R
RobbyS
Guest
The rebuke was implicit is the separate accounts of the meeting. They could not have been more different.
- Status
R
RobbyS
Guest
As i read it, in his letter to the Galatians, St. Paul begins by making nice, but then, indeed, throws a lot of mud at that church. I agree that if we are going to insult, we should us irony rather than sarcasm/billingsgate. Words can wound and if we intend the good of the person who is addressed, we should use a scapel rather than a broadsword. But, not to put too fine a point on it, let us always tell the truth, because is is not an act of love to let people get away with a lie.
T
Til2morrow
Guest
I too do not believe that one should permit another to live in a lie or get away with one if it can be helped. However, if you read well what I have stated, I say nothing of permitting this to happen. I speak only of being charitable. Certainly you’ve got to love St. Paul, but I can hardly get away with what this saintly soul was able to, I must attempt with all my strength to maintain a charitable posture toward others if at all humanly possible. Thank you for your thoughts.
In Christ,
Til2morrow
In Christ,
Til2morrow
R
redrosetea
Guest
Thank you for reminding me not to be controlled by anger…I am ashamed: of myself…I should know better…
T
Til2morrow
Guest
whatever. For some sarcasm lives and rules. Don’t let your “shame” get the best of you!
R
redrosetea
Guest
I’ll try not to…I am usually not someone who jumps into the fray…I think this forum is not for me.
T
Til2morrow
Guest
But you are referred to as a “senior member”. Perhaps it is not for me.
R
redrosetea
Guest
No I think you will be fine…I don’t usually post on this forum…I tend to stay away from political stuff
I post on the other forums…
I post on the other forums…
T
Til2morrow
Guest
which. I would be interested to see where you come from on topic of mutural interest perhaps.
R
redrosetea
Guest
I am afraid I don’t understand what you mean? …I post on lots of topics…just click on my name and you can explore my postings
J
JReducation
Guest
While I disagree with Ms. Pelosi’s position on abortion and other pro-life and family issues, I also agree with Til2morrow. There is never a justification to express hatred or condescension toward anyone.
First, we never know the subjective state of another person’s soul. We only know their opinions and visible actions. We can certainy disagree with what is visible behaviour and audible opionions; but we may never express hatred or any other uncharitable feeling toward another person. To do so is to be no better than those who condemned Christ and his disciples.
Second, Ms. Pelosi is not the only Catholic political leader who espouses abortion either in the United States or the world. Others do too and they have diplomatic and friendly relationships with the Vatican.
Third, it is the job of the Apostolic See to teach the truth. But it is not its job to take individuals outside of its jurisdiction to task. Maybe this is the reason why the Holy Father made his statements using very universal language referring to political leaders, jurists and other persons of social influence, instead of saying “you” to Ms. Pelosi. There is a point in canon law that is very clear. The Church does not have legal jurisdiction over sovereign states and their leaders. The Church’s jurisdiction stops at her members.
In the case of Ms. Pelosi and many other political leaders, there is a conflict. These individuals are Catholic, but they are also legitimate political leaders among the nations of the world. The Church has to be very careful not to breach the sovereignty of any state by threatening its leaders, intentionally offending them or subjecting them to public ridicule.
This does no good for the individual or for the Church in those countries where these persons serve. The Apostolic Sees language must always be universal in tone, while at the same time it must speak the truth.
Our language on this thread has been reduced to an outright attack on Ms. Pelosi’s character rather than on the issue, which is abortion. The title of the thread is actually misleading. According to the Catholic media, there was no rebuke. The Holy Father spoke as he always does. He reminded Ms. Pelosi that leaders have an obligation to protect the dignity of life from conception through all of its natural stages. That is not a rebuke. In any case, that would be more catechesis.
If Ms. Pelosi wishes to say that the spoke about social concerns such as poverty, peace and other subjects, it may well be true as well. The Holy Father is very concerned about these topics. They are not part of a liberal agenda. They are very near and dear to the heart of the Church. This does not deny that the spoke about the dignity of life. It just means that she has chosen not to mention that part of the meeting.
The meeting was brief. I am sure that there could not have been much of a dialogue. Traditionally, popes do not have long meetings with political figures. The reason for this has nothing to do with abortion. The Church tries very hard to ensure that the Apostolic See is not viewed as favoring any political group or nation.
If you are very obervant, the Holy Father has spend more time speaking with Muslims and Jews, that he did with the President of the United States when he came to Washington. That meeting was 40 minutes. His meeting with religious leaders have gone as long as 90 minutes.
Let us preserve our balance and our charity in our expression of the events and our statements about the persons involved.
As St. Francis always said, “Let us never be quick to judge, but always quick to be humble.”
Fraternally,
JR
First, we never know the subjective state of another person’s soul. We only know their opinions and visible actions. We can certainy disagree with what is visible behaviour and audible opionions; but we may never express hatred or any other uncharitable feeling toward another person. To do so is to be no better than those who condemned Christ and his disciples.
Second, Ms. Pelosi is not the only Catholic political leader who espouses abortion either in the United States or the world. Others do too and they have diplomatic and friendly relationships with the Vatican.
Third, it is the job of the Apostolic See to teach the truth. But it is not its job to take individuals outside of its jurisdiction to task. Maybe this is the reason why the Holy Father made his statements using very universal language referring to political leaders, jurists and other persons of social influence, instead of saying “you” to Ms. Pelosi. There is a point in canon law that is very clear. The Church does not have legal jurisdiction over sovereign states and their leaders. The Church’s jurisdiction stops at her members.
In the case of Ms. Pelosi and many other political leaders, there is a conflict. These individuals are Catholic, but they are also legitimate political leaders among the nations of the world. The Church has to be very careful not to breach the sovereignty of any state by threatening its leaders, intentionally offending them or subjecting them to public ridicule.
This does no good for the individual or for the Church in those countries where these persons serve. The Apostolic Sees language must always be universal in tone, while at the same time it must speak the truth.
Our language on this thread has been reduced to an outright attack on Ms. Pelosi’s character rather than on the issue, which is abortion. The title of the thread is actually misleading. According to the Catholic media, there was no rebuke. The Holy Father spoke as he always does. He reminded Ms. Pelosi that leaders have an obligation to protect the dignity of life from conception through all of its natural stages. That is not a rebuke. In any case, that would be more catechesis.
If Ms. Pelosi wishes to say that the spoke about social concerns such as poverty, peace and other subjects, it may well be true as well. The Holy Father is very concerned about these topics. They are not part of a liberal agenda. They are very near and dear to the heart of the Church. This does not deny that the spoke about the dignity of life. It just means that she has chosen not to mention that part of the meeting.
The meeting was brief. I am sure that there could not have been much of a dialogue. Traditionally, popes do not have long meetings with political figures. The reason for this has nothing to do with abortion. The Church tries very hard to ensure that the Apostolic See is not viewed as favoring any political group or nation.
If you are very obervant, the Holy Father has spend more time speaking with Muslims and Jews, that he did with the President of the United States when he came to Washington. That meeting was 40 minutes. His meeting with religious leaders have gone as long as 90 minutes.
Let us preserve our balance and our charity in our expression of the events and our statements about the persons involved.
As St. Francis always said, “Let us never be quick to judge, but always quick to be humble.”
Fraternally,
JR
M
miguel
Guest
You should re-read the statement. It isn’t just Catholic politicians who are responsible for the common good.
“His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.”
And since you brought up the constitution, the 14th Amendment requires the states to provide equal protection to all persons within their jurisdictions. So if this is enforced on behalf of the unborn, Catholicism will be established. It’s already enforced on behalf of racial minorities. Why is that not an establishment of Catholicism?
J
JReducation
Guest
We have to add to what Miguel said, that the State does not enjoy rights above natural law.
JR
- Status