Catholic U.S. Lawmakers Call for Direct Repudiation

[elts1956]

And you’re obviously entitled to your own opinion, but from my actual words and from the logical facts as I’ve laid them out, I think your reaction is inappropriate and unfortunate. CAF posters often lose all self-control and proportion when discussing anything related to politicians and reproductive issues. This is one of many examples of this.

My initial reaction to the Congressmen’s letter chastizing and trying to tell the Pope what to do in a matter of religion, is that they had no business doing so. They are overstepping their authority. They wrote as a group trying to give the impression they were morally repulsed by Pope Benedict’s VXI actions regarding Williamson (who is a real turkey. Oops, did I say that?). What members of THIS congress have the moral integrity to tell the LEADER of OUR church what to do. Another frontal attack on the church as far as I am concerned.

 

[Elizabeth502]

My initial reaction to the Congressmen’s letter chastizing and trying to tell the Pope what to do in a matter of religion, is that they had no business doing so. They are overstepping their authority. They wrote as a group trying to give the impression they were morally repulsed by Pope Benedict’s VXI actions regarding Williamson (who is a real turkey. Oops, did I say that?). What members of THIS congress have the moral integrity to tell the LEADER of OUR church what to do. Another frontal attack on the church as far as I am concerned.

elts, I was surprised that you quoted only a portion of one of my posts, and then refuted it. Overall, actually (and I’ve been trying to say this in several posts), I agree with you: they overstepped their authority. However, they may or may not have the right to be “morally repulsed” by a turkey. I think this is one of the central controversies on CAF. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that an apparent lack of authenticity (or difference of opinion) in one area of morality invalidates all other moral positions, or renders the holder of the opinion irrelevant in all matters. I try to think about it in this way:

Many Catholic bishops blew it, major, with the sex abuse scandal. They were culpable – and in some cases chronically and to an extreme. Yet I strongly disagree with liberals in the Church who say that “therefore” the hierarchy in general, when it comes to moral teaching, has zero moral credibility. One can fail in one area and be accurate and insightful in another.

We have to listen to the voice of the Spirit, who sometimes speaks in unlikely places and through unlikely speakers. Jesus certainly did not think that grave sinners had worthless opinions or nothing valid to say. I think that each argument or position should be judged on its own merits, for the truth and moral validity and biblical values reflected – despite whether the holder of those opinions is fully or even partly living those values.

The Vatican does not need us to advise them on whether to listen or take seriously any particular person or group. They’re perfectly capable of sorting out whatever they find authentic or not. Certainly JPII demonstrated several times that he was capable of discerning the good that came from unlikely or inconsistent sources.

I do not think that it furthers the cause of morality to condemn and demonize people.

Nevertheless, the congressional letter was i.m.o. ill-advised at this time. The nation has serious domestic needs, and until these lawmakers can claim significant improvement in those areas, diplomatic efforts should be left up to the diplomats, heads of state, and especially in this case, religious authorities. This is mostly an internal religious matter.

 

[elts1956]

elts, I was surprised that you quoted only a portion of one of my posts, and then refuted it. Overall, actually (and I’ve been trying to say this in several posts), I agree with you: they overstepped their authority. However, they may or may not have the right to be “morally repulsed” by a turkey. I think this is one of the central controversies on CAF. I respectfully disagree with those who believe that an apparent lack of authenticity (or difference of opinion) in one area of morality invalidates all other moral positions, or renders the holder of the opinion irrelevant in all matters. I try to think about it in this way:

Many Catholic bishops blew it, major, with the sex abuse scandal. They were culpable – and in some cases chronically and to an extreme. Yet I strongly disagree with liberals in the Church who say that “therefore” the hierarchy in general, when it comes to moral teaching, has zero moral credibility. One can fail in one area and be accurate and insightful in another.

We have to listen to the voice of the Spirit, who sometimes speaks in unlikely places and through unlikely speakers. Jesus certainly did not think that grave sinners had worthless opinions or nothing valid to say. I think that each argument or position should be judged on its own merits, for the truth and moral validity and biblical values reflected – despite whether the holder of those opinions is fully or even partly living those values.

The Vatican does not need us to advise them on whether to listen or take seriously any particular person or group. They’re perfectly capable of sorting out whatever they find authentic or not. Certainly JPII demonstrated several times that he was capable of discerning the good that came from unlikely or inconsistent sources.

I do not think that it furthers the cause of morality to condemn and demonize people.

Nevertheless, the congressional letter was i.m.o. ill-advised at this time. The nation has serious domestic needs, and until these lawmakers can claim significant improvement in those areas, diplomatic efforts should be left up to the diplomats, heads of state, and especially in this case, religious authorities. This is mostly an internal religious matter.

I am sorry Elizabeth if you think I used only a part of your quote? What I wrote came right off the top of my little brain. If you want to clarify the portion of one of your posts that I used, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am sorry Elizabeth if you think I used only a part of your quote? What I wrote came right off the top of my little brain. If you want to clarify the portion of one of your posts that I used, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Oh, no need to belabor it, elts. I just meant that the bulk of my response is to indicate that I support, not oppose, the general dissatisfaction on the forum, and on this thread, with the congressional letter as being inappropriate. I just believe that we need to keep some perspective when it comes to statements about morality, focusing on the concept more than the source.

 

[MacRath]

I think Elizabeth’s point is well made. In terms of the catechism, moral decisions involve intention, means and objective. Objectively, one might also want to consider the perception an act may cause, as it can lead to scandal. It does not mean that the behavior was scandalous, only that it might create a perception of such, a possible conflict of interest, hence I agree with Elizabeth that they should not have expressed such opinions as Catholic lawmakers leading one to believe that maybe they were trading on both their secular employment, as well as their chosen? faith.

My point is that we are in no position to pass judgement on their actions, being not in possesion of the truth regarding the three elements of a moral decision. That is between them and God. In God’s eyes they may have acted rightly, though it caused scandal to some.

So as not to mislead you: I was appalled at the decision, only because I have been taught the Holocaust was real, and I fear bigotry. I was relieved to see the Pope and the Vatican address the issue.

I am also an ex-Catholic after 4 years as a convert. I can no longer discern the difference between Catholics and Fundamentalist evangelicals in many instances…the demonisation Elizabeth referred to, and the mob spirit…

The Pharisees did everything right and by the Law.

Remember what they did to He that sought to fulfill the law not through works but by Faith…and Hope…and Charity.

Please consider which of these three theological virtues has been exercised in your conversation with Elizabeth.

Bless you Elizabeth.

 

[elts1956]

Oh, no need to belabor it, elts. I just meant that the bulk of my response is to indicate that I support, not oppose, the general dissatisfaction on the forum, and on this thread, with the congressional letter as being inappropriate. I just believe that we need to keep some perspective when it comes to statements about morality, focusing on the concept more than the source.

Not to belabor it Eliz. but can one/or a group be repulsed without a moral connotation? ie, morally repulsed? I think that anything this group can say to negate anything the Church or Pope does, or says, they will do it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Not to belabor it Eliz. but can one/or a group be repulsed without a moral connotation? ie, morally repulsed? I think that anything this group can say to negate anything the Church or Pope does, or says, they will do it.

It’s a fair question, but I think it a little presumptive. Not mainly even because we cannot know motive (certainly of the separate individuals among the group), but more because such a conclusion signifies caricature. Are there particular signatories of the letter who are infected with a blind prejudice toward the RCC? Maybe. But if this letter is some proof of that prejudice, it’s weak proof, i.m.o., esp. compared to the antipathy of other groups & individuals with wholesale distrust of any institutionalized religion, with Catholicism being at the top of that list.

Congresspeople are victims of their own office, in that they tend to view all events and persons through a political lens, including all religious news. Bottom line: I don’t think they were motivated by anti-Catholicism. I think they were motivated by the desire to join a political posture. And I think they see the Pope as a political figure, as much as a religious figure.

 

[KathleenElsie]

What makes something repulsive? Is it not a persons internal moral compass? IF not a moral compass then what?

 

[Nordar]

They don’t actually care what the Pope thinks, do they?

Does that surprise you?

 

[fix]

My point is that we are in no position to pass judgement on their actions, being not in possesion of the truth regarding the three elements of a moral decision. That is between them and God. In God’s eyes they may have acted rightly, though it caused scandal to some.

Actually, we are in a postion to judge their actions. It is their conscience we may not judge. They are self identified Catholic public figures. Their voting records and stances on life issues are a concern for every peron.

I am also an ex-Catholic after 4 years as a convert. I can no longer discern the difference between Catholics and Fundamentalist evangelicals in many instances…the demonisation Elizabeth referred to, and the mob spirit…

I am sorry to learn you left the Church and hope and pray you will return home. As an aside why would you leave the Church based on the members?

 

[Elizabeth502]

What makes something repulsive? Is it not a persons internal moral compass? IF not a moral compass then what?

A person’s internal moral compass is not for you to concern yourself with overly, unless you are that person’s spiritual director and have been assigned guardianship of that moral compass which is being personally disclosed to you.

What’s “repulsive”? Another poster opened a thread about that recently. She/he asked, What Defiles us? And then answered her own question, aptly, with Jesus’ words: What defiles us is the uncleanness that comes out of our mouths, and the actions that accompany that. She quoted, and listed those, which included various acts & words of uncharity and licentiousness, etc.

So if the words in the congressional letter, those words only themselves, were morally reprehensible, then they could be described as ‘repulsive,’ But the message was confined to a particular topic, not every topic that CAF posters want to include along with that. The moral message in that letter can be received on its own merits, not in juxtaposition with anything else. The congress members were not exhorting the Vatican about something involving reproductive rights, but on a different matter unrelated to positions opposing Catholic moral views.

 

[MacRath]

“I am sorry to learn you left the Church and hope and pray you will return home. As an aside why would you leave the Church based on the members?”

Because in the sacrament of confession a year ago I was told that maybe I ought to leave the Church, that it was a bad marriage.

I went to a new parish and threw myself into Lent…then the only friend I had from the parish I joined when a new convert left me…because their peer group disapproved of me. In a birthday present I included some roses from the local abbey’s altar…so they took it just like secular people…instead of a reminder of the Sacred.

Oh they kept the beautiful present, and beat me up with it from time to time and never said thank you.

It is not her fault, but the fault of her leaders, and I will not live a lie. I do not go where I am not welcome. She was a beautiful soul with much to offer…and much to learn. So now she can quote Church law badly, and the Agape I asked her to promise to serve when I started supporting her i…well it is not shown toward me…nor does she ever apologize anymore, because ‘God has made her soul beautiful’.

Rather than worry about me and the rest of the lost, why don’t you clean up your own house before you again presume to ‘save the world’. You can’t give away what you don’t have.

Anyway sorry to dump. The dog is a great pal, but our conversations are sort of one-sided.

I asked for community in the rite of welcome…faith in God I had, but no practical way of participating in spiritual community. In other words real spirituality as opposed to rolling on the floor screaming about the Spirit and being ‘holy’. Without one thought about your neighbor.

So after being fed scraps from the table, and told it was all about Jesus…well I loved my confessor, and still do…what was said in the confessional was God’s will, so I left.

You can’t have it both ways. It is either a real sacrament, or it is nothing.

As to members? If I died in my room no one would know or care for months. This after 3 years in the same parish…time on the stewardship committee, Virtus trained, and a eucharistic minister, which I bowed out of after that confession. So I had no relationship of any sincerity with Church members and there fore I did not leave what could not be left.

And yes, I reached out time and again through some of the worst moments in my life…and tried to give, and tried to love.

And the Church smugly gave me the law and told me Jesus would make it right in the end.

I do not believe in such a God. But it will take a long time for me to find my way back Home now…

 

[elts1956]

It’s a fair question, but I think it a little presumptive. Not mainly even because we cannot know motive (certainly of the separate individuals among the group), but more because such a conclusion signifies caricature. Are there particular signatories of the letter who are infected with a blind prejudice toward the RCC? Maybe. But if this letter is some proof of that prejudice, it’s weak proof, i.m.o., esp. compared to the antipathy of other groups & individuals with wholesale distrust of any institutionalized religion, with Catholicism being at the top of that list.

Congresspeople are victims of their own office, in that they tend to view all events and persons through a political lens, including all religious news. Bottom line: I don’t think they were motivated by anti-Catholicism. I think they were motivated by the desire to join a political posture. And I think they see the Pope as a political figure, as much as a religious figure.

Not to be presumptive, they see the Pope as a political, not a religious figure. Otherwise the majority of these people would not be pro abortion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think they see him as having dual roles, but clearly the political role is more important to them than the religious role.

 

[vs_trumpet]

I don’t necessarily think it’s “supreme arrogance,” but I do think it is not within their role as U.S. lawmakers to have anything to do with this issue – particularly as it is a religious issue, not a secular one (regardless of the fact there are secular ramifications).

Church and state are in organic unity, both part of one society. A person’s different roles are also in organic unity as there is but one person, not a person split in two or three.

It’s not arrogance. I agree. So does the church, IMO.

CIC 212.3 “According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they [the Christian faithful] have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors [up to and including the pope] their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”
translation etc borrowed from

U.S. dignitaries, by definition, have great “prestige”, so their exercise of this right and duty to make manifest their judgment about this matter should be per this canon, judged in light of their “prestige”

These were all Catholics. However, the spirit and arguably the letter of this canon would apply to the daughter of Lutheran minister and German chancellor who would have even greater “prestige” which this canon demands we take into account if evaluating whether her intervention was appropriate.

The spirit of the canon would apply also to Jews and thanks be to the one whom mortals grasp at with many names but who surpasses our understanding, the pope has agreed to meet soon with Jewish leaders, including those whose work concerns itself with anti-Semitism.

Hopefully, the pope himself personally will make known his opinion about the matters the Catholic bishop raised. In neither the pope’s personal statement nor in the unsigned statement of the Secretariat of State in the unofficial newspaper was it said that gas chambers were used to commit genocide against Jews, something the bishop specifically denied. The bishop also raised the question of what Adolf Hitler might have personally directed and no statement from the pope or unsigned statement of the Secretariat of State took on that as well. CNN notes as part of this story:

“After his 14th birthday in 1941, Benedict – then called Joseph Ratzinger – was forced along with the rest of his class in Bavaria, southern Germany, to join the Hitler Youth.”

Whatever his inculpability might have been in acquiescing to the coercion brought to bear on him to join the Hitler Youth, questions linger in my mind as to what indoctrination he might have been exposed to while in the Hitler Youth and by what process he might have had all the effects of that indoctrination removed.

According to the Vatican, the pope on learning of the bishop’s interview was “troubled.” To me, that itself is what is troubling for one would think learning of the bishop’s interview would not only cause one to be “troubled” but as many Jews were, outraged.

 

[MacRath]

trumpet-that was well spoken. And very straight at the end when you addressed what some might consider the root of the problem in a responsible mature manner.

…FWIW…what disturbed me when I was a Catholic was not that the pope had been in the Hitler Youth, but that it had been described as unavoidable…

And yet German Catholics, well I recall a farmer who was executed as his conscience would not allow him to serve the German state at that time…

I guess had he said ‘I funked it’, or ‘I did not understand the consequences…’

Blaming the power of the state at that time raises a serious question for a pope - not a lay person, at least to be consistent with the gospels which suggest those that lead will be held to a higher standard.

It is the appearances which trouble me…and the points you raised at the end…perhaps outrage is not the christian response, but alarm and sorrow…

But again others were blamed indirectly: ‘I did not know’.

I don’t know if it is appropriate to post this, but I do not post as one who holds a position ascribed to apostolic descent.

On a lighter note, Peter as the archetype of Church…well Jesus had to say ‘Get thee behind me’…and at Jesus most painful hour, Peter denied him. So maybe we expect too much