|
Published: November 19, 2009
Cardinal George Before the Bishops
Defends Church's Right To Speak on Health Care
 Baltimore, Md., Nov 16 (CNA) - In his opening address on Monday to the full assembly of the U.S. bishops, Cardinal Francis George, the president of the bishops' conference, insisted on the Church's right to speak on issues in the public debate, particularly health care reform. Remarking on the recent attempts to silence the bishops, he noted, “issues that are moral questions before they become political remain moral questions when they become political.”
Cardinal George said that it is not the place of the bishops to speak to particular means of delivering health care, but that it is their responsibility “to insist as a moral voice concerned with human solidarity that everyone should be cared for and that no one should be deliberately killed.”
Demonstrating that the U.S. Bishops have long discussed this issue, Cardinal George quoted his predecessor Cardinal Bernadin, who stated in 1994 that concern for health care “requires us to stand up for both the unserved and the unborn, to insist on the inclusion of real universal coverage and the exclusion of abortion coverage, to support efforts to restrain rising health costs and to oppose the denial of needed care to the poor and vulnerable.”
Cardinal George went on to say that Americans are still participating in the same debate 15 years later, and that we are “most grateful for those in either political party who share these common moral concerns and govern our country in accordance with them.”
The USCCB president commented on the presence and rights of the Church in the public square. In order for priests and bishops to be able to govern pastorally and effectively on issues such as health care, they need to be able to speak in “public without being co-opted and (be) who we are without being isolated,” he said.
“We approach every issue from the perspective of the natural moral law and the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” explained the cardinal, adding that “issues that are moral questions before they become political remain moral questions when they become political.”
“To limit our teaching or governing to what the state is not interested in would be to betray both the constitution of our country and much more importantly, the Lord Himself,” he underscored.
Cardinal George discussed Pope Benedict's “Year for Priests” and urged the faithful to reflect on the need for ordained priests both in the Church and society at large.
Ordained priests educate, govern and counsel people in the name of Christ, he said, adding that without them all of these tasks that they undertake would fall completely to the secular realm. Most importantly, Cardinal George noted, without ordained priests, the Church would be deprived of the Eucharist, making it a mere “spiritual association” or “faith community” but “not fully the body of Christ.”
The USCCB President concluded his remarks by saying, “Jesus Christ is the savior of the whole world, our public lives as well are our private lives of our business concerns and our recreational outlets of our families and our institutions of the living and of the dead, in His name and as bishops of his church we gather now to seek his will for ourselves our priests and our people, and with His authority we govern.”
Cardinal George received a standing ovation upon finishing his address.
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:28 AM By WOODY GUIDRY
THE POTUS REALLY NEEDS TO TURN FROM HIS TELEPROMPTER and read the handwriting on the wall provided by Cardinal George. The message there is that moral law remains moral law-no matter how politicos try to throw it under the bus. Perhaps the POTUS knew the importance of, "Thou shalt not kill", in his Fox interview just yesterday as he said that health care law is probably going to be pretty close to what is already in the Hyde Amendment. What about something pretty close to that for the elderly who are prudently worried about the SAME MORAL QUESTION of being deliberately killed?
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:30 AM By Tom Amadeo
Woody---In his statement,Cardinal George,in a long sentence,began with,"Jesus Christ is the savior of the whole world",and ended with,"and with His authority we govern." I'm not sure in which tense he means,"we govern." By "we govern" does he mean---we(now) govern,or we(did) govern,or we (will) govern,or what? Because if he is suggesting that the bishops have governed,and do presently govern by the authority of Jesus Christ,implicitly he is suggesting that the mess the bishops have created was done by the authority of Christ--a position I would reject categorically,as should all Catholics,in my opinion. He has to have some kind of chutzpah(unmitigated gall) to make that implication! Now if Cardinal George means that the USCCB will govern with His authority---that remains to be demonstrated. But on the basis of antecedent probability I suggest respectfully that we do not hold our breath waiting.
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:37 PM By ted
Note that Harry Reid's Health care bill has no Stupak Amendment or anything to replace it. As I said before in this forum, they will strip it out before any type of Health Care reform is passed and signed. It was designed to be jettisoned, and had escape clauses anyway - it was meaningless, just to shut people up.
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:30 PM By WOODY GUIDRY
HELLO, TOM A., and I will refer you to a comment I wrote elsewhere-while you were busy writing on this one! I didn't comment on Jesus Christ using us fragile copies of St. Peter to continue the mission He left for us to continue. As a sincere sinner, I have also been a sincere fighter for His work. Don't give up on us or yourself! WE SHALL OVERCOME!
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 2:08 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Tom Amadeo: It is the Sovereign Priest -- Jesus Christ -- who created the Mass as his ownmost Sacrifice on Calvary, now offered unbloodily rather than bloodily. This same Mass is the charge of Christ's episcopate. This episcopate, however, does not lose its authority on account of the grave deficiencies in the Novus Ordo. Nor does this epispocacy lose its authority on account of an administrative body -- the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops -- that has no essential place within the Apostolic structure of the Church (the USCCB is there
in a strictly, a strictly subsidiarity role vis-a-vis the Apostoloic mission of the bishops.) The authority of the bishops, then, is the same authority that Christ has communicated to them. To deny that communication of authority is to deny UNION with the bishops who, in their turn, are in UNION with the bishop of Rome. Granted, the fact that the Church is indefectible does not immunize bishops from "messing up"; but by the same token, messing up does not cause the bishops to forfeit their own properly Apostolic authority. Nor does it allow a layman to reject that authority out-of-hand.
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:06 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Ted: A cognizantly Catholic opposition to health care reform legislation that, on its face or in its application, is abortocratic, should be based on other reasons as well why opposition is called for. Here we shouldn't forget the more general grounds for opposition to the proposed legislation: (1) that the legislation fails to conform to the common good of persons and institutions, even apart from the abortocatic character of the legislation; and (2) that the legislation is violative of the principle of subsidiarity. A legislator, then, is not necessarily ill-advised to support the Stupak Amendment (however pessimistic he or she might be on the Amendment's ultimate prospects), that is, ON CONDITION that that same legislator attend to the question whether the proposed legislation is violative of the principle of subsidiarity. Here is the classic statement of the PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY: "It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. So too it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and a disturbance of right order, to transfer to a larger and higher collectivity functions that can be performed and provided for by lesser and subordinate bodies" (Pius XI, _Quadragesimo Anno_ (May 15, 1931). Violation of the principle of subsidiarity is also a ground for opposing the present health-care legislation.
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:36 PM By JLS
I understand Woody because I used to hang out with scores (no pun intended, I think) of musicians when I was in college and that was for a long time. Thus I understand how musicians talk. And so I would not try to pin Woody down on any particular note of concern. Now, on the other hand, the likes of Maguire is something else again: What differs between Maguire and musicians and story tellers an other artists is the internal integrity of their "piece". Maguire lacks this integrity in everything he posts. Whereas Woody "conncects" with others, Maguire does not, but rather "connects" only with the strawman he creates. Woody, for example, has on many occasions engaged criticism in such a way as to forge common understanding. Maguire has never done this. An artist succeeds only by communicating with his audience ... Maguire does not communicate with his audience, but takes each member of it and spins them into a puppet that serves his aim. Woody and other artists do not do this. Jesus is very real; Maguire talks only as if Jesus were an idea, and this is how he treats others, as ideas instead of as actual and very real persons. Probably explains why he can advocate the idea he has made of Obama and still claim he opposes abortion ... abortion to Maguire is also an idea which can be spun just as easily as the people he turns into ideas so that his posts justify his ideas. Maguire is being herded into a corral, and he is getting feisty as he begins to discover the fact.
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:36 PM By John F. Maguire
JLS: I see President Obama in tragic terms, notably within the framework of the question of the true meaning of equality. President Obama does not regard preborn infants as possessing an equal right to life. ~ As for my posts being feisty, JLS, why shouldn't they be? Still, a slur of such large proportion as that I think Jesus is only an idea, requires formal protest, not merely feistiness.
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:01 PM By Tom Amadeo
JFM---please explain to us the setting in which the laity are obligated to follow the leadership of ANY prelate who teaches or demands compliance with error which is known to be error? A pope was even excommunicated posthumously for NOT suppressing the heresy of monothelitism.In my view,one is never obliged to obey an error--but must follow the will of God--not some errant bishop.That the USCCB has perpetrated evil acts is manifest,and no degree of sophistication(ala the Sophists) can alter that. Errant bishops need correction,but seem refractory to any attempts at correction.The same old stuff,over and over. By their own acts,I believe some bishops have incurred automatic excommunication. While such a bishop may retain the "Power of Holy Orders," he "ain't giving no orders!" With regards to the inspiring words of Cardinal George---I predict---all talk,no action,as usual !
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:58 PM By 1abqdad
The problem is that they tend to be extremely trusting and naive! They are too ignorant of the corrupt workings of the likes of Obama to realize the he can NOT be trusted! Everything that he does is manipulated/deceptive and full of dishonest twists! They are NOT capable of dealing with the corruption of Obama! Health care is a great example! They do NOT understand the true basis of the systemic problems; therefore, they do NOT understand the REAL problems and corresponding solutions. Because of their ignorance, they are easily fooled by Obama's disingenuousness!
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:50 PM By Abeca Christian
Abortion is not health care. It is death care.
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:34 PM By garvan
It is an irrefutable fact that Obamacare will cut 50% of the funds now being used to treat our elderly. Therefore, if the bishops support Obamacare, they are indirectly supporting a form of euthanasia. Q.E.D.
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:49 PM By JLS
Maguire, who are you formally going to protest to?
|
Posted Friday, November 20, 2009 11:45 AM By John F. Maguire
JLS: The word "formal" when used to predicate the word "protest" means that the collective addressee of the protest is: all concerned.
|
Posted Friday, November 20, 2009 12:27 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Tom Amadeo: National episcopal conferences have only a concrete, practical-service function, which function, to be sure -- as you've pointed out -- can most certainly be abused. In all actuality, however, a national episcopal conference has no theological basis in itself; it is, quite strictly, eliminable from the structure of the Church because, as we know, it is the bishops, not, say, an organization such as the USCCB, that has teaching authority in the Church, "as willed by Christ" (Cardinal Ratzinger, in his statement on national episcopal conferences in _The Ratzinger Report_). In this context, you pose the following question: "JFM -- please explain...the setting within which the laity are obligated to follow the leadership of any prelate who teaches or demands compliance with an error that is known to be error." IF that error involves the lay person in SIN, then no such compliance is EVER permissible. But let's take a real example of an enormous ecclesial error. It was an error, I submit, for Pope Paul VI to impose a well-nigh de facto supression of the traditional Latin Mass worldwide. But by attending the Mass of the Novus Ordo (I lacked access to the traditional Latin Mass), I was not formally cooperating in this Pope's error -- I was respecting his jurisdiction in the matter of the liturgy. By contrast, were this Pope's Mass invalid in itself (by the way, I concur in the universal episcopal judgment that the Montinian Mass is NOT invalid in itself); but again were it so, then I would be obliged not to attend it, papal authority to the contrary notwithstanding. But Tom, in God's providence, such a drastic situation -- a situation in which a pope promulgates an invalid Mass -- is NOT our present situation. In our present situation, we are working prayerfully to restore the traditional Latin Mass diocese by diocese and we are working no less prayerfully for the reform of the Montinian reform.
|
Posted Saturday, November 21, 2009 10:02 AM By Tom Amadeo
JFM--When you claim that the Montanian mass is not invalid in itself---like "per se",is it invalid "per accidens" in Thomistic language. Invalidity has no objective middle ground. Like being dead,per se or per accidens is still dead. And if one has moral certitude that mass is invalid,partaking in it constitutes idolatry.Should one attend Mass conditionally?What does one pray at communion---"Bread,If thou art the Body of Christ,sanctify me?"
|
Posted Saturday, November 21, 2009 3:03 PM By John F. Maguire
True, invalidity has no middle ground -- none whatsoever. In response then to your question, Tom, yes, I agree: A Mass is either valid or invalid. Still, where a Mass is NOT KNOWN to be invalid, say, because of occult lack of proper intention on the part of the priest, then No, we are not guilty of idolatry for not picking up on this Mass's invalidity; far from it. We are, however, cheated. ~ On your second issue: Yes indeed, if one is morally certain that a Mass is invalid (even if, in the objective order, one is mistaken), one is NOT free to attend a Mass so construed (or so misconstrued). That's because it is a fundamental principle of all human action that we cannot ACT properly unless we possess moral ("practical") certitude. Further, as you suggest, there is a distinction to be made between attending Mass conditionally -- and receiving dubious
"communion" at a dubious Mass. Tom, say, I'm caught unawares attending an invalid Mass: Whoa! The wine is grape juice, the bread is a chocolate-chip cookie, and the words of consecration are defective (as you know, Tom, any one of these defects renders a Mass invalid, but I'm hyperbolizing here to make a point); well, in just such a case, no, I would (I hope) have already decided not to be a communicant -- ah, save in the special sense of spiritual communion with the Eucharistic Christ, not in this case because the Eucharistic Christ is on this particular altar (if it is an invalid Mass, Christ is not present on the altar) but rather because an INTERIOR ACT of spiritual communion with the Eucharistic Christ is always something I as a Catholic can perform, not least in the abject circumstance of an invalid Mass, where of course I also want to make my INTERIOR ACT of spiritual communion with the Eucharistic Christ (who is most certainly truly confected ELSEWHERE) an interior act of spiritual communion in the spirit of CONSOLING CHRIST himself for his priest's offense of performing an invalid Mass.
|
Posted Saturday, November 21, 2009 5:19 PM By JLS
Maguire, if that is how you interpret it, so be it.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 01, 2009 2:00 AM By Robert G.
President Obama is not some secular or religious zealot that has everyone under a trance and in turn does his will. I'll take him over any of the Catholic Hierarchy. here's an example: This was written to the members of an organization known as the Conference of the Major Superiors of Men by their then Executive Director. These words, written shortly after Boston’s sex scandal broke were truly prophetic. The organization’s name alone should give a preview of how high they hold themselves in their own esteem. The CMSM represents all the religious orders of priests. Behold the words of those who believe themselves the divinely appointed betters of the human race.
“The days of the pass or station house adjustment for Father or Brother by the Irish cop or prosecutor are over. Either we will learn to become more comfortable in the gaze of the rude and scoffing multitude or we will be dragged kicking and screaming into a new future for religion and religious life.”
This is the dehumanized effect: those who believe they are “better than” humanity are the ones who, in reality, lose their humanity. “rude and scoffing multitude” (laity - good luck, you will need it)
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|