B
Brendan_64
Guest
And we certainly should not assume that the teachings of Christ and our Holy Church are naturally aligned with a particular political standpoint.
- Status
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
True. Nor should we assume that the political stances of a particular political party which are clearly against the teachings of the Church are somehow OK.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
And what political party do you have in mind and how is that party clearly against the teachings of the Church?True. Nor should we assume that the political stances of a particular political party which are clearly against the teachings of the Church are somehow OK.
I’ll let you say the Communist Party, the Nazi Party, the BNP (or whatever equivalent party you have in the USA), or organisations such as the Klu Klux Klan, or the Freemasons, but with any other political parties (or organisation) you’ll have to verify your view with Church teachings and relevant documents. And don’t just selectively lift a passage that criticises extremes of socialism when the same document in the next breath criticises extremes of free-market capitalism.
And I probably won’t be able to reply to your post promptly as I’m flying off to Ireland in the morning for my nephew’s Christening on Sunday.:extrahappy:
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Politics and such is not the topic of this thread. (See title)
A number of posts have been removed.
Return to topic or this thread will be closed.***
Politics and such is not the topic of this thread. (See title)
A number of posts have been removed.
Return to topic or this thread will be closed.***
L
Lucky7
Guest
With all due respect Brother (and I know you didn’t mean it this way), to say that some of the concerns voiced here are just not important to the Church is pretty insulting. I think the concerns here are very much about Chruch teaching, about the perception of the Church in the world due to the lack of clarity on Church teaching, and how decisions made by our Church leaders affect her members and the message it sends to the world. If those things are not concern enough for our leaders then I think we have even bigger issues.
The brother that came to you with his concern was able to walk away relieved of a burden because he was sure you would handle it. On the other hand, for far too long many of us have not felt like certian issues have been addressed or will be addressed. I’m not sure what I’m looking to happen, but I know with every new story of a priest doing or saying unorthodox things, with every new report of Bishops allowing pro-abortion Catholic politicians to commit sacrilege by continuing to receive communion, and with every additional opportunity for confusion/lack of clarity when leaders take part in non-Catholic services/include non-Catholics in Catholic services I *don;t feel better *about things…I don’t feel like they are being addressed at all. Unlike your brother, I can’t just walk away knowing things will get handled.
Maybe you’re right. Maybe these concerns arent important enough. But that doesn’t make me feel better at all. Sorry.
M
McCall1981
Guest
In the spirit of learning more about Pope Francis, check out the article below (it comes from the News forum, but I think the topic is appropriate here too).
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=17512&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+%28Catholic+World+News+%28on+CatholicCulture.org%29%29
“I was raised in a kind of Catholicism that was very spiritual on one side, praying and going to Mass and the sacraments, but on the other side it was also very socially minded, interested in helping the poor and meeting the concrete needs of the people,” says Nobel nominee Juan Carr. “Here in Argentina, for this generation, Bergoglio has been the one who brought these two dimensions of the faith together – the spiritual and the social.”
This is EXACTLY what I’m hoping for from Pope Francis!
So much good in this article (Confessions!)
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=17512&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+%28Catholic+World+News+%28on+CatholicCulture.org%29%29
“I was raised in a kind of Catholicism that was very spiritual on one side, praying and going to Mass and the sacraments, but on the other side it was also very socially minded, interested in helping the poor and meeting the concrete needs of the people,” says Nobel nominee Juan Carr. “Here in Argentina, for this generation, Bergoglio has been the one who brought these two dimensions of the faith together – the spiritual and the social.”
This is EXACTLY what I’m hoping for from Pope Francis!
So much good in this article (Confessions!)
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Me, too. I want the USA (and the world) to return to the good parts of the old days. My grandparents, by no means rich, always would feed beggars coming to their door. The comparison between them and me embarrasses me, I am sorry to say.In the spirit of learning more about Pope Francis, check out the article below (it comes from the News forum, but I think the topic is appropriate here too).
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=17512&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+%28Catholic+World+News+%28on+CatholicCulture.org%29%29
“I was raised in a kind of Catholicism that was very spiritual on one side, praying and going to Mass and the sacraments, but on the other side it was also very socially minded, interested in helping the poor and meeting the concrete needs of the people,” says Nobel nominee Juan Carr. “Here in Argentina, for this generation, Bergoglio has been the one who brought these two dimensions of the faith together – the spiritual and the social.”
This is EXACTLY what I’m hoping for from Pope Francis!
So much good in this article (Confessions!)
The key, IMO, is personally helping the less fortunate, not sending money to Washington so that they can care for them (poorly) for me.
G
graciew
Guest
I must be either getting old or homesick or both
…but the article made me cry,Mc Call…Thanks so much for this…God bless you tons
O
otjm
Guest
I can understand your feelings. I also can understand what Bro, is trying to teach, and that is that we all individually have a tendency to think that what is bothering us personally needs to be a significant issue with the Church leadership; or to put it another way, if they don’t see what we see, something is wrong.
Often, they do see it; and often, they are doing something about it; they just are not telling us. And the short of that is that it is not our business.
perhaps it is because I was an altar boy when Pope Pius 12th was alive; perhaps because I spent some time in the seminary in college; perhaps because of what I read; but I find truly amazing and outstanding that with as much information as is available as to what the Church teaches, that some people have such a problem with clarity. The church is eminently clear about what it teaches. The problem seems to me to be more stemming from those who insist that it is not clear, that, for example, the documents of Vatican 2 contradict prior Church history (as an example). I was reading the documents in class when they came out; We certainly didn’t have a problem seeing how they related to prior church teachings. Please don’t take this as offensive; but the old saying that those who lay down with dogs get up with fleas applies. Any group that says it is having problems with what Rome is saying is an excellent group to avoid. They create confusion in the minds of many. Rome does just fine; interesting how small segments can’t seem to get it.
On the other hand, we have 2000 years of groups not getting it. Some groups have ended in schism; some in heresy. And those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it.
But they are addressed. Some of them are addressed in the “ask an apologist” forum; some are answered in publications like Our Sunday Visitor and National Catholic Register; some in the CCC; some on EWTN. And sometimes, when the answer is given (and it is the answer), the answer is sometimes rejected because we don’t like it.
Some of it also comes from expectations of the Church that are not sourced from the Church, but rather from those who want to be mini-magisteriums. They are sometimes identified as “those who are smarter than the Pope”. And some expectations are from misinformation we have received.
Perhaps it is my age; perhaps it is the epiphany I had hears and years ago - that the Church just possibly has more collective wisdom in its 2000 years than I have in the few I have been around. As a result, instead of thinking “that’s not right”, I tend to think more along the lines of perhaps I don’t know quite as much as I think. Thus I don’t tend to get my knickers in a twist over what I see or don’t see, knowing that there is a good answer, and maybe I don’t even need to know it. I just need to trust that the Holy Spirit guides the Church.
O
otjm
Guest
Let me try this a different way, and hopefully by analogy, it will help in terms of how we view our new Pope.
Bishops have the power, through Canon law, to ultimately refuse Communion to someone who is notoriously in sin.
to begin with, the process is not either simple nor quick; Furthermore, it takes at least some minimal cooperation on the part of the individual; unless they meet with the bishop it is at best difficult for him to begin the process.
But more than that, the bishop has other issues to weigh; those are known as prudential judgments. And we - you, I, my local pastor, Bro. JR, your best Catholic friend - none of us have the ability or the duty to make those judgments; nor do we have the ability or the authority to judge whether those weighing and balancing issues are done correctly. Rome does, and I have yet to see Rome step in.
Bishops not only have to weigh the effect of not doing something and what it may say to those in the pews; but also to those not in the pews - Catholics who should be; others who might join the Church, those who are oblivious to the Church, or hate it, and to the individual to be corrected.
The bishop also has to weigh what the reaction will be should he ban someone from Communion - how will they react; how will the press react (we already have a pretty good idea about that) and what damage that may do the image and perception of the Church; and to those in the pews and etc. In addition and not to make too fine a point of it, he also has to weigh the likelihood that the priests of his diocese will cooperate with his ban, and what he could or could not do should one or more not follow it (intentionally or unintentionally) and what the consequences of that will be.
And given that I am not a bishop, I suspect there are a few more things, if not a lot, which I have not thought of which would enter into the equation.
The bottom line is that there are few bishops who have ventured down the path of a “smack down” with a public politician and in those circumstances where it has occurred, one has to ask several questions - including not only the results, but whether the results would be the same in different circumstances and a different location.
Rome itself has not engaged much in the issue of whether or not the bishops should do “smack downs”, and we never seem to get the message. Just because they do not do what we perceive they should mean that we are right and they are wrong?\
John Paul 2 personally acknowledged he was not the best in terms of discipline. But when the individual nicknamed “God’s Rottweiler” became the next Pope, and all sorts of expectations were made that he would change things, he also did not engage in “smack downs”. There is a lesson there, if we are willing to contemplate it.
And that, hopefully, will help all of us as we take this new Pope’s measure. By what yardstick are we going to measure? Ours? And what is there that says our yardstick has anything to do with how God measures? And what is there to say that what we perceive he needs to do has anything to do with what the Holy Spirit may be prompting him to do?
And by what authority, should he fail to do what we think, do we presume to judge him and/or the direction of the Holy Spirit?
L
Lucky7
Guest
So, in one breath the laity are supposed to be more involved and in another it’s none of our business. These things are our business and if we’re sensing that nothing is being done about it perhaps the Church can make it clear that they are.
The thing is most people are not reading Vatican II documents. Most people don’t read anyof the actual documents. Is that their fault? Is that expected of the laity? Has it ever been expected of the laity? Is that expected of non-catholics? Or is it more important that the leadership make sure that the documents are being reflected properly in our parishes? That leadership is teaching orthodox ideas, not heterdox ideas (like supporting civil unions) in parishes and in the media? I’m sorry, but I am offended by the suggestion that somehow I am hanging around the wrong people and that is why I think things are not clear. I am not hanging around with the “wrong group”. I am basing my views and concerns by things I am seeing and hearing right in our parishes and among the laity and in the media (actual facts, not opinions). The Church may be very clear on its teachings in the Catechism and in the various documents, but for whatever reason MANY Catholics still do not know them. For example, when MANY Catholics seem to think that any religion can get you to Heaven whose fault is that? Something is awry in the delivery mechanism. Since nowadays the media is so important in disseminating information, it is vastly critical that our leaders use the media appropriately.
Like I said, the majority of Catholics and non-catholics are not on CAF, do not read these publications, etc. etc. How is addressing these things in these venues enough?
And once again we have the idea that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church as if what happens in the Church is always what the Holy Spirit wants. I have to think that if there are enough folks concerned about these things that there might be some truth in them…perhaps the Holy Spirit is working through the laity to speak out on some things as none of those things are heretical. I’m just not sure how we do that when so many are telling us to keep quiet and mind our own business.
L
Lucky7
Guest
I’ll be honest. Nothing you have written makes me feel any better. It makes me even more concerned. We’re talking about sacrilege and scandal. I’m not sure any of the things you have mentioned outweigh that.
Having said that, I try to remain hopeful that we will hear from Rome on this matter.
C
clem456
Guest
The phrase “None of our business” seems rather blunt. This is the way I accept it:
Certain people are gifted by God. It may be the gift of learning with years of study. They have a competence that I do not have. For the most part, I don’t know how they use their gifts and talents, when they use them, or who they use them with. My task is to understand my faith as best I can. That does not include doubting things I am not gifted to understand fully, or to foment doubt about things I understand differently than Bishops, priests, theologians. It is not within my competence, or “business”
Other people are gifted by ordination or sanctioned in authority by the Church, and have the authority to shepherd, teach, explain things, or enforce discipline. I don’t have that authority (and I wouldn’t want it). I have some authority as a father and as a catechist or common defender of the faith, within the the scope God has gifted me with. Above that I have no competence or “business” involving myself. It is not my gift to persistently look for inconsistencies in Church disciipline or Mass rubrics etc…especially considering that those in authority are well aware of things I only know partially.
It boils down to trust. I don’t want to doubt the promises of Christ in regard to the Church and it’s loving authority. If an issue needs to be clarified or discipline enforced, it will be taken care of by those whose comptence it is. If I involve myself in useless anxieties in these areas, it seems to me I run afoul of Mt:6 25-34.
L
Lucky7
Guest
Yep, it does. I’m still working on that…oh and patience.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Very nicely said.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Here is my problem.
Let’s use a fictional Catholic public official X that has made public statements in support of abortion and gay so called marriage. Many, many times. This official actually forces his administration’s hand by coming out for gay so called marriage before anyone else in the administration does.
This official has taken these anti Church positions for years. Priests and Bishops continue to offer him the Eucharist. Their argument is that we can not read souls; that he may have repented in the Church parking lot, etc.
I ask: do we not risk scandal? “Hey, look at X. He notoriously supports positions that are directly against life and the Church. I am only living with my mistress who, after all, I love very much (as an example-insert whatever sin that you wish). Haven’t presented myself for Communion because of it. I guess that I can. The Church is obviously OK with it.”
I understand the argument that a priest can’t do an ID check or a “sinfulness” check in the overwhelming majority of the cases because, quite simply, he doesn’t know. Obviously not the case here. If this person can not be refused, then who can? And if no one can, do we not risk the Eucharist becoming a “Confession-less” or “Reconciliation-less” Sacrament?
Let’s use a fictional Catholic public official X that has made public statements in support of abortion and gay so called marriage. Many, many times. This official actually forces his administration’s hand by coming out for gay so called marriage before anyone else in the administration does.
This official has taken these anti Church positions for years. Priests and Bishops continue to offer him the Eucharist. Their argument is that we can not read souls; that he may have repented in the Church parking lot, etc.
I ask: do we not risk scandal? “Hey, look at X. He notoriously supports positions that are directly against life and the Church. I am only living with my mistress who, after all, I love very much (as an example-insert whatever sin that you wish). Haven’t presented myself for Communion because of it. I guess that I can. The Church is obviously OK with it.”
I understand the argument that a priest can’t do an ID check or a “sinfulness” check in the overwhelming majority of the cases because, quite simply, he doesn’t know. Obviously not the case here. If this person can not be refused, then who can? And if no one can, do we not risk the Eucharist becoming a “Confession-less” or “Reconciliation-less” Sacrament?
L
Lucky7
Guest
This comes up over and over again and posters have responded that the Church requires (except when it doesn’t require it apparently) a public recanting of such position in addition to Sacramental confession before receiving communion again.
Yes, scandal (and don;t forget sacriliege). This is why I will not accept any reason that has been given up until this point for allowing it to continue. Every single Catholic who agrees with these politiicans sees them receiving communion. Why would they stop and consider not receiving themselves?
M
McCall1981
Guest
This is a good question. Does anyone know of any person that has been refused the Eucharist (in the modern world)?
Maybe to stay more on topic with this thread, I’ll also ask this. I read that while he was Archbishop, Pope Francis expressed his support for keeping politicians who support abortion from taking Eucharist. Anyone know more about this, or if he actually prevented anyone?
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
It has happened. catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=843
Which begs the question: if this good bishop can refuse, then obviously refusal is allowed, so why are we not seeing more refusals?
L
Lucky7
Guest
Wow…I found this fascinating!
*All ministers of the Eucharist must deny Communion to pro abortion legislators as they are ecclesiastically bound to obey Church law, regardless of whether their bishop or pastor does or does not obey. In fact, canon 915 places the responsibility on the minister - ‘ne admittantur’ - who, in some canonists’ opinion, could be punished themselves according to canon 1389 §2, **should he unlawfully administer the sacrament with the consequent danger of scandal. *
So, in other words, if I were an EM at the Palm Sunday Mass and Biden came up to me I would be obligated to deny him communion…even if Cardinal Dolan does not??? An I reading that correctly?
- Status