McCarrick: some officials to be denied honors

[stumbler]

By Michael Paulson, Boston Globe

NEWTON – Catholic bishops are about to begin a series of meetings with leaders of Catholic colleges, hospitals, and social-service agencies to discuss the most effective way to withhold honors from politicians who support abortion rights or have other major doctrinal differences with the church, an influential American cardinal said last night at Boston College.

In an interview before his speech, McCarrick said he will argue that politicians who disagree with church teachings should be allowed to speak at Catholic colleges but should not receive honorary degrees. He said he decided in his own diocese, where many members of Congress worship, not to attempt to deny Communion to politicians who support abortion rights, because ''I do not believe there is a place for confrontation at the altar."
_____________________ [boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/03/04/cardinal_says_some_officials_to_be_denied_honors/](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/03/04/cardinal_says_some_officials_to_be_denied_honors/)

 

[Brad]

McCarrick takes another weak, non-concrete, and somewhat evasive stance. If you cannot give somone “honors” from a Catholic institution then you cannot “honor” them by allowing them to speak at the institution without the possibility of refutation or debate. His approach is directly contrary to the USCCB letter on the topic which states that such officials should also not be given “platform”.

 

[katherine2]

Brad:

McCarrick takes another weak, non-concrete, and somewhat evasive stance. If you cannot give somone “honors” from a Catholic institution then you cannot “honor” them by allowing them to speak at the institution without the possibility of refutation or debate. His approach is directly contrary to the USCCB letter on the topic which states that such officials should also not be given “platform”.

I love it when Brad know better what the bishop’s statement’s mean than the authors themselves do.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

katherine2:

I love it when Brad know better what the bishop’s statement’s mean than the authors themselves do.

This is a temporary hijack,my apologies on the front end.Katherine,what does your signature mean?It is bothering me the estranged husband of Terri and the courts are trying to kill her,why are you lumping her with medicaid?God Bless

 

[katherine2]

Lisa4Catholics:

This is a temporary hijack,my apologies on the front end.Katherine,what does your signature mean?It is bothering me the estranged husband of Terri and the courts are trying to kill her,why are you lumping her with medicaid?God Bless

Terri is living off Medicaid. her husband is fighting to take away the food and medical care that the welfare state is providing for her. I support Terri and all other people dependent on social assistance and I oppose those who would take it away either individuallly (like her husband) or sociallly (like those against Medicaid and socail welfare).

 

[HagiaSophia]

Brad:

McCarrick takes another weak, non-concrete, and somewhat evasive stance. If you cannot give somone “honors” from a Catholic institution then you cannot “honor” them by allowing them to speak at the institution without the possibility of refutation or debate. His approach is directly contrary to the USCCB letter on the topic which states that such officials should also not be given “platform”.

I take this as typically McCarrick’s double speak, he has to respond to the numerous Catholics who aren’t happy with his regime at the NCCB and the alums who are raising cain with the development offices so he throws a small bone - this statement to me says, well you can have them at the college, you can let them preach and teach just don’t invite them to lunch. Too little, too late.

 

[stumbler]

katherine2:

Terri is living off Medicaid. her husband is fighting to take away the food and medical care that the welfare state is providing for her.

Wow! That seems to be a gross mischaracterization of the situation. Her husband is doing what he’s doing regardless of who’s providing Terri’s care.

katherine2:

I support Terri and all other people dependent on social assistance

So, if they weren’t dependent on social assistance, you wouldn’t care? And if not, then the fact that they are on social assistance doesn’t matter, right? So why muddy the waters?

katherine2:

I oppose those who would take it away either individuallly (like her husband) or sociallly (like those against Medicaid and socail welfare).

With all due respect, that makes no sense. Her husband is not trying to deny her Medicaid. He’s trying to kill her. Can’t you see the huge difference? And those who want to offer alternatives to social welfare schemes are murders? Wow.