Speaking Of Gutless "Leaders"
Paul, Just a Regular Guy, You Know? nailed this one
Amazingly enough, Paul is taking heat for this post on his ComBox. To think that there are Catholics out there who'll damn Paul for speaking the truth. Amazing...
Anyhow, here's a few choice paragraphs from Paul;
Last November, some commenters took me to task for suggesting that the American bishops, and particularly Chicago Archbishop Francis Cardinal George, hadn't been vocal enough in the struggle for a culture of life.
He tolerates the existence of a Queer Studies program at DePaul University.
There is no public censure of the hoard of pro-abortion Catholic public figures in Chicago, including Mayor Richard Daley, Governor Rod Blagoevich, Senator Richard Durbin, Cook County Board President Todd Stroger (and his father before him), and many more. In fact, in his Diocesan newspaper last year, Cardinal George wrote:
Do all Catholic politicians understand their obligations in conscience? Apparently not, which means that their pastors have to take the time to speak with them personally. A pastoral conversation about the formation of conscience is not an interference in the political process. It is an exercise in pastoral charity, motivated by a desire for a politician’s salvation. The politician will someday be asked by the Lord: “What did you do to the least of my brothers and sisters?” And the pastor will be asked by the same Lord: “What did you do to warn them? How did you help them form their conscience?”
Do you notice where he places responsibility? On the politician for coming unworthily to communion, and on the parish priest. In Cardinal George's view, there is no role for the Archbishop in correcting public officials who create a scandal for the entire Church and the entire nation.
Senator Clinton has no business in any Catholic facility, except to receive instruction in the faith and morals handed down by the Apostles. She certainly has no place speaking at a Catholic venue. The priests and nuns at Mercy Home, and evidently Cardinal George himself, don't seem to agree. "Mercy," indeed. Tell it to the 40 million killed by abortion. [emphasis mine]
The Cardinal's actions don't seem to march well with his words.
Now Cardinal George may not have committed an excommunicable act... but his actions certainly illustrate that he's more than willing to turn Nelson's Eye to the American Mengeles who are perpetrating our own little Holocaust.
How many more tears must Our Lady of Akita weep?
Paul, Just a Regular Guy, You Know? nailed this one
Amazingly enough, Paul is taking heat for this post on his ComBox. To think that there are Catholics out there who'll damn Paul for speaking the truth. Amazing...
Anyhow, here's a few choice paragraphs from Paul;
Last November, some commenters took me to task for suggesting that the American bishops, and particularly Chicago Archbishop Francis Cardinal George, hadn't been vocal enough in the struggle for a culture of life.
He tolerates the existence of a Queer Studies program at DePaul University.
There is no public censure of the hoard of pro-abortion Catholic public figures in Chicago, including Mayor Richard Daley, Governor Rod Blagoevich, Senator Richard Durbin, Cook County Board President Todd Stroger (and his father before him), and many more. In fact, in his Diocesan newspaper last year, Cardinal George wrote:
Do all Catholic politicians understand their obligations in conscience? Apparently not, which means that their pastors have to take the time to speak with them personally. A pastoral conversation about the formation of conscience is not an interference in the political process. It is an exercise in pastoral charity, motivated by a desire for a politician’s salvation. The politician will someday be asked by the Lord: “What did you do to the least of my brothers and sisters?” And the pastor will be asked by the same Lord: “What did you do to warn them? How did you help them form their conscience?”
Do you notice where he places responsibility? On the politician for coming unworthily to communion, and on the parish priest. In Cardinal George's view, there is no role for the Archbishop in correcting public officials who create a scandal for the entire Church and the entire nation.
Senator Clinton has no business in any Catholic facility, except to receive instruction in the faith and morals handed down by the Apostles. She certainly has no place speaking at a Catholic venue. The priests and nuns at Mercy Home, and evidently Cardinal George himself, don't seem to agree. "Mercy," indeed. Tell it to the 40 million killed by abortion. [emphasis mine]
The Cardinal's actions don't seem to march well with his words.
Now Cardinal George may not have committed an excommunicable act... but his actions certainly illustrate that he's more than willing to turn Nelson's Eye to the American Mengeles who are perpetrating our own little Holocaust.
How many more tears must Our Lady of Akita weep?
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
7:10 PM
21 Comments:
I think it is even worse than you say. Supporting abortion is only one of many reasons one should not be admitted to communion. Any unconfessed mortal sin will do.
At Sunday Mass at my parish, out of 800+ people there may be 5 who stay in their seats at communion. Given that we only have one priest who hears confessions a total of 3 hours a week, and given what I know about some of their lifestyles, it's hard for me to believe all those people are in a state of grace.
Conversely, at the Spanish mass, usually around 300, probably a quarter of the people do not receive. Are the Mexicans more prone to sin? Or are they more honest about it?
Thanks for the quotation, Cavey!
At Sunday Mass at my parish, out of 800+ people there may be 5 who stay in their seats at communion. Given that we only have one priest who hears confessions a total of 3 hours a week, and given what I know about some of their lifestyles, it's hard for me to believe all those people are in a state of grace.
Ah, but Patrick, you can't know the states of their consciences, nor whether they were at confession somewhere else recently (at St. Peters in the Loop in Chicago, for example, they hear confessions all day every day; I most commonly go there, not to my own pastor, as a matter of convenience).
Am I a sinner? Yup. Should I be go to communion today? You don't know.
But in a case where someone is making regular public statements, or takes a public political stand that is in itself mortally sinful, it is possible to know with reasonable certainty that a person has not repented.
To admit that person to communion is to imply that support for abortion, or ESCR, or human cloning, or gay marriage, is not a mortal sin.
A sin committed in front of the entire community serves to scandalize the entire community, and should be repented before the whole community.
As to your point that more people should go to confession before seeking the Eucharist, you are undoubtedly correct; but it's not particularly en pointe.
In the instant case, it's not a question of admitting Senator Clinton to communion (I hope!), but rather whether the nation's foremost abortion proponent should be given a forum to speak in a Catholic institution.
Clearly, she shouldn't. So why is it happening?
What did Paul say that isn't the truth?
Caveman,
Out of all my travels, the two places that I saw the most Liturgical and Sacramental abuse were in the suburbs of Chicago and Indianapolis.
I have rarely seen it in St. Louis, L.A. (no, really; at least in Venice and Culver City), Ireland, or Rome.
In the Chicago suburb there were people dancing in the chair line (no pews in this church) and self intincting the Eucharist.
In the Indy suburb, the Precious Blood was distributed in plastic goblets and the First Communion kids were all at the Altar during the Eucharistic Prayer. And the Tabernacle was not even in the church proper.
Cardinal George needs to do something as do many of the bishops about these abuses.
Dr. Eric
Rendering this judgment on others -- the Cardinal and your fellow parishioners: does it send you to the confessional before you receive?
Or what's your take on that?
It's not a sarcastic question. I'm genuinely curious.
And it's fascinating to me that someone who feels quite free to promulgate what seems to be at least detraction feels the need to moderate comments.
Fascinating.
PT,
If you really are genuinely curious, then my answer is no. I don't go to Confession after discerning (or "judging", as you stated) the actions of the Cardinal or others who cozy up with mass murderers, etc.
Here's why --- The Church has always taught us, via the Spiritual Works of Mercy, that we have the obligation and duty to
1. Admonish the sinner.
2. Instruct the ignorant. ("Ignorant" meaning unknowing... not stupid)
With that said, aren't we suppose to discerne when those about us are activly commmitting sin or committing sin by ommission/commission? Of course we are. That's what Christ demands of us.
Keep in mind that Jesus Himself gave some pretty hard core slams to unrepentant sinners.
Remember what He said about "throwing pearls before swine"? Jesus ref'd to certain individuals as pigs? And remember what a pig meant (both then and now) in Jewish culture.
Also, He said something along the lines of "shake the dust from your sandals...". Again, in the Jewish culture, both then and now, reff'ing to someone beneath your feet is a HUGE insult.
And let's not forget that Christ Himself threw the money changers out of the temple with a whip, no less.
So with all that said... am I advocating smacking Cdl George around with a whip? Of course not. But reff'ing to him as a pig, or him being beneath my feet... just let me say this; I find it amazing that if someone... ANYONE!... has the bad manners to point out that one of our so-called "leaders" is saddled up with a politician who advocated the wholesale murder of innocent, helpless children, then we shouldn't critisize the individual who has the courage to yell out a warning.
Bottom line, Paul never said a damn thing that wasn't true. Cdl George is in the wrong, period.
And personally, I'm grateful to God that we have men such as Paul who have the fortitude to stand up and speak The Truth. After all, isn't that what God demands of us?
Paul,
Ah, but Patrick, you can't know the states of their consciences, nor whether they were at confession somewhere else recently .
At face value, your right. But we both know that there are parishes o'pleanty where it's the norm to have folks who brag that they haven't been to Confession for years, but rcv Holy Communion every Sunday.
I'll give Patrick the benifit of the doubt and assume this is the case that he's describing.
_______________________________
Dr. Eric,
If those are the only places you witnessed such, you're a lucky man. I've seen nonsense like that (quite common actually) in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC, the Diocese of San Diego, the Archdiocese of LA, the Diocese of Raleigh, the Diocese of Charleston (SC), etc, etc.
Rendering this judgment on others -- the Cardinal and your fellow parishioners: does it send you to the confessional before you receive?...And it's fascinating to me that someone who feels quite free to promulgate what seems to be at least detraction feels the need to moderate comments.
We are supposed to judge people's actions, and when we see a wolf in the fold, we are obliged in charity to his potential prey to identify him as such. (Why is it that people who have so much sympathy for wolves and none at all for the sheep they prey on nevertheless pride themselves on their great charity?) How would you like it if I saw you about to get into a car with somebody I knew was a serial rapist, and said nothing for fear of discomfiting you or committing "detraction" against the rapist?
I'm grateful to God that we have men such as Paul who have the fortitude to stand up and speak The Truth.
Wow! Don't know when I've ever gotten such praise. Thanks, buddy!
Paul, Anita and VSC:
With all due respect, I believe there's a semantics issue at hand.
I was taught in moral theology class that we judge behaviors and not actions.
Behaviors are what we observe. Actions require intent and it is impossible to know another's intentions (unless that person has made a declaration).
This is where people confuse "admonishing the sinner" and where Scripture speaks about "not judging" others.
Obviously there's a distinction b/t admonishing the sinner and judging others. We are unable to judge others' actions b/c we cannot know their intentions, otherwise we'd be judging the states of their souls.
We are able to judge their outward behaviors as right or wrong regardless if they know the moral status of their behaviors.
Therefore, as an example, I can say, "cohabitating is sinful," without judging the state of the individuals' souls who are cohabitating.
Unfortunately many would be quick to brand me as "judgmental" for such a statement because I'm not being "tolerant." Of course I am not to tolerate moral evils, but to instruct the ignorant of such evils and I can only do that by judging behaviors and not being permissive.
This is where it appears that Cardinal George is falling short. He doesn't appear to be properly handling the heretics in his town, which is something of a scandal. But my first-hand knowledge of Cardinal George is extremely limited and I think he needs to take notes from Archbishop Burke on how to avoid giving scandal.
Bottom line: I agree w/ you, but needed to point out the difference b/t "action" and "behavior."
cheers!
It is important to recognise the special dignity of the episcopal state, even when that dignity is being abused.
However, in recognising this special state (particularly that of a Cardinal of Holy Mother Church), the scandal committed despite this elevation is only accented and magnified. Thus it is the duty of the faithful to demand correction from within (ie inner conversion of the prelate) or from without (disciplinary action from his superiors). This should be done with respect for who the man _is_ while unwaveringly acknowledging what the man _does_.
Robert,
I respect the office... not the man.
Therefore, as an example, I can say, "cohabitating is sinful," without judging the state of the individuals' souls who are cohabitating.
That's called moral cowardice. It's not only common sense, but it's also obvious that there two have tre stain of Mortal Sin on their souls. Now it's wrong to recognize the obvious?
Again, allow me to state the 1st two Spiritual Works of Mercy:
1. Admonish the sinner.
2. Instruct the ignorant.
By not telling the co-habitators that they are in sin, you refuse them Christian Charity be holding back the truth.
Whoa... VSC... I'm not arguing with you on this...
trust me, I have told cohabitators (my sister, for example) that it is wrong and sinful.
But for a sin to be mortal three requirements must be met, and it's always possible that some people truly don't know that something is wrong (CCC 1862). That goes back to the difference b/t actions and behaviors and what we can actually judge.
And I wholeheartedly agree with you that to not tell someone their immoral behaviors are immoral is cowardice. We all know that's a problem with the majority of priests and bishops right now.
Again, I'm not arguing with you on this, but I was merely pointing out that you, Paul and Anita have all misused "actions" when I'm sure you meant "behaviors." (CCC 1752-1753).
Lastly, I stated earlier that I learned this in theology class - at Christendom College.
Anon 2,
My misunderstanding... sorry.
Anyhow, I understand what you are saying about "actions" vice "behavior". To me, it seems an awful lot the difference between someone who is an open heretic, and someone in the state of Invincable Ignrance.
Thoughts?
OK what about this issue:
What is 'full' knowledge mean?
There are those who think that antioxidants in the diet will cure cancer. I don't believe them. So does that mean I am intentionally getting cancer by not eating antioxidants?
Likewise there are those who say masterbation is gravely disordered. Lots of people don't believe them. Does that mean that the masterbators are intentially acting?
I would tend to argue that it is very difficult to actually commit a mortal sin in FULL knowledge for many of the sins that we talk about from day-to-day. The human mind is so good at rationalizing.
The woman who tried to poison her disabled husband with draino so that she could keep his pension but run off with her lover. Mortal sin? Sure sounds like it. Maybe she rationalized euthanasia in her mind.
I suppose that's why G-d reserves judgement. Only G-d knows the full scope of intention and so forth.
Now take our buddy Cho for example. That little scrapper had full intent to committ mass murder with no remorse, even revelling in his illusion of grandeur and challenging G-d for supremacy. There are those who contemplate that he might have been posessed. You see his early works of fiction fantasizing about acts of violence that he justifies somehow, say the victim is a child molester, and then as the evil grabs hold of him the victims in his fantasies are more and more inocent.
So anyway, I'm sure that there are many parts of my spiritual vision that are blocked, I'm just grateful for the vision that I DO have.
What is 'full' knowledge mean?
I suggest you research on the numerous Catholic sites on the 'net that have the definition of Mortal Sin and what constitutes such.
I would tend to argue that it is very difficult to actually commit a mortal sin in FULL knowledge for many of the sins that we talk about from day-to-day. The human mind is so good at rationalizing.
That is undoubtedly, one of the most morally relativistic statements that I have ever read. Simply because "the human mind is so good at rationalizing" doesn't mean that Mortal Sin is difficult to commit. If anything, it wonderfully illustrates that satan has tempted (and the individual has consented to cooperate with The Evil One) that sin (evil) doesn't really exist.
Mortal sin? Sure sounds like it. Maybe she rationalized euthanasia in her mind.
Who gives a hoot in hell what she has "rationalized'? Are you advocating that Truth doesn't come from above... but from within?
Who gives a hoot in hell what she has "rationalized'? Are you advocating that Truth doesn't come from above... but from within?
Seems to me Anon was saying that judgement can only come from above because we only know that the sin was committed. We do not know the extent of guilt, because we do not know the extent of cooperation.
He/she is not talking about whether or not something is a sin (truth) but the level of divine guilt & retributon for the sin (judgement). That is independend of society protecting itself from killers and so forth (self-defense, justice, punishment).
Seems to me Anon was saying that judgement can only come from above because we only know that the sin was committed. We do not know the extent of guilt, because we do not know the extent of cooperation.
Yes. I was responding to Anon #2 and the definition of mortal sin. My RCIA teaching was that the church is very unsure of who is in hell, though it seems that Judas Iscariot was pretty bad. We do not judge, nor do we fully understand the judgement process of the almighty. But we do define the sins and we know which ones are mortal if done in full knowledge. Full consent of the will and full knowledge is tricky business though, something only God knows on a case-by-case basis.
You know, Cavey, every time you or I start suggesting that someone might likely be in Hell (Fr. Drinan, or Cho, or somebody like that), someone comes along and goes into some depth about how we can't know.
Well, without going to look ourselves, of course we can't know with certainty. But given Church teaching, we can know with some level of probability.
What I'm wondering is what all these people would have said to Dante, who famously wrote extensively about Hell and peopled it with long lists of very specific names.
Would they have gone on at such length about the various people both living and dead whom Dante put in Hell?
Amazing, ain't it, Paul?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home