CT's Lt Gov Calls For Resignation of Victim Advocate for Stating Catholic View

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timidity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Timidity

Guest
“Imagine, the State Victim Advocate testifying against victim’s rights. Whatever [Deacon] Papillo’s personal and political beliefs may be, he crossed the line this time and should be asked to resign immediately.”- Lt. Gov. Kevin Sullivan

The victim’s right in question is the right to force a Catholic Hospital to give “emergency contraception”.

Lt. Gov. Kevin Sullivan goes on to say “I respect his strongly held personal, religious beliefs, but he has a sworn duty and constitutional obligation to leave his opinions outside his office.”

Apparently he doesn’t apply to logic to himself.

Full story: nbc30.com/politics/7781055/detail.html

(As a PS, didn’t I read on these fora last year that this treatment was actually approved by the Vatican?)
 
I’m hardly surprised that the Lt. Governor doesn’t “get it.” But, truly a deacon shouldn’t hold public office. JPII ruled that no ordained/religious should hold public office after a case of a nun advocating for abortion rights became world news. The deacon should resign and fight for the rights of Catholic hospitals to withhold “treatments” that run counter to the teachings of the Church. That ought to be his focus as a deacon in the Catholic Church.
 
40.png
Della:
But, truly a deacon shouldn’t hold public office. JPII ruled that no ordained/religious should hold public office after a case of a nun advocating for abortion rights became world news. The deacon should resign and fight for the rights of Catholic hospitals to withhold “treatments” that run counter to the teachings of the Church. That ought to be his focus as a deacon in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Canon law prohobits ordained from public office, but not from public service. The job of the deacon is to bring his faith where he goes. The vast majority of deacons are unpaid, so they need a job if they are to survive and follow their 4th Commandment resposibilities.

I see the Victim’s Advocate position as a public service position, not a public office.
 
40.png
Timidity:
Canon law prohobits ordained from public office, but not from public service. The job of the deacon is to bring his faith where he goes. The vast majority of deacons are unpaid, so they need a job if they are to survive and follow their 4th Commandment resposibilities.

I see the Victim’s Advocate position as a public service position, not a public office.
Click to expand...
That may be the case. Still, I think it unwise of any deacon to take a position in which he will be in such a conflict in the public arena. Now, apparently, he has to choose between his job and his convictions as an ordained member of the Church, and so scandal is bound to be the result no matter what he intended by taking such a position.

I have to wonder what his bishop will want to do about it, if anything. It just seems like the whole thing ought to have been avoided in the first place. And I have little doubt the Lt. Gov. and his party haven’t been salivating to do exactly what they have done–put an ordained minister of the Catholic Church into such a position.

Really, as Catholics we ought to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves when deciding how and where we will serve the public, instead of putting ourselves into situations that are bound to stir up controversy and scandal–not that the deacon intended anything of the sort. But, he has been maneuvered into this situation and so has to deal with it, and the mess it will cause for Catholic hospitals and his diocese. The media will no doubt have field day over this. The deacon has my pity and my prayers.
 
40.png
Della:
I’m hardly surprised that the Lt. Governor doesn’t “get it.” But, truly a deacon shouldn’t hold public office. JPII ruled that no ordained/religious should hold public office after a case of a nun advocating for abortion rights became world news. The deacon should resign and fight for the rights of Catholic hospitals to withhold “treatments” that run counter to the teachings of the Church. That ought to be his focus as a deacon in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
The postition is not an elected office, but rather, he is an employee of the State. John Paul did not prohibit clergy and religious from employment by state or federal governmental agencies.

Would you likewise prohibit deacons from serving as governmental employees?

As postal workers, public school teachers perhaps?
 
40.png
Della:
That may be the case. Still, I think it unwise of any deacon to take a position in which he will be in such a conflict in the public arena. **Now, apparently, he has to choose between his job and his convictions ** as an ordained member of the Church, and so scandal is bound to be the result no matter what he intended by taking such a position.
.
Click to expand...
Why does he have to choose. The law mandated that the Advocate “advance policies throughout the state that promote the fair and just treatment of victims”

That is exactly what he is doing. Why would having a victim kill her child serve the cause of Justice?
 
40.png
Brendan:
Why does he have to choose. The law mandated that the Advocate “advance policies throughout the state that promote the fair and just treatment of victims”
Click to expand...
Because he will be forced to choose by those out to destroy the autonomy of Catholic institutions. These people are organized and they have no scruples about how they will do it. And if they can besmirch the name of Catholicism in the public arena while they are at it, so much the better from their point of view.
That is exactly what he is doing. Why would having a victim kill her child serve the cause of Justice?
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree with you, he shouldn’t have to order Catholic hospitals to offer contraceptives. You and I see it clearly enough, but many in the secular sphere will not, will they?
 
40.png
Brendan:
The postition is not an elected office, but rather, he is an employee of the State. John Paul did not prohibit clergy and religious from employment by state or federal governmental agencies.

Would you likewise prohibit deacons from serving as governmental employees?
Click to expand...
Maybe he should have prohibited such service when it puts ordained ministers of the Church into direct conflict with the policies of the government he serves. Two masters and all that.
As postal workers, public school teachers perhaps?
Click to expand...
They don’t actually work for the government nor are they expected to uphold government policies pertaining to such matters as life and death. But, once again, an ordained minister probably shouldn’t serve in any such office in a secular institution because he is bound to come up against secular policies that he cannot support as a deacon in the Catholic Church.
 
40.png
Della:
Maybe he should have prohibited such service when it puts ordained ministers of the Church into direct conflict with the policies of the government he serves. Two masters and all that.
Click to expand...
He seems pretty content with 1 Master. Where has this deacon shown a conflict between the two?

The deacon seems to be articulating the policy of the Governor pretty well, it’s the Lt. Gov that has an objection.
They don’t actually work for the government nor are they expected to uphold government policies pertaining to such matters as life and death. But, once again, an ordained minister probably shouldn’t serve in any such office in a secular institution because he is bound to come up against secular policies that he cannot support as a deacon in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Postal workers are Federal Employees.

OK then, how about USDA meat inspectors, should a deacon be prohibited from that field?
 
I think the Lt. Governor should be forced to resign for his comments.

PF
 
40.png
Della:
…an ordained minister probably shouldn’t serve in any such office in a secular institution because he is bound to come up against secular policies that he cannot support as a deacon in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
In the same position, I, as a layman would come up against the same policies and be no more able to support them than the Deacon. Should Catholic Laity therefore be excluded from serving in such capacities? No, they should meet these challenges head on and challenge them, as the Deacon is doing.
 
40.png
Brendan:
He seems pretty content with 1 Master. Where has this deacon shown a conflict between the two?
Click to expand...
I did not say this particular deacon has shown any conflict between serving the Church and serving the government, but it has happened before and will happen again in the case of ordained and religious Catholics, which is why I believe deacons and religous ought not to serve in government postions of this kind.
The deacon seems to be articulating the policy of the Governor pretty well, it’s the Lt. Gov that has an objection.
Click to expand...
Good, that’s fine, but he shouldn’t be in such a position in the first place, imho.
Postal workers are Federal Employees.
Click to expand...
OK then, how about USDA meat inspectors, should a deacon be prohibited from that field?
Click to expand...
Okay, postal workers are federal employees, I don’t doubt your word. But, postal employees will not be called upon to make policy decisions of the kind a victims advocate would be–that is my point. The same obviously applies to meat inspectors and other such employees, as well.
 
JB.:
In the same position, I, as a layman would come up against the same policies and be no more able to support them than the Deacon. Should Catholic Laity therefore be excluded from serving in such capacities? No, they should meet these challenges head on and challenge them, as the Deacon is doing.
Click to expand...
You, as a lay person, are not an ordained representative of the Church, though, are you? I can see how it would be a conflict of interest, yes?
 
40.png
Della:
You, as a lay person, are not an ordained representative of the Church, though, are you? I can see how it would be a conflict of interest, yes?
Click to expand...
While not ordained, I am nonetheless a Baptized and Confirmed representative of the Church. It is no more a conflict of interest for me to be both a good citizen and a good Catholic than it is for a Deacon to be both a good citizen and a good Catholic. There is no action within this Deacon’s public service job which would be immoral for him to do as a Catholic Deacon that would not also be immoral for me to do as a Catholic Layman. Or should the Laity should be held to a lower standard?
 
40.png
Della:
I’m hardly surprised that the Lt. Governor doesn’t “get it.” But, truly a deacon shouldn’t hold public office. JPII ruled that no ordained/religious should hold public office after a case of a nun advocating for abortion rights became world news. The deacon should resign and fight for the rights of Catholic hospitals to withhold “treatments” that run counter to the teachings of the Church. That ought to be his focus as a deacon in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
This is the first time that I disagree w/ Della! Wow. Milestone!

The ruling of JPII is with regard to elected political office (this does allow ordained to stand for non-political office as in school board or mayor so long as the issues confronted by the office holder are not expected to tread on issues that could lead one to act in violation of Church teaching).

The ruling also allows one ordained to hold an appointed office. In both cases, if the position would require the ordained to act contrary to Church Teaching, the person should resign. However, in this situation, I think the ordained fully acted in accord with their obligtions in the position and the Church. It is the Lt. Gov. who is abdicating his obligations.
 
40.png
Della:
Okay, postal workers are federal employees, I don’t doubt your word. But, postal employees will not be called upon to make policy decisions of the kind a victims advocate would be–that is my point. The same obviously applies to meat inspectors and other such employees, as well.
Click to expand...
But this person is also just an employee of the CT State government.

He was called to give testimony and gave the exact same testimony any faithful Catholic would give.

So is your point that faithful Catholics should not be a postion to testify on pending legislation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top