Deacon hailed for pulpit blast at Higgins

[Adonis33]

He was criticized, not for speaking out against embryonic stem cell research, but for publicly denouncing a member of the congregation in attendance by name. The first element is praise-worthy, but the second was an abuse.

I can agree that there might have been a better way to get the point across - but we are not talking about somebodies skeleton in a closet. We are talking about a public figure supporting a public policy - that may become Law - that directly conflicts with what the Magesterium teaches.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

There’s nothing abusive about naming public heretics who have already excommunicated themselves.

 

[Stu]

I can agree that there might have been a better way to get the point across - but we are not talking about somebodies skeleton in a closet. We are talking about a public figure supporting a public policy - that may become Law - that directly conflicts with what the Magesterium teaches.

Yes. Even assuming that the Deacon was in error in his method, the response by the Father and Bishop seem lacking from my vantage point. How nice it would have been for them to publicly take the position that while they may not agree with the manner in which the subject was brought up, the message is valid, remains and is something politicians who would call themselves Catholic must answer. The burden is on those Catholics in our nation’s leadership roles to justify why they can’t follow Church teaching. This is a time for the Bishop to be on offense and not defense. I pity such a squandered opportunity to take a stand and make a statement.

 

[iserve]

John the Baptist lost his head for publicly criticizing an adulterous relationship that was causing scandal and a source of hypocracy. Jesus was not known to have chastized his cousin for this lack of charity, nor was He a supporter of those whose tender feelings were hurt, and who were out to “throw John under the bus”.
Our Lord, himself, was killed as the result of a war of words; not a physical battle, but a battle of ideas that threatened the “comfort zone” of religious leaders who gave Him up in order to keep the status quo. It was His own people who rejected Him because they could not call the shots for His mission here. Time after time, Jesus laments their hard-heartedness, probably because He realized that the darkness in people’s hearts destroys truth.
God bless this deacon for having the stones not just to call out this sin-monger who was presenting himself before the congregation, but also for disregarding the cowardly rebuke he had to know he would get from the Churc heirarchy.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

I’m surprised there’s so much agreement in this thread, for this action, which lacked compasion and charity.

Again, Jesus didn’t go out and attack the Pharasees, they came to him and attacked him. This is what our Lord responded to.

it sounds that being a christian only means being “nice” to everyone.

He said to his disciples, "Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. Be on your guard! 1 If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.

didn’t nathan the prophet rebuke Kind David? did nathan lack compasion and charity too?

 

[irenaeus1]

It’s wrong and it’s a grave sin - maybe he would if he repented, and maybe he would repent if he saw a better example of how to live his life. He hasn’t. Why are we so inflamed that he is a sinner? How did Christ ask us to act to further his church?

Glad you asked. Christ asked us to treat the offending brother as an outsider; that is, if he has already refused admonishment and correction (e.g., cf Matt. 18:15-17, I Cor. 5:9-13).

Please don’t get me wrong. Of course we are to love and gently admonish and correct (e.g., Gal. 6:1), but what happens when they have refused admonishment and correction and do not repent? It would be amazing nowadays for a “Catholic” pro-abortion politician to claim ignorance, especially on life issues with so much media coverage and multitudes of personal discussion and confrontations regarding the matter. For example, Nancy Pelosi met privately with a bishop some years ago (I don’t remember who), and yet she remains staunchly pro-abortion. Everywhere she goes publicly, people are holding banners saying “You Cannot Be Catholic and Pro-Abortion”, and yet she remains staunchly pro-abortion. Her own family has asked her to ‘tone it down’ with regard to her pro-abortion stance, and yet she remains staunchly pro-abortion. This has gone on for years. When does one get to say, “Enough is enough!”? When does Matt. 18:15-17 or I Cor. 5:9-13 ever apply?

 

[irenaeus1]

Again, Jesus didn’t go out and attack the Pharasees, they came to him and attacked him. This is what our Lord responded to.

Whether the Pharisees attacked Jesus is irrelevent. And the Pharisees (and Saducees) did not attack John the Baptist when they received their rebuke. The man who was sleeping with his stepmother was not attacking Paul. Do we have to wait for the *offending *brother to attack us before we are to admonish and correct him?

 

[irenaeus1]

He was criticized, not for speaking out against embryonic stem cell research, but for publicly denouncing a member of the congregation in attendance by name. The first element is praise-worthy, but the second was an abuse.

Why is it considered an abuse? If this identical story took place a thousand years ago, the deacon would be hailed as one who led a heroic, courageous and saintly life. But today, well… that’s just not done around here.

 

[Brendan]

He was criticized, not for speaking out against embryonic stem cell research, but for publicly denouncing a member of the congregation in attendance by name. The first element is praise-worthy, but the second was an abuse.

And how does this differ from John the Baptist’s rebuke of Herod?

Did St. John commit ‘an abuse’

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And how does this differ from John the Baptist’s rebuke of Herod?

Did St. John commit ‘an abuse’

Keep in mind that in St. John’s day, they were still stoning those caught in adultery and homosexuality.

Do you want to bring back those laws as well?

Jim

 

[frommi]

Part of this which no one is talking about is that in our “Youtube” culture…everything anyone says or does can be taped, put on the web and blogged about or discussed in a forum.

Take the incident at face value and pretend no cameras were present.

Chances are it would have been handled by the pastor, who hopefully would’ve worked with both the deacon and the representive who walked out. I highly doubt the bishop would’ve seen a need to get involved.

But now, with ‘life issues’ being a bit of a third rail for all who speak on them from any perspective, everything is magnified a thousand times.

These arguments end up being less about the message being delivered and more about the means used to deliver the message.

Why couldn’t the deacon have asked those present to commit to praying about their positions on embryonic stem cell research? Why couldn’t he have said he too would pray about the ways in which we could respect the lives of the unborn, but continue to look for ways to relieve suffering in those who have disease?

I realized the morning, I dont even know what else the deacon said in his homily…it may have been one of the most well crafted sermons in the history of the church…but in a soundbite society, all we see or hear is that one line over and over which has now been thoroughly dissected.

It seems to me that church teaching and the word of God deserves a little more than just being a bumper sticker or material for the blogosphere.

 

[Brendan]

Keep in mind that in St. John’s day, they were still stoning those caught in adultery and homosexuality.

Is it your premise, then that following the example of St. John is something our clergy are NOT to do? Or that the moral examples given in Gospels are NOT to be followed today?

Do you want to bring back those laws as well?

Jim

Actually, a Michigan Court of Appeals recently re-affirmed a MI law that adulterers can be charged with felonious sexual conduct

 

[frommi]

Is it your premise, then that following the example of St. John is something our clergy are NOT to do? Or that the moral examples given in Gospels are NOT to be followed today?

Well, I would personally enjoy seeing some of them dressed in camel’s hair and eating grasshoppers.

 

[Sheeniac]

John the Baptist lost his head for publicly criticizing an adulterous relationship that was causing scandal and a source of hypocracy. Jesus was not known to have chastized his cousin for this lack of charity, nor was He a supporter of those whose tender feelings were hurt, and who were out to “throw John under the bus”.
Our Lord, himself, was killed as the result of a war of words; not a physical battle, but a battle of ideas that threatened the “comfort zone” of religious leaders who gave Him up in order to keep the status quo. It was His own people who rejected Him because they could not call the shots for His mission here. Time after time, Jesus laments their hard-heartedness, probably because He realized that the darkness in people’s hearts destroys truth.
God bless this deacon for having the stones not just to call out this sin-monger who was presenting himself before the congregation, but also for disregarding the cowardly rebuke he had to know he would get from the Churc heirarchy.

How true. Pope St.Pius X, pray for us.

 

[Ceil-1]

Deacon McConnell for bishop!

 

[francesco920]

Deacon McConnell for bishop!

I wonder can a deacon be ordained a bishop? I think so but I’m not sure.

 

[Dale_M]

Why is it considered an abuse? If this identical story took place a thousand years ago, the deacon would be hailed as one who led a heroic, courageous and saintly life. But today, well… that’s just not done around here.

If this had taken place a thousand years ago, the deacon might find that his life was suddenly taking a turn for the worse. But this isn’t the middle ages and our government leaders are both more approachable and persuadable.

The deacon, if he is truly concerned about changing Higgins’ attitudes and future votes should have talked it over with Higgins in private. The deacon should also have consulted with the pastor, and possibly the bishop so that a team plan was developed for bringing Higgins back in line with Church teaching.

I’m not convinced that what the deacon did has helped persuade Higgins to vote pro-life in the future.

 

[Thoughtful]

I’m not convinced that what the deacon did has helped persuade Higgins to vote pro-life in the future.

If it did persuade him to vote pro-life, it would surely be the end of Higgins’ career. People who voted for him would feel betrayed.

If nothing more, the deacon’s homily (or what we know about) is certainly a wake-up call to the rest of us…as Catholics, if we publically wish to be acknowledged as such, we need to be consistent in our word and deed. The more publically known we are the bigger our responsibility, especially as a community leader.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The pope can ordain any Catholic man as a bishop. If a pope has died the College of Cardinals can elect any Catholic man to be pope–before becoming pope if the man isn’t already a bishop a bishop would have to ordain him as bishop–then he could be pope.

 

[awalt]

If you care about whether this event effectively moved anyone to Christ, look at what all the conversation is about. All it did was alienate some people (not all), and distract from the real issue. That didn’t help anything. It’s a lot of heat and no light.

Maybe you are saying you wish this kind of outburst would move people to Christ and away from culture of death. We all wish something would.