Deacon cut the Homily to make Political points...

[Cailte]

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?

 

[1ke]

I see many posts and articles condemning priests/deacons for avoiding the “tough subjects” from the puplit. Except of course when they do talk about the “tough subjects” from the pulpit and are roundly criticized for it.

This is what is called a “no win” situation for our poor clergy.

But, to answer your question it is entirely appropriate to admonish the flock when they fail to uphold the teachings of Christ. Having not witnessed the speech, I cannot comment on its contents.

 

[ISHOKENMEI]

My priest did the same thing. After going home and watching the Mass on EWTN I noticed a similar homily. Guess word was passed down to show the Churches disapproval in the 50% of Catholics who voted to support abortion, gay rights, and stem cell research. We were even told if we voted for Pres Obama we voted against the Church and we can not pick and chose when we want to be Catholic. There were many who were told they were not in a state of Grace and should not receive communion. I actually like it when people speak the truth and was no way offended.

 

[Cailte]

But, to answer your question it is entirely appropriate to admonish the flock when they fail to uphold the teachings of Christ. Having not witnessed the speech, I cannot comment on its contents.

Oh yes, when there is a specific question on Christ’s teaching I agree that there is a need and a right to direct and comment - but this was a vague, generalised but vicious attack on the results of the presidential election and those who had been ‘responsible’ for it. It hit me as being a disturbance into my prayerful moment - it was more like something from the TV rants that I had shut down for myself over the past few months.

And his announced suspension of the homily was something that I especially didn’t like - why set aside the homily for this? It felt wrong to make it part of the Mass - and even irreligious.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

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?

Good for him! A little too late, but…
We need more like him. Sorry you did not get a homily about the actual gospel that day. You are correct in thinking that the homily should tie into the gospel, unless a directive from the Bishop says otherwise.

The bolded is 100% true for 99% of the pew warmers that voted that way.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

My priest did the same thing. After going home and watching the Mass on EWTN I noticed a similar homily. Guess word was passed down to show the Churches disapproval in the 50% of Catholics who voted to support abortion, gay rights, and stem cell research. We were even told if we voted for Pres Obama we voted against the Church and we can not pick and chose when we want to be Catholic. There were many who were told they were not in a state of Grace and should not receive communion. I actually like it when people speak the truth and was no way offended.

Yeah…reality and truth are tough to hear for some. Tough rocks I say. Let it fly! The chaff must be separated from the wheat.

 

[Lapey]

Oh yes, when there is a specific question on Christ’s teaching I agree that there is a need and a right to direct and comment - but this was a vague, generalised but vicious attack on the results of the presidential election and those who had been ‘responsible’ for it. It hit me as being a disturbance into my prayerful moment - it was more like something from the TV rants that I had shut down for myself over the past few months.

And his announced suspension of the homily was something that I especially didn’t like - why set aside the homily for this? It felt wrong to make it part of the Mass - and even irreligious.

Just in case you missed this, this was his homily and appropriately placed in the Mass. Where else will we who are ready to preach the truth preach it???

What was wrong with calling out the Catholics in that celebration of the Mass for voting for Obama and the rest of the intrinsic evil supporting candidates? These are not Republican teachings, but Church teachings, so before you start with the accusations of partisanship please know that I am a Catholic deacon not a republican hack. Many of my homilies mention topics republicans don’t like.

As Ike mentioned, without more information it is hard to tell if this brave deacon went too far. i would bet he did not.

Simple question for the OP, in this election which just passed, is it “ok” for a Catholic, with a properly and well formed conscience, to have voted for Obama and not be in a state of sin?

 

[Cailte]

Simple question for the OP, in this election which just passed, is it “ok” for a Catholic, with a properly and well formed conscience, to have voted for Obama and not be in a state of sin?

Simple answer - Yes it is OK and no, they would not be in a state of sin.

 

[ISHOKENMEI]

Which is why your Deacon was harsh…you can’t pick and chose your faith based off of politics.

 

[triumphguy]

Oh yes, when there is a specific question on Christ’s teaching I agree that there is a need and a right to direct and comment - but this was a vague, generalised but vicious attack on the results of the presidential election and those who had been ‘responsible’ for it. It hit me as being a disturbance into my prayerful moment - it was more like something from the TV rants that I had shut down for myself over the past few months.

And his announced suspension of the homily was something that I especially didn’t like - why set aside the homily for this? It felt wrong to make it part of the Mass - and even irreligious.

Caveat: I didn’t hear the homily…

But the word of God is not meant to soothe us or make us feel good…

And the Homily is part of the Word.

That’s why we need to listen well to what the clergy are preaching, because it might apply to me even if it stings.

 

[hieroglyph]

Simple answer - Yes it is OK and no, they would not be in a state of sin.

Then the problem is not the homily, but the fact that you still haven’t inculcated the Church’s teachings. A Catholic cannot vote for further persecution of the Church and increased murdering of the unborn and be blameless.

To vote for the lesser of evils is an obligation.

 

[Lapey]

Simple answer - Yes it is OK and no, they would not be in a state of sin.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=728672

Check out what the CAF apologists thinks of your version of Catholic teahing.

By the way, Church documents are fully supported in Fr. Serpa’s response.

Just in case you don’t have time to go look at his response, here it is;

*"Dear friend,

Protecting innocent human life is the most sacred of all social justice concerns. No issue can justify supporting the taking of innocent human life. A Catholic with a fully and properly formed conscience will vote according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. If not, then his or her conscience either is not really properly formed—or he or she is arrogantly defying the teaching authority of the Church and sins grievously.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P." *

 

[triumphguy]

We can’t demand religious freedom, and then be upset when it gets used (as in a homily).

 

[Mark121359]

Then the problem is not the homily, but the fact that you still haven’t inculcated the Church’s teachings. A Catholic cannot vote for further persecution of the Church and increased murdering of the unborn and be blameless.

To vote for the lesser of evils is an obligation.

Amen to that. I think that this good Deacon struck a nerve. We need more clergy like this who are not afraid to press home the point that abortion is a horrible, horrible evil! God Bless him!

 

[Cailte]

Amen to that. I think that this good Deacon struck a nerve. We need more clergy like this who are not afraid to press home the point that abortion is a horrible, horrible evil! God Bless him!

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?

 

[Lapey]

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?

Abortion referendum of not, it is an intrinsic evil; this and all intrinsic evils must be opposed always above other issues.

Was this the first time you have heard a homily about these issues? If so, praise God that this deacon had the nerve to buck the norm.

 

[Cailte]

Abortion referendum of not, it is an intrinsic evil; this and all intrinsic evils must be opposed always above other issues.

Was this the first time you have heard a homily about these issues? If so, praise God that this deacon had the nerve to buck the norm.

How can the lack of a referendum make your point? What is needed is a direct vote by the people on this. There is no clear path from any politician of any stripe on this issue - and claiming there is sheer misguidance or ignorance , that’s the point.

 

[R_C]

He did not cut the homily, that was part of the homily. And we ought to listen very, very carefully to homilies. Then we can maybe leave totally disagreeing with everything we heard, but while we are in the house of the Lord, we listen.

Back in the days, in Italy, when Holy Church excommunicated those who voted for the Communist Party, priests had a lot of trouble (and had to suffer even physical violence or worse) because they had to mention this fact, and this evoked mixed feelings. If I do not recall wrong, they could not absolve those who chose to remain as members of that Party, too. Those were tough times.

While this is not the same, our pastors ought to explain to us boldly just how much we can support pro-abortion (“pro-choice”) things and other intrinsic evils before we’re struck with a self-inflicted latae sententiae excommunication.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

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.

It sounds to me as if he was dead on accurate about the Culture of Death and the false Catholics who vote for it. By your own admission, he was speaking about morality and not about political parties.

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?

Why in Heaven’s name would you or any Catholic be ‘stunned and upset’ about this Gospel Christian teaching??? Do you actually think that a Christian can support the Culture of Death?

Your deacon is trying to save the souls of people headed for Hell.

 

[johnnykins]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=728672

Check out what the CAF apologists thinks of your version of Catholic teahing.

By the way, Church documents are fully supported in Fr. Serpa’s response.

Just in case you don’t have time to go look at his response, here it is;

*"Dear friend,

Protecting innocent human life is the most sacred of all social justice concerns. No issue can justify supporting the taking of innocent human life. A Catholic with a fully and properly formed conscience will vote according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. If not, then his or her conscience either is not really properly formed—or he or she is arrogantly defying the teaching authority of the Church and sins grievously.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P." *

All of that is correct as far as it goes. The problem is neither party supported the Catholic position. Even Ryan was clear that they supported abortion for rape and incest. So, you had a choice of: (1) voting for no one - or at least no one with any chance of winning; (2) exercising your prudential judgment on who to vote for. By its own definition a prudential judgment cannot be imposed…it is based on prudence and you can disagree. Like it or not, that is and was the out. Any one person can say the decision is clear, but it is not or it would not involve “prudence” which honest people can argue about. Can errors of prudence be made - certainly. However, that’s all part of it, too.