Maybe what the deacon should have done is not mention the offender by name but preach against what the offender was doing and say that Jesus would not allow him to give communion to anyone who would sacrilege Our Lord.
Nothing! Perfect!What would be wrong with that?
You make a good point but the point that I and others are trying to make is that if the deacon did do something wrong, what Mr. Higgins was and still is doing is millions of times worse than anything the deacon did.Nothing! Perfect!
I’ll give you another example, again look at our role models. In President Clinton’s era Europe established a Charter of Fundamental Rights. For quite a while it was to have abortion rights in it. Ratzinger said it was a “godless” document that would cause “moral and social harm to” families. Pope JP II was equally on the offensive about the harm.
But despite the fact the President Clinton was a LEADER in supporting abortion as part of this charter, neither JP II or Ratzinger ever attacked Clinton by name - just his beliefs (and the beliefs of others). JP II won! The abortion points were taken out, although other ugly stuff stayed in.
“Hate the sin, love the sinner” says to me “Attack the sin like crazy, but love the sinner if you hope to reconcile him to Jesus.”
How could anyone think we are wrong in following the example of John Paul II and our newest Pope?
The truth preached boldly and unambiguously, without compromise tends to alienate people. Nothing new there.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.
I’m sure it has helped some. In fact, this thread has helped solidify for me my position that the deacon was right. The arguments presented by the other side throughout this thread have been extremely poor. What the deacon did in his approach was a matter of prudential judgment, no doubt. We can argue all day long whether he was right in doing what he did or not, but we cannot argue whether Higgins did right. The deacon could have preached an identical homily except without explicitly calling out the congressman’s name, yet if the congressman would have still got up and walked out, we probably would still be having the same discussion on this thread; i.e., people rushing to the defense of the ‘poor mistreated’ congressman. People are more worried about the congressman’s feelings and the embarrassment this has caused him. Well guess what? He ought to feel embarrassed. Anybody who claims the name Catholic and yet supports such moral atrocities ought very much to feel embarrassed. Think about this thread… There is more outrage over the deacon’s homily than for the congressman’s public support for the destruction of innocent human life. This clearly demonstrates the ridiculous and inverted culture in which we live.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.
But if JPII would have called him out by name, so what? How diplomatic one’s speech is is a matter of personal style. Many saints throughout the centuries called out by name people in opposition to the truth. And all the saints are our role models.I’ll give you another example, again look at our role models. In President Clinton’s era Europe established a Charter of Fundamental Rights. For quite a while it was to have abortion rights in it. Ratzinger said it was a “godless” document that would cause “moral and social harm to” families. Pope JP II was equally on the offensive about the harm.
But despite the fact the President Clinton was a LEADER in supporting abortion as part of this charter, neither JP II or Ratzinger ever attacked Clinton by name - just his beliefs (and the beliefs of others). JP II won! The abortion points were taken out, although other ugly stuff stayed in.
Consider that the Pope is also a ‘head of state’ so there is going to be a modicum of protocol involved in how they interact with our presidentBut if JPII would have called him out by name, so what? How diplomatic one’s speech is is a matter of personal style. Many saints throughout the centuries called out by name people in opposition to the truth. And all the saints are our role models.
By the way, satirists often did not mention people by name for merely greater literary effect, although most understood clearly to whom the satire was referring. Naming names is not that big of deal. If you’re sufficiently clear in your message, they should still be offended.
Point well taken.Consider that the Pope is also a ‘head of state’ so there is going to be a modicum of protocol involved in how they interact with our president
Perhaps the bravest thing Pope John Paul ever did to directly confront this evil was to stand right next to Bill Clinton at the welcoming ceremony during his St. Louis visit. He spoke of this being the city of the dreadful Dred Scott decision and compared it to the injustice of abortion in America. He didn’t have to say anything about our President. His presence, the visual, and his statement said it all.But despite the fact the President Clinton was a LEADER in supporting abortion as part of this charter, neither JP II or Ratzinger ever attacked Clinton by name - just his beliefs (and the beliefs of others). JP II won! The abortion points were taken out, although other ugly stuff stayed in.
“Hate the sin, love the sinner” says to me “Attack the sin like crazy, but love the sinner if you hope to reconcile him to Jesus.”
How could anyone think we are wrong in following the example of John Paul II and our newest Pope?
Certainly, they should. But the message is then defendable on it’s own terms and if someone walks out because they can’t take it, the onus of accountability is on them rather than the preacher for calling attention to himself.But if JPII would have called him out by name, so what? How diplomatic one’s speech is is a matter of personal style. Many saints throughout the centuries called out by name people in opposition to the truth. And all the saints are our role models.
By the way, satirists often did not mention people by name for merely greater literary effect, although most understood clearly to whom the satire was referring. Naming names is not that big of deal. If you’re sufficiently clear in your message, then those who are unrepentant should still be offended.
What a charge! Who has said to disobey the bishop?I like the protestantism that is present in these threads that fails to recognize the bishop of a diocese as the moderator of the word and the mediator of all the goes on in his diocese.
Well…I think when people said they were dismayed at the bishop’s conduct in handling this issue…that’s pretty much saying you don’t support the bishop…and his role.What a charge! Who has said to disobey the bishop?
A big stretch. They may not “support” the way he has handled this situation. Hardly Protestant. One may certainly obey and accept the authority of this particular bishop while thinking his prudential judgement in the matter was not ideal.Well…I think when people said they were dismayed at the bishop’s conduct in handling this issue…that’s pretty much saying you don’t support the bishop…and his role.
Hmmm…and here I thought the proverbial ‘cafeteria was closed’A big stretch. They may not “support” the way he has handled this situation. Hardly Protestant. One may certainly obey and accept the authority of this particular bishop while thinking his prudential judgement in the matter was not ideal.
What is heterodox about evaluating a prudential judgement? Does that violate any Catholic teaching?Hmmm…and here I thought the proverbial ‘cafeteria was closed’
I’m just pointing out that it’s not prudent to pick and choose which bishops governance can be trusted and which needs to be questioned. The Bishop is the Bishop…What is heterodox about evaluating a prudential judgement? Does that violate any Catholic teaching?
I find it amusing when those on the left seek to impose a new clericalism. It seems the obedience card is only used from that side when their backs are against the wall.
If the bishop says the deacon was wrong and should not do what he did again, then I will agree the bishop’s orders need to be followed. That does not mean in evaluating what happend one is bound to think the bishop’s public words on the matter were sufficient. Are you now claiming every word on any matter from any bishop is now to be seen as binding our conscience?
Has anyone questioned his authority to govern? I think they are questioning his judgement in the matter? One can obey that judgement and agree he has that authority while maintaining he was not that prudent.I’m just pointing out that it’s not prudent to pick and choose which bishops governance can be trusted and which needs to be questioned. The Bishop is the Bishop…
I don’t understand where your taking me here…read the thread…people are saying the bishop needs to be more like the deacon…in another thread people are whining about archbishop Wuerl’s methodology in dealing with ‘dissident’ politicians.Has anyone questioned his authority to govern? I think they are questioning his judgement in the matter? One can obey that judgement and agree he has that authority while maintaining he was not that prudent.
If you can show me my view of this is wrong and contrary to Catholic teaching I will be happy to change my position.
Well if the Bishop were to act like a Bishop then maybe Sincere Catholics who want our hierarchy to practice what they swore to uphold.Well…I think when people said they were dismayed at the bishop’s conduct in handling this issue…that’s pretty much saying you don’t support the bishop…and his role.
You’re comparing apples and oranges.Hmmm…and here I thought the proverbial ‘cafeteria was closed’