Deacon cut the Homily to make Political points...

[Lapey]

I am merely pointing out that picking one’s sins is not confined to those who voted ‘incorrectly’ - the sin of divorce is glossed over here because the culture is so heavily invested in it. Why else has the American church caved with the extremely liberal annulment procedure??

Many who sit around on our parish councils and scream judgmentally about the politics of others are in many cases hypocritical - as Mathew 7:5 said of them:

*You hypocrite first take the plank out of your own eye
*

Now i’m a hypocrite. Sad, you can’t handle what I’ve told you in truth so now you attempt to play diversion tactics.

Unless you care to discuss this honestly I’m done.

 

[Cailte]

Now i’m a hypocrite. Sad, you can’t handle what I’ve told you in truth so now you attempt to play diversion tactics.

Unless you care to discuss this honestly I’m done.

You know you ought to learn to read a bit better. What I said precisely was:

Many who sit around on our parish councils and scream judgmentally about the politics of others are in many cases hypocritical - as Mathew 7:5 said of them:
*You hypocrite first take the plank out of your own eye *

How you came to read that as pointedly directed at you baffles me - the sadness is all on your side.

And I can handle anything you wish to say without thinking that you are getting personally at me.

 

[Lapey]

You know you ought to learn to read a bit better. What I said precisely was:

How you came to read that as pointedly directed at you baffles me - the sadness is all on your side.

And I can handle anything you wish to say without thinking that you are getting personally at me.

Why do you divert the conversation and use innuendo to place blame to others? You started this thread to criticize an ordained minister simply because you didn’t like what he had to say and how he said it. You can’t show he or we have not spoken truthfully on the subject so instead of admitting your fault and learning a valuable lesson you divert attention and show your weak motives. You thought everyone would jump on the bad deacon bandwagon but we didn’t. I wish you well. Please look at this thread again and take to heart all the charity that has been shown to you by everyone. God bless.

 

[Cailte]

Why do you divert the conversation and use innuendo to place blame to others? You started this thread to criticize an ordained minister simply because you didn’t like what he had to say and how he said it. You can’t show he or we have not spoken truthfully on the subject so instead of admitting your fault and learning a valuable lesson you divert attention and show your weak motives. You thought everyone would jump on the bad deacon bandwagon but we didn’t. I wish you well. Please look at this thread again and take to heart all the charity that has been shown to you by everyone. God bless.

You are the one in error here and struggling with truth - now you suggest innuendo. I expanded the discussion around some of the comments made but still hold that the Deacon was out of line and narrow in his perception of right and wrong. I have no problem going back to that statement.

But the expansion of my point to include the issue of divorce is what I think really bothers you - so God Bless to you on that. Think about it and learn.

 

[Lapey]

You are the one in error here and struggling with truth - now you suggest innuendo. I expanded the discussion around some of the comments made but still hold that the Deacon was out of line and narrow in his perception of right and wrong. I have no problem going back to that statement.

But the expansion of my point to include the issue of divorce is what I think really bothers you - so God Bless to you on that. Think about it and learn.

You didn’t expand you switched. Why would divorce bother me? I’ve preached on that topic too. This topic doesn’t rise to the level of abortion according to Church teaching however.

 

[Lapey]

Sorry. Duplicate.

 

[johnnykins]

The question you give for me to ask Fr. Serpa is an easy one to answer, it is yes. But that is stipulated all views are equal and there are no other intrinsic evils involved. In this election the views on abortion were not equal, there was a lesser of two evils, and Romney did not run on any other IEs, nor does his party’s platform endorse any. So your question would not fit this election situation, mine does.

I asked the right question in the light of this election.

Not so…killing one baby or 100 babies are all intrinsic evils - and you cannot claim one is better than the other. Fundamentally both parties support abortion. That’s the whole point.

How one deals with that is a matter of prudence. Indeed, one could easily argue that the GOP position is the more pernicious since it makes the legitimacy of abortion more acceptable. That is the Democratic position of greater freedom of abortion is more easily seen as an IE and so presents a clear target for complete abolition. Whereas the GOP position subtly supports the IE of abortion, but sugar coats it to permit it to be swallowed…a la Ryan. As you can see the arguments can be decidedly less than clear as to what is the right response. In any event, after getting through that thicket, you are still allowed to address other areas of concern when both parties support an IE.

No, your question was not really applicable. The answer tells us nothing about how to analyze the actual choice - which is what one had to do. Naturally, any prudential decision would be non-binding by definition.

 

[Lapey]

Not so…killing one baby or 100 babies are all intrinsic evils - and you cannot claim one is better than the other. Fundamentally both parties support abortion. That’s the whole point.

How one deals with that is a matter of prudence. Indeed, one could easily argue that the GOP position is the more pernicious since it makes the legitimacy of abortion more acceptable. That is the Democratic position of greater freedom of abortion is more easily seen as an IE and so presents a clear target for complete abolition. Whereas the GOP position subtly supports the IE of abortion, but sugar coats it to permit it to be swallowed…a la Ryan. As you can see the arguments can be decidedly less than clear as to what is the right response. In any event, after getting through that thicket, you are still allowed to address other areas of concern when both parties support an IE.

No, your question was not really applicable. The answer tells us nothing about how to analyze the actual choice - which is what one had to do. Naturally, any prudential decision would be non-binding by definition.

We are saying pretty much the same thing. I dont disagree with you. Except for the Churches option to choose the lesser of two evils. This may not be your choice but it is acceptible by Church teaching.

By the way I never said nor insinuated that less abortion was acceptable. NO abortion is. One is not.

 

[triumphguy]

Evangelium vitae 73:

…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

 

[superamazingman]

I was going to post this on the ‘joke homilies’ thread but decided to start a new one about something that happened in our church this past Sunday.

A fairly newly ordained Deacon - this past April was his ordination - announced that he wasn’t going to give a homily after the Gospel reading but was going to instead give a ‘bible study’ lecture. He then launched into an attack on those who had voted ‘the wrong way’ in the recent election i.e. without actually mentioning any party it soon became obvious that he was specifically targeting Democrats or those who had voted for them. Those people had ‘sold their first-borns’ [direct quote] for other gains was the charge. I was stunned and upset that this should have been interjected into my Sunday Mass. I love the Mass, frequently attend daily Mass, and felt that something sacred had been violated with this ‘party political broadcast’ coming from the altar in lieu of our homily.

This has lead to a lot of upset in the parish - I am staying out of it all but feel disturbed that this should have occurred. What do others here think?

There is nothing wrong with such things, and it is sorely needed. Politics is something that directly impacts each of us (HHS Mandate, abortion), even if we don’t like to hear about it.

It’s no wonder this monster won, since so few of our clergy were willing to speak out against him.

 

[superamazingman]

You know you ought to learn to read a bit better. What I said precisely was:

How you came to read that as pointedly directed at you baffles me - the sadness is all on your side.

And I can handle anything you wish to say without thinking that you are getting personally at me.

Here’s a perspective that might help you: just because someone isn’t perfect means that everything they say that you don’t like makes them a hypocrite.

What this deacon did was called for and needed. Anyone who voted for Obama participated in grave sin, and if they knew, or this deacon had preached a similar homily before the election, that sin may very well be mortal.

Politics is something that directly impacts each of us (HHS Mandate, abortion), even if we don’t like to hear about it.

It’s no wonder this monster won, since so few of our clergy were willing to speak out against him.

 

[superamazingman]

Well it seems I hit a nerve - nothing trumps anything, your interpretation is your own.

wrong. Some things do trump others. To say otherwise is to participate in moral relativism.

Abortion and the attacks on religious freedom are much more important than divorce rates. And that’s not just my interpretation.

 

[Usige]

There is no political ‘issue’ with divorce because Catholics have not made it an issue - total silence from Catholics on this issue as far as I can see. No massive public meetings, no marches, no demanding that politicians make changes etc. In fact, not only silence, but massive amounts of Catholic ‘annulments’ that accompany civil divorce proceedings - so SUPPORT for divorce amongst American Catholics.

I agree with you about divorce. It is why I spend so much time helping couples in marriage prep and talking to couples even after marriage. The only place I have been asked to help with marriage and have declined is when I was asked to train as an advocate for couples seeking declarations of nullity. Why? Because of my feelings that many decrees use the absolute minimal standard and therefore I would not be doing the couple a favor. Now ask me to take on the defender of the bond and I’m your guy. That being said we can’t fix divorce by electing someone that has no respect for any traditional moral stance. Failing to stand up for divorce 30+ years ago just shows how ignoring these other issues will not make them better. You know how to organize around tightening divorce, let me know. I’ll be the first to volunteer to help you.

It’s hypocritical to claim that gay marriage [which I am against] is singularly destroying marriage and the family when in fact easy and routine divorce has gone a long way towards destroying it over the past few decades - and redefining traditional family life - and not a squeak of protest do we hear about that.

I hope you don’t mean I’m a hypocrite since I never said same sex “marriage” was the **only **thing destroying the traditional institution of marriage. It is the final nail in the coffin of five decades of attacks on the traditional family.

My point was one candidate is bound to drive us over the cliff. With a second term I suspect that this will only be accelerated. The other wouldn’t have turned the clock back, but might at least slow the rapid decent into the abyss.

 

[johnnykins]

Evangelium vitae 73:

…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

That is precisely correct. The problem is the tendency to read too much into that statement - or ones like it.

1. What does “could” mean? I think it means he/she doesn’t have to…buy may…it’s permissive
2. “aimed at limiting the harm done” does that mean it must be the intent of the proposal to limit the - or would the effect with bad intent be OK? What is the “harm done”? The dead baby(ies) or the acceptance of any abortion however limited contra to the moral law? Some other moral deficiency? Who decided on these issues? HMC? the legislator/politician? the local Bishop? Your local Pastor? Fr. Serpa?
3. What are its “negative consequences”? See above
4. What is the " level of general opinion and public morality" - not one word about dead babies. How general is “general”? Clearly, this is a hook to hang denouncing the GOP position of a little abortion is OK such as I previously suggested could be argued.

The point is EV, and the Church’s position in general, when applied to real life specific circumstances that don’t fall in the clear moral prohibition, is murky, unclear, subject to debate - and good people can disagree on all manner of ways to deal with it - any and all of which might be wrong as that is the nature of prudential judgment.

As long as both parties support abortion in any manner there is room to disagree on what to do. That is consistent with EV and Church teaching despite the fact that many Catholics, including Bishops, think otherwise. It is not sinful to make an error in prudence whether that is made by the Bishops, priests or laity.

I’m really not trying to make any fancier point.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

But there was no direct referendum on abortion - that’s the point.

And BTW when there was a referendum on civil divorce in Ireland the Catholic clergy were just as adamant that voting for civil divorce or participating in its success was an evil. How many in the US would be without sin then?

Ireland is an overwhelmingly and historically Catholic country, so the relationship between politics and religion is quite different there. The clergy were correct.

It is more than abundantly clear that no Catholic can vote for Obama in good conscience, given the many intrinsic moral evils he supports. He has done more to attack human life from conception to natural death than any other president in history by far.

 

[Lapey]

That is precisely correct. The problem is the tendency to read too much into that statement - or ones like it.

1. What does “could” mean? I think it means he/she doesn’t have to…buy may…it’s permissive
2. “aimed at limiting the harm done” does that mean it must be the intent of the proposal to limit the - or would the effect with bad intent be OK? What is the “harm done”? The dead baby(ies) or the acceptance of any abortion however limited contra to the moral law? Some other moral deficiency? Who decided on these issues? HMC? the legislator/politician? the local Bishop? Your local Pastor? Fr. Serpa?
3. What are its “negative consequences”? See above
4. What is the " level of general opinion and public morality" - not one word about dead babies. How general is “general”? Clearly, this is a hook to hang denouncing the GOP position of a little abortion is OK such as I previously suggested could be argued.

The point is EV, and the Church’s position in general, when applied to real life specific circumstances that don’t fall in the clear moral prohibition, is murky, unclear, subject to debate - and good people can disagree on all manner of ways to deal with it - any and all of which might be wrong as that is the nature of prudential judgment.

As long as both parties support abortion in any manner there is room to disagree on what to do. That is consistent with EV and Church teaching despite the fact that many Catholics, including Bishops, think otherwise. It is not sinful to make an error in prudence whether that is made by the Bishops, priests or laity.

I’m really not trying to make any fancier point.

Your initial statement here, I agree with 100%, however, when do we choose to believe what people say? I chose to believe Romney/Ryan and so I voted for them.

I saw this as a two horse race, which the polls illustrated quite well they were the only two candidates who were viable. Out of these two, one has proven by word, deed and action to be pro-abortion on demand, anti-Catholic Church, pro-same sex “marriage”, etc. furthermore, his party’s platform, shaped much by him, stood for, and still currently stands for many IEs, so by nature of all of these issues he is disqualified.

The other candidate on the other hand, is against abortion in all cases except rape, incest, and life of the mother. I tend to agree with Paul Ryan’s statement, “It’s a great start.” Is Romney lying? Maybe you are correct, but I believe he sees more good than the opponent does, that guys views are just simply, well, evil in the eyes of the Church’s teachings.

Bottom line, with the re-election of Obama, more babies will die and for a longer period of time; no one in any authoritative place has said different, rep or dem. 50% of Catholics voted to re-elect BO, had those people voted the other way he would have lost. When Ruth B Ginsburg retires and other justices are replaced in this four year term, I want you to ask yourself, were my strict principles worth the children that will assuredly die because of these appointments? Furthermore, would my vote for his opposition, Romney, have brought more conservative pro-life appointments which would set up the possibility to end legal abortion in America? The answers are easy, no and yes respectfully.

 

[Myqyl]

I might be mistaken, but I don’t think the OP was upset by the “content” of the political speech that replaced the homily, but by the “fact” that a political speech replaced the homily. I, for one, would have been just as outraged if I agreed with the content of a political speech that replaced part of the Mass as I would be if I disagreed.

Certainly a Homily can be tied to current events, and should be… But the Deacon in question stated he was not doing a Homily, instead he was giving a speech. How is this different than if he had said “I’m not doing a Gospel Reading today, instead I’m going to read from this cool book a politician wrote”?

Yes the Deacon has the right, and some may argue, the obligation to discuss current events in the context of the Gospel Reading during the Homily. But it is not a time for him to make speeches.

God bless.

 

[superamazingman]

I might be mistaken, but I don’t think the OP was upset by the “content” of the political speech that replaced the homily, but by the “fact” that a political speech replaced the homily. I, for one, would have been just as outraged if I agreed with the content of a political speech that replaced part of the Mass as I would be if I disagreed.

Certainly a Homily can be tied to current events, and should be… But the Deacon in question stated he was not doing a Homily, instead he was giving a speech. How is this different than if he had said “I’m not doing a Gospel Reading today, instead I’m going to read from this cool book a politician wrote”?

Yes the Deacon has the right, and some may argue, the obligation to discuss current events in the context of the Gospel Reading during the Homily. But it is not a time for him to make speeches.

God bless.

I honestly don’t understand this aversion to politics in church. It’s something that effects us immensely. Our president is waging an all out war on the church, and we get frustrated when clergy speak against that once and a while.

 

[Myqyl]

I honestly don’t understand this aversion to politics in church. It’s something that effects us immensely. Our president is waging an all out war on the church, and we get frustrated when clergy speak against that once and a while.

It isn’t an aversion to politics from the pulpit. It’s an aversion to litergical abuse of rewriting the way the Mass is said to suit the mood of the Priest or Deacon. If he had “cut out the homily” to discuss sports, or a movie star, or anything other than the Gospel Reading, than he was rewriting the form of the Mass. It’s not about the content of what he said. It’s about changing the Mass.

 

[Lapey]

I might be mistaken, but I don’t think the OP was upset by the “content” of the political speech that replaced the homily, but by the “fact” that a political speech replaced the homily. I, for one, would have been just as outraged if I agreed with the content of a political speech that replaced part of the Mass as I would be if I disagreed.

Certainly a Homily can be tied to current events, and should be… But the Deacon in question stated he was not doing a Homily, instead he was giving a speech. How is this different than if he had said “I’m not doing a Gospel Reading today, instead I’m going to read from this cool book a politician wrote”?

Yes the Deacon has the right, and some may argue, the obligation to discuss current events in the context of the Gospel Reading during the Homily. But it is not a time for him to make speeches.

God bless.

It matters not what the deacon said he was doing, fact is an ordained cleric spoke after the Gospel, before the creed about current events about right and wrong and church teachings. This is in fact a homily.

As Gorgias put it earlier…looks like a duck, quacks like a duck maybe it is a homily.

As far as the agreement or not with the content, I gathered that the op was upset about the content by the argument made on the thread; it was obvious the op disagreed with me and others so I assumed the op disagreed with the deacon in question. It was an easy assumption in my opinion.

It’s quite easy to fit about any topic in whatever reading there is scheduled on any given day. The minister has an easy option to avoid the tough topics; this has been practiced far too long. You will continue to hear more and more preachers preaching about these topics, look for them.