If the Catholic Bishops, who are in favor of supporting a good healthcare system, could not support this heathcare bill because of things added to the bill that would compromise Catholic moral teaching, then we should listen, and priests should not speak from the pulpit chastising people for not supporting it.What do you mean? If your saying that providing healthcare to people who don’t have it is only like giving them poisoned food, isn’t that like saying that all food those people can get is poisoned and that they should accept starving? Worse, if you have healthcare, isn’t that like telling those same people that all the food they can get is poisoned while your munching on a bag of chips?
I’m not saying that the healthcare law is good or bad. I don’t know. What I’m saying is that the people who worked for the law wanted it because it was supposed to do something that the church teaches us we should be doing. We’re supposed to care for the sick and dying. That means healthcare.
I think that the priest we’re talking about was reminding the people in church about that. I think that’s what a priest’s supposed to do. I think he might be wrong about the best way to do it and maybe the op has a better idea, but all the op said about the priest was that he was talking about people who fought against healthcare. That means he could have been talking about people who would rather ignore the sick and the dying so that they can have good things for themselves. If your a priest, its your job to speak out against that.
I believe that the OP was not mistaken about the priest complaining about those who were against the healthcare bill. He could have spoken about taking care of the sick and the dying etc. without criticizing people who did not support a bill that they believed contained items that were contrary to Catholic moral teaching.I think that the priest we’re talking about was reminding the people in church about that. I think that’s what a priest’s supposed to do. I think he might be wrong about the best way to do it and maybe the op has a better idea, but all the op said about the priest was that he was talking about people who fought against healthcare. That means he could have been talking about people who would rather ignore the sick and the dying so that they can have good things for themselves. If your a priest, its your job to speak out against that.
But aren’t you assuming that the priest urged the people in the church to support a specific bill? I mean, wasn’t there a version of the healthcare bill that the bishops did support even though it was still fought against by some conservatives? Why couldn’t it have been that bill the priest was talking about? The op didn’t say. All we know is that the priest chastised some people for not supporting “healthcare for all”. That could mean this bad bill the bishops didn’t like or it could mean the good bill that they did like.If the Catholic Bishops, who are in favor of supporting a good healthcare system, could not support this heathcare bill because of things added to the bill that would compromise Catholic moral teaching, then we should listen, and priests should not speak from the pulpit chastising people for not supporting it.
Aren’t you assuming that I was assuming… We could go round and round with this kind of accusations. In fact we could also accuse the priest of assuming why some people were against the health care bill. I don’t totally disagree with you. Priests should talk about moral issues that are involved in politics. They should state what the church teaches on issues and they should pass along to us information from the Catholic Bishops and our own bishop on issues that they support or do not support and why. But the church does not tell us who or what to vote for. She leaves that to our informed consciences.But aren’t you assuming that the priest urged the people in the church to support a specific bill? I mean, wasn’t there a version of the healthcare bill that the bishops did support even though it was still fought against by some conservatives? Why couldn’t it have been that bill the priest was talking about? The op didn’t say. All we know is that the priest chastised some people for not supporting “healthcare for all”. That could mean this bad bill the bishops didn’t like or it could mean the good bill that they did like.
So, if that’s the case, it’s true that the priest might not have been urging people to support something that was opposed to the catholic faith. The op didn’t say which version of the bill the priest was talking about. In fact, the op did say that she was so upset that she missed some of the things he said. So, the priest might have talked about taking care of the sick and the dying and the responsibility of the government to do some of that just like he could some other time talk about abortion euthenasia and the government’s responsibility to do something about that.
The point is that priests have to talk about political things because political things are moral things a lot of times. The church teaches we have to care for the sick and the dying. When the government is going to get involved in taking care of those people, the priests HAVE to speak about it because its a moral thing the church teaches us is important. If there are people who are fighting against doing the right thing, the priest HAS to criticize people who do that. Its his job.
I thought the church very much did tell us at least what kind of legislation to support and vote for and what not. I also thought that the current pope said that the conscience is properly informed when it obeys the teaching of the church.Aren’t you assuming that I was assuming… We could go round and round with this kind of accusations. In fact we could also accuse the priest of assuming why some people were against the health care bill. I don’t totally disagree with you. Priests should talk about moral issues that are involved in politics. They should state what the church teaches on issues and they should pass along to us information from the Catholic Bishops and our own bishop on issues that they support or do not support and why. But the church does not tell us who or what to vote for. She leaves that to our informed consciences.
He said that people who were against it were afraid of change. He didn’t specify abortion as far as we know. The bishop’s had several issues with the plan, abortion and conscience clauses were among them.I thought the only thing the bishops didn’t like about the healthcare bill was the abortion it allowed. The op didn’t say anything about the priest supporting abortion or even the healthcare bill your talking about. All the op said was that the priest was talking about “healthcare for all.” If you are saying that the bishops are teaching that not everyone is supposed to get healthcare, doesn’t that mean there was nothing wrong in denying healthcare to Terry Schaivo? Based on what the op said, it doesn’t seem like the priest went against the bishops.
If the priest is talking about people who would fight against healthcare for all when it didn’t matter how they got the healthcare, isn’t he kinda right? I mean, those kinds of people are being unreasonable and kinda selfish if they want to not let some people get healthcare so things can stay the same for themselves.
So the only thing left is that the op was offended by what the priest said because she disagreed. I mentioned that other people in my church get mad when the priest talked about condoms. It seems like its the same. Even if you said that using condoms went against church teaching so that their being angry wasn’t right, isn’t letting other people get really sick and die just so you can keep something for yourself against church teaching too?
Maybe the op has good reasons for being against healthcare. I don’t know. Its just I don’t think that you could definitely say about what the priest said that he didn’t have good reasons for what he thought to. If the op goes to another church just because she heard something she didn’t like and if we say thats right, then don’t we owe everyone who ever left the church because they heard something they didn’t like an apology?
Be it as it may that it is nothing new for me to be hearing a few liberal-minded younger priests broaching political views from the Ambo which should never be the norm unless such political views are prevalent issues against the magisterial moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Other than this I see no valid reason why any priest should be voicing his own political views from the Ambo.I just wanted to know if any of you have had this happen during mass and if so how you dealt with it in any way. Please don’t respond if you just want to trash my political views. My intention is not to flare up some religion vs. political opinion debate, but to see how people feel about priests integrating their* personal *views into their homilies as though they were the"correct" or the “right” way to see it, and how you respond to it, internally or otherwise.
To begin, at our parish we have 3 priests one of which is quite liberal and has in the past gotten reprimanded for his decisions in the church, such as letting a lay woman do the homily and other things as well. That being said the other day during the homily he was talking about how many Jews rejected Christianity because they felt that it went against Jewish law. That the Jews were resistant to change because it went against what was familiar to them. Then he went on to say that this was the very attitude of resisting change and fear that crucified Christ! Then he started up about how many are fighting against health care for all because they are afraid of change. He said other similar things that I don’t remember because I was so irritated at the time. The health care issues is just one example that stood out. It seems as though he expects us to liken the people who crucified Christ to people who do not want universal health care! Because we are some how afraid and resistant to change? That we resist doing the Christian thing because its not what we are used to? I am not even gonna start on how inaccurate his point was but I am a politically conservative and a conservative Catholic and do not appreciate things like this during the homily. It was so insulting. He was so clearly interjecting his personal opinion about a social/political matter, and demonizing contrary opinions. My fiance and I were so taken aback by his words that we have discussed moving to another church because it just felt like we were being alienated or judged as being wrong for our views (which personally I feel are charitable not heartless). I have talked to several of our friends who heard this homily and they shared my feelings, so it’s not just me being overly sensitive. Thanks for your responses in advance!
Just can't let your response pass without a quick response.
What evidence do you have that Obama was not born in the USA? Don't you think somebody in Hawaii would be able to prove that? When certain people really want to believe an untruth no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. The State of Hawaii has produced a birth certificate. The birth was announced when it occurred in the Honolulu paper. What other evidence do you want? I (and probably you) can't produce better evidence than that.
As far as Marxism is concerned, those who don't understand Marxism might make such wild charges. True, Obama is concerned that a small group make millions and millions each year - the military-industrial complex people that Eisenhower warned against (one of my favorite presidents - I am of GOP background) - while most of us have to scrape to get along on $30,000 ot $40,000. The Church has expressed the same concern about such inequities as Obama have. Were/are the Popes Marxist, too?
Now, I have read both of Obama's books and I read nothing about any sympathy with Islam. Yes, he wants to lower the hostility against us in the Muslim world. And so do I. Recently, at a national prayer breakfast, he spoke about his dependence on Christ. I believe that if anyone can help hurt Al Qaeda recruitment among Muslims it is Obama. Those who constantly attack Islam are cited by bin laden and others to arouse more and more bitterness toward the USA. "The USA is waging war against Islam!" they shout. Obama is in a position to minimize the propaganda of such Muslim extremists.
As stated above, too many of those who have a strong prejudice against Obama are ready to believe whatever lies are peddled that seek to defame him. Th Communists and Nazis were experts at that. My main concern about Obama, frankly, comes from his association with Chicago politics. I am very suspicious of Emanuel Rahm, for example, and have no more faith in the Democratic leadership than that of the GOP. I had just as soon boot most of them out. I also worry about the influence of the neo-cons, how they now want to push into a violent confrontation with Iran. My vote for Obama was based in large part upon my hope and prayer that he might be able to usher in a time of peace and reconciliation. I'm waiting to see....
But I want Obama to succeed because I want my country to succeed. I want every president to succeed. I view that as genuine and intelligent patriotism. I will oppose Obama when he has been provided a longer time to prove himself and has failed. 16 months is a very short time. I pray for him regularly and I trust that you do, too.
Back to the thread, I worry more about the harsh political rhetoric I hear from Arroyo and others on EWTN than any I hear Sunday at church. Among other negative effects II believe it alienates many Catholics - many union members, for example, but many others. An unfortunate cause of division and resentment among Catholics I know.
God bless all of His children - no exceptions.That’s fine, but you have to remember that the bishops’s position on healthcare is to work for “a truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity; access for all with a special concern for the poor and inclusion of immigrants; pursuing the common good and preserving pluralism including freedom of conscience and variety of options; and restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers.” The truth is that there are some people opposed to even this because they are afraid of change. It’s a priest’s job to speak out against that.He said that people who were against it were afraid of change. He didn’t specify abortion as far as we know. The bishop’s had several issues with the plan, abortion and conscience clauses were among them.