Another perspective on ad orientem--the priest leading
This would be an awesome thing to do, if it can be done as this blog recommends similar actions for wayward clergy: with love and compassion. Cuomo is an adult and knows he is behaving contrary to Church teachings publicly and with authority in his public office. He should, as an adult, face his decision to leave the Church like an adult. Archbishop Dolan does not need to curse Cuomo, or even condemn him, although that would be what he would be doing. No fatwah, no ostracising. Merely a mutual acknowledgment that Cuomo has chosen to sell himself for votes and the approval of others versus the burden of Christ. As Sam Adams said, may his chains rest lightly upon him.
Why single out Cuomo? Why not discuss the whole group of anti-Catholic Catholic politicians and the anti-Catholic Catholic voters who have put and kept them in office? Why not start a discussion of the hypocritical Clerics who voted for Obama and the anti-Catholic Catholic politicians who speak for and vote for anti-Catholic policies and legislation? Cuomo’s just a little cog in the wheel of misfortune for our culture.
Perhaps open a North American Office of the Inquisition? We could appoint retiring Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz as Grand Inquisitor. He doesn't mince words.
Kumpel, I'll bring the matches.
There is no doubt people would cry about inquisitions. But there is little point in having ethical standards and not at least referring to them. I would agree that it is not usually a good idea for the Bishops to announce what they think should be done before politicians can act, but there is a great usefulness in establishing the ethical parameters. Cuomo does not have to be publicly singled out, but he can and should be informed that he is not in communion with the Church. Assuming he is making willful choices it is only fair to him so he can, perhaps, make an alternative choice. It's not a matter of singling Cuomo out, but it has to start somewhere. It is also a matter of coordination: you may not find the Archbishops of San Francisco, New York, and Boston agreeing on this approach. I do think if one of them does it, the others would be hard pressed to avoid doing something as well.As far as inquisitions and Crusades: the previous post about the secularism of France is a good example of the results of doing the right thing the wrong way. The Crusades were a good idea and still are. There were bad ones and some good ones. Same for inquisitions. It's all in the execution, no pun intended. We have an excellent opportunity to investigate, to make corrections, and do in an exemplary way. The people of the Church have to accept that some folks are going to consciously reject our ideas and beliefs. What we do about that will go a long way toward validating what we believe and correcting perceptions about Inquisitions and Crusades.rcg
Aside from the emotional tears spent at the mention of the Inquisition, they made perfecting good sense from a Catholic POV. People handed over to the Inquisitor had already been convicted by the Secular Legal system, the Inquisitor was getting they to recant their sins so that their death would not also be a damnation.
Thank you RCG. While I appreciate pinanv525's support, I think it is extremely important that we, as Catholics, don't add fuel to the lies that continue to circulate about the Catholic Church, including the idea that the Catholic Church is responsible for burning people at the stake during the Inquisition.The fact is, that even during the notorious Spanish Inquisition, TORTURE WAS RARELY USED. In one group of 7000 accused who were brought before the Inquisition in Valencia, only two percent were tortured, and for no more than 15 minutes in each case. Executions were also rare. Prisoners who were to be tried in secular courts would often do something to get them transferred to the Inquisition, because they knew they would be better treated in jail. The Italian Inquisitions are equally slandered. 16th Century Inquisitions in Rome, Malta, Venice and Milan found very few heretics and few received death sentences. From the mid 16th to the mid-seventeeth centuries, there were four executions out of a thousand cases in the Venetian Republic alone.LET US ESPECIALLY REMEMBER THAT THE INQUISITION DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY SENTENCES. SENTENCES WERE EXECUTED BY THE CIVIL GOVERNMENTS. Finally, compare the penalties of the Inquisition with the penalties of PROTESTANT Europe: Thomas More was given the great "favor" of beheading instead of getting the "usual" treatment of being hanged, drawn and quartered, since he was the friend of King Henry. Elizabeth I had Catholics and those suspected of being or aiding Catholics brutally tortured and killed. The Inquisition existed for very good reasons. By today's standards we criticize its excesses, but it should not be used as a club to discredit the Catholic Church, especially when the excesses of Protestant countries and the Muslims were far more inhuman and frequent.I apologize for going off topic a bit, but it needs to be said.
"On this scaffoldThomas More lies dead,Who would not separate The body from the Head."Robert, I am aware of the exaggerations regarding torture and burning, but I think you are apologizing too much for the Church. Fact is, torture was used and a significant number throughout Europe were burned by bothe Catholic and Protestant churches. What always cracks me up is Calvin, who ran Geneva with the same iron hand and dogmatic mentality of for which He attacked the Catholic Church. Old Servetus was in trouble with the Catholic Church for his non-Trinitarian Socinian sounding theology. He said, "Hey, this guy Calvin up in Geneva is in trouble with them, too. He'll understand..." Calvin had the match lit for him the second he got there! LOL!I personally would light the fire for Cuomo, Pelosi, Obama, et al and sleep like a baby that night...with no feeling of a need for Confession. You have to do something wrong to go to Confession...
Catholics who work diligently to implement public policies which undermine Catholic moral teaching must be censured by the Church. In the first instance, as they are objectively in a state of mortal sin, they should not be permitted to receive Holy Communion. This not only prevents the sin of sacrilege, it also has a teaching function as it brings home to the miscreant the sinfulness of his/her behavior and emphasizes the point that he/she is placing his/her immortal soul in danger. If the politician persists in this behavior and obstinately refuses to repent or amend his or her behavior, then excommunication is in order. That's what should happen in a sane world. However, it won't because many of those in authority in the Church are fearful of antagonizing those who hold political power due to the possibility of repercussions.What repercussions? As always, it's.....$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$........ It all comes down to money. They're fearful of a backlash from enraged politicians who might attempt to take away the Church's tax-exempt status. So they go along to get along, mouthing platitudes about not using Holy Communion as "a political weapon". And life goes on as usual.........Now that's actually the best case scenario. The worst case is that some bishops actually like and admire politicians like Cuomo to the point where they vote for them. See Bishop Howard Hubbard's recent smooze in with Cuomo and his concubine in Albany, NY, following Cuomo's inauguration.When the state flexes its muscles and glares at the Church, the Thomas Mores, the Stefan Cardinal Wyszynskis and Karol Wojtylas of this world are few and far between. Most opt for a life of comfort and compromise.
Ethical standards -- and Canon Law -- have no purpose whatever if they are not enforced. If our bishops are so afraid of congressional retaliation, then they have already effectively secularized themselves, and have abandoned obedience to Rome in favor of obedience to threats from Washington.If that is the case, then we are likely to undergo the same sort of internal rot which has so afflicted the Episcopal church.
Kiwi, I agree absolutely. But now here's the rub: WHY is Holy Mother Church so concerned about $$$$$$$$. WHY cannot our beloved Church's hierarchy and religious "conform to Christ and Him crucified", --particularly given that that is exactly what the laity are told to do to achieve holiness. This would be the same Christ who lived in poverty as man, but founded the Church Eternal. That is what I keep asking... My beloved Church is hamstrung, sometimes paralyzed with fear. And, dear friends, "Fear is the chief activator of all of our faults" (look up the reference and be prepared to be transformed).Ave verum.
MEANS-ENDS. SCANDAL. HYPOCRISYGet with the program folks. In the American Church, it’s just with waterboarding that the end doesn’t justify the means. When it comes to $$$$$$$$$$ from Uncle Sugar to the USCCB or to preserving our tax exempt status, $$$$$$$$$, then the end does justify the means. When it comes to teaching Faith and Morals, some things are either left out or soft-pedaled, again $$$$$$$$$, like artificial contraception. “Catholic” Universities, Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, etc. For $$$$$$$$$$ they secularized Catholic higher education. I don’t know what Cardinal Cushing’s price was, but check this out: How the Boston archdiocese helped bring contraception to Massachusetts. Go to: catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=812Dualism: Was Cushing the source for JFK’s adoption of dualism, not only as a presidential candidate but also as a philandering Catholic married man? JFK and Ted conveniently placed their Catholic Faith in a lock box so it would not interfere with their lives.Many bishops apparently have the same attitude, the prime evidence being their quadrennial apologetic for pro-abortion Catholics wanting weasel-worded loopholes to vote for “progressive” socialistic pro-abortion candidates.Hmmmmmmm. Wasn’t there another thread herein about scandal? Poor Tonto would be beside himself.
We were better off spiritually when the sword (State) was the temporal arm of the Church. People understood what was at stake, as it were. Why torture and burn heretics or slaughter the infidel...because people believed that ideas had consequences. If I kill an innocent Christian, I have robbed him of life, but he lives eternally in Christ. If I lead a Christian astray through false teaching and doctrine, then I have killed his soul and he suffers damnation. So, which is worse?What false Catholics like Cuomo, Pelosi, and others are doing is worse than murder because it leads huge numbers astray, attacks the beliefs of the Church directly, and sows discontent among the faithful. So, is it a good thing that most people don't think like this anymore? Modern "progressive" man does not believe there are ultimate consequences for unbelief. By unbelief, I do not mean simply agnosticism or atheism. Unbelief is more far-reaching and has to do with those who profess to be Christian but whose actions, demeanor, and words indicate false doctrine and willful disobedience. It is the sin against the Holy Spirit because it is essentially calling Christ a liar. So "right belief" has always been primary in Biblical theology, both Protestant and Catholic, because right belief leads to the Church and, through Her, to right intention and right action. False belief and unbelief lead nowhere but to perdition. That is why it was (and still is for those who get it) such a big deal. So is it better to face the implements and flames of the Inquisition in hopes for a true confession, or to march through life and into eternity as a willfull apostate? Which do you think would be worse...temporal confession and penance, or the consequences of defying the Almighty? Secularism and modernism have no concept of this whatsoever. This is their moment, their choice in ruling here rather than "serving in Heaven." Christ have Mercy...
Pin, you Neanderthal, that is well put. The heart of so much the Church is dealing with now, and I suspect in every age of man, is the conscious decision of what I do to a man or his soul. It is what gives me, personally, clarity when I discuss important issues such as the sex abuse crisis or social justice with people, including clergy. FWIW, I would be less upset if Pin busted my mouth for doing something I should not than if he let me hurt someone else. A finger in the chest is NOT violence, it is a forecast of stormy weather for these politicians. A slap in the chops from AB Dolan is nothing compared to Deus Irae. rcg
Frajm. Any comment on Anon’s “Means-ends – Hypocrisy” remarks, or is it time to skip away to new topics, never to face old ones?
Well, I hate to be crass, but someone famous, I think he might be a saint, but can't recall who it was, said,"The Church might be a whore, but she's still your mother."
FR, Ohhhh...that is sharp...ugly sharp...I like it! LOL!!!
Frajm. There are some in the Church who whore, but like you, they are not the Church.How would you describe a professional boxer who taunts his opponents and then denies them entrance into the ring?
as it regards the professional boxer who taunts and then doesn't allow his opponent into the ring, I'd say he's very smart!
Anonymous, this is a blog. It is, by definition, opinionated. Did you get your feelings hurt because Fr. censored some smutty little comment? Why don't you go and find a nice Catholic forum where you can expound your undoubtedly brilliant observations more freely? I doubt they'll put up with you too lomg, either.
Fr McD. Unsportsmanlike conduct, unnecessary roughness (wrong sport) and cowardlce might also be at play
Post a Comment