Deacon cut the Homily to make Political points...

[Myqyl]

Not having been there, I couldn’t say… But if the deacon did not teach about the Gospel Readings of the day then he was derelict in his duty. The Homily is not a time for political speeches. It is part of the Holy Mass and should be given the respect it is due. I can’t believe that I am seeing several posters that decry any deviation from “Traditional Mass” giving this a thumbs up…

 

[Ophelia23]

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.

 

[Cider]

I’m not seeing the problem. He is doing as he should, instructing the flock on Church teaching as it applies to the decisions we make in how we live our lives.

 

[Lapey]

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.

Sorry but this is just ridiculous. The president will appoint as few as one possibly four Supreme Court justices this term. I would say a pro-life candidate would have a much better affect on the out come of a SC case than the reality of another four years of BO’s appointments.

I think the misguided ignorance is in your argument. There is no process of bringing a national referendum for a vote of the people in the US that I am aware of. Furthermore, many of the states of the US already have laws on the books outlawing abortion; however, the Supreme Court rulings of the early ‘70s supersede those referendums.

To outlaw abortion the Roe V Wade court case would have to be overturned, that will only happen with pro-life strict constitutionalist justices appointed to the Supreme Court. This will not be done by Obama. He will appoint justices to insure the securing of Roe v Wade.

 

[Myqyl]

To outlaw abortion the Roe V Wade court case would have to be overturned, that will only happen with pro-life strict constitutionalist justices appointed to the Supreme Court. This will not be done by Obama. He will appoint justices to insure the securing of Roe v Wade.

It also won’t have been done by Mitt Romney. He would appoint whomever the polls told him to. Look at his position when he was Gov. Romney…

Who are you suggesting we should have voted for?

 

[Cailte]

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.

Well stated . That is the original point I was making about what amounted to the Deacon’s personal interpretation of what was going on electorally and politically.

 

[Lapey]

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.

I would agree if all things were equal, but they are not. You didn’t look at the question I posed to Fr. Serpa, did you. I’ll again save you the work;

*"Can a Catholic with a properly formed conscience vote in support of abortion?

---

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons (emphasis added).

Okay, I keep seeing this quote come up supporting Catholics who vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is an opposing candidate that is running to limit abortion to only rape, incest, and life of the mother.

Here is the question, what proportionate reasons can there be to make it “okay” to vote for a candidate that supports many intrinsic evils abortion and euthanasia being two? He also supports same sex “marriage”, and embryonic stem cell research.

I understand if a catholic, through no fault of their own, chooses with an ill formed conscience, there is no sin. But a Catholic with a fully and properly formed conscience votes for this candidate, even though he does for none of these reasons instead of the other candidate, what are the proportionate reasons that makes this choice morally acceptable?

---

Peace,
Dcn. Gary" *

Prudential judgment or proportionate reasons do not supersede the destruction of human life. Obama is and was in support of abortion on demand, by word, deed and actions. Romney/Ryan ticket is and was against all abortion except for incest, rape and life of the mother. Ryan’s personal stance is against abortion in all cases.

I presented these facts and he answered as such, and again his answer is in line with Church doctrine. Your answer is not in line with the documents of the Magisterium.

I’m not going to argue this point with you, either accept it are reject it; that is up to you.

 

[Lapey]

Not having been there, I couldn’t say… But if the deacon did not teach about the Gospel Readings of the day then he was derelict in his duty. The Homily is not a time for political speeches. It is part of the Holy Mass and should be given the respect it is due. I can’t believe that I am seeing several posters that decry any deviation from “Traditional Mass” giving this a thumbs up…

This was part of his homily. It doesn’t take much prep work to work in the topics of the day with any gospel reading. It is recommended that the readings be part of the homily just as it is recommended to fit in the front page of the news paper; I think this would qualify, don’t you?

 

[Mark121359]

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.

But one party clearly supported the Catholic position better than the other. To not see this is horribly flawed IMHO. If you’re going to sit and wait for the perfect candidate to come along that conforms to Church teachings perfectly, then I’m afraid you’ll never vote. And I’ll bet sadly that this is what far too many Catholics did this past election, sat it out. Face it, that’s what we’re up against here, to choose the candidate that comes closer to what our church teaches and hopefully we can slowly make progress to eradicate these intrinsic evils. But, the way I see it, one of these parties was clearly ALL in on these intrinsic evils, and I could never ever in good faith vote for them!

 

[Lapey]

It also won’t have been done by Mitt Romney. He would appoint whomever the polls told him to. Look at his position when he was Gov. Romney…

Who are you suggesting we should have voted for?

Simple, I am saying, not suggesting, that BO is disqualified for the Catholic vote. If a Catholic votes for a democrat who stands in agreement with their party’s platform, a Catholic with a properly and fully formed conscience will not vote for them. If they do, it is because their conscience is ill formed and there is no sin, or they are obstinate in the rejection of true Church moral teachings and sin grievously.

So here were the options;

1. a no vote
2. a vote for a third party pro-life candidate
3. Romney as the lesser of two evils, as he is not fully pro-life. He was the only viable candidate that had a chance to unseat Obama who has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt what he will do.
4. Obama - disqualified by stances on intrinsic evils.

 

[Cailte]

This was part of his homily. It doesn’t take much prep work to work in the topics of the day with any gospel reading. It is recommended that the readings be part of the homily just as it is recommended to fit in the front page of the news paper; I think this would qualify, don’t you?

No - please read what I originally wrote - he made a point of saying it WAS NOT a homily. He cut out the Homily. Seemed highly unorthodox to me.

 

[Cailte]

Not having been there, I couldn’t say…** But if the deacon did not teach about the Gospel Readings of the day then he was derelict in his duty. The Homily is not a time for political speeches. It is part of the Holy Mass and should be given the respect it is due. **I can’t believe that I am seeing several posters that decry any deviation from “Traditional Mass” giving this a thumbs up…

Yes, that is an essential part of the point that I am making. The Deacon made the statement that there would be ‘no homily’ today and then proceeded to give what he called a ‘bible study’ talk instead. It felt wrong, wrong.

 

[Lapey]

No - please read what I originally wrote - he made a point of saying it WAS NOT a homily. He cut out the Homily. Seemed highly unorthodox to me.

If he, an ordained minister, spoke to the faithful after the Goaspel, and before the Creed, it was in the proper place of the homily and so serves as the homily.

Are you upset because of that or truly upset because you do not agree with the message?

 

[Lapey]

Yes, that is an essential part of the point that I am making. The Deacon made the statement that there would be ‘no homily’ today and then proceeded to give what he called a ‘bible study’ talk instead. It felt wrong, wrong.

I think it felt wrong because you disagree with the content. But hey, that’s my opinion…

 

[po18guy]

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.

Why are you so affronted - unless you voted for a pro-death candidate? The Church can speak about life matters, you know. The Church is concerned about your eternal salvation. Material support for grave evil, as in supporting pro-death candidates, is not good for your soul.

Are you complaining because the medicine stings? I am asking, not accusing.

 

[adrift]

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?

Some do not understand the difference between a homily and a sermon. What your Deacon gave was a sermon. Now exactly what stunned you? Were you in disagreement with what was said? Why was a lot of the parish upset? Could it be that it pinched their “toes”?

 

[cradlecatholic5]

Originally Posted by Lapey

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.

:thumbsup:

 

[albertus_magnus]

Seeing as I don’t know what exactly the homily was on, I cannot form a correct judgement.

However, I do laud the deacon for his commendable effort to knock some sense into the parishioners. While a homily ought to relate to the readings, taking a stand for good doesn’t strike me as wrong.

 

[Mark121359]

I think it felt wrong because you disagree with the content. But hey, that’s my opinion…

Me thinks me good Deacon you’re on to something but as you said its my opinion…

 

[Cailte]

If he, an ordained minister, spoke to the faithful after the Goaspel, and before the Creed, it was in the proper place of the homily and so serves as the homily.

Are you upset because of that or truly upset because you do not agree with the message?

Let me be clear - I abhor abortion and all that goes with it. I consider it infanticide. I also actually am way more traditional on marriage than many in this country are and disagree with the American Catholic easy annulment process. I am amazed at how many people here are divorced, annulled and openly live together and whatever and then sit on the Church Parish Council apparently without blemish and then pass judgement on others, as frequently happens. Let me count the ways.

It was the message that carried with it the absolute conviction that only one Political Party was ‘evil’ and therefore all who voted that way were evil that I object to. Listen folks all politicians say whatever it takes to get elected - I am not so naive as to think otherwise because I have lived on this earth too long and seen so many do what they want after election to think any other way. Ref Ronald Reagan 1980 - Therefore for the Deacon to take it upon himself to be the arbitrator of who had violated teaching by their actions was dangerous. And to do so by then putting aside the day’s gospel - which I wanted to hear a homily on - the widow’s mite - so he could vent was self serving grandiosity.