Cardinal George and the Mormons

[ServantofMary]

If we are robbed of our religious freedom we will not be able to proclaim the gospel in the public square.

So what? Christians in the first several cenuturies of the Church were persecuted like no other time in history (so far), and did the spread of the Gospel stop? Of course not. In fact, it spread like wild fire throughout the then known world! Just look at the underground Catholic Church in China. It’s growing and thriving despite not having any civil freedoms from the government.

 

[cathguy]

Are you serious? Please.

Della,

I think Adeodatus makes some good points here.

Cardinals are Princes of the Church. We must respect that office. In this particular case, not only do I respect the office, but I respect the person of Cardinal George. He is arguably a great man. I think Servant of Mary, who makes some very valid points, is overstating his or her critique of the Cardinals words.

That said, being Catholic does NOT mean that we are not free to think, critique, write, and argue with a Cardinal, simply because he is a Cardinal. That is a distortion of the authentically Catholic view of obedience.

I would read the history of the English reformation, and you will see that it was, in the VAST MAJORITY of cases, lay Catholics who had the courage to argue with their Cardinals and Bishops who managed to stay loyal to the one true faith, often at the cost of their very lives!

 

[otjm]

Not really, since the Jesus of Mormonism is a completely different person than the Jesus of Christianity. Two completely different persons cannot be a “common reference point” no matter how many times you say that they can.

Actually, no, that is not correct. Both the Catholic Church and the LDS refer to the same individual of 2000 years ago.

We both agree that Christ was on earth 2000 years ago. It is the theological understanding behind that where we part company. They were not two completely different persons; they were the same one. It is not someone else they refer to. However, their understanding of God is radically and completely apart from anything the Church belives. So we do share a common starting point; we both agree Christ was born of Mary - the same person. Our understanding of God is radically different than theirs, and so our understanding of who Christ was (and is) is radically different.

But we are talking of the same physical individual. The one born of Mary.

 

[otjm]

The only activity with other religions that the Church should have is to invite them into the Catholic Church, which is the only ark of salvation, outside of which there is no salvation.

You are a bit shy on your understanding of what the Church should do; And you seem to be a bit shy of understanding of what the Church tries to do.

 

[ServantofMary]

Actually, no, that is not correct. Both the Catholic Church and the LDS refer to the same individual of 2000 years ago.

Actually, no, that is not correct. The Catholic Church refers to God incarnate. The LDS refers a created being named Jesus. Not the same individual.

 

[ServantofMary]

You are a bit shy on your understanding of what the Church should do; And you seem to be a bit shy of understanding of what the Church tries to do.

I know quite well what the Church should do. Jesus expressed it very clearly when He said to His apostles, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20).

 

[otjm]

Actually, no, that is not correct. The Catholic Church refers to God incarnate. The LDS refers a created being named Jesus. Not the same individual.

It is the same physical individual who walked the earth.

You continue to put more into the Cardinal’s words than he put. There is most certainly a common point of departure and that is Jesus Christ.

The only reason you know anything about him is because of the Church he founded and the contemplation the Church did on the revelation he gave.

The fact that others do not have that same contemplation, that understanding of revelation does not mean that they do not refer to the same individual. It simply means that their understanding of who that individual was is lacking; but even though it is lacking, it does not mean they are referring to another Jew of approximately the time of Pontius Pilate, Herod, et alia. They and we are referring to the same Jew. Jesus the Anointed One.

The Catholic Church refers to a Jew of about 2000 years ago, born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazarath, crucified by Pontious Pilate, and one who rose from the dead. By contemplation of his revelation of himself, we understand that he is God incarnate. But he is the same person the LDS refer to when they say Jesus Christ; they simply do not understand the concept of God Incarnate. Their theology, if such it could be called, is radically different; however the Cardinal was absolutely accurate in his statement. It is you who are attempting to find him wrong, and your comments show your inability to think critically.

 

[otjm]

I know quite well what the Church should do. Jesus expressed it very clearly when He said to His apostles, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20).

And by that you consider a large part of the last 2000 years of history of the Church to be illegitimate? I have read the Gospels, and there are a few more things commanded in there besides that; and nothing that he said made that exclusive.

So I take it that you consider the Church’s work to protect the concept of marriage as between man and woman to be illegitimate?

And you consider the work of the Church to prevent the spread of abortion and birth control to be illegitiamte?

That is the essence of what you are getting at. On the first issue we joined with the LDS because they have a strong committment to marriage and were an ally in the issue.

On the second issue we joined with Islam in standing up to the UN and the NGOs working through them. They were a critical ally.

Your concept of the requirements of the Gospels is somewhat lacking in depth. As is your concept of the Church’s moral duties.

 

[ServantofMary]

The purpose of the Church is the salvation of souls. All of the issues that you mentioned below in your post would fall under this purpose. Becoming “allies” with non-Catholic religions on social and political issues does not fulfill that purpose. Proclaiming the Gospel to them does. This is to be the first and foremost mission of the Church. After all, who cares if these non-Catholic religions can agree with us on issues such as marriage, abortion, etc., if they still end up going to hell.

And no matter how many times you try to defend the cardinal’s remarks, the truth is his remarks tend to downplay the fact that the Jesus of Mormonism and the Jesus of Christianity are two very different people. In fact, saying that we share a “common reference point in the person and the gospel of Jesus Christ” implies the exact opposite, whether that is what the cardinal intended or not.

And by that you consider a large part of the last 2000 years of history of the Church to be illegitimate? I have read the Gospels, and there are a few more things commanded in there besides that; and nothing that he said made that exclusive.

So I take it that you consider the Church’s work to protect the concept of marriage as between man and woman to be illegitimate?

And you consider the work of the Church to prevent the spread of abortion and birth control to be illegitiamte?

That is the essence of what you are getting at. On the first issue we joined with the LDS because they have a strong committment to marriage and were an ally in the issue.

On the second issue we joined with Islam in standing up to the UN and the NGOs working through them. They were a critical ally.

Your concept of the requirements of the Gospels is somewhat lacking in depth. As is your concept of the Church’s moral duties.

 

[otjm]

The purpose of the Church is the salvation of souls. All of the issues that you mentioned below in your post would fall under this purpose. Becoming “allies” with non-Catholic religions on social and political issues does not fulfill that purpose.

As a matter of fact, it most certainly does. It is obvious you have not been following either issue. The Church itself has made known that without the help of both groups, it is extremely likely that the results would have been different - to everyone’s detriment.

Proclaiming the Gospel to them does. This is to be the first and foremost mission of the Church. After all, who cares if these non-Catholic religions can agree with us on issues such as marriage, abortion, etc., if they still end up going to hell.

Nothing the Cardinal said, nor nothing the Church has done in conjunction with Islam and with the LDS has in any way harmed the Church’s mission in proclaiming the truth; and in fact, both actions have shown the truth and acted as evangelism. As I noted, it would appear you have not been following either issue. Again, you are making a response that can only be charitably described as naive as to how people respond to the Church’s message. Perhaps a review of the comment alleged to St Francis would help - “Preach the Gospel; if necessary, use words”…

And no matter how many times you try to defend the cardinal’s remarks, the truth is his remarks tend to downplay the fact that the Jesus of Mormonism and the Jesus of Christianity are two very different people. In fact, saying that we share a “common reference point in the person and the gospel of Jesus Christ” implies the exact opposite, whether that is what the cardinal intended or not.

Taht is such a hoot, I don’t even know where to begin. Someone who actually knows what the Church’s mission is and follows how the Church carries out that mission would have no question whatsoever that there is no downplaying. And to anyone who thinks that it does downplay it, such a simplistic response shows such a lack of depth on the issues as to go beyone naivety. Neither anyone LDS nor anyone Catholic who knows even a poorly defined “lick” about the other would make such a presumption. And for the rest, the comment would not even rise to the level of recognition.

I have met a goodly number of LDS people. None of them would take the Cardinal’s words for anything other than what they were; they certainly would not consider them a downplaying of the differences. They are all too aware of the differences.

 

[ServantofMary]

Nothing the Cardinal said, nor nothing the Church has done in conjunction with Islam and with the LDS has in any way harmed the Church’s mission in proclaiming the truth; and in fact, both actions have shown the truth and acted as evangelism.

Really? So how many Mormons, after hearing the cardinal’s message, converted to the true Faith? And tell me, in the books of Acts, do the Church leaders go around and preach on political and social issues to unbelievers, or do they proclaim the Gospel to them?

And to anyone who thinks that it does downplay it, such a simplistic response shows such a lack of depth on the issues as to go beyone naivety. Neither anyone LDS nor anyone Catholic who knows even a poorly defined “lick” about the other would make such a presumption. And for the rest, the comment would not even rise to the level of recognition.

I’m guessing that by this response you must go by the philosophy that if you can’t reply to someone, then you’ll just tell them how stupid they are, huh? LOL!

 

[momor]

Just an observation: Cardinal George is the head of the USCCB which has recently been called out by some pro-life groups for working with and contributing money to social justice groups that support abortion. No one believes that the USCCB supports abortion but when you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas.

The social justice arena in this country is a liberal slippery slope for many Catholics. I think we have to be very careful who we partner with and to avoid giving any appearance that we agree with groups that we don’t. If the cardinal’s speech can cause confusion and disagreement among Catholics, how much more so among non-Catholics?

Our own government has been guilty of supporting bad governments (Iraq for instance)because it suited our political agenda only to have it come back to bite us and diminish our credibility in the world.

 

[otjm]

Just an observation: Cardinal George is the head of the USCCB which has recently been called out by some pro-life groups for working with and contributing money to social justice groups that support abortion. No one believes that the USCCB supports abortion but when you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas.

The social justice arena in this country is a liberal slippery slope for many Catholics. I think we have to be very careful who we partner with and to avoid giving any appearance that we agree with groups that we don’t. If the cardinal’s speech can cause confusion and disagreement among Catholics, how much more so among non-Catholics?

Our own government has been guilty of supporting bad governments (Iraq for instance)because it suited our political agenda only to have it come back to bite us and diminish our credibility in the world.

Having had him as my archbishop, I can attest that he is very pro life. What goes on in any subcommittee is not something he has spent a great deal of time researching. Your semi unspoken assumption that he supports the committee is northing more than an unfounded conclusion.

The fact that someone in the Church has an issue does not make the issue substantive.

And having had the opportunity to observe the Cardinal and listen to him personally, the fact that someone wants to pick a bone with a statement of his doesn’t send me into a tizzy. He did not become Cardinal for being a fool; nor did he become a Cardinal because he could not follow the Magisterium or was not a part of it. There are people all over who call themselves Catholic but are fast to condemn what the Church does and say, and they are not all liberals. This whole issue has all of the substance of a tempest in a tea pot. The Cardinal spoke the truth, and some people have their britches in a wad because he does not conform to their image of the Church. Between their image and his statement, I will support the Cardinal.

 

[otjm]

Really? So how many Mormons, after hearing the cardinal’s message, converted to the true Faith? And tell me, in the books of Acts, do the Church leaders go around and preach on political and social issues to unbelievers, or do they proclaim the Gospel to them?

You are the one who is predicating that the statement waters down the Faith; how many stopped their process of conversion because of the statement? We both know the truth of the answer - you don’t know of anyone.

I’m guessing that by this response you must go by the philosophy that if you can’t reply to someone, then you’ll just tell them how stupid they are, huh? LOL!

No, I go by the philosopy that when someone is given an answer and they refuse to listen, but simply repeat their statement, that I am waisting my time. I don’t presume them stupid.

 

[ServantofMary]

You are the one who is predicating that the statement waters down the Faith; how many stopped their process of conversion because of the statement? We both know the truth of the answer - you don’t know of anyone.

You never did answer my second question. which was: In the books of Acts, do the Church leaders go around and preach on political and social issues to unbelievers, or do they proclaim the Gospel to them?

No, I go by the philosopy that when someone is given an answer and they refuse to listen, but simply repeat their statement, that I am waisting my time.

Aren’t you doing the same thing? I could just as easily say that you refuse to listen, and simply repeat your statement over and over again.

I don’t presume them stupid.

Oh, okay. I’m not stupid. But my response simply was “simplistic,” showed “lack of depth,” and “would not even rise to the level of recognition.” And you implied that I didn’t know “even a poorly defined ‘lick’ about the other.” Well, at least I’m glad I’m not stupid! LOL!

 

[otjm]

You never did answer my second question. which was: In the books of Acts, do the Church leaders go around and preach on political and social issues to unbelievers, or do they proclaim the Gospel to them?

I didn’t answer because it is essentially irrelevant to the discussion. A presumption that what was reported in Acts sets the sum and substance of what the Church does is not only a red herring to the discussion, but also presumes that Acts was intended as a guideline for what the Church should or should not do in addressing moral questions, and how they should respond.

Aren’t you doing the same thing? I could just as easily say that you refuse to listen, and simply repeat your statement over and over again.

Your explanation that the Church has no business in political issues (and it is interesting that you consider moral issues to be “political” and therefore somehow any activity on the Church’s part forbidden, or at least outside the scope of the Church’s mission) is unfounded and unsubstantiated - your reference to Acts notwithstanding. As to my listening, others have chimed in on the issue; it is not as if I were a lone protest to your position.

Oh, okay. I’m not stupid. But my response simply was “simplistic,” showed “lack of depth,” and “would not even rise to the level of recognition.” And you implied that I didn’t know “even a poorly defined ‘lick’ about the other.” Well, at least I’m glad I’m not stupid! LOL!

You are disturbed over something that is in no way disturbing. I have no problem with the Cardinal’s words. He speaks the truth, and you are attempting to accuse him of either a false or misleading statement. I have attempted to answer your objection; you choose to ignore the answer. That’s ok; it is not an issue that rises to any significant value. I have more than casual acquaintance with the LDS and their beliefs. I also understand exactly what the Cardinal is saying; you appear to not understand the subtlety of it. So be it; have a good day.

 

[momor]

You are disturbed over something that is in no way disturbing.

Most people really hate to be told their feelings or opinions are not valid. Just because she disagrees with you does not invalidate her opinion. It’s too bad you can’t see that and argue from logic and reason instead of personal put downs.

 

[ServantofMary]

I have attempted to answer your objection; you choose to ignore the answer.

I have not ignored your answer. I have simply disagreed with it. You may need to realize that just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn’t mean that they are not listening to you. And just because someone listens to you, that doesn’t mean that they are going to agree with you.

 

[otjm]

Most people really hate to be told their feelings or opinions are not valid. Just because she disagrees with you does not invalidate her opinion. It’s too bad you can’t see that and argue from logic and reason instead of personal put downs.

Tried that several times. Answered each of the objections. Results the same each time.

 

[ServantofMary]

Also, speaking of Cardinal George’s speech, the article states that “Cardinal George explained that religious freedom cannot be reduced to just freedom of worship or even freedom of private conscience, but that individual and religious groups must have the right to exercise their influence in the public square.” It then quotes him as saying:

“The lesson of American history is that churches and other religious bodies prosper in a nation and a social order that respects religious freedom and recognizes that civil government should never stand between the consciences and the religious practices of its citizens and Almighty God.”

This idea of religious freedom for all groups is contrary to traditional Catholic teaching, and goes directly against Pope Pius IX’s encyclical, *Quanta Cura *, in which he states:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.” (3)

The cardinal is in error.