Methodist clergywoman anoints head of Catholic Cardinal

[TRH1292]

huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/anne-robertson-cardinal-o-malley_n_4617205.html?1389984694&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008

"Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley surprised many people when he asked Rev. Robertson, a pastor in the United Methodist Church, to anoint his forehead with consecrated water in an ecumenical baptism reaffirmation ritual at Sudbury United Methodist Church, reports The Patriot Ledger. The spontaneous and genuine gesture moved Robertson almost to tears. She told The Huffington Post that she is “grateful for those times when people can see across the divide and see our common humanity-- and in this case our common faith.”

Click the link to see photos.

Thoughts?

 

[PatrickC]

I guess you guys share a “common faith” with the Methodists according to the minister? The cardinal must agree, considering his actions. Two sides of the same coin, some Orthodox have said.

 

[Brendan]

Non issue. It was simply water used in remembrance of Baptism. Any one can do that to anyone.

 

[po18guy]

Huffpo? Are you kidding me?

Anointing is done with oil.

Since Methodists trace indirectly back to the Catholic Church, and since their baptism is valid, we have a common faith in the redemptive atonement of Christ. Beyond that, we tend to diverge.

 

[RPRPsych]

Huffpo? Are you kidding me?

Anointing is done with oil.

Since Methodists trace indirectly back to the Catholic Church, and since their baptism is valid, we have a common faith in the redemptive atonement of Christ. Beyond that, we tend to diverge.

The Huffington Post generally promotes a secular (or “modernist” to use St. Pius X’s admirable term) agenda, and their articles should be read in that light.

This was a gesture of respect, nothing else. There was nothing sacramental about it.

 

[LisaA]

huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/anne-robertson-cardinal-o-malley_n_4617205.html?1389984694&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008

"Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley surprised many people when he asked Rev. Robertson, a pastor in the United Methodist Church, to anoint his forehead with consecrated water in an ecumenical baptism reaffirmation ritual at Sudbury United Methodist Church, reports The Patriot Ledger. The spontaneous and genuine gesture moved Robertson almost to tears. She told The Huffington Post that she is “grateful for those times when people can see across the divide and see our common humanity-- and in this case our common faith.”

Click the link to see photos.

Thoughts?

To be blunt I cringed. I understand the kind heart of Cardinal O’Malley and I wouldn’t have run from the woman if she asked to bless him with consecrated water but I sure as heck wouldn’t have asked for it. I used to be a Methodist. They are very pro abortion…very! They had female Methodist ministers speaking and marching in the “opposition” demonstration to the March for Life. Obviously Cardinal O’Malley is a is a bigger man than I could ever be. Totally creeped me out…all I could think about were those shrill female ministers screaming about “women’s God given rights” (to kill babies…) Yikes

Lisa

PS LEFT the Methodist church because of this demonstration!

 

[pianistclare]

Please read Cardinal O’Malley’s blog for the proper context of this. He writes in detail about the prayer service…

cardinalseansblog.org/

 

[coachkfan1]

Sadly, in this world, appearances mean something, and I am afraid that the meaning some will get from this is one of a Catholic Bishop submitting himself to a heretic. Before I am attacked, I am not saying that is my impression, but that SOME will get that impression.

 

[pianistclare]

That’s why I posted the link to what really happened.
It was a prayer serving recalling our Baptism in relation to the Baptism of Our Lord.
It was not an anointing.
It was water.
Anyone can sign someone’s forehead with holy water. We do it to ourselves.
There’s no scandal,
It was a moment ecumenism at the most.
The clergy that were present (and there were several from different denominations) touched the people with water. And then, in turn, each other.

It’s more a problem of reading the secular media or sources who would like to stir up the faithful.
Guess it works, eh?

 

[Sy_Noe]

I used to be a Methodist. They are very pro abortion…very! They had female Methodist ministers speaking and marching in the “opposition” demonstration to the March for Life. Obviously Cardinal O’Malley is a is a bigger man than I could ever be. Totally creeped me out…all I could think about were those shrill female ministers screaming about “women’s God given rights” (to kill babies…) Yikes

Lisa

PS LEFT the Methodist church because of this demonstration!

I realize people can have misconceptions about any number of faiths including the Catholic faith. And the meaning of “very” can be subjective. And I believe others here have explained the Cardinal’s thinking.

But I am sure you do not want the Catholic faith misrepresented any more than I would assume Methodists want their faith misrepresented. In any case since I’m not sure one can judge a faith’s position solely based on the actions of some individual pastors, your post did send me searching for the truth about the Methodist viewpoint And if you were a Methodist you apparently didn’t know the following taken from the official UMC site:

“We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection. We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life”.

archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1732

 

[LisaA]

But I am sure you do not want the Catholic faith misrepresented any more than I would assume Methodists want their faith misrepresented. In any case since I’m not sure one can judge a faith’s position solely based on the actions of some individual pastors, your post did send me searching for the truth about the Methodist viewpoint And if you were a Methodist you apparently didn’t know the following taken from the official UMC site:

“We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection. We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life”.

archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1732

Yes but you see that’s the point. I was a Methodist for years, thinking that what was on the website was the reality. When I actually looked into how the Methodist church’s public stance deviated from the rather tepid language on the website, I was shocked and stunned. Further there is a HUGE difference between saying we don’t affirm abortion as birth control and oppose late term abortion and being VERY clear as is the Catholic Church. When you have CLERGY speaking and marching AGAINST the pro-life movement, when you see exactly ZERO being done to stop abortion or provide choices for women in crisis, well actions speak louder than words. Of course they aren’;t going to say they are FOR abortion but watch their public profile, see what they do, not what they say. Further they are STRONGLY against the death penalty in even the most egregious cases. They will march against the death penalty or nuclear weapons but they will not march or lobby for abortion restrictions. The Methodist church as has occurred with many mainline Protestant churches has been taken over by a very liberal philosophy that openly disregards the Bible. Dare I say the takeover by female clergy has a lot to do with the sort of feminist mantra you hear from these mainline Prot denominatins.

 

[LisaA]

That’s why I posted the link to what really happened.
It was a prayer serving recalling our Baptism in relation to the Baptism of Our Lord.
It was not an anointing.
It was water.
Anyone can sign someone’s forehead with holy water. We do it to ourselves.
There’s no scandal,
It was a moment ecumenism at the most.
The clergy that were present (and there were several from different denominations) touched the people with water. And then, in turn, each other.

It’s more a problem of reading the secular media or sources who would like to stir up the faithful.
Guess it works, eh?

That’s the key and the issue. I admit I cringed seeing the headlines. Of course if you read carefully there isn’t the big controversy about what happened but unfortunately what the average person sees is the screaming and misleading headlines.

Lisa

 

[SurfingTheTiber]

But I am sure you do not want the Catholic faith misrepresented any more than I would assume Methodists want their faith misrepresented. In any case since I’m not sure one can judge a faith’s position solely based on the actions of some individual pastors, your post did send me searching for the truth about the Methodist viewpoint And if you were a Methodist you apparently didn’t know the following taken from the official UMC site:

“We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection. We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life”.

archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1732

The line immediately preceeding the ones you quoted states: “In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures.” The section ends with this: “Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel.”

As a former liberal UMC I can assure you that we used lines such as this to proof text the point that the UMC was pro-choice.

I was a Methodist for years, thinking that what was on the website was the reality. When I actually looked into how the Methodist church’s public stance deviated from the rather tepid language on the website, I was shocked and stunned.

+1 As a life-long UMC I can affirm what LisaA writes. People see what’s in the social principles of the church as being optional guidelines. For instance, the UMC for years has had language that homosexuality is incompatible with the word of God. And yet you can find many churches declaring themselves as “reconciling congregations” and having rainbow banners hanging outside. No one objects, including the leadership.

I don’t write this to denegrate my former church home; rather, I write this to raise the issue of the importance of clarity in our teaching. Many denominations have positions that are ambiguous and cloudy. The Catholic Church’s stances are clear and understandable.

 

[LisaA]

The line immediately preceeding the ones you quoted states: “In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures.” The section ends with this: “Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel.”

As a former liberal UMC I can assure you that we used lines such as this to proof text the point that the UMC was pro-choice.

+1 As a life-long UMC I can affirm what LisaA writes. People see what’s in the social principles of the church as being optional guidelines. For instance, the UMC for years has had language that homosexuality is incompatible with the word of God. And yet you can find many churches declaring themselves as “reconciling congregations” and having rainbow banners hanging outside. No one objects, including the leadership.

I don’t write this to denegrate my former church home; rather, I write this to raise the issue of the importance of clarity in our teaching. Many denominations have positions that are ambiguous and cloudy. The Catholic Church’s stances are clear and understandable.

Thank you for your helpful information. I think it speaks to one of the things I love and appreciate about the Church and that is the clear, consistent and honest teaching about important issues. As I said, I didn’t realize the extent of the UMC’s tolerance (?) for abortion and the use of vague platitudes that justify truly evil practices and beliefs until faced with the response to the March for Life. Then when I checked furrther, spoke to a UMC minister who said 'We will never get between a woman and her doctor!" I realized that there might be a lot of smoke and mirrors on the websites or documents but the reality was that there was ZERO disapproval, maybe even support for “a woman’s right to choose.”

Ditto with the issue of homosexuality. One year it was OK, another year it wasn’t. The next year it was OK for clergy to be openly homosexual but they must not “marry” or have a partner, then it was OK to “marry” or have a partner. It was like following a tennis match. Ironically when I told my own Pastor I was converting and why, he admitted that it was very disconcerting to him that the policies kept changing.

Back to the thread, I think that someoone mentioned the real issue was the optics and the misleading headlines. Again as a former UMC member, I found the photo somewhat cringeworthy although I do understand the actual events were quite innocuous.

Lisa

 

[JReducation]

I’ve been a personal friend of Sean O’Malley since 1971. In our Franciscan tradition our Holy Father Francis tells us that we should stop worrying about what everyone else thinks and focus on what God thinks about us.

Today, there is a tendency, especially among Catholics, to look at something like this and become alarmed about what others will think or will take away from it.

I’ll give you a good Franciscan answer that comes from St. Francis himself, but I have to translate it from Italian to English, because I don’t have the English copy.

Basically, he says that those of us who worry too much about what others think should examine our concerns. Very often, we attribute (project) to others our own thoughts. By projecting (my word) them onto others, we save ourselves from having to face the fact that it is we are are passing judgment. In other words, Francis tells his sons and daughters (including Cardinal O’Malley) to focus on what he is before God, nothing and no one else. What others think and say is for them to work out before God.

We are to judge no one and as St.Augustine said, to find the good in everyone and in every situation. That which is not a sin, has the potential for good. The only pertinent question for a Franciscan is that which St. Francis taught us. “Does the Church condemn this action?”

I’m sure that Cardinal Sean had already answered this question for himself and to the satisfaction of St. Francis.

Remember folks, we Franciscans have a hierarchy: God, Church, St. Francis, the Order and the superior. If we are pleasing to them, no one else matters.

 

[SurfingTheTiber]

Thank you for your helpful information. I think it speaks to one of the things I love and appreciate about the Church and that is the clear, consistent and honest teaching about important issues. As I said, I didn’t realize the extent of the UMC’s tolerance (?) for abortion and the use of vague platitudes that justify truly evil practices and beliefs until faced with the response to the March for Life. Then when I checked furrther, spoke to a UMC minister who said 'We will never get between a woman and her doctor!" I realized that there might be a lot of smoke and mirrors on the websites or documents but the reality was that there was ZERO disapproval, maybe even support for “a woman’s right to choose.”

Ditto with the issue of homosexuality. One year it was OK, another year it wasn’t. The next year it was OK for clergy to be openly homosexual but they must not “marry” or have a partner, then it was OK to “marry” or have a partner. It was like following a tennis match. Ironically when I told my own Pastor I was converting and why, he admitted that it was very disconcerting to him that the policies kept changing.

Lisa

Beyond the particular issues (abortion and homosexuality) most issues work like this. This is what happens when you put the church’s discernment process up to popular vote. It becomes a matter of which side can send the most delegates, what’s the “hot” issue/position of the day, how quickly can we take this vote and get out for lunch, etc. Again, I don’t offer this to denegrate my former church home; rather, I offer it as an affirmation of our Catholic process of discernment which is rooted in an understanding of a Church founded by Christ, guided by the Spirit, wherein an authoritative body formed of Popes, Cardinals, and Bishops take the long-term view to stay true to our foundations rather than be driven by fashion or the emotion of the crowds.

I’ve been a personal friend of Sean O’Malley since 1971. .In our Franciscan tradition our Holy Father Francis tells us that we should stop worrying about what everyone else thinks and focus on what God thinks about us. . . . .
Remember folks, we Franciscans have a hierarchy: God, Church, St. Francis, the Order and the superior. If we are pleasing to them, no one else matters.

Thanks for the good thoughts to ponder.

PS - We’re blessed to have Cardinal Sean as a leader in the Church. Here’s an episode from Catholic TV in Boston: Conversations With Cardinal Sean

 

[Cider]

I think there should be more consideration, for how easily things are misinterpreted by those poorly catechized, including those of other religions. While it seems like a nice gesture, and we know it wasn’t an anointing you have to know how it’s going to end up being misunderstood. So why do it? Why contribute to more confusion?

 

[LisaA]

I think there should be more consideration, for how easily things are misinterpreted by those poorly catechized, including those of other religions. While it seems like a nice gesture, and we know it wasn’t an anointing you have to know how it’s going to end up being misunderstood. So why do it? Why contribute to more confusion?

That’s my thought as well. I know we shouldn’t worry “what people think” but as someone who LOVES our Church I am constantly dismayed by the erroneous and usually negative images and information imparted by the MSM. I CARE about the Church’s image but the MSM does not. If they aren’t outright hostile, they are at least ignorant. I listened to an interview with a reporter for one of the big dailies (WaPo I think) and he has a master’s in Religion but said this is the ONLY section of the paper where those who report do not have to have any knowledge, much less expertise. It would be like me reporting on soccer matches in the Sports Section. The only thing I know about soccer is that it’s boring and that the fans get in fights . But I suspect no paper would hire me as the Sports Reporter!

Again I completely trust and admire Cardinal Sean’s actions and I know that they were done with great love.
Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Beyond the particular issues (abortion and homosexuality) most issues work like this. This is what happens when you put the church’s discernment process up to popular vote. It becomes a matter of which side can send the most delegates, what’s the “hot” issue/position of the day, how quickly can we take this vote and get out for lunch, etc. Again, I don’t offer this to denegrate my former church home; rather, I offer it as an affirmation of our Catholic process of discernment which is rooted in an understanding of a Church founded by Christ, guided by the Spirit, wherein an authoritative body formed of Popes, Cardinals, and Bishops take the long-term view to stay true to our foundations rather than be driven by fashion or the emotion of the crowds.

Thanks for the good thoughts to ponder.

PS - We’re blessed to have Cardinal Sean as a leader in the Church. Here’s an episode from Catholic TV in Boston: Conversations With Cardinal Sean

Exactly my point. I remember when certain issues would come up and there was a flurry of activity to “stack the deck” at General Conference to promote one position over another. As a result…mass confusion for those of us in the pews. Like you I truly appreciate the LACK of democracy in our Church’s decisions. An authoritative body with a clear foundation that dates back thousands of years is far more comforting than a small group responding to emotion or current cultural pressures. The Church is a treasure trove of wisdom

Lisa

 

[blaskoman]

Why couldn’t the Cardinal annoint the heretic instead?!?