Social Justice groups such as JustFaith, CCHD, IAF

[Stylite]

I can’t believe how much anti-Catholicism I have run into in this forum. More than once I have seen people write that they think the USCCB is suspect, or that CCHD and JustFaith are suspect too. How very un-Catholic.

Ijpgoodwin,

I think you are misreading the situation. Pointing out inconsistencies or oversights in various programs such as the CCHD is not a form of anti-Catholicism. Also, comparing the teaching found in JustFaith and some of the statements issued by the USCCB to what is stated in the Papal Encyclicals is not a form of anti-Catholicism.

The Church has a safeguarded deposit of dogma and teaching. A program or professor can only be measured by their level of conformity to that deposit when speaking on faith and morals. This is not anti-Catholic, in fact it is quite the opposite.

You’ve questioned the qualifications of some of the posters here and also some of the sources of information like the blogs referenced. I don’t think special qualifications are necessary to speak about Church social teaching since any Catholic can go to the main deposit of the social encyclicals, or to the Catechism, or to solid articles on the subject at trustworthy sites like this one or EWTN’s document library to get a strong foundation on the matter.

Yes, it can be good to go to a Catholic university or seminary to learn from knowledgeable professors about our Faith. However, this is only true if the university adheres to the deposit of the faith. And here again, it is not anti-Catholic to measure what a professor teaches against what the Church teaches.

 

[St_Francis]

That being the case, shouldn’t people who don’t have a higher education be docile to those who do as Mimi suggested in an early post? I don’t completely believe that people who don’t have a theological education should be docile to those who do. I’m trying to make a point. My point is that we all should be docile in a large degree to the teaching authority of the Church, not to Glen Beck.

It is true that *both *liberals and conservatives sometimes confuse their politics and their religion.

There is nothing wrong with a new agency being secular or liberal. Just like there is nothing wrong with a new agency being Christian and conservative or any combination of the two as far as I can see. The sub-title of Gaudium et Spes is “The Church IN the Modern World” not “The Church AND the Modern World”. The distinction is important. One of the main points of GS is that the world was created good by God. This means that as Christians we can and should participate fully in the secular world in areas upon which we agree, such as the promotion of human dignity. So there is nothing wrong with listening to secular new agencies or sending your kids to public schools.

Until the 60s, “participation” in secular efforts or those of other religions was pretty much forbidden to Catholics as a potential cause of indifferentism. As we can see, that prohibition was probably a good idea.

So there is nothing wrong with listening to secular new agencies or sending your kids to public schools.

Yes, there is. If you listen too much to secular sources, you can easily be led astray. Just a quick example, take the way secularists talk about the creation of the world: This animal *evolved… *in the active mood rather than the passive. People hear that enough and can easily fail to remember that animals are *designed *and *created *by God Himself.

And as for schools… well, public schools are probably better than many Catholic schools which completely ignore the Faith, but the amount of teaching and formation that a child really needs in order to be able to maintain his faith is much more than 25 hours a year at CCD. There are too many public schools at which the child must be untaught and retaught to make them a truly viable alternative for Catholic children.

Just for the record, I happen to like von Balthazar’s ideas of unity in the Church by building a stronger universal Catholic culture.

Von Balthazar wrote a book called *Dare We Hope that All Men be Saved? *which questions whether or not people actually go to Hell. If no one goes to Hell, what precisely is the point of Christ’s suffering and death on the Cross?

There are many many Catholic writers out there who have not deviated from Church teaching–how can one trust a man who has deviated? How can we tell that he is not deviating in another area? Fro this reason, it doesn’t make sense to read people who have gone against Church teaching like this, and just stick to those who have always been faithful.

I also like Rahner’s ideas of the importance of human relationships. It’s the tension between unity and diversity. Our Church holds both as vital.

Rahner taught immanence, the idea that our sole source of information about God is our own experience, an idea condemned by Pope Pius X. Why read him either?

Really, all I am trying to do is to get people to look into some of our more Catholic sources when we have questions about faith and politics or other subjects.

I agree, we should all do that.

Education builds unity. That is what I am working toward. As the Church stands right now there is a sizable amount of discord.

There can be a false unity as well as the true unity found in the Catholic Church. These false ideas of unity, as exemplified in the types of dialog which ignore the differences in teachings which leads to indifferentism, and in treating other religions with a degree of honor formerly forbidden by the Church, are simply not Catholic.

So, if we are going to address that, doesn’t it make sense that we drink from the same well? I’m not talking about from where we get our news. What I’m talking about is from where we are fed spiritually. Obviously, that means that we start with attending to the Eucharist. From there, shouldn’t we learn what the Eucharist means? Shouldn’t we learn the meaning of the Eucharist from people who have been teaching about it for a long time? You are right, don’t take it from me. Go learn from the Church Fathers, the documents of the Second Vatican Council and from your Pope.

I agree that the Eucharist is the central point of our Faith, and that we should learn from meditating upon the Passion of Our Lord and all that He teaches through the Church.

You are right; I might have been somewhat uppity. But that is because I see my Church being torn apart for no good reason. This saddens me to think that some people think Glen Beck has anything of value to add in a conversation about Catholic social teaching.

Well, I don’t listen to these talk show people, and I stopped listening to NPR when they had a woman on to explain why she aborted 2 of her triplets (because she’d have to go live with the unwashed masses in Staten Island instead of in Manhattan).

But the Church is being torn apart with good reason–because of the shenanigans during and after the Second Vatical Council, when people wrote documents which were so ambiguous in their wording that anyone could take anything he wanted out of them. And so we have those who take one set of ideas out of the documents, and those who take another set of ideas out, and then we have conflict.

What does it mean that you and some others are suspicious of the USCCB and by extension the Vatican? How can we have a truly Catholic conversation if we can’t even agree that the USCCB and the Vatican are Catholic institutions beyond reproach?

The USCCB has no standing in the Church hierarchy, and its statements and actions have shown that it cannot be fully trusted.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

The evidence is right before your eyes, but you seem unwilling to look. I wonder why? To see what is happening in our Church is very painful for us all. It is precisely because of our love for Her and the truth that is held in the Deposit of Faith that we question these things we know to be contrary to the foundation of Truth. This isn’t being UN-Catholic, in fact, to not defend the faith would be a serious omission on our part. We are not to blindly accept whatever the USCCB says, or for that matter what any theologian says who deviates from a previously Revealed Truth.

Perhaps this will help you. This is directly from the Catechism:

It is not being disrespectful to our bishops to question their political motives in giving OUR donations to groups that clearly advocate abortion and other things contrary to the moral teaching of the Church. In fact, I would go so far to say THEY have an obligation to US, as our Shepherds, to explain this because bad fruit is issuing forth and many are being led astray. Were you aware that the USCCB film office (a few years back) gave a glowing review of Brokeback Mountain and The Golden Compass and stated they were “Entirely in Harmony with Catholic Teaching." It was only the resulting outcry from the faithful and a handful of bishops that reversed that glowing review to one of morally objectionable.

Here is a much quoted saying from our Beloved Fulton J. Sheen:

Why don’t you do your own research into these groups that are being funded by the CHD? I did a while back, and was, quite frankly, shocked!

For the record, I have worked directly with many of these groups and I find them holy and faithful Catholics. It’s one thing to read about them on the internet from someone who does not like them and another thing to work directly with the people who work in these groups.

Tigg, be careful about what documents and parts of the CCC your use to defend your argument. It’s always a double edged sword.
How do you decide what is objectively true? I say that the USCCB is doing its job well by swimming against the stream with CCHD.
I suspect your discomfort with what you see the bishops doing with CCHD means that the bishops are doing their job. The bishops themselves developed CCHD. They knew exactly what they were doing when they put CCHD together.
So now I turn your own word back at you. Why can’t you see or why won’t you see it…it’s right in front of you.
How do you know that the bishops are right or wrong on any given subject? Is the rightness or wrongness determined by your own preferences?
The Church use to say slavery was OK and that charging interest on a loan was sinful. It use to say that eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin. Doctrinal development is a very tricky business.

It’s funny how depending on the issue people will support the USCCB or denouce them.
We can agree that the USCCB is right on abortion, but not on the death penalty. Why is that?

 

[po18guy]

So…what are you trying to say in your “secular parable”?

It was a simple reminder that all of us, beginning with me, need to become and remain humble. Also, of the sin of detraction (“xenophobic” “unintelligent”).

I can’t believe how much anti-Catholicism I have run into in this forum. More than once I have seen people write that they think the USCCB is suspect, or that CCHD and JustFaith are suspect too. How very un-Catholic.

What? It appears that you have made involvement in the USCCB and activist groups part of obedience to the faith. Not! You are free to do so, but prudence requires that you investigate the outcome of such support. I have likely watched the USCCB since before you were born. Its judgment has been questionable time after time. I will not violate my conscience by blind obeisance to that organization. Prudence may not require that we question the USCCB’s motives, but it certainly requires that we examine the results - the impact of their decisions.

Is there such a thing as using prudential judgment in accomplishing the goals of the Church? Of course there is! Are you not being unreasonable in defining the faith according to your personal preference in activist groups? We are called to allow our politics to be informed by our faith - not the inverse.

As to the USCCB, please carefully consider the following:

1. For years, the USCCB gave money to A.C.O.R.N.
2. A.C.O.R.N. was controversial for years before they actively and fraudulently participated in electing our President.
3. Our President was and is a known abortion promoter.
4. Abortion is an objective evil (even the USCCB will admit this)
5. The USCCB is guilty of either scandalous negligence in its choice of activist groups to support, or of indirect participation in objective evil. This is either a violation of good stewardship, or is purely sinful.

Should we just blow this off?

The USCCB allowed support of the election of a president who is causing more innocent blood to be shed through both abortion and war. Thus, by its fruits, the USCCB appears to be more secular than Catholic.

So tell me, po18guy, just who is the “seminarian” in your “secular parable”?

If the shoe does not fit, then do not wear it…

It seems to me that someone who says that the USCCB, CCHD and JustFaith are involved in some sort of conspiracy to promote abortion is one heck of a lot more arrogant than someone who is asking fellow Christians to go and study the Church.

Who said “conspiracy”? YOU just did. If I was promoting such a conspiracy theory, “arrogant” would be the least of the implications that would apply to me. You are using marginalizing words. You need to know that. They can be employed in the absence of a substantive argument.

I have shown you the USCCB’s (unwitting) connection to support of objective evil. You seem to be rationalizing it away, as if it never occurred. I ask you to think for yourself and reject the “template” of social activism. I ask you to consider alternative methods of accomplishing the good we are called to do.

As a matter of fact, we are all obligated to study the Church and the Bible as best we can. It’s part of being a faithful Christian.

Who has disagreed with this?

Study and community organizing are two very Catholic things to do.

Excuse me, but where and when did “community organizing” become essential to being Catholic? And, does support for abortion promoting groups like A.C.O.R.N. lead to being a good Catholic? Please explain…

CCC 1906 refers to “the sum total of social conditions which allow persons, either as groups or individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily”.

CCC 1907 “First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such”

CCC 1909 “Finally, the common good requires peace…”

The USCCB’s de facto support for abortion (through cash to A.C.O.R.N.) denies fulfillment to the unborn person. It disreagards respect for that unborn person. It allows the violence of abortion, not the peace of the womb.

I have neither researched nor commented on the other groups that you favor. I cannot get past the repetitive judgment mistakes on the part of the USCCB. A higher education is intended to expand your mind, not narrow it to inflexible insistence upon certain activist groups to the exclusion of others.

I’ll pray for you too. I’ll put you on our Rosary prayer list too.

I gladly accept each and every prayer I can get. Thank you and may God bless you on your journey.

 

[Stylite]

Interesting news regarding the CCHD:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/09092205.html

 

[fix]

Interesting news regarding the CCHD:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/09092205.html

It is beyond sad.

 

[dixieagle]

dixieagle
JustFaith does not have a curriculum specific to JustFaith alone. The program uses very classic Catholic materials that you can find in any CCD class, or Bible study, or seminary. It uses documents of the Catholic Church and many other materials that can be found in any church or Catholic school or seminary.
So, the quotes you have chosen on socialism may or may not be included in some of the reading that is found in the JustFaith bibliography. You may or may not find some criticism on capitalism as well that comes from the same documents in which you found these criticisms of socialism. Neither JustFaith nor the Catholic Church are Socialist, Marxist, Communist, Democratic or Capitalist. If anything, the Church is a Monarchy or perhaps even more specifically a Theocracy. But the Church does not suggest that our governments should be Theocracies. At the same time the Church has over time criticized Monarchies and Theocracies too.
JustFaith is about helping people learn to do whatever they can with the tools they have to help people understand that God loves everyone in the same way that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is trying to get the same point across. JustFaith is a catechetical pedagogy for adults that highlights Catholic social teaching. Just as your Respect Life committee at your diocese or parish uses a catechetical pedagogy for adults that highlights Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. This does not mean that the two topics are not related. The fact is that there is a lot of overlap. That overlap is a reflection of the fact that both catechetical tools are teaching about the same person; who is Jesus Christ.

Just FYI…

It was not I who originally “chose” the quotes about Socialism; I was quoting from what a previous poster had written.

I have no previous experience with JustFaith; my daughter has just begun the program and will be discussing it with me. No preconceived notions about the program at all here. Knowing my daughter - who is both extremely intelligent and quite orthodox - she wouldn’t have started the program if she felt there was anything wrong with it. Her life’s work involves hands-on prolife ministry and working with homeless women and children, so social justice is her passion.

 

[St_Francis]

From the article: Criticisms based upon the CCHD’s questionable funding practices are not new. The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus claimed last year, in the wake of the ACORN scandal, that the CCHD “has nothing to do with Catholicism, except that Catholics are asked to pay for it.”

He called the organization “misbegotten in concept and corrupt in practice,” and went so far as to urge that it be terminated. “What most Catholics don’t know, and what would likely astonish them,” wrote Fr. Neuhaus, “is that CHD **very explicitly **does not fund Catholic institutions and apostolates that work with the poor.” Neuhaus suggested that the bishops would do better to spend their money on more Catholic-related projects, such as “Catholic inner-city schools.”

 

[St_Francis]

From Quadragesimo Anno:

1. No genuine cure can be furnished for this lamentable ruin of souls, which, so long as it continues, will frustrate all efforts to regenerate society, unless men return openly and sincerely to the teaching of the Gospel, to the precepts of Him Who alone has the worlds of everlasting life, words which will never pass away, even if Heaven and earth will pass away. All experts in social problems are seeking eagerly a structure so fashioned in accordance with the norms of reason that it can lead economic life badk to sound and right order. But this order, which We Ourselves ardently long for and with all our efforts promote, will be wholly defective and incomplete unless all the activities of man harmoniously unite ti imitate and attain, insofar as it lies within human strength, the marvelous unity of the Divine plan. We mean that perfect order which the Church with great force and power preaches and which right human reason itself demands, that all things be directed to God as the first and supreme end of all created activity, and that all created good under God be considered as mere instruments to be used only insofar as they conduce to the attainment of the supreme end…
2. …How completely deceived, therefore, and those rash reformers who concern themselves with the enforcement of justice alone—and this commutative justice—and in their pride reject the assistance of charity…

 

[po18guy]

From the article: Criticisms based upon the CCHD’s questionable funding practices are not new. The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus claimed last year, in the wake of the ACORN scandal, that the CCHD “has nothing to do with Catholicism, except that Catholics are asked to pay for it.”

He called the organization “misbegotten in concept and corrupt in practice,” and went so far as to urge that it be terminated. “What most Catholics don’t know, and what would likely astonish them,” wrote Fr. Neuhaus, “is that CHD **very explicitly **does not fund Catholic institutions and apostolates that work with the poor.” Neuhaus suggested that the bishops would do better to spend their money on more Catholic-related projects, such as “Catholic inner-city schools.”

Amen!

 

[po18guy]

Interesting news regarding the CCHD:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/09092205.html

Does anyone else here see the coincidence of allowing dissident theologians to participate in V2; the ambiguous wording of V2 documents; the non-prudential implementation of V2 goals; the secularization of Catholic colleges and schools; the tolerance of practicing homosexuals in Holy Orders and Religious life; the formation of programs such as CCHD - all of which occurred in the tumultuous 1960s, and which have “inexplicably” lead to the current sordid state of affairs in the Church?

The world now has both feet planted in the Church. Oh, we have Jesus’ promise that she won’t fall, but she is staggering under the weight of the cross of heterodoxy. Who is the Simon of Cyrene who will help to carry? It appears that we all are.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

All quotes are from St. Francis

It is true that *both *

liberals and conservatives sometimes confuse their politics and their religion.

Yes I agree with you. Some people think that the Church has no place in politics. That is a common point of confusion for many people. Just a fast reading of Rerum Novarum should clear that confusion away. Politics reflects the “Incarnational Principle”
Deus Caritas Est gives us a wonderful way of understanding how we are involved in the political life of humankind. Love is the central reason that we are involved in the political life of this world. God created us as a people who are in relationship with the people around us. We must as Catholics attend to both the vertical and horizontal dimensions of our being.

Until the 60s, “participation” in secular efforts or those of other religions was pretty much forbidden to Catholics as a potential cause of indifferentism. As we can see, that prohibition was probably a good idea.

In Lumen Gentium we learn that it is the vocation of lay folks to participate in the secular would in order to transform it. One of the jobs of a parish is to form people so that they can transform the world. Lay folks are also called to cooperate with the secular world where we have things in common. The world is good because God created the world good. In the world, not of the world.

Yes, there is. If you listen too much to secular sources, you can easily be led astray. Just a quick example, take the way secularists talk about the creation of the world: This animal *evolved… *in the active mood rather than the passive. People hear that enough and can easily fail to remember that animals are *designed *and *created *by God Himself.

No, there is nothing wrong listening to secular news and sending your kids to public schools. Again, we need to attend to both the horizontal and vertical dimensions of our being. There would be something wrong is all we attended to was the secular…that’s for sure. But there would be something wrong if we ignored the secular or horizontal dimension of the world. The world is good because God created the world. You can’t get around this. People have to come to terms with the fact that the world is essentially good. That is not to say that there is nothing bad in the world. But evil came into the world after the fall, not before or at the same time. So we start with the fact that God made the world first and foremost good. God gave us free will, grace and a conscience so that we could live a holy life in the world we created. There is no reason to be scared of the world as long as we have a full and rich prayer, sacramental and God fearing life.

And as for schools… well, public schools are probably better than many Catholic schools which completely ignore the Faith, but the amount of teaching and formation that a child really needs in order to be able to maintain his faith is much more than 25 hours a year at CCD. There are too many public schools at which the child must be untaught and retaught to make them a truly viable alternative for Catholic children.

I don’t know. I know some great Catholic schools. What makes a school great is the faith of the people who teach and administer the school. The order I belong to has 2 good schools. I really respect the faculty. They really understand the awesome responsibility they have to the community by doing their part in helping to develop the well formed consciences of our children. The administration of the school makes sure that the faculty is getting ongoing adult faith formation as a precondition of teaching.
However, John Paul II said of equal or even more importance is the continued development of the adult pilgrim. This has been my point for weeks in this forum. Many Catholic adults think that they don’t have to continue to develop their conscience after CCD and beyond going to Mass on Sunday. We adults don’t get off that easy…sorry. Join a bible study at your parish or go and take some theology at your local Catholic University of seminary. Adult faith formation never stops.

continued

 

[ljpgoodwin]

continued, All quotes from St Francis

Von Balthazar wrote a book called *Dare We Hope that All Men be Saved? *which questions whether or not people actually go to Hell. If no one goes to Hell, what precisely is the point of Christ’s suffering and death on the Cross?

I’m not sure why you bring this writing of von Balthazar up at this point.

There are many many Catholic writers out there who have not deviated from Church teaching–how can one trust a man who has deviated? How can we tell that he is not deviating in another area? Fro this reason, it doesn’t make sense to read people who have gone against Church teaching like this, and just stick to those who have always been faithful.

This is a strong statement. You show me a person who is in “perfect alignment” with the Church, and I’ll show you someone who has not studied the Church enough. I can say this with confidence because no one…absolutely no one is perfect.

Rahner taught immanence, the idea that our sole source of information about God is our own experience, an idea condemned by Pope Pius X. Why read him either?

For a time, de Lubac was “condemned” by the Church. We need to be able to make the distinction between the Church correcting an idea that someone has and condemning a person. It’s true, Rahner was challenged by some theologians in the Church. But Rahner and JP2 and B16 can celebrate Mass together. How many times in our history have we seen theologians who’s ideas were one thought to be anathema, in time turned out to be absolutely right. Rahner, de Lubac and Galileo are some find examples.

There can be a false unity as well as the true unity found in the Catholic Church. These false ideas of unity, as exemplified in the types of dialog which ignore the differences in teachings which leads to indifferentism, and in treating other religions with a degree of honor formerly forbidden by the Church, are simply not Catholic.

You seem to be mixing apples and oranges here. There is a ecumenical dialogue going on in the Church. Ecumenical dialogue is the dialogue between different Christians. Then there is the inter-religious dialogue going on between all non-Christians (except for Judaism). Then there is the dialogue going on between the Church and Judaism. Then there is the dialogue that goes on within our Church. This is the dialogue, when it is not done well, you have people saying who is and who is not Catholic. This is such a simplistic mind set. The Church is very expansive and is able to hold together many seemingly divergent ideas. But upon closer examination, these ideas often are shown to be well within the visible confines of what is call the Roman Catholic Church. This is one of our greatest strengths. We profess “unity in diversity”. That is what it means to be Catholic. This is de Lubac’s idea. This Church is more a “both-and” Church than it is a “this or that” Church. The Truth is in the tension.

I agree that the Eucharist is the central point of our Faith, and that we should learn from meditating upon the Passion of Our Lord and all that He teaches through the Church.

Well, I don’t listen to these talk show people, and I stopped listening to NPR when they had a woman on to explain why she aborted 2 of her triplets (because she’d have to go live with the unwashed masses in Staten Island instead of in Manhattan).

I don’t know what “talk shows” you are talking about. I don’t watch much TV anyway. However, NPR and PBS have some wonderful programming. These shows can be informative and insightful. That isn’t to say that some of the shows don’t make me crazy. Nova for instance makes me nutz, so does Diane Rehm…so I don’t watch or listen often to these programs. I love Car Talk, Prairie Home Companion, Talk of the Nation, News Hour and Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me. As far as the story of the woman who had two abortions…well, hearing her story only goes to support my opposition to abortion.

But the Church is being torn apart with good reason–because of the shenanigans during and after the Second Vatical Council, when people wrote documents which were so ambiguous in their wording that anyone could take anything he wanted out of them. And so we have those who take one set of ideas out of the documents, and those who take another set of ideas out, and then we have conflict.

The ambiguity of the Second Vatican Council was by design. The ambiguity reflects the fact that Catholicism is both religion that is deeply rational and deeply a matter of faith. Again, our Church is more “both and” than it is “either or”.
So the idea is to be able to hold both Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes together. That’s the truly Catholic struggle. There is in fact a beauty in this struggle to hold these two seemingly divergent documents. The complement each other…not oppose each other. The Council Fathers didn’t write the documents that seemed to contradict each other because the “just can’t find the answer that everyone could agree upon”. It’s like we don’t know what it means to be a man without knowing women. It’s about complementarity not “shenanigans”. This is the basic idea behind Theology of the Body.

The USCCB has no standing in the Church hierarchy, and its statements and actions have shown that it cannot be fully trusted.

The USCCB is just as much a part of the Magisterium as any other Conference of Bishops. They have no higher or lower standing than any other episcopal body. The Magisterium is the collegial body of all bishops and the Pope. All bishops are equal in the Magisterium. Only an individual bishop can be out of communion with the Pope. This is a very complex body. Lumen Gentium is the document to read for a better understanding of how the body of bishops works and what is the nature of the relationship of the Pope to the bishops. It’s facinating reading when done with someone who knows how to read a Council document.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

It was a simple reminder that all of us, beginning with me, need to become and remain humble. Also, of the sin of detraction (“xenophobic” “unintelligent”). What? It appears that you have made involvement in the USCCB and activist groups part of obedience to the faith. Not! You are free to do so, but prudence requires that you investigate the outcome of such support. I have likely watched the USCCB since before you were born. Its judgment has been questionable time after time. I will not violate my conscience by blind obeisance to that organization. Prudence may not require that we question the USCCB’s motives, but it certainly requires that we examine the results - the impact of their decisions.

Is there such a thing as using prudential judgment in accomplishing the goals of the Church? Of course there is! Are you not being unreasonable in defining the faith according to your personal preference in activist groups? We are called to allow our politics to be informed by our faith - not the inverse.

As to the USCCB, please carefully consider the following:

1. For years, the USCCB gave money to A.C.O.R.N.
2. A.C.O.R.N. was controversial for years before they actively and fraudulently participated in electing our President.
3. Our President was and is a known abortion promoter.
4. Abortion is an objective evil (even the USCCB will admit this)
5. The USCCB is guilty of either scandalous negligence in its choice of activist groups to support, or of indirect participation in objective evil. This is either a violation of good stewardship, or is purely sinful.

Should we just blow this off?

The USCCB allowed support of the election of a president who is causing more innocent blood to be shed through both abortion and war. Thus, by its fruits, the USCCB appears to be more secular than Catholic.

If the shoe does not fit, then do not wear it…Who said “conspiracy”? YOU just did. If I was promoting such a conspiracy theory, “arrogant” would be the least of the implications that would apply to me. You are using marginalizing words. You need to know that. They can be employed in the absence of a substantive argument.

I have shown you the USCCB’s (unwitting) connection to support of objective evil. You seem to be rationalizing it away, as if it never occurred. I ask you to think for yourself and reject the “template” of social activism. I ask you to consider alternative methods of accomplishing the good we are called to do.

Who has disagreed with this?Excuse me, but where and when did “community organizing” become essential to being Catholic? And, does support for abortion promoting groups like A.C.O.R.N. lead to being a good Catholic? Please explain…

CCC 1906 refers to “the sum total of social conditions which allow persons, either as groups or individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily”.

CCC 1907 “First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such”

CCC 1909 “Finally, the common good requires peace…”

The USCCB’s de facto support for abortion (through cash to A.C.O.R.N.) denies fulfillment to the unborn person. It disreagards respect for that unborn person. It allows the violence of abortion, not the peace of the womb.

I have neither researched nor commented on the other groups that you favor. I cannot get past the repetitive judgment mistakes on the part of the USCCB. A higher education is intended to expand your mind, not narrow it to inflexible insistence upon certain activist groups to the exclusion of others.

I gladly accept each and every prayer I can get. Thank you and may God bless you on your journey.

Well po18guy, I suspect that you don’t know how old I am or where I live or much else about my personal life. You seem to be making assumptions.

I have had personal firsthand experience with the USCCB, ACORN, JustFaith, IAF and find that these people are good and holy Catholics. It seems that all the information you have about these groups comes from standing and watching from afar.
I personally know people who work for these agencies and I take great offence when I hear people are unduly critical of their very Catholic efforts. CCHD is very effective and is a holy enterprise. It isn’t perfect. I know that ACORN really messed up. That does not mean that everyone else is corrupt. Just because you don’t like the style of work they do…community organizing…doesn’t mean that community organizing is bad. Community organizing is a good thing and holy Catholic people are engaged in such activity with the blessing of God.
I have done more than some research of CCHD and its funded groups…I have worked with them. I am here as an eye witness to testify to the FACT that the work of CCHD and the USCCB is good and holy. It isn’t perfect…but who is?
So you and I can’t agree on CCHD’s moral state…when I am confused, I take the Catholic path and trust the Magisterium. It sounds like when you disagree with what the bishops are doing, you say they are wrong and corrupt and you are right. Like I say…it sounds like. I’m not sure if that is what you are saying when you say “The USCCB’s de facto support for abortion (through cash to A.C.O.R.N.) denies fulfillment to the unborn person. It disreagards respect for that unborn person. It allows the violence of abortion, not the peace of the womb.” It just sounds like you are saying that the USCCB is corrupt or blind to the Truth. I could be wrong, however.
Again, I will say…it’s too bad about ACORN. There did a lot of good work for many years. But things happen. I have seen people who say they are pro-life vote for political leaders that are pro-death penalty or go an blow up abortion clinics killing people in the process.
So many of our political leaders who say they are pro-life have done nothing to change anything around Roe v. Wade. Not only that, I have seen so many political leaders who say they are pro-life block government programs that would support a women to give up the child for adoption.

 

[jewells17]

Did anyone see Glenn Beck today? He was on this topic of social justice. I wonder if our parish will start the 912 meetup group so many people want. Just keep praying for America.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Quote from po18guy

“If the shoe does not fit, then do not wear it…Who said “conspiracy”? YOU just did. If I was promoting such a conspiracy theory, “arrogant” would be the least of the implications that would apply to me. You are using marginalizing words. You need to know that. They can be employed in the absence of a substantive argument.”

This is a great paragraph. You have more than once accused the bishops of acting on the sly when it comes to funding ACORN and other such groups. That is a somewhat conspiratorial idea.

I’m not sure what you mean by “marginalizing words”. It seems that we might have different understanding of what the word marginalize means. I understand the word to mean something that pushes people outside of some kind of boundary. An example might be that racists in centuries passed would not let black people vote. Therefore the racists marginalized the black people from public life.

As far as my being able to construct a cogent argument, I have been asking for a few weeks that we use accepted Catholic documents in order to fine tune and facilitate our discourse. You seem to be interested in using many quotes from non- peer reviewed sources like “Inside Catholic. Com”, which has absolutely no credibility.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Did anyone see Glenn Beck today? He was on this topic of social justice. I wonder if our parish will start the 912 meetup group so many people want. Just keep praying for America.

Why don’t you start the group jewells? While you are at it why don’t you pray for your Mexican brothers and sister who are suffering so much right now?

 

[St_Francis]

…

Basically, I kind of feel like we are talking different languages. I talk about people mixing religion and politics; you respond about people who think that Catholics should not be involved in politics; I allude to bad Catholic schools, you respond that your school was very good. I respond to your mention of von Balthazar, you ask why I mentioned him there; I bring up a deviation on a *very basic point, *on the part of a man who is highly educated in Catholic thinking, you respond that no one is perfect; I don’t mention du Lubac, you drag him in (and Galileo, who was *not *a theologian).

I suspect that our differences in thinking are too great to resolve.

 

[po18guy]

Well po18guy, I suspect that you don’t know how old I am or where I live or much else about my personal life. You seem to be making assumptions.

Have you been watching the USCCB since the 1960s? A yes will end the speculation.

I have had personal firsthand experience with the USCCB, ACORN, JustFaith, IAF and find that these people are good and holy Catholics. It seems that all the information you have about these groups comes from standing and watching from afar.

We were not speaking of the individuals. That would be foolish. We were speaking of the organization. The USCCB did not stop ACORN funding because of good, holy Catholics that are in it. They did it because those good, holy Catholics were in a corrupt organization.

I personally know people who work for these agencies and I take great offence when I hear people are unduly critical of their very Catholic efforts. CCHD is very effective and is a holy enterprise. It isn’t perfect. I know that ACORN really messed up. That does not mean that everyone else is corrupt. Just because you don’t like the style of work they do…community organizing…doesn’t mean that community organizing is bad. Community organizing is a good thing and holy Catholic people are engaged in such activity with the blessing of God.

Once again, we are speaking of the organization, not the well-meaning individuals who populate it at certain levels.

I have done more than some research of CCHD and its funded groups…I have worked with them. I am here as an eye witness to testify to the FACT that the work of CCHD and the USCCB is good and holy. It isn’t perfect…but who is?

What’s a little support of objective evil between friends, huh?

So you and I can’t agree on CCHD’s moral state…when I am confused, I take the Catholic path and trust the Magisterium. It sounds like when you disagree with what the bishops are doing, you say they are wrong and corrupt and you are right.

Jesus said that we will know them by their fruits. Some of us are willing to recognize that a few of those fruits are rotten, in spite of whatever good may also occur. You can argue your support of those organizations at the particular judgment. In the meantime, I know of organizations and agencies that are not rotten that I can use to accomplish the same ends.

Like I say…it sounds like. I’m not sure if that is what you are saying when you say “The USCCB’s de facto support for abortion (through cash to A.C.O.R.N.) denies fulfillment to the unborn person. It disreagards respect for that unborn person. It allows the violence of abortion, not the peace of the womb.” It just sounds like you are saying that the USCCB is corrupt or blind to the Truth. I could be wrong, however.

Please explain, in your own words, how this debacle happened then. It is never easy to accept when your favorite Emperor is revealed to have no clothes. And, it is clear that you have great admiration for the USCCB. I look at their fruits.

Again, I will say…it’s too bad about ACORN. There did a lot of good work for many years.

Are you a subversive? I ask because subversion is in ACORN’s DNA! Perhaps you somehow overlooked this?

But things happen. I have seen people who say they are pro-life vote for political leaders that are pro-death penalty or go an blow up abortion clinics killing people in the process.

Things happen and babies are aborted. This is some world-class compartmentalization here!

So many of our political leaders who say they are pro-life have done nothing to change anything around Roe v. Wade.

Ther Supreme Court is independent of the Executive branch of government. Your problem is with the liberals on the court who conjured up a “right” to privacy and abortion as a Faustian deal to solve social decline.

Not only that, I have seen so many political leaders who say they are pro-life block government programs that would support a women to give up the child for adoption.

What were the amendments on those bills? Amendments kill a bill. It’s like Obama’s health care. Abortion, the banning of conscience, and withholding care for the elderly (passive euthanasia) should kill it. Probably won’t though.

 

[po18guy]

Basically, I kind of feel like we are talking different languages. I talk about people mixing religion and politics; you respond about people who think that Catholics should not be involved in politics; I allude to bad Catholic schools, you respond that your school was very good. I respond to your mention of von Balthazar, you ask why I mentioned him there; I bring up a deviation on a *very basic point, *on the part of a man who is highly educated in Catholic thinking, you respond that no one is perfect; I don’t mention du Lubac, you drag him in (and Galileo, who was *not *a theologian).

I suspect that our differences in thinking are too great to resolve.

The contortions of logic that have been employed in defense of the indefensible are utterly amazing.