We're gonna have a "righteous wind" hitting our pocketbooks soon.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1619 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 05:54 pm |
|
beachmoss wrote:
Well, it's nice to have us put on the Faith Map for something other than Bob Jones!
Beth
Amen!
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Absurdistan, AKA , Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1574 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 08:25 pm |
|
"Righteous"? Well, they might view themselves as "righteous" i.e. the Obamaites, and their enablers, Kmiec, Cadalfi, Pelosi, Biden, et al. But the fun's just beginning, ain't it!?
PS: I typed up a longer response about the taxation part Dave until I realized it'd be better in a separate thread in this catagory which I'll post in a while and leave this one open so it won't be too quickly be overriden by a new post.
____________________
James Michael Curley to a young Thomas “Tip” O’Neill -- “Son, it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1619 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 10:46 pm |
|
Pani Rose wrote: In the absence of a bishop here, we have this diocesan administrator who has "repudiated" Fr. Newman's statement to his parish. In response, Father has said that he was acting in good faith according to his conscience; if someone higher up sees fit to correct him, he is prepared to accept that correction.
FYI, Fr. Newman was an undergraduate at Princeton (where he converted) before going to seminary in Rome. He has a degree in canon law. I think he knows what he's doing!
Lisa
Ahh, so we have your Bishop  ? Well Birmingham has your Bishop. Everyone here loves Bishop Baker. Though we are not directly under him as EC, that is another story, my husband is included into everything that the RC deacons are doing. The people of the B'ham diocese are looking forward to his guidence and compassion.
Yes, Pani Rose, you have our Bishop! And we want him back! Just kidding  ! Bishop Baker would have made a statement in this situation that would have served the purpose without throwing Fr. Newman under the bus. I am having a hard time being charitable right now with our "Diocesan Administrator."
|
|
|
beachmoss
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Simpsonville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 301 |
| First Name: | Beth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic (raised Baptist) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 12:17 am |
|
Just thought I'd link Msgr. Laughlin's statement.
Beth
http://docnotes.catholic-doc.org/statement/Statement%20on%20Voting%20and%20Communion.pdf/
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 907 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 06:50 am |
|
I am not sure where this story has gone. I like that he is taking a stand, but dpesn't it seem like a problem that his stand is so different than what others have taken. Isn't it a bit of a complicated issue that in some diocese Catholic politicians are allowed to receive, but in this instance the priest is telling people who voted for him not to receive until they do penance? I think that the problem is the mixed message. It looks like we are not on the same page? Has the Bishop said anything to change this position? I mean, I am not sure whether a parish priest can make such a rule as this or not?
Note, I am not saying if I agree or disagree with it. Just that it seems a bit controversial and confusing, and I still think it may be possible that some who voted for Obama may have at least believed that it was the right decision such as the nice Orthodox gentleman that was posting on our forum earlier. I of course, disagreed with him, but I have a hard time thinking that anyone who reasoned as he did would be barred from communion until going to confession. Is the priest perhaps just using shock value or trying to wake people up to a scary reality that is taking place? How am I to understand and explain this if asked (and I have been asked about it, and did not know whether to say I agreed or disagreed, aside from saying that it depends on other factors of the each individual's knowledge and effort and energy in their decisions)
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Absurdistan, AKA , Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1574 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 07:23 am |
|
| Any chance of Msgr. Laughlin becoming a bishop are as good as lead; unless he wants to replace Thomas Gumbleton, the "pope of Pax Christi." That's about all he'll get. Oh, Bp. Gumbleton was an Aux. Bishop, but a career Aux. Bishop. Let's just hope the Vatican leaves Laughlin as a career Monsignor off in some obscure diocese, serving the Aleutians. (Where he can see both Sarah Palin to his east and Russia to his west.) Last edited on Tue Nov 18th, 2008 07:24 am by Steven Barrett
____________________
James Michael Curley to a young Thomas “Tip” O’Neill -- “Son, it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
|
|
|
heardclarke
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 230 |
| First Name: | Lisa | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle Episcopalian; confirmed RC Easter 2005 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 11:23 am |
|
Brian,
Your questions are reasonable. If you have been getting your info from news stories there is a lot of confusion to be sure. The word "penance" has been misused.
For a really complete story, you will find it on the First Things website.
All I can add is that Fr. was originally addressing his own parish; he has not said that everyone who might have voted for Obama has committed moral sin. (But his teaching and that of the other priests at our parish is such that we at least ought to have known better!)
____________________
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Absurdistan, AKA , Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1574 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 12:50 pm |
|
Lisa,
Good to see another early riser! You brought up a very pertinent point here:
. . . . (But his teaching and that of the other priests at our parish is such that we at least ought to have known better!)
"we at least ought to have known better!"
Let's see, there's been a very hotly contested election with tons of media coverage in both secular/commercial press outlets and the multiplying numbers of religious media outlets. Now, doesn't it stand to reason that somewhere along the line Obama's clearly stated opinions and promises were given some attention?
Granted, the president-elect's positions on abortion and embryonic stem cell research should've received "more ink" than it did from the largely liberal mainstream press. But it's not as if they completely ignored it; if for no other reason than to rouse the enthusiasm of the liberals to support him on these two abominations. And let's not forget the attraction of FOCA for our opponents.
So...it's safe to say, the "story's been told" and the electorate, which includes people from all walks of life, has been adequately informed to the point that nobody can say "Gee, nobody told me." This especially holds true for the faithful in all major religious bodies, particularly Catholics. Our hierarchy went out of its way to get the message out well ahead of time on what Obama clearly stood for.
However loathful Obama's views on abortion are to us, let's at least be thankful that he hasn't hedged or bobbed and weaved on this. We know beyond any doubts what we're facing: The most pro-abortion president followed in direct line of succession by two pro-abortion Catholics, Joseph Biden as vice-president and Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, respectively.
Granted, the economy became the biggest issue with the collapse of Wall Street and the ripple effects that caused. But that in itself provided no excuse for any Catholic to say "Well, I didn't know it'd be a sin to vote for Obama or anyone...after all, voting's a separate secular/civic matter, right?"
I personally would have had no problems voting for Obama on economic grounds or his plans to finally get the job done in Afghanistan. (His "bring 'em home from Iraq rhetoric notwithstanding, Bush is already doing him the favor.) BUT, these are routine domestic and foreign policy issues compared to the issue of abortion.
Had it ever dawned on our more liberal brethern who believe as I do in preserving Social Security and other necessary components of the Social Safety Net (which are clearly defended as necessary in Church social and economic teachings) -- that with abortion, and the corresponding culture of death -- there can be no "social security" even in the most basic grammatical definitions of these words, never mind the law's.
Who'll take care of us in our old age; will a shrinking population facing ever crushing economic pressures decide one day to end the SS system, throwing us back to the pre-SS enactment days of the early Great Depression years? And what temptations galore for "cost effeciency savings" will nursing home administrators be gulled into supporting even more liberalized euthanasia laws? As of this past fall, Oregon officials are investigating the euthanizing of severely depressed patients! It's bad enough that people with Lou Gehrig's Disease and other terminal conditions can "check out" on their own...but to allow for euthanizing people with a treatable condition. Where's the social security? We're fooling ourselves to death by thinking we're saving money and even the environment (sigh) by having fewer children now; whilst ignoring all demographic warning signs to the contrary.
And while Christian Europe and the still majority Christian population in the US are finding ways to shrink the population to solve today's problems; we're just opening wide the doors to the Muslims who'll eventually overtake Europe and God help us all, the "last best hope on earth."
These situations aren't entirely unrelated because fighting the culture of death is a wholistic war against evil and national/cultural subversion at every angle. Thus all the more reason our bishops and priests need support when they voice displeasure and warnings against people abusing their privilege to receive Communion. It's a conditional privilege, not an entitled right.
Thanks to the liberals within our Church, the Douglas Kmiecs (who says he'll change his stance only if Pope Benedict calls on him to), the Joe Bidens and Nancy Pelosi's who couldn't define the difference between a discipline and doctrinal teaching, much less give an accurate historical account for the doctrinal teaching -- confusion reigned and the Catholic vote was splintered. But that still doesn't excuse each individual from taking the effort to learn what he or she is supposed to know before voting.
Abortion's been an issue with us for almost forty years, thus nearly negating any excuses for ignorance of Catholic teachings on this issue for all but the youngest voters. Even they are culpable to some extent to what they, as adults now, should carry with them mentally before voting on such a crucial issue. And yes, while abortion didn't appear specifically on the Federal tickets, it was always lurking in the background.
But thanks to Kmiec and his crew -- not to mention pliant Catholic bureaucrats and academicians working in the USCCB, some of our chanceries, and throughout many of our increasingly secularizedcolleges and universities -- the never-changing-message that abortion trumps all issues when considering a candidate's moral suitability for the Catholic voter to make a decision on, was diluted.
Still, the fact that that issue was publicized before election day also wiped out any excuses for Catholic voters to hide behind, saying well, "I didn't know abortion was still the top dog of issues...it looks like it was one of several." The liberals tried telling that to Scranton's Bishop Joseph Martino; and much to their displeasure and surprise, he showed them who the Boss of the diocese was and where abortion stood on the totem pole of issues.
This is what I believe motivated Father Newman to rightly conclude that a vote for Obama was a willing assent to a candidate whose views are so antithetical to the Church's on such intrinsically immoral positions regarding abortion and embryonic stem cell...that unless these people would be willing to make private amends with the Lord through the Sacrament of Confession--and that wasn't asking all that much to begin with--they had no business approaching the Communion Rail.
Somehow they must've gotten it into their heads that so long as one is a baptized and confirmed Catholic, he or she can just receive Communion, and even invite their Protestant and other non-catholic friends up so long as they believe in Jesus. Well, if non-Catholics aren't willing to defend their version of communion or a eucharist, that's their business. We mustn't follow suit by miminizing His Centrality in our faith in any way shape or form. This is Jesus Christ. Need we make the necessity of respecting His Presence any clearer?
Now, these voters face a doubling effect of their stands should they firmly stand with Kmiec, et al or make Confession and Penance for casting a vote for Obama knowing what he stood for. Not only do we have a case of willful disobedience to Church teachings, let's add to this the sin of Pride; whereas these individuals think of themselves above even the minimal requirement to demonstrate obedience to God's Church. Kind of rings like Obama's take on sin shown in the article, doesn't it? Who sets the rules here? Man or God?
Admittedly I was pretty heated when I lashed out at Msgr. Laughlin in such sarcastic tones. Like the man and what he did or not, he does have canonical authority to run the diocese until otherwise relocated or demoted upon the arrival of even an auxilliary bishop. Am I culpable of a venial or mortal sin for my disrespect? I don't know. But I'm willing to take it upon myself to find out and "do right" by the Lord.
Now, if I could do this for a writer's more nebulous sin or transgression of authority -- even in defense of a priest I thought Msgr. Laughlin wronged -- what the heck is clouding the vision of those who voted/and or campaigned for Obama in light of all the publicity surrounding the president-elect's stands on the premiere moral issues facing us--from seeing what they have to do, especially when it's so relatively painless.
Indeed -- so minutely and ridiculously painless compared to what an unborn child is put through ever hour and day in every abortion mill across the country.
Last edited on Tue Nov 18th, 2008 02:13 pm by Steven Barrett
____________________
James Michael Curley to a young Thomas “Tip” O’Neill -- “Son, it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 907 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 05:33 pm |
|
Lisa thank you for the helpful link. It still confuses me a little though. I do respect this man and his concern for his flock. But has he changed his tune due to pressure, or were his statements really taken out of context? I am having trouble reconciling the following...
his original statement that voting for pro-choice candidate when plausible pro-life option exists is participation in intrinsic evil and places someone outside the Church and they should not receive communion.
Later the articles go on to clarify that he was simply writing for the parish bulletin and then things got taken out of line and someone else says that he did not say voting for Obama was in itself a mortal sin. Also he states that Catholics are free to make moral decisions on their conscience and if properly formed nobody should make them have to go to Confession.
The first statement seems pretty much across the board. I agree with the fact that it is objectively a participation in evil, but as to whether it places an individual outside the Church may still be a matter of why they chose to vote that way. Some people I know simply did not trust McCain or see him as honestly and truly pro-life either, but feared his presidency more so than they feared Obama who maybe bought into his claims to want to minimize abortion (absurd as this may be, he or his voters may think it made sense). I think that this is absurd of course. Please nobody respond to the above political arguments argument for I do not need to be convinced. But If someone was convinced of this in their heart then I do not think that the above statement originally posted would be true that they must go to penance first.
The clarification seems a bit different of a statement as opposed to clarifying the original statement.
What I do observe is that he never intended to actually seek out Obama voters and deny them communion. That he was making a strong pastoral recommendation. I applaud him for this to be sure. And I respect the way he is dealing with everything. He seems like a good Priest (not that this is for me to judge). I am not trying to judge his actions (well I am questioning/doubting them a little and I hope this is no sin on my part, someone tell me if it is and I will confess it) so much as see if I misunderstand them. Is it that his first statement simply needed more clarification, or is it that the first statement was slightly incorrect or a little of both? Even if it was in need of more clarification, lacking the clarification still might render it a questionable statement offered a bit hastily. Nobody is perfect, of course, and I am not saying I know how to deal with this issue. I just want to be able to accurately defend or critique it if engaged.
Brian Last edited on Tue Nov 18th, 2008 05:37 pm by brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2526 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 06:37 pm |
|
Brian, it has occurred to me that this pastor’s second statement — his “clarification” — is being made in obedience to his legitimate ecclesiastical superior. It would therefore be a continuing example of his personal holiness and dedication to his vocation as a pastor, just as was his first statement, which sought to remind the faithful in his charge of the moral principles of the Catholic Church and their practical consequences. I applaud the man on both accounts.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 907 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 07:06 pm |
|
Thank you, David
While my judgment in the matter is irrelevant, I will say that I applaud him on the second, and on his effort and intention on the first.
However, if you are applauding his obedience to his superior, and noting that the two statements may in some way have been contradictory, would it not then follow that instead of saying that his comments were taken out of context and didn't imply as much as people thought they did, he could have said that they were not exactly or entirely true, and needed to be amended for where they fell short or implied something potentially false. The first seems like a sort of covering for yourself or defending something that may have been a somewhat flawed action worth admitting to, and the second seems to be admitting that maybe there was a mistake made however slight and even if the general principle was accurate.
Again, I do not know the man or all the circumstances. I am just reasoning through this with what I have seen and read. I just want to be prepared when asked to say that his intentions are good and his principles are sound, but his original statement was perhaps going a little far, and has been amended by him and or the authority above him. That his intentions were and are good, but that it was something that maybe was too harsh sounding and got out of hand in the media and has been dealt with.
Is this okay?
Perhaps this is in effect what he has done, as he has tried to clarify the situation without causing scandal or humiliating himself more than necessary as he was actually on the right track and would not want people to think that he was corrected or that the church is more lenient on abortion than he implied, a teaching which needs to be seen as the important thing, and not, nit picking on how right he was.
Again, not that I am saying he made an error, so much as interpreting what I have seen.
Brian Last edited on Tue Nov 18th, 2008 07:13 pm by brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2526 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 09:43 pm |
|
brian wrote:I do not know the man or all the circumstances. I am just reasoning through this with what I have seen and read. I just want to be prepared when asked to say that his intentions are good and his principles are sound, but his original statement was perhaps going a little far, and has been amended by him and or the authority above him. That his intentions were and are good, but that it was something that maybe was too harsh sounding and got out of hand in the media and has been dealt with. Is this okay?
I think the following scenario is a reasonable way to look at it. Fr. Newman was speaking as a pastor to his own parish; his original statement was directed to their known circumstances. That statement did not take into consideration certain possible individual moral circumstances, and as I understand it, this is the origin of the furor. He undoubtedly knew that there can be circumstances in a seriously sinful act that prevent it from being a mortal sin, thus requiring the sacrament of penance for forgiveness. And probably he assumed that those in his parish would make the necessary mental adjustments, since he was convinced they were well catechized. But because the press picked up his statement and broadcast it around the world for general consumption, it ended with many people pointing fingers at this man’s apparent fundamentalism. This is why the clarification had to be made.
According to this viewpoint, Fr. Newman did well in both instances. That fact that he accepted blame and took on his shoulders something that, in all likelihood, he should not be held accountable for is a testament to his holiness. Hence my earlier comment.
David
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2526 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 19th, 2008 04:34 am |
|
I have just received notice of a couple of articles on the Catholic Culture website which analyze the incident with Fr. Newman. They seem to have analyzed the situation in the same basic way I did above. Here are articles:
Phil Lawler
Jeff Mirus
I reiterate that I do not believe Fr. Newman did anything either morally or pastorally wrong. We can point to the country’s overall political climate and the general lack of knowledge of their faith among Catholics as the contributing causes and thank the secular media for creating a scandal out of nothing.
David
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Absurdistan, AKA , Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1574 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20th, 2008 12:49 am |
|
Now it looks like we've got a case of the "third man" or "persyn," in this case -- jumping into the hockey fight. No chance of any "coincidental outrage" from this lokel-yokel pol. Right? Nyaaaaahhhhh From the Catholic League:
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1519
November 19, 2008
Beaufort County Councilwoman Laura Von Harten blasted the Catholic Church yesterday for its strictures regarding the priesthood and its teachings on abortion. She took the occasion to vent at a scheduled hearing regarding a zoning request by a local Catholic church, St. Gregory the Great in Bluffton, South Carolina, that would allow it to expand. She was quickly denounced by several area residents for her comments; when the vote was taken, she recused herself.
Von Harten ripped the Catholic Church for not allowing women priests and for its position on what she called “uterus rights,” saying they were “an affront to my dignity and all womankind.”
Here is what Catholic League president Bill Donohue had to say:
“Without the slightest provocation, Laura Von Harten decided to bash Catholicism. This suggests an animus so deep as to call into question her fitness for public service. She should do more than recuse herself on matters Catholic—she should resign from her post as councilwoman. There is no legitimate role for bigots in public life.”
I'll bet she lives in that ever so-economically depressed nearby Hilton Head Island. Notice that she put her "dignity" before "all womankind." What a gal! 
____________________
James Michael Curley to a young Thomas “Tip” O’Neill -- “Son, it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
|
|
|
heardclarke
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 230 |
| First Name: | Lisa | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle Episcopalian; confirmed RC Easter 2005 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20th, 2008 03:07 am |
|
I guess the Church is wrong/sinful anytime it is "out of alignment with" the councilwoman's liberal values....
____________________
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Absurdistan, AKA , Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1574 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20th, 2008 04:14 am |
|
I think "out of alignment" is going to be the forum's favorite Obamaism for some time to come.  Makes me wonder where the Obama's will "do church" in Washington: I used to know of a garage on Pennsylvania Avenue SE. But that was a quarter a century ago. I't probably under a new denomination: Church of Convenience, services held all hours. He can go there and hold hands with this Hilton Head area yokel and sing lovey hymns to "tolerance."
____________________
James Michael Curley to a young Thomas “Tip” O’Neill -- “Son, it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 757 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20th, 2008 02:45 pm |
|
Thought this to be an interesting title and a true one...
Newman in the Lion's Den by Rev. Dwight Longenecker
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4936&Itemid=48
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Absurdistan, AKA , Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1574 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20th, 2008 04:34 pm |
|
Rose & Co.,
Speaking of "reptillian" kinds of "catholics" take a look at this column by Patrick Reilly in Monday's Washington Times:
Obama's Catholic backers: Supporting pop culture over church teaching
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/17/obamas-catholic-backers/
Here's a few choice excerpts from the whole article linked above:
... Despite the Catholic bishops' clear disapproval of Mr. Obama's support for abortion rights - including his pledge to sign the Freedom of Choice Act - which would nullify state restrictions on abortions - many Catholics were persuaded that they could vote for Mr. Obama in good conscience. Exit polls show that he won over self-described Catholics 54 percent to 45 percent, better than the 52-46 split among all Americans. He even made inroads with Mass-attending and white, non-Hispanic Catholics.
Obama lucked out that the economy started tanking real fast and McCain blew the election in the way he fell back on theatrics to make it look like he was a world beater. The perception with the voters then was that the Democrats, more cooly led by Obama (and Barney Frank) had more to do with the bailout and shoring up of the banking crisis. Had McCain also gone to the mat sooner and more often on Obama's weak spot regarding abortion, it's not too difficult to see how that might've cut the Democrat's then increasing lead, if not allowed McCain/Palin to finally overtake him because Obama was clearly knocked off stride at first by Palin's rapid popularity. How could Obama defend himself against any politician's reasonable claim against his opponent's support of legislation allowing essentially for baby killing just to make sure Roe wasn't compromised?
But no, McCain let him off the hook and it'll be up to the religious conservatives (on the abortion issue) to pick up the colors in battle. Doesn't that sound familiar?
For that, Mr. Obama has liberal Catholic professors and Catholic colleges to thank. It was Catholic academics who made the argument for Mr. Obama in the media and in lectures to Catholic audiences. Vocal Obama supporters include Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec, a former dean of the Catholic University of America law school; Boston College theology professor Lisa Sowle Cahill; Duquesne law professor Nicholas Cafardi (former dean of Duquesne's law school); Notre Dame theology professor Cathleen Kaveny; and a St. Peter's College humanities professor, Jesuit Rev. Raymond Schroth.
Let's hope the bishops start rounding up the "usual suspects" and call them into their national headquarters in Washington for the proverbial "on the carpet...come to Jesus" sessions that are long overdue. It gets more interesting:
The argument: that Mr. Obama will do more than John McCain to reduce abortions by fighting poverty, reforming health care and otherwise helping Americans in need. Mr. Cafardi has gone so far as to claim that "we have lost the abortion battle, permanently" and therefore Catholics should not be swayed by Mr. McCain's opposition to Roe v. Wade.
I originally would've agreed with Cafardi except for one thing and it's all that it took: the permanence of abortion's "fruits." No matter how many wonderful programs the government can create to help young pregnant moms , they don't do any good for a mom and baby if the baby 's been killed. Secondly, a means-spirited Congress or state legislature can effectively gut these programs all in the name of "making young women more accountable." Remember the "welfare reform" battle during the first Clinton administration? Just think of the sick irony of having to depend on the very same people who gave us FOCA to make sure those programs stay in place in order to make sure "abortion is ... rare." I won't dignify the remainder of that infamous campaign talking point.
... In publications ranging from Newsweek to the National Catholic Reporter, the professors openly attacked several bishops for proclaiming Catholic teaching that the right to life - including legal protections for innocent human beings - is a priority over other serious issues like the economy and health care. Mr. Kmiec accused the bishops of "low partisanship" for urging Catholics to vote in conformity to their faith. Mrs. Cahill blamed the church's shepherds for "damaging [the] rich Catholic faith tradition" and Notre Dame theologian Rev. Richard McBrien laments a "dearth of pastoral leadership" among bishops appointed by the late Pope John Paul II.
The only "dearth of pastoral leadership" is reflected in the fact that not enough bishops hit these over-rated ego cases harder and sooner.
... So, why the enthusiasm for Mr. Obama on Catholic campuses? "[W]hile most Catholic pro-life groups, bloggers and some media outlets skew to both the theological and political right," explains columnist John Allen in the National Catholic Reporter, "a substantial share of the Catholic academy, in tandem with other media outlets and a galaxy of peace-and-justice activists, leans to the political and theological left." Left-leaning academics are nothing new to the United States, but on Catholic campuses their activism can become opposition to the religious truths which Catholic educators are expected to teach and respect.
Where's the broom and a good team of tenure-busting pit-bull lawyers when we need them?
Sociologist Anne Hendershott documents the decline of the Catholic academy in her forthcoming book "Status Envy," and a new national survey by the Center for the Study of Catholic Higher Education (http://www.CatholicHigherEd.org) drives the point home. Theological dissent, contempt for the bishops and the Vatican, capitulation to the "Sexual Revolution," and imitation of elite universities and their glorification of academic freedom and cafeteria-style curricula produce graduates from Catholic colleges that are far less committed to the moral, social and political values of their predecessors.
What are these insecure people envious of? I'm a graduate of a Catholic university and I both worked for and attended classes at Mount Holyoke College, the nation's oldest college for women, a women's "ivy" and the oldest of the so-called "Seven Sister" colleges. Although I'm not out to demonstrate any disrepect for MHC, I still wouldn't trade a class I had at a much younger and lesser-known college in Florida for anything I took at Mount Holyoke. St. Thomas University, then Biscayne College (70-74) was anything BUT a stereotypical "basketweaving" finishing school, much unlike that bigger and better known place to the south of us in Coral Gables, Univ. of Miami. Envious of that place? No way in hell. Then, or now.
Dissent in the pews is something the Catholic Church has wrestled with for centuries, long before the 2008 elections. The more contemporary challenge is fidelity among Catholic educators and the apparent consequences when professors are in open conflict with the bishops. Patrick J. Reilly is president and founder of the Cardinal Newman Society. As a much younger Joseph Ratzinger rightly pointed out in the Introduction to his seminal Introduction To Christianity, there's only ONE Magisterium. Now it's time for his book to be made mandatory reading for all students in all Catholic colleges and universities across the world, but especially in the United States. And make every professor who teaches theology to know the book by heart, front-to-back.
Last edited on Thu Nov 20th, 2008 04:36 pm by Steven Barrett
____________________
James Michael Curley to a young Thomas “Tip” O’Neill -- “Son, it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Absurdistan, AKA , Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1574 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20th, 2008 04:51 pm |
|
Well, we have an apology at least from the Bluffton, SC blunderer!
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local/story/623407.html
Too bad she's planning on staying on the board. She'll need plenty of luck getting elected. Let's just pray it's not good luck, fortune...whatever.
____________________
James Michael Curley to a young Thomas “Tip” O’Neill -- “Son, it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 1549 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22nd, 2008 12:12 am |
|
heardclarke wrote:
The congregation does sing the hymns in unison for the most part, b/c we have a printed music sheet for each Sun | | |
