|
Published: June 29, 2009
Diocese Paper Editor with Guts
Kansas City Takes on Jesuits
(Editor’s note: Jack Smith, who sent out this blog from the Kansas City Key, that diocese’s newspaper, gives an example of how the bishops can fight a good fight.)
Thursday, June 25, 2009
America Mag's Calumny in Service of a Human Master
A number of recent editorials by Catholic Obama partisans have sought to discredit the U.S. Bishops and the pro-life movement as a whole by grossly misappropriating the words of Kansas City – St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn.
Sometimes with attribution, sometimes without, but never in context, they have ripped four words, “We are at war,” from a 3,981 word address Bishop Finn made to a pro-life convention April 18, and given it meaning and context of their own making.
None have been so egregious as the Jesuit editors of America. This week’s Current Comment editorial in America disgraces the paper and the Society. It is vicious calumny in service to wicked ends.
Here it is:
A Higher Righteousness
Over the course of his career, George Tiller, M.D., performed over 60,000 abortions, specializing in what are euphemistically called “late-term” abortions. His murder at Wichita’s Reformation Lutheran Church on Sunday, May 31, has sparked soul-searching among some pro-life advocates. Did incendiary speech against brazen abortionists contribute to an overheated environment that then led to the doctor’s murder? Was Scott Roeder, the unstable man who allegedly killed Tiller, egged on by “hate speech”? What moral responsibility do activists and church leaders bear to prevent moral and political criticism on both sides of the abortion divide from escalating into hate speech?
It is not hard to find examples of incendiary speech. Tiller’s critics were wont to step up to the line of incitement and then draw back. Bill O’Reilly regularly called the Kansas doctor “Tiller the baby killer” and devoted 29 segments of his Fox television show to vilifying him. “If I could get my hands on Tiller...” he threatened. “Well, you know. Can’t be vigilantes.... It doesn’t get worse. Does it get worse? No.” Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City is now best known for his proclamation to the Gospel of Life Convention in April: “We are at war!” Though the bishop went on to explain that the struggle is a spiritual one and the means nonviolent, he announced an apocalyptic struggle against evil “that may rival any in time past.”
Defenders of life must recall the warning of the Sermon on the Mount: “If a man calls his brother ‘Fool,’ he will answer for it...; and if he calls him ‘Renegade,’ he will answer for it in hell fire.” For the Gospel of Life to be good news, it must reflect a higher righteousness.
Of course, in the convoluted (nuanced) style America’s editors are adept at, there is enough plausible deniability built into their argument to render the piece content-free on defense.
But the message is clear – Bishop Finn’s comments are to be identified with O’Reilly’s, and whether or not they are responsible for Tiller’s murder, they and all pro-life people who speak forcefully in defense of life will find themselves in hell.
So what’s wrong with that?
1. Bishop Finn did not even remotely refer to Dr. Tiller in his talk at the Gospel of Life Convention. He did not say “We are at war with Dr. Tiller” or any other abortionist, but rather with “Satan, with the glamour of evil, and the lure of false truths and empty promises.” A week after Easter, when the talk was given, Catholics might have recognized these words from the renewal of Baptismal Promises. This war the Bishop said, “is ultimately a spiritual battle for the eternal salvation of souls – our own and those of other people.” And further, in the conduct of this spiritual battle “We are not engaged in physical battles in the same way military soldiers defend with material weapons. We need not – we must not – initiate violence against other persons to accomplish something good, even something as significant as the protection of human life.”
2. Bishop Finn’s talk was a challenge to committed people who defend life through charitable and political activity: “peacefully, prayerfully, and legally.” It stood as a warning to those people to get their own spiritual house in order in the still authentic Catholic tradition of recognizing the true nature of what we fight against. The Bishop’s stated reference point was St. Paul who teaches “Put on the armor of God, in order that you can stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For, our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the rulers of this darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.” (Eph 6:10-12).
3. Bishop Finn has never publicly addressed the subject of Dr. Tiller.
4. Even assuming the editors’ ridiculous use of the Sermon on the Mount, Bishop Finn did not call any of his brothers fools or renegades.
5. Whatever monsters inhabit the mind of the disturbed Protestant Scott Roeder, traditional Catholic notions of the divisions of the Church Militant or the Communion of Saints are certainly not among them.
6. There is nothing “incendiary” about Bishop Finn’s words in the context in which he used them. They can only be interpreted as incendiary in the false context that has been manufactured by numerous Catholic Obama partisans, including the Jesuit editors at America.
So why would the editors at America, NCR, and Commonweal, who all got on this anti-bishop bandwagon, attempt to associate Bishop Finn and by extension other outspoken bishops and the pro-life movement as a whole with murder and truly incendiary speech and threats? Why would they seek to make those who have consistently at personal cost defended human life, the enemies of life?
Is it because the ultimate strategy for them to “Sing a New Church Into Being,” is to alienate the Faithful from their Shepherds? Is it because the defenders of life have criticized their master? They will muster any excuse for him, praise him immodestly for actions he has not taken, and destroy the reputations of any who dissent from him.
That is not the way a Christian works for the Risen Lord. But their master is not Risen. He resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And serving a man this way is idolatry.
Ed. Note – I am partially responsible for the popularization of “We are at war” since I titled the blog post containing Bishop Finn’s address by that name. It was not the name he gave his address. I chose that title in the convention of blog posts in order that it be read. For that, I apologize to Bishop Finn and the Catholic and pro-life community at large. Certainly however, the editors of America, NCR, and Commonweal read and understood the context.
Second, while this blog carries the name of the diocesan newspaper and is written by its editor, this post is mine alone. -JS
?The Catholic Key Blog Main Page
Posted by Jack Smith at 8:29 AM
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 5:09 AM By Maryanne Leonard
Write on!
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 5:58 AM By Angelo
Recently a High ranking official in Rome warned, "Do not confuse Charity with cowardice." Recently it was made known that Pope Pius Xll was pesonely involved with the attempted assasination of Hitler in 1944. Pope John Paul ll
said in a sermon in Central America, " When a people are oppressed, and all peaceful means to stop the oppression
have failed. Then violence may be used." Sorry I don't consider Tiller's death murder. I consider it unfortunate, I hope he accepted God's Mercy. I am saddened for his family. But he took the innocent lives of 60,000. And had no plans to stop his oppression of the unborn.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 6:09 AM By Thomas Edward Miles
Now, I understand why Bishop Finn is in Kansas and why he will stay in Kansas, he should think before he speaks! He needs sound advice from, Archbishop Raymond Burke, now, there is a Bishop who thinks before he speaks!
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 6:30 AM By St. Christopher
Bishop Finn is a good leader. He rightly rejects violence, even to protect against evil, as Jesus reprimanded the follower that sought to defend him in the Garden: "Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Mathew 26:52, DR) Curiously, in this way, abortionists condemn themselves by living through violence. The Bishop wants to remind Catholics not to "take the sword" for in doing so, a violent man may well end up as did Dr. Tiller, either in a physical or moral condemnation.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 7:54 AM By The original Frank
In Jack Smith's words: "So what's wrong with that?" Plenty!! (1) It should be obvious to even a casual reader that AmericaMagazine's editors did not accuse Bishop Finn of incendiary speech, and that the editorial wasn't even *about* Bishop Finn. What America did is to point out HOW the Bishop's words and others like his have been mis-used out of context. (2) "Partisan"??!! Has Jack noticed that he himself is writing in a blatantly "partisan" style? (3) Jack comes across as if he hasn't read what's actually written. Instead, his defensive/aggressive reaction precisely exemplifies the hypersensitive, quick-to-condemn ProLife/ProChoice rhetoric America's editors inveigh against... This anti-Beatific rhetorical climate and the attitudes behind it are major impediments to healing our country's abortion addiction. (4) If AmericaMagazine's editorials, written by people with advanced degrees in Theology and Philosophy, seem "convoluted" to me,... Does that say more about the editors of AmericaMagazine or about *my* capacity to understand? Some materials require higher levels of moral and intellectual development to understand than others; do I have the necessary awareness to read and competently comment on this? (5) I can't tone down anybody's rhetoric but my own. It is humiliating and difficult to accept that my best and highest contribution to spreading Christ's message may be to tone down my own rhetoric so that God's words (not mine) can be heard.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 8:03 AM By Kevin
Bravo!!!
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 8:06 AM By JLS
Right on, Jack Smith. The Jesuits, for all their study, know virtually nothing of Catholicism. They have some notion of the goodness of Catholicism, and vainly insist to themselves and others that they represent and are part of Catholicism, but none of their actions nor words shows it to be so. Why, then, do the Jesuits use elements of Catholicism to distort the teaching of Jesus and the traditions of this religion? Because, like the devil, they want to run everything. They call good evil and evil good. Their father is perhaps embodied in Mr. Obama, but ultimately their father is not God, Whom they discredit systematically by chopping off the head of the Church and replacing it with their own silly heads.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 8:08 AM By Grisha
I can't help but feel that we've gotten so deeply into the culture war mode that the goal - reducing abortions - is almost lost.
I don't understand why the Pregnant Woman's s Support Act, and the USCCB's endorsement of it has received such scant attention in the Catholic press including Catholic San Francisco and the Catholic Key.
All you read about is Obama, Notre Dame, withholding communion for this or that politician, etc, etc. While this gives some a warm feeling of self righteousness, it prevents not one abortion. I wonder if rather than address the horribly difficult questions about abortion, the
bishops just find it easier to follow the lead of the Protestant fundamentalists and the GOP.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 8:18 AM By Paul
Bishop Finn was right on! The enemy is Satan and evil! Yes, those are our baptismal vows. I believe in true discipleship - we follow Jesus and His teachings! "We are at War" are not words, I believe Jesus would use. It is the rare disciple who does not get involved in "name calling" but sticks to the issue.
One of those rare saints was Blessed Teresa of Calcutta. She spoke tirelessly about the rights of the unborn - but was very careful not to be politicize her message - neither would she allow others to draw her into that polemic.
There are clear distinctions between O'Reilly's statements and those of the Bishop. Thank you Bishop Finn! Sadly the Jesuits have become "O Reillys" with a different ideology.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 8:51 AM By Laurette Elsberry
How good it is to read something again from Jack Smith. I presume this is the same Jack Smith who worked at Catholic San Francisco, the Archdiocesan newspaper. It was fortunate for Kansas City that he escaped from San Francisco. His comments above are very appropriate. America magazine might well be titled Heretic America magazine.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 9:10 AM By ted
The Jesuit order needs reformation - another word for a general house cleaning. I attended one of their high schools during the Council, but at that time, they were, with few exceptions, strictly orthodox. Now, it's reasonable to expect them to avoid or even oppose the Church's teachings. Once, they were strictly loyal to the pope. Today, they profess to be loyal and obedient, but still publish America with a strictly "progressive' tone. I'm glad that I was taught by Jesuits who were actually Catholic.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 9:10 AM By Patricia
Thank you for this article. It is time someone called the Jesuits out publicly. I've long thought that this order should be suppressed by the Holy Father. I believe that has happened before. Not that every Jesuit is complicit in this order's shenannigans, but I believe that even Jesuits faithful to the truths of the Church have a duty to speak out or at the least ask to be released. I honestly believe there is something "bad" at work at the highest levels in this order, and of course, it's no mystery why the Jesuits, of all, would be chosen to promote this evil agenda.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 10:35 AM By Jerry
If this is all true, has anyone informed BXVIth at the Vatican?
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 12:34 PM By JonJ
This editorial by Jack Smith is simply an example of pointless internal bickering. From the exerpt of this article, it is making a simple point: we must be careful that our anti-abortion rhetoric does not get to the point where we inflame violence. But, Mr. Smith takes his antipathy toward the Jesuit order to a ludicrous level and imputes all kinds of evil motives. If Smith opinion, "is only my own", how is it that he can impute this editoral's opinion to the Jesuits as a whole? Where is the "Obama worship" in the cited text? The only place I can find such an agenda is by inference from speaking out against O'Reilly's commentary. In the cited text I do not see an attack on Bishop Finn, but instead an opinion that we need to be careful in our rhetoric. Jack Smith's angry refutation seems more like venting his hatred of the Jesuit Order than a considered opinion. Mr. Smith imputes a motive of undermining the Church's position on abortion to the Jesuits, as well as idolatry for Obama. This seems to be more an example of ego and antipathy rather than "courage" and "guts".
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 12:36 PM By JLS
Jerry, BXVIth is putting on his superman cape as we speak. Soon with his magic wand there will no longer be any dissenters or anti-Christs running amok, and then all those who want someone else to solve the problems will again rest comfortably ... just like you've seen on TV.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 12:47 PM By dana
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how many pseudo Catholics there are and how self-righteous and totally in opposition to the Roman Catholic Catechism they are. If they would spend more reading their missals and Bibles, rather than liberal newspapers and watching left-winged television propaganda they might have a clue what is taking place in this country. We're the ROMAN Catholic Church, and our authority comes from Rome. We're not the American Catholic church and our truth comes from some ONE not some THING, and that someone is Jesus Christ. If you're in opposition to what our beloved Pope is saying, you'd better spend some time in confession, fasting and prayer. You're in great danger of losing your salvation. Listen to your bishops that are showing courage and discernment__you're totally in grievous error if you think the secular press is correct in judging our bishops. If you think what I am saying is errant nonsense, you might do well to look into becoming a unitarian.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 12:47 PM By dana
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how many pseudo Catholics there are and how self-righteous and totally in opposition to the Roman Catholic Catechism they are. If they would spend more reading their missals and Bibles, rather than liberal newspapers and watching left-winged television propaganda they might have a clue what is taking place in this country. We're the ROMAN Catholic Church, and our authority comes from Rome. We're not the American Catholic church and our truth comes from some ONE not some THING, and that someone is Jesus Christ. If you're in opposition to what our beloved Pope is saying, you'd better spend some time in confession, fasting and prayer. You're in great danger of losing your salvation. Listen to your bishops that are showing courage and discernment__you're totally in grievous error if you think the secular press is correct in judging our bishops. If you think what I am saying is errant nonsense, you might do well to look into becoming a unitarian.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 12:49 PM By JLS
Grisha, the problem is the "take from Caesar", which is the opposite of what Jesus teaches, "Give to Caesar". You take and you're the subject; you give and you rule.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 12:50 PM By JLS
Grisha, the problem is the "take from Caesar", which is the opposite of what Jesus teaches, "Give to Caesar". You take and you're the subject; you give and you rule.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 12:56 PM By JLS
Smith points out, ToF (you'll need to remove your rose colored glasses), exactly what you claim he misses. He shows how America Magazine subtly paints an issue with a kind of sly way of making it seem like it is objectively describing an event. But consider the effect of the flagship Jesuit column: To belabor the idea that somehow the prolife movement is instigating violence. Nothing said by legitimate prolife spokespeople incites violence, not in any way different from how the mention of Jesus incites violence. ToF, you fail abjectly to comprehend the nature of what the Church is doing all these centuries. You are failing to consider the fact that the devil directs its evil forces through all sorts of mediums. The lunatic who offed Tiller had and has nothing remotely to do with prolife. Have you ever heard of the concept of deceit? That is what Jack Smith is exposing in the America column.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 1:21 PM By lome
How many of you guys realize that the church at present time is very vulnerable? The Roman Catholic church was infiltrated during and before Vatican II by her enemies within? The Church is hemorrhaging and in need of compassion and support from those who were given an understanding, to help unite and not to further harm .In everything that we plan to do, use cautions and pray for discernment to separate the sheep from the goats please.
SSPX has to go back. Put the church to pre-Vatican II.
How many are aware that the Protestant help setup the new Mass?
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 2:05 PM By lome
Why the majority of American public servants are taking this
degradation of public morals and public policies in strides?
Can anyone in the public office sacrifice his or her personal interest, publicity? Even for a short time?
Sacrifice any self serving partisan pet project and really start looking hard to the flight of the common conscientious working men and women?
A lot of these small interest groups who lobby, are beginning to look like
Agents of hell! their sale pitches on most of their agendas came straight from down below?
They are acting like henchmen working for a despot who is running out of time?
Before someone find out “What’s behind this Birth Certificate?”
Regardless of whatever motive “The leader is not being fair and honest.”
Why should we? You know that kind of thinking?
With a tone of arrogance?
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 2:11 PM By Life Lady
Jesus called us all to love, and to pray for eachother. Better not to criticize brother against brother priests, and not to divide them against eachother. The wolves are out there, "seeking to devour". We are called to pray for our priests, no matter what they have done, and how badly they behave. This Year of the Priest has started with appropriately calling our attention to what we are praying for: the conversion of our priests to their calling to be disciples of Jesus, true followers and shepherds of the flock of the Church. Have any one of you read The Way of Divine Love? The true story is about a sister who was spiritually dragged down into hell, there to be subjected to the screams of the fallen priests, who had no one to pray for them, who were responsible for many fallen souls. Do any one of us have anything at stake in this war? We do. We have the lives of our shepherds at stake. If there is no one to pray for them, we all stand to lose. We stand to lose those who would lead us in to Heaven, who would help us to save our souls, those who administer the sacraments. I am calling on everyone to pray, and I mean as if your very life depended on it, because it does: pray for our priests. If we did our part, none of this grumbling would be taking place.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 2:38 PM By Dan
"Bill O’Reilly regularly called the Kansas doctor “Tiller the baby killer” and devoted 29 segments of his Fox television show to vilifying him. " If the Jesuits and done their duty O' Reilly would not have had to do it for them. Tiller's crimes should have been pointed out, and often. The Jesuit silence re: Tiller is comparable to silence on the Holocaust. The Jesuits, and we who remained silent while Tiller did his work, should be ashamed. Regarding the alleged Jesuit higher intellectual and moral development, I suggest the two are not logically connected. There have been some highly intellecutal barbarians out there.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 2:58 PM By The original Frank
I agree entirely with Grisha:
Self-righteous "culture warrier" grandiosity has come to overshadow the Kingdom itself.
Truly this exemplifies the "glamor of evil" we promised to reject at our baptism.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 4:36 PM By Angelo
Jesus spoke of an army going to battle w/ another army. and how an army calculates whether or not they could win.
St. Nuno of Portugal, recently canonized, was a great military warrior. If Our Lord Jesus Christ, is a wimp! Then He for sure condenms America for going to war w/Japan. America with a limp hand should have just said, "Stop it!"
Christ would condenm The US for going to war w/Hitler. Perhaps the US should have just said to Hitler w/sugar coated words, "Naughty, Naughty, Naughty." Sugar coated words have not saved one Child from abortion. Anti- abortionists have saved many children with the TRUTH!!!
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 4:51 PM By JLS
One of the good things about providing the public with unmistakeable photographs of abortion is to inform as to what the corrupted media withholds from the public. The public will at some point pick up their pitchforks and torches and head for the voting booths to correct the government. After all the majority of the public does not really want to be ruled by the devil; so to expose the devil's work such as abortion and then connect it to those responsible such as the so called liberal Catholics who are not Catholics at all but anti-Christs, this is what moves large contingencies of people. Already we see that the corrupt media is both shutting down even paid access to its pages and TV (so-called news) shows, and now it is attempting to blackball a bishop because he clarified the nature of what the Church is dealing with ... which is a war against the devil and its servants. Even a local government is trying to tell a bishop how to manage the internal affairs of his diocese. It is not up to the Pope, as some people dream, to wave his hand and stop this evil. Popes have been run out of town in history; they do not have so much power, unless the laity shapes up and gets holy. The popes have been and are calling for the Church to get holy ... the responsibility is in the hands of the laity, once the bishops have clarified the issue. Anyone who wants to just sit back and sip his beer and watch the idiot box, or boob tube, needs to at least do some Rosary work while they are at it.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 4:58 PM By Richard Flores
Unfortunately, some groups of Jesuits were taken over by "modernists" after Vatican II. Their often misguided and/or blasphemous exploits have been exposed in numerous books and articles. The most obvious example of their misbehavior is at the "formerly" Catholic Universities. They have been sucked into humanistic beliefs under the false impression that they are compatible with Catholic teachings! (They are as compatible with humanism as they are with Scientology!)
Because of the obvious arrogance and resulting disobedience on the part of modernists and the unfortunate authority structure of the church, the ONLY solution is intervention on the part of the Vatican. The destructive behaviors of the modernists are destroying the church's image. We must contact the Vatican with the truth! (Too often, they rely upon FALSE media reports.)
Christ did NOT fear acting boldly when it was necessary. The time to act is NOW!
Contrary to one commentator's note, the efforts to expose pro-death politicians DOES reduce their support for abortion and results in fewer abortions. We must continue to enforce the USCCB's directives as they DO help in many ways!
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 8:44 PM By Allan Wafkowski
Why are the Jesuits--an order with a special tradition of service to the pope--allowed to publish a dissenting magazine? Time to get tough with these Bozos.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 9:24 PM By JLS
Hey, another way to look at the idea of the Pope straightening everything out is to first ask yourself if you have done all that the Pope has asked of you.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 9:26 PM By JLS
Grisha, which is worse, the evil in power or the evil that put it there? Is Obama worse than Bush, who paved his way?
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 9:32 PM By ALFONSO
The changes that occurred under Father General Pedro Arrupe SJ 1960's-1970's have been accompanied by a steep decline. Numerically Jesuits may cease to exist; laypeople are already presidents of the universities and Jesuits have now recruited "lay volunteers". Pope John Paul 2 refused to accept the superior elected in (1980?) and instead appointed Fr Paola Dezza to temporarily oversee things. Pope Benedict has reminded them of their fourth vow of special loyalty to Peter. What good are schools and colleges if things directly contrary and openly hostile to the Catholic faith are taught there.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 9:36 PM By Leonard
Right on!!!
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 10:17 PM By Nightingale
Jesus might not have used the word "war," but St. Paul did: 2 Cor 10:3,4; 1 Tim 1:18; and St. John in Rev. 19:11. We are at war with the god of this world and his minions, something we would do well never to forget. Does this war make people angry with us? You bet! But Jesus told us told us ahead of time that the world would hate us (John 15:18) because we are not of this world. Those of this world will twist our words to suit their ends. We should be prepared for this. But be of good cheer for Jesus has overcome the world, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church.
|
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 11:44 PM By John F. Maguire
Never mind the many dedicated, commendable priests who are members of the Society of Jesus. It is "THE" Jesuits who are sweepingly denounced. Rancor against an elite?
No cookie jar up too high for a blogger who'll try and try?
|
Posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:41 AM By JLS
ToF, finally I see the problem with your rhetoric. Your religious ideas are fine, but your application of them to issues does not work too well. In your criticism of Smith's column, you attack it and then excuse your attack by pasting some good religious views on it. Trouble is that there is no correlation between your assessment and what he wrote, and the justification for your assessment is generic in that it could be used to justify anything. Usually when I hear that type of rant in a sermon, I notice that it avoids tackling the issue. It's an excuse for staying aloof from your responsibilities. Stay on the sidelines where it's safer ... at least for the time being, since these issues are stalking the Church and in some cases have devoured parts of Her. Is that your idea of peace?
|
Posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:00 AM By Ron
Jerry: A group of concerned Catholics in my diocese informed Rome years ago that our Bishop promotes homosexuality and publicly professes heresy yet is still in good standing.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:07 PM By MarkF
Grisha, I agree with you wholeheartedly. None of the controversy over Obama and Notre Dame stopped even one abortion. There's a group called Feminists for Life who support individual action with women to help them carry their children to term. They don't get dragged into politics, either on the left or on the right. While I agree that in their current composition, the Democratic party is not just not a Catholic party, but it's largely an anti-Catholic party. But does that make us automatically Republicans? With the total defeat of the Republican party, those who oppose the Democratic, secular agenda have a lot of thinking to do. I don't have an easy solution for this, but I suspect that the answer will be for Catholics to look inward, to focus not on what it means to be a Republican or a Democrat, or even an American, but what it means to be Catholic. Perhaps this can end up with Catholics on both side of the political divide uniting in opposition or support of both parties, depending on the views of their candidates. As the steam has gone out of the evangelical political movement, perhaps it's our turn to be a key voting block that both parties want to court. If that happens, we can force the democrats to be pro-life, and the republicans to more charitable.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 1:14 PM By JLS
Maguire, Where are the good Jesuits?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:56 PM By Mark from PA
I agree with you here too, Mark F. Feminists for Life is a good organization. I think it is important that we lower the number of abortions. I think taking picutures of babies in the womb and teaching young people about how babies develop is having positive effects. I think young people are becoming more pro-life. I was a Republican for most of my life but now I am not really strong for either party now as I have issues with both of them. Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney and the fat cats have pretty much turned me off on the Republicans but I voted for both Bushes twice and their pro-life credentials figured large in this.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:32 PM By JLS
Ron, your post reminds me of the late Cardinal Bernardin in his trials and tribulations of being accused of homosexual activity. He appeared on TV to plead his case to the public. He won. But a few years later then prezclinton went on TV to defend himself from a charge of sexual impropriety in the Oval Office. Juxtaposing the two, the Cardinal looked like he was in a state of almost frozen shock and denied everything; Clinton all but boasted of the notches on his belt and won acquittal. The politics that stems from each case is the same, extreme liberalism at the expense of unborn babies. So, Jerry, did you want to travel to Rome and talk to the Pope about it?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:27 PM By The original Frank
Thank you, JLS, for pointing out that there is no correlation between my assessment and what Smith wrote, and the justification for my assessment is generic in that it could be used to justify anything. It is humiliating and difficult to accept that my best and highest contribution to spreading Christ's message may be to tone down my own rhetoric so that God's words (not mine) can be heard.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 12:33 PM By John F. Maguire
JLS, seek and you shall find.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 12:41 PM By JLS
Maguire: Ask, Seek, Knock; ASK. Amazing how the original Aramaic or Greek or Hebrew or whatever was the original, or if there was more than one scribe of what Jesus said at any given time ... Amazing how it comes out to such a great acronym in English.
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 12:46 PM By JLS
ToF, if you are united with God through Jesus Christ, then how do you separate your words from God's words? Your rhetoric just sounds imbued with the Protestantism that I left a long time ago. They do not have the uniting Sacrament of the Eucharist and thus their theology cannot handle the unity of man and God in Christ; they see it as a junction. With a junction, it is easy to define the difference between the two things joined; however, a unity is not the same order of thing. As St Paul teaches, we are members of the same "mystical" body of Christ, Who is God. So how do you know when your will is God's and when it is not?
|
Posted Friday, July 03, 2009 5:35 AM By JonJ
Do you really think the Democrats are charitable? I think republicans and democrats are equally willing to cheat the public in favor of the people who buy them off. Much of the democrats so called "charity" benefits politically powerful individuals and groups.
|
Posted Friday, July 03, 2009 5:43 AM By JonJ
Lifelady, unfortunately, prayer cannot "certainly" solve any porblem that involves another's free will. We can pray to God to inspire them, give them grace, or to put messages in their heads, but those individuals still have free will to choose their own course. Otherwise, all the evils in the world could be blamed on insufficient prayer and the perpetrators of evil wouldn't really be at fault for their behavior.
|
Posted Friday, July 03, 2009 5:09 PM By The original Frank
Interesting question, JLS: "how do you know when your will is God's and when it is not?" "Protestantism" can have a very disparate range of meanings, so I'm not sure which you mean. Fr. Rohr writes: "Secular freedom is having to do what we want to do. Religious freedom is wanting
to do what we have to do."
|
Posted Saturday, July 04, 2009 5:18 PM By JLS
Aha! So Rohr is your guru, ToF! I heartily recommend stepping up to the deeper nature of Catholicism. When I was a young pagan, and began writing "freely", I discovered that it is easy to pen such stuff. Those little aphorisms make nice think pieces, but really do not explain much, as they're form lends to about any direction one wants. They can also be deceptive. St Paul, among others, informs us that there is no such thing as complete secular freedom, since the world is under the thumb of the devil ... Ie, there is no such thing as the "noble savage"; perhaps Fr. Rohr here is trying to convey this. But he turns "want" on its head. See St Paul for a profound series of lessons on "want".
|
Posted Saturday, July 04, 2009 5:21 PM By JLS
JonJ, I'd extend your statement that the dems pay their piper, by saying not only is it the same with the repubs, but they pay the same piper. The moderate liberals always pave the way for the radical liberals ... and make no mistake: Both parties are now and always have been liberals. One is a bit more "conservative", idea would better be expressed as hesitant.
|
Posted Sunday, July 19, 2009 7:34 AM By Fr. Vincent Serpa, O
I haven't received this since June. Has it been discontinued?
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|