Deacon hailed for pulpit blast at Higgins

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
Deacon hailed for pulpit blast at Higgins

Anti-abortion group says cleric ‘did his job’

The Buffalo Regional Right to Life Committee on Wednesday hailed a deacon who criticized Rep. Brian Higgins during Sunday Mass in St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Church. Deacon Tom McDonnell’s rebuke of the Buffalo Democrat for voting for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research led Higgins to walk out of the church during his sermon.
“God bless the deacon a thousand times. He did his job. If every bishop, every clergy member of all faiths did their jobs, we wouldn’t have the shedding of innocent life in our country,” said Stacey Vogel of the Buffalo Regional Right to Life Committee.

more…
 
Pulpit barb prompts walkout by Higgins

Deacon, at Sunday Mass, faults congressman for vote favoring embryonic stem cell research

A deacon upbraided Rep. Brian Higgins during Sunday morning Mass in St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Church for voting in favor of embryonic stem cell research, prompting the congressman and his family to walk out during the sermon. The Rev. Art Smith, pastor of the South Buffalo church, said he felt “horrible” about the Higgins family’s departure on “Respect Life Sunday” and offered an apology from the pulpit after the congressman had left.
Bishop Edward U. Kmiec of the Catholic Diocese of Buffalo later issued a statement also criticizing Deacon Tom McDonnell’s action.

more…
 
I have been following the story. I have not found any reports that say exactly what was stated during the homily. From what I have read, and heard on local Catholic radio in Buffalo, many seem to side with the politician over the good deacon.

I am appalled, but not surprised. There is more support for the politician that votes to support abortion and embryonic stem cell destruction than for the man who spoke the truth.

Imagine if we all really saw the horror of supporting such evil things?
 
fix said:
I have been following the story. I have not found any reports that say exactly what was stated during the homily. From what I have read, and heard on local Catholic radio in Buffalo, many seem to side with the politician over the good deacon.

I am appalled, but not surprised. There is more support for the politician that votes to support abortion and embryonic stem cell destruction than for the man who spoke the truth.

Imagine if we all really saw the horror of supporting such evil things?
Click to expand...
Should we rename the Church the PCRC Church?
 
buffalo said:
Politically Correct Roman Catholic Church. 😃
Click to expand...
Ah, thanks. I am slow about such things. Your OP is directly related to these threads about the AB in Washington DC and Pelosi. The bishops seem unwilling to offer public correction. The natural result is that many Catholics think voting and faith are separate issues.
 
fix said:
Ah, thnaks. I am slow about such things. Your OP is directly related to these threads about the AB in Washington DC and Pelosi. The bishops seem unwilling to offer public correction. The natural result is that many Catholics think voting and faith are separate issues.
Click to expand...
It seems our shepherds have allowed us to be herded into the devils penn instead of following Jesus.
 
I applaud the Deacon’s effort! However, if the goal of the homily is pastoral care and/or education, and, not having heard what the Deacon said but just thinking about what I would do, I might have gone about this a little differently.

As you can see from the article, people reacted politically and on whether it was “popular” or not, and of course the naming of an individual became the lightening rod of the homily and I bet many people didn’t hear another word the Deacon said because they were watching and reacting to the congressman leaving, etc. That shows me many are uninformed.

So I think a good approach would be a homily that emphasized:
  1. The Church’s teaching on the issue.
  2. Emphasize the key point - saying a women having the choice to kill another human being is immoral.
  3. Tell people pro-choice IS POPULAR, but discuss why Jesus’ way is not always the popular way, and ask if society would be better following objective morals (life, dignity, etc.) or the popular choices?
  4. Urge our elected officials to establish laws based on a solid moral foundation. After all, blasting them publicly probably hardens their hearts even more - we hope they will start to listen a little with an open heart, that is the fastest way things can change.
Maybe 5-10 people would be a little more educated on the issue, which would help out a lot more in the long run instead of scandalizing this one guy.

My .02…
 
*"The Rev. Art Smith, pastor of the South Buffalo church, said he felt “horrible” about the Higgins family’s departure on “Respect Life Sunday” and offered an apology from the pulpit after the congressman had left.

Bishop Edward U. Kmiec of the Catholic Diocese of Buffalo later issued a statement also criticizing Deacon Tom McDonnell’s action.

“I can’t tell you how terrible I felt,” Smith said Tuesday. “While we have to always uphold the church’s teachings regarding life, I don’t think it’s ever fair to publicly criticize someone who serves our community and our parish so well.”

Added Kmiec: “The pulpit is not the appropriate place for confronting a member of the congregation. It is my belief that in situations like this, we are more effective when we have substantive, one-on-one conversations with individuals outside the context of the Mass.” *

The Pastor and Bishop kissed the politicians backside so it’s all O.K. Would Jesus call them Pharasies?
 
Ecce_homo said:
*"The Rev. Art Smith, pastor of the South Buffalo church, said he felt “horrible” about the Higgins family’s departure on “Respect Life Sunday” and offered an apology from the pulpit after the congressman had left.

Bishop Edward U. Kmiec of the Catholic Diocese of Buffalo later issued a statement also criticizing Deacon Tom McDonnell’s action.
*
Click to expand...
In post #12 I gave a link to some comments. Here is a snippet that I thought made a good point:
33 AD
Today after Jesus publically condemned the Pharisees the Diocese of Jerusalem issued a formal apology, “We are sorry that Jesus offended anyone. It was very uncharitable to criticize the Pharisees. We will work to ensure that Jesus be more respectful in the future and avoid negativity. We ask the Pharisees to accept our profound apologies.”
Click to expand...
 
Nowhere in the gospel does Jesus name a pharisee…

Not to mention, even Jesus was charitable when he was chastizing the powerful.

It looks like what happened here was an example of abusing the teaching office of ordained ministry.

The same message could have been stated without screeching at one member of the congregation.

Are we suggesting that any one of us would be comfortable with a priest or deacon pointing out to the entire church the areas of our lives where we fall short in living out our faith?

We have Kyrie at the start of mass for a reason…to acknowledge our failings…we don’t need to rerun that ritual during the homily.
 
frommi said:
Nowhere in the gospel does Jesus name a pharisee…

Not to mention, even Jesus was charitable when he was chastizing the powerful.

It looks like what happened here was an example of abusing the teaching office of ordained ministry.

The same message could have been stated without screeching at one member of the congregation.

Are we suggesting that any one of us would be comfortable with a priest or deacon pointing out to the entire church the areas of our lives where we fall short in living out our faith?

We have Kyrie at the start of mass for a reason…to acknowledge our failings…we don’t need to rerun that ritual during the homily.
Click to expand...
I do not know exactly what was said in the homily and I can agree it is a prudential judgment that I may not have done.

But, there is a huge difference between exposing our private or public sins and correcting a manifest, grave and public sin.

As for Jesus and the Pharisees I would imagine everyone knew exactly who He meant. Does not explicitly using a surname make a difference? The result is the same.

Notice also that the authorities in this case have no problem correcting the deacon publicly, yet no one except the deacon has corrected the politician publicly.
 
fix said:
I do not know exactly what was said in the homily and I can agree it is a prudential judgment that I may not have done.

But, there is a huge difference between exposing our private or public sins and correcting a manifest, grave and public sin.

As for Jesus and the Pharisees I would imagine everyone knew exactly who He meant. Does not explicitly using a surname make a difference? The result is the same.

Notice also that the authorities in this case have no problem correcting the deacon publicly, yet no one except the deacon has corrected the politician publicly.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more, especially with your final sentence.
 
fix said:
I do not know exactly what was said in the homily and I can agree it is a prudential judgment that I may not have done.

But, there is a huge difference between exposing our private or public sins and correcting a manifest, grave and public sin.

As for Jesus and the Pharisees I would imagine everyone knew exactly who He meant. Does not explicitly using a surname make a difference? The result is the same.

Notice also that the authorities in this case have no problem correcting the deacon publicly, yet no one except the deacon has corrected the politician publicly.
Click to expand...
I’ve never understood the fascination with people needing to be corrected ‘publicly’.

If we want to do so for the sake of forgiveness and reconciliation, this is laudable.

But to do so just to be able to say “SEE SEE…he’s sinning…I told you he was sinning”…seems irresponsible.
 
And here I was worried that Fr. Wall yelled at John.

Seriously, I think the best way something like this was ever dealt with of late may have been the time when Cardinal Maida of Detroit directed that a letter of his be read at all Sunday Masses during the first campaign of the present governor. Without naming names, he clearly communicated what needed to be said. Reports were that the Granholms were not at all pleased, either. Naturally, the hardliners didn’t consider this action to be “enough” from their bishop, but (while serving the purpose of instructing the larger Catholic population) the people it was most indirectly aimed at certainly understood what was being said and got the message, even if they merely rebelled rather than positively responding to the invitation of grace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top