Vatican, Vietnam sacrifice a holy man

[MugenOne]

A major stumbling block to diplomatic relations between Vietnam and the Vatican has seemingly been removed with the resignation of a popular Vietnamese Catholic leader and government critic.

Joseph Ngo Quang Kiet was the archbishop of Hanoi for the past five years, overseeing parishes in the capital and in the northern third of the country. He quietly supported a wave of protest vigils calling for the return of government-confiscated church properties and greater religious freedom.

The Vietnamese government, which is often accused of violating religious freedom, hopes to silence human-rights critics, especially in the United States, by establishing full relations with

http://asianmedia.com/GAAN/www/deli...es/Southeast_Asia/LE07Ae02.html&cb=9b211cd8fb

the Holy See. Vietnam, with approximately six million Catholics, offers the Vatican the second-largest Catholic population in Southeast Asia after the Philippines.

atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE07Ae02.html

Do you guys think the Pope would strick such a deal with the devil in name of normalizing relation? Anything is possible.

 

[AnthonytheGreat]

very disappointing, the Church is helping to crucify its own saints.

 

[catharina]

A major stumbling block to diplomatic relations between Vietnam and the Vatican has seemingly been removed with the resignation of a popular Vietnamese Catholic leader and government critic.

Joseph Ngo Quang Kiet was the archbishop of Hanoi for the past five years, overseeing parishes in the capital and in the northern third of the country. He quietly supported a wave of protest vigils calling for the return of government-confiscated church properties and greater religious freedom.

The Vietnamese government, which is often accused of violating religious freedom, hopes to silence human-rights critics, especially in the United States, by establishing full relations with

http://asianmedia.com/GAAN/www/deli...es/Southeast_Asia/LE07Ae02.html&cb=9b211cd8fb

the Holy See. Vietnam, with approximately six million Catholics, offers the Vatican the second-largest Catholic population in Southeast Asia after the Philippines.

atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE07Ae02.html

Do you guys think the Pope would strick such a deal with the devil in name of normalizing relation? Anything is possible.

Joseph Ngo Quang Kiet has announced he is retiring for health reasons.

I believe him and would hope that all recognize he is allowed to retire at this time. For anyone to suggest that he is acting at the expense of the Church, of his Faith, is simply a leap to a horrible conclusion. That a secular press suggests such a thing speaks for itself.

 

[JRKH]

I would trust the Holy See to do what is right in the long run.

Peace
James

 

[catharina]

I would trust the Holy See to do what is right in the long run.

Peace
James

Yes. Completely agree.
It seems some Catholics are ever ready to kick the Church.
That’s a true heartbreak and incomprehensible to me.

 

[KC91]

There is no such thing as a free concordat between the Holy See and a tough dictatorship. There is always a price to be paid for the greater good and the protection of Catholics.

Although I am strongly anti-communist and I admire that Bishop, if his resignation is the price to pay for Catholics having more rights and protection, then it needs to be paid. Pope Pius XI himself said that he would negotiate with the devil himself to ensure the protection of Catholics. After all, in negotiating the Lateran Pacts of 1929 with Fascist Italy he had to sacrifice the Catholic Popular Party and in negotiating the 1933 Reichskoncordat with Nazi Germany which gave legal redress by the Church in case of Nazi persecution of the Church, he had to sacrifice the Catholic Central Party.

If B16 manages a concordat with Vietnam and pays a visit there, then this will be one of the great diplomatic triumphs of his pontificate!

 

[JRKH]

Yes. Completely agree.
It seems some Catholics are ever ready to kick the Church.
That’s a true heartbreak and incomprehensible to me.

I am so often reminded of the “cold war” when things like this come up.

The US engaged the USSR and eastern Europe after WW II but tried to Isolate “Red” China, refusing to recognize or to Trade with them. In fact it was many years before “Red China” was recognized by the UN because of the US backing fo the Chinese government on Tiawan.

Look at the results today. The USSR collapsed while Communist China still stands.

The people of the USSR were exposed to western ideas, and products etc, through trade and and travel, even if such travel was severely restricted. This does not mean that the US abandoned it’s view that communism was and is bad. Quite the contrary. It means we put their system and ours to an open test. Could the communists in the USSR really “bury us” as as Kruschev delcared? Turns out they could not, and tehir system collapsed. However, in accomplishing this, over the years, compromises had to occur.

On the other hand. China, more isolated has been able to build their communist society without the their people being exposed, by travel or products to ideas to and alternatives to their own government. This of course has been changing since China has been recognized and has begun opening up. Eventually the result there must be similar to the USSR.

This is of course a gross over symplification of things.
but I hope you get my point. Charitable engagement is always a better option than prideful obstinance.

Peace
James

 

[AnthonytheGreat]

I am not really kicking the Church I just find that it is very often misguided in political matters. They are very fallible in this area.

 

[catharina]

I am not really kicking the Church I just find that it is very often misguided in political matters. They are very fallible in this area.

Hmmmmmmmm. Really?
Your words:

“very disappointing, the Church is helping to crucify its own saints.”

Horribly demeaning. (Also untrue.)

 

[AnthonytheGreat]

I don’t necessarily agree it is untrue, the Church is misguided all of the time and has indeed helped to crucify many a saint. I am 100% loyal to Church in matters of faith and morals yet I very disturbed by its internal workings and many political decisions, the sex abuse scandal being a huge example of this. So I am not going to live in blind obedience to everything they do and I am not required to.

 

[catharina]

I don’t necessarily agree it is untrue, the Church is misguided all of the time and has indeed helped to crucify many a saint. I am 100% loyal to Church in matters of faith and morals yet I very disturbed by its internal workings and many political decisions, the sex abuse scandal being a huge example of this. So I am not going to live in blind obedience to everything they do and I am not required to.

Yes, I went to your profile and I read your very few previous posts.

Do you actually believe that yoiur random criticism of the Church, of the Holy Father, lends itself in any way to the upholding of Catholic teaching? To state “the Church is helping to crucify its own saints” is to state only your limited (and apparently quite biased) opinion.

It is the Church through the grace of God that gives a home and every support to its Saints. You are on a CATHOLIC site and it might make your views more convincing if you refrain from insulting Holy Mother Church, especially with such a vile and baseless attack. Frankly your statement about ‘the Church crucifying its saints’ is completely shocking to me. I hope you can grasp this point.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by AnthonytheGreat
I am not really kicking the Church I just find that it is very often misguided in political matters. They are very fallible in this area.

I don’t necessarily agree it is untrue, the Church is misguided all of the time and has indeed helped to crucify many a saint. I am 100% loyal to Church in matters of faith and morals yet I very disturbed by its internal workings and many political decisions, the sex abuse scandal being a huge example of this. So I am not going to live in blind obedience to everything they do and I am not required to.

hmmm… You have an interesting way of expresing yourself.
First you say " just find that it is very often misguided in political matters", “the Church is misguided all of the time”. Sounds like you need to decide which is which.

It is indeed posible to be “disturbed” by many things. However, I would suggest that, since we do not have all the information that the Holy Father and the Vatican Diplomats do, perhaps we should not be too quick to dismiss them as “misguided”.

Peace
James

 

[AnthonytheGreat]

Yes, I went to your profile and I read your very few previous posts.

Do you actually believe that yoiur random criticism of the Church, of the Holy Father, lends itself in any way to the upholding of Catholic teaching? To state “the Church is helping to crucify its own saints” is to state only your limited (and apparently quite biased) opinion.

It is the Church through the grace of God that gives a home and every support to its Saints. You are on a CATHOLIC site and it might make your views more convincing if you refrain from insulting Holy Mother Church, especially with such a vile and baseless attack. Frankly your statement about ‘the Church crucifying its saints’ is completely shocking to me. I hope you can grasp this point.

OK you read my other posts, I don’t understand. What other posts are you talking about?

Leaders in the Catholic Church have a history of treating some saints badly, many times only after their passing do they recognize its mistakes and elevates them.

The Church leadership is not infallible in its political matters and we are not bound by them. How can you possibly blindly support the Church in all matters when they have handled things such as the sex abuse scandal very poorly?

I support the Church and am a loyal Catholic but believe leaders should be taken to task when it does things poorly. I actually find your blind obedience to all matters (even where we are not required to be so) disturbing as it enables the bad behavior some in the Church exhibit.

I will always love and support the Church but sometimes that means criticism when we are disturbed by its actions. Blind obedience only enables bad behavior.

 

[catharina]

OK you read my other posts, I don’t understand. What other posts are you talking about?

Leaders in the Catholic Church have a history of treating some saints badly, many times only after their passing do they recognize its mistakes and elevates them.

The Church leadership is not infallible in its political matters and we are not bound by them. How can you possibly blindly support the Church in all matters when they have handled things such as the sex abuse scandal very poorly?

I support the Church and am a loyal Catholic but believe leaders should be taken to task when it does things poorly. I actually find your blind obedience to all matters (even where we are not required to be so) disturbing as it enables the bad behavior some in the Church exhibit.

I will always love and support the Church but sometimes that means criticism when we are disturbed by its actions. Blind obedience only enables bad behavior.

Click on a poster’s name at top of any post. Then
Choices given include:
public profile
previous posts
Etc…
Click on your choice

I went to yours and read your previous 10 posts.

For some reason it seems you have a need to criticize the Church.
I don’t know why (and I don’t care why). I’m only asking that you use some prudence.
To rail against the Church in generalized terms - as you DO - is intemperate and unwise.

That you believe you are to “take to task” the Church re this Bishop is preposterous.
His story has not even been told yet.
Always it’s is wisest to give the benefit of the doubt to religious leaders.
If your own issues are so significant that you criticize in an automatic way, seek help!

Many people, Catholic and non-Catholic, come to CA and read many posts.
Why should you present harsh criticism when there is NO cause to do so?

 

[AnthonytheGreat]

Originally Posted by AnthonytheGreat
I am not really kicking the Church I just find that it is very often misguided in political matters. They are very fallible in this area.

hmmm… You have an interesting way of expresing yourself.
First you say " just find that it is very often misguided in political matters", “the Church is misguided all of the time”. Sounds like you need to decide which is which.

It is indeed posible to be “disturbed” by many things. However, I would suggest that, since we do not have all the information that the Holy Father and the Vatican Diplomats do, perhaps we should not be too quick to dismiss them as “misguided”.

Peace
James

There is no contradiction there, what I mean by “all of the time” is frequently, not in every decision. When someone says “all of the time” they usually don’t mean always but a common occurrence.

I will never have all the information about the sex abuse scandal either but I certainly know enough to confidently say they messed up big time.

Mind you I never mentioned the Holy Father at all, I said the Vatican which is a huge network of bureaucrats.

But the Holy father is not above criticism either, when he said socialism was good, I believe he was in error given that socialism’s greatest enemy is religion. It was a pretty big error which helps to embolden radicals.

We are not asked to support the Church or even the Holy Father in all of its decisions, and some of its poor decisions are very grave indeed.

My opinion, but if you see otherwise then fine but don’t suggest I am somehow horrible for not being blindly supportive of things that I am not required to and should not be.

 

[catharina]

There is no contradiction there, what I mean by “all of the time” is frequently, not in every decision. When someone says “all of the time” they usually don’t mean always but a common occurrence.

I will never have all the information about the sex abuse scandal either but I certainly know enough to confidently say they messed up big time.

**Mind you I never mentioned the Holy Father at all, I said the Vatican which is a huge network of bureaucrats. **

**What you SAID was this:

“the Church is helping to crucify its own saints.”**

If you meant to leave out the Holy Father, you forgot to say so.

But the Holy father is not above criticism either, when he said socialism was good, I believe he was in error given that socialism’s greatest enemy is religion. It was a pretty big error which helps to embolden radicals.

We are not asked to support the Church or even the Holy Father in all of its decisions, and some of its poor decisions are very grave indeed.

My opinion, but if you see otherwise then fine but don’t suggest I am somehow horrible for not being blindly supportive of things that I am not required to and should not be.

 

[AnthonytheGreat]

Click on a poster’s name at top of any post. Then
Choices given include:
public profile
previous posts
Etc…
Click on your choice

I went to yours and read your previous 10 posts.

For some reason it seems you have a need to criticize the Church.
I don’t know why (and I don’t care why). I’m only asking that you use some prudence.
To rail against the Church in generalized terms - as you DO - is intemperate and unwise.

That you believe you are to “take to task” the Church re this Bishop is preposterous.
His story has not even been told yet.
Always it’s is wisest to give the benefit of the doubt to religious leaders.
If your own issues are so significant that you criticize in an automatic way, seek help!

Many people, Catholic and non-Catholic, come to CA and read many posts.
Why should you present harsh criticism when there is NO cause to do so?

It is simply your own opinion that there is “NO cause to do so,” and this particular Bishop is very troubling. However I did not even mention him by name or location here so I have no idea why this disturbs you.

To always give the religious leader the benefit of the doubt is a very disturbing concept to me, something that has fueled the priest abuse scandal and other degradations of the institution for many years. There is also not much room for doubt in many of things the Bishop I criticized has done.

Regarding my comments about Vietnam, I simply reflected the same opinion as the thread “Vatican, Vietnam sacrifice a holy man” and I agree and it is obvious to me this is what happened.

if you don’t like my opinions feel free to skip over them. I am not anti-Pope or Vatican just don’t like the way they handle things many times.

 

[AnthonytheGreat]

I don’t know how much role the Holy Father had in the decision, he delegates a lot of things to other people, which is why I did not directly mention him. But I have no problem criticizing him for things he has done like praising socialism, bowing towards mecca, and some other gaffes.

I love the Holy Father and think he is a great Pope but he is not above reproach and not infallible in all matters. I also love the Church but it is sick with corruption I am afraid to say.

I am sorry to offend you but I am not a mindless follower, I am obedient to the faith and morals of the Church and Holy Father but I am not subservient to all of there opinions and actions.

 

[catharina]

It is simply your own opinion that there is “NO cause to do so,” and this particular Bishop is very troubling. However I did not even mention him by name or location here so I have no idea why this disturbs you.

To always give the religious leader the benefit of the doubt is a very disturbing concept to me, something that has fueled the priest abuse scandal and other degradations of the institution for many years. There is also not much room for doubt in many of things the Bishop I criticized has done.

Regarding my comments about Vietnam, I simply reflected the same opinion as the thread “Vatican, Vietnam sacrifice a holy man” and I agree and it is obvious to me this is what happened.

if you don’t like my opinions feel free to skip over them. I am not anti-Pope or Vatican just don’t like the way they handle things many times.

I have NO IDEA what “this bishop” means to you.
I am referring to the bishop in THIS thread, the Vietnamese bishop.
You seem to assume he was “forced out” or something else of direness.

Your own issues are your own issues.

Notice I have NOT responded to them, nor will I. I’m saying that in THIS circumstance, when ONE report from the secular media seems to cast aspersions on the goodness of the Church and the Vatican, your impulse is to KICK the Church.

Perhaps you aren’t aware of the fact that you express yourself in such a negative way.
Or perhaps you know it, but don’t care about it.

To generalize from your own issues to the Vietnamese bishop is illogical and ugly.

 

[catharina]

I don’t know how much role the Holy Father had in the decision, he delegates a lot of things to other people, which is why I did not directly mention him. But I have no problem criticizing him for things he has done like praising socialism, bowing towards mecca, and some other gaffes.

I love the Holy Father and think he is a great Pope but he is not above reproach and not infallible in all matters. I also love the Church but it is sick with corruption I am afraid to say.

I am sorry to offend you but I am not a mindless follower, I am obedient to the faith and morals of the Church and Holy Father but I am not subservient to all of there opinions and actions.

You are apparently “afraid to say” nothing and you seem
to be a mindless follower of those who deride and insult the Church!