Deacon cut the Homily to make Political points...

[Lapey]

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.

Sorry but you call these topics politics, the Church calls them teachings on morals. The homily is exactly where they belong.

 

[triumphguy]

The U.S. bishops approved their first new document in 30 years on preaching Nov. 13, the second day of their annual fall general assembly in Baltimore.
**
The document, “Preaching the Mystery of Faith: The Sunday Homily,” encourages preachers to connect the Sunday homily with people’s daily lives.**

Preaching needs to be done “more effectively in the context of the new evangelization,” he said. “Our people hunger for better preaching, preaching that would help them rediscover their faith.”

“The homily is intended to establish a ‘dialogue’ between the sacred biblical text and the Christian life of the hearer,” the document says.

“Preachers should be aware, in an appropriate way, of what their people are watching on television, what kind of music they are listening to, which websites they find appealing, and which films they find compelling,” it adds. “References to the most popular cultural expressions – which at times can be surprisingly replete with religious motifs – can be an effective way to engage the interest of those on the edge of faith.”

Here’s the link to the full text: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204784.htm

And a commentary: patheos.com/blogs/frmichaelduffy/2012/11/usccb-preaching-penance-and-dorothy/

 

[Myqyl]

It was an easy assumption in my opinion.

There’s only one Assumption I believe in

If it walks like a duck why did the Deacon say it wasn’t a duck? I’ve seen Liberal Deacons go off the reservation on several occasions and most of the conservative leaning folks here have cried Foul (or was it fowl?)… It seems there is a double standard…

I’m confused, but I’m ok with that… It’s not a new thing for me…

God bless

 

[mountee]

I wish there had been more “homilies” like this prior to the election. I am not sure why he would say he was not giving a homily when he delivered his thoughts at the same time as the homily. Helping the people who call themselves Catholic to form their conscience according to Church teachings seems like homily material to me.

 

[bilop]

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?

Your Deacon is 100% right.

Every Catholic who voted for Obama needs to repent and go to Confession before receiving Holy Communion.

God Bless

 

[SuperLuigi]

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?

They need to talk issues, not party.

 

[bilop]

They need to talk issues, not party.

100% correct, and she says her Deacon did not mention a party.

If you were in one of the very rare districts or states that had a pro-Life Democrat running against a pro-Abortion Republican, it would be sinful to vote for the Republican.

God Bless

 

[JerryZ]

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?

Hope you did not vote evil!

 

[johnnykins]

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.

I am not saying you are wrong…I am simply saying because a Catholic didn’t vote for Romney, or did vote for Obama, you cannot say a fortiori that it was an immoral choice. It MIGHT be an immoral choice, but as a prudential judgment it is not NECESSARILY so. You find the answer "easy’ while others may not…and that is allowed when both parties are advancing an intrinsic evil.

 

[bilop]

I am not saying you are wrong…I am simply saying because a Catholic didn’t vote for Romney, or did vote for Obama, you cannot say a fortiori that it was an immoral choice. It MIGHT be an immoral choice, but as a prudential judgment it is not NECESSARILY so. You find the answer "easy’ while others may not…and that is allowed when both parties are advancing an intrinsic evil.

What you say is possible (e.g. an anti-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-gay “marriage” candidate vs. a pro-Abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-gay marriage candidate), but I don’t think so in this case.

Obama was openly advocating several intrinsic evils 1) abortion, 2) gay “marriage”, 3) contraception and sterilization, and the restriction of religious freedom in providing it.

I am unaware of any intrinsic evil that Romney advanced. The “rape, incest, life” exceptions on abortions don’t count, because Obama is radically more pro-abortion.

There is no non-negotaible issue on which Obama was better than Romney.

God Bless

 

[SuperLuigi]

100% correct, and she says her Deacon did not mention a party.

If you were in one of the very rare districts or states that had a pro-Life Democrat running against a pro-Abortion Republican, it would be sinful to vote for the Republican.

God Bless

Oh,you’re right! I read that “he didn’t mention a party, but it was obvious…”

Why didn’t I reflect that in my post?

Catholics need to vote on issues, not on party lines.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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.

I don’t buy that for a second. I would bet real money that Catholics on here vote for pro-abortion, anti-freedom democrats for their own 30 pieces of silver like anyone else.

You can’t fool God with selfish intentions and I’m not so gullible either.

 

[Seeker1961]

I don’t buy that for a second. I would bet real money that Catholics on here vote for pro-abortion, anti-freedom democrats for their own 30 pieces of silver like anyone else.

You can’t fool God with selfish intentions and I’m not so gullible either.

Selfish intentions transcend party lines, I bet there are Catholics who voted for lower taxes for themselves and, oh gee, btw this guy says he’s pro-life, isn’t that nice.

People bring all kinds of reasons into the voting booth, to think that only one set of voters is selfish is gullible, and I’m not that gullible either.

It’s also a pretty nasty way to view your fellow citizens, but there has been a LOT of that going on the last few years.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Seeker1961;10027090]Selfish intentions transcend party lines, I bet there are Catholics who voted for lower taxes for themselves and, oh gee, btw this guy says he’s pro-life, isn’t that nice.

That’s an excellent point. I guess that is why intention plays such a key role in our morality.

It just so happens that lowering taxes helps out the economy, but I cannot possibly believe than any selfish motive would be lost on God.

People bring all kinds of reasons into the voting booth, to think that only one set of voters is selfish is gullible, and I’m not that gullible either.

Because of this entitlement society, people vote what’s best for them. Even when they run around saying “oh, I’m for gay rights or I’m pro-choice, therefore I care” is it so much that they think they are doing for others or just trying to march around with the goal of getting approval from every single human community there is?

I cannot even begin to tell you how obvious, misguided and self-centered that is.

It’s also a pretty nasty way to view your fellow citizens, but there has been a LOT of that going on the last few years.

This electorate has only itself to blame. The politicians they elect are a reflection of themselves.

 

[Seeker1961]

That’s an excellent point. I guess that is why intention plays such a key role in our morality.

It just so happens that lowering taxes helps out the economy, but I cannot possibly believe than any selfish motive would be lost on God.

Because of this entitlement society, people vote what’s best for them. Even when they run around saying “oh, I’m for gay rights or I’m pro-choice, therefore I care” is it so much that they think they are doing for others or just trying to march around with the goal of getting approval from every single human community there is?

I cannot even begin to tell you how obvious, misguided and self-centered that is.

This electorate has only itself to blame. The politicians they elect are a reflection of themselves.

wow…just…wow.

I’d say more, but I’d probably get an infraction for it.

 

[Cailte]

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.

Exactly -

I went to my daily Mass this morning and talked to the Pastor about all this. I just needed to hear what he thought about it. Earlier in the week I had quietly left a parish meeting on another issue when an angry discussion broke out about all this. I don’t want to be involved in back stabbing or witch hunting of anyone.

The Pastor too expressed his concern that the Homily was put aside for what came across as just a grabbed opportunity to make political attacks. For me too it was abuse of the Deacon’s position to suit his own personal mood.

End of story for me -

 

[Lapey]

There’s only one Assumption I believe in

If it walks like a duck why did the Deacon say it wasn’t a duck? I’ve seen Liberal Deacons go off the reservation on several occasions and most of the conservative leaning folks here have cried Foul (or was it fowl?)… It seems there is a double standard…

I’m confused, but I’m ok with that… It’s not a new thing for me…

God bless

lol at the Assumption!! I like that one.

And there is no double standard if teh homily is sound in Church doctrine as is required. As far as liberal verses conservative, or rep verses dem; we have to get past these labels and see things through Catholic glasses, not anything other than that.

 

[johnnykins]

What you say is possible (e.g. an anti-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-gay “marriage” candidate vs. a pro-Abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-gay marriage candidate), but I don’t think so in this case.

Obama was openly advocating several intrinsic evils 1) abortion, 2) gay “marriage”, 3) contraception and sterilization, and the restriction of religious freedom in providing it.

I am unaware of any intrinsic evil that Romney advanced. The “rape, incest, life” exceptions on abortions don’t count, because Obama is radically more pro-abortion.

There is no non-negotaible issue on which Obama was better than Romney.

God Bless

That’s where you are wrong…there are no exceptions to promoting intrinsic evil…the GOP did not allow those because they couldn’t get a total ban, those we OK’d per se. So Romney certainly promoted an IE when he took that position. Your prudential judgment may be that the vote should be for Romney…but, your judgment is not dispositive of the issue. That’s my only point.

BTW, while I like the CA terminology of “non-negotiable” issues, that is merely a website preferred terminology and not the terminology of HMC.

 

[TimothyH]

That’s where you are wrong…there are no exceptions to promoting intrinsic evil…the GOP did not allow those because they couldn’t get a total ban, those we OK’d per se. So Romney certainly promoted an IE when he took that position. Your prudential judgment may be that the vote should be for Romney…but, your judgment is not dispositive of the issue. That’s my only point.

BTW, while I like the CA terminology of “non-negotiable” issues, that is merely a website preferred terminology and not the terminology of HMC.

IE? CA? HMC???

plz dnt txt. tks.

-T-

 

[bilop]

That’s where you are wrong…there are no exceptions to promoting intrinsic evil…the GOP did not allow those because they couldn’t get a total ban, those we OK’d per se. So Romney certainly promoted an IE when he took that position. Your prudential judgment may be that the vote should be for Romney…but, your judgment is not dispositive of the issue. That’s my only point.

BTW, while I like the CA terminology of “non-negotiable” issues, that is merely a website preferred terminology and not the terminology of HMC.

I’m sorry, you can’t vote for Obama over Romney based on Romney’s abortion exceptions when Obama’s position is 100 times worse. A candidate need not be perfect to get your vote; you need to vote for the best candidate.

On all the critical issues where their can be no disagreement (abortion, euthanasia, same-sex “marriage”) Obama is worse. You can’t use the fact that Romney would allow 2% of abortions to justify a vote for a man who would allow 100% of them, and encourage more by providing gov’t funding.

That logic would allow you to vote for Hitler over Obama.

God Bless