Today Pope Francis opened His Holiness’ self-referential synod on synod, something that only the elitists in the Vatican are excited about and maybe those who get to travel to Rome to eat in its great restaurants while navel, or is it naval, gazing during this synod on synods—yes drink it in, synod on synods.
Pope Francis continually says that the clergy are clericalists and never listen to the laity. What planet or Church does the pope live on? Certainly His Holiness is clueless about the Church in the USA where the laity are practically running everything in the parish and most running things are women!
In all my parishes, I have had women principals and CCD directors and most of the teachers and catechists are women. The same with administrative staffs. And the backbone of the parish’s volunteers are women.
Women have been chairwoman of our pastoral and finance councils. We have no religious women on staff or teaching since there aren’t any to be had in our neck of the woods. Thus as a priest, I am in the minority. If not for the laity running things, things would not run!
Thus I ask again, where does this pope live and to what Church does His Holiness belong?
In terms of consulting the laity and listening to their concerns, I received these questions from an active parishioners just this morning. He gives me permission to print his questions to me anonymously. And yes, I will be meeting with him to discuss this—but what do I say????????
Father - Could we sit down and have. A discussion?
I am struggling with the leadership of our current Pope. He says one thing but does another and I am someone that believe actions are much more powerful than words. See the concerns I have below with Pope Francis:
1. He brought the Pachyma statue into the Vatican and laid at the altar of St. Peter. This was not recognized as being related to the church, but some sort of Amazonian deity? A prelate took it and appropriately tossed what certainly appears to be a false idol into the Tiber! This occurred in October 2019. The Pope “apologized for this misunderstanding”.
2. He has said he is against abortion and has written against it as you have pointed out, but he takes no actions to fight against . He has instead told the media in Ireland how wise their new PM is who was in office when they legalized abortion! He stands with our current President while he says that supposedly his bishops should be meeting with him to discuss his abortion advocacy? How long does this take to meet and say “you are advocating and aiding in the death of millions of lives” cease and desist or you can no longer receive the Eucharist? No, as both Cardinal Gregory who appears to be very radical and the bishop of Delaware continue to support him. Wouldn’t they be removed if they chose to refrain from this meeting? He also spurned Trump when he of any President was the firmest defender of the unborn, with Pence and Trump speaking against it, not that he is a saint by any means, but his actions were overwhelming correct in this area.
3. He issues edicts against homosexuality but meets and appoints very pro LGBTQ religious (e.g. Merrick and Martin) to very influential committees that say the contrary. He believes their should be homosexual civil unions? How does this relate to chastity being a virtue, and marriage being between a man and a woman?
4. He is pro vaccine and has mandated that all Vatican personnel receive it. Three Swiss guards resigned this week due to this policy. What about the moral issues associated with it or the right to chose. Shouldn’t he be with us on the long term effects or personal situation/choice?
5. He has allowed other religions to take positions that make the church look like we’re ceding to their positions on our faith for the sake of ecumenism?
6. He appears to be undertaking a concerted attack on the Latin mass and those that wanting it or have been. I understand that their have been certain religious groups some even cloistered Carmelites that have been removed from their convents where they held daily mass in Latin being their only affront…. He as I am sure you are well aware has bishops review and approve Latin masses and where and how often they can be said. Why?
7. He appears to be very aligned with liberal agenda’s pro climate change advocacy (the church stepping broadly in science?) beyond concern of the planet.
8. He appears to be pro socialism (beyond the above) and anti capitalism. Not that capitalism can’t be harmful or sinful, but socialism leads to communism and has never been enacted ideally as leaders of it are out to rule people’s lives. History backs this up.
9. He has essentially abandoned the Catholic Church in China when he ceded the ability to appoint bishops there instead allowing a communist country that is visibly anti Christian to pick their bishops! It has later come out that he MAY have made a mistake! Did the Chinese as they have with most countries including the USA bought this right in a deal as what motivation would he have to let them do this? Many there will likely suffer martyrdom and persecution for this error.
10. He has said openly he is concerned about the conservative religious factions in the Church. Why?
I don’t understand it and to me a lot of this is counter to church teachings. Can we talk about this?
24 comments:
As for #1 - The pope said they had been displayed in the church "without idolatrous intentions," according to a transcript provided by the Vatican press office.
As for #2 - Trump was and is an evil man. We continue to learn of the lengths to which he went to hold on to power illegitimately. His "pro-life" stand cannot balance his malicious actions.
As for #3 - Jesus met with those considered to be sinner. He welcomed them. Should the pope not do the same? Should not we?
As for #4 - There are no "moral issues" that prevent a Catholic from receiving any one of the three vaccines for coronavirus. No one has a right to behave in a way that is likely to cause harm to others.
As for #5 - What "positions" has the pope allowed?
As for #6 - No Carmelites were removed from their monasteries because they celebrated the Latin mass. That is FAR from the whole, accurate story.
As for #7 - The Church is not stepping into science - unless you think of Fr. Georges Lemaitre who developed the Big Bang theory or Fr. Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics, or other catholic scientists have stepped into some place they don't belong. Not only that, but we are commanded to care for the planet, to be good stewards of the gifts God has given us.
As for #8 - Read the Scriptures and the Church's doctrine regarding the universal destination of goods and the promotion of the Common Good. Also: https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/property-and-people
As for #9. How do you know the details, not what is reported, on the situation in China?
As for #10 - Any factions - conservative or progressive - can be problematic. There is nothing contrary to to church teaching in this.
There is much to talk about here, but it has to be done with clarity and understanding, not news byte comprehension.
"Father" Kavanaugh,
Many people may think YOU are an evil man. You are really crackers
Father, this has all been discussed here before, to no good end.
This post is Kavanaugh bait. You got what you wanted. Now let everyone else waste their time attempting to reason with him.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Thomas, I will reason with anyone, anytime. While some aren't interested in hearing diverse opinions, exploring other perspectives, I am.
So, "Zzzzz" all you want. You might try having a reasonable conversation now and again with someone who is not going to echo your own thoughts and find that it can be a very good thing.
Father K says there is much to talk about - really? He blasts every legitimate issue raised by your parishioner and then concludes with the disingenuous remark that there is lots to talk about. What a joke! He's stubborn in his ideology. It would be a waste of time to talk to a guy like him who hears lies and likes them and hears the truth and hates it. They best way to deal with priests who are militant liberals is to defund them ASAP. Not one penny for them. My message to his parishioners is that God will reward you for your stinginess when it comes to any church pastored by Father K.
Father K's school of diplomacy is to cozy up to enemies of the Church's doctrine and to despise those who dearly want to preserve it.
Father K - As Director of Ecumenism in your diocese could you please tell us what your greatest achievement has been in that role? You must have at least one great success.
Michael A - If one were serious about talking - I am, some here are not - but if some were serious we might talk about the example Jesus gave us in welcoming those thought to be or known to be sinners rather than decrying a pope who meets with.
A person serious about talking would give some examples of "He has allowed other religions to take positions that make the church look like we’re ceding to their positions on our faith for the sake of ecumenism?" rather than just making this nebulous suggestion.
A person might talk about the Carmelites who moved from their monastery and discover the reason given, not the false accusations mentioned in some news stories.
A person might talk rather than accusing another person - me - of being a liar.
But, that's apparently not you. You are unwilling to talk but are happy to rant and rave about that which disturbs your convenience.
So what if PF is all of those things? It won't prevent his successor canonizing him.
One bit of good news: he was threatening to visit the UK next month to address the Glasgow climate conference, but instead will be represented by Parolin. Presumably someone has reminded him that as a Head of State he can't simply drop in on a foreign country without being invited.
I guess Fr. K has no Catholic accomplishments
Once again, we have the semi-public spectacle of an ordained priest behaving beneath his dignity revealing his obsession with politics and the even-great obsession to always prove he is right and get that old "last word" in. No one here expects complete agreement on all issues, but this particular priest insists on the old "echo chamber" canard and continues to presume to know the motivations and thoughts of anyone who disagrees or calls him out. It's cringeworthy and I am embarrassed for him.
Honestly Father McDonald, your patience is a lesson for all of us.
Jerome, My 8:51 posts contains 8 items that have nothing to do with politics. Yet you suggest I am obsessed. How do you come to that conclusion based on my post?
"Echo chamber" is not a canard, an unfounded rumor or story, but a description of what some here seem to expect this blog to be.
You can be as embarrassed as you want, but that is wholly your issue, not mine.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...
Mark - You have more patience than I... As you know, TeeJayEmm is off my radar permanently and Michael A is moving rapidly in that direction.
September 24, 2021 at 10:43 AM
Father Kavanaugh,
Do you recall writing this? Are these the words of someone interested in talking? Doesn’t read that way to me. So, if I make the suggestion that your claim about desiring dialogue is disingenuous you might see where I could get the idea?
There is a question mark after the ecumenism comment by Father McDonald’s parishioner. and the letter is a request for spiritual guidance from the pastor. It’s not intended to be a detailed explanation of why the man has the thoughts that he does. Those details would be forthcoming in the dialogue with Father McDonald. Not sure why you’re upset that the guy doesn’t go into detail in a document that is written in an outline format. Give him a chance to state his case.
At the risk getting chastised again by those who don’t like political topics I’ll address Climate Change that the letter writer mentioned, Father McDonald mentioned recently and that you commented on. But I think we should look at the subject from a spiritual approach as Father McDonald did in his comments under the story “What a mess and I wonder what the way out is”. It was excellent and, in a few words, he said much more of value than Francis did in an entire book. I think that the Pope’s view on climate change is shockingly devoid of any consideration that God might have a say in what’s going on, if in fact there is anything going on. Man likes to admire his own importance and the thought that we are the ones destroying the Earth might just have a little hubris in it. I see people around me living their ordinary lives and that does not make them environmental criminals. I don’t think a just God is going to punish man for simply living on the planet He gave to them to be fruitful and multiply. I see an existence happening around me not abuse. I can’t speak for other parts of the world that I have little knowledge about. But unfortunately, the Pope wants to place the blame on the developed nations and the imperialist Yankee gringo. I think that’s what the letter writer is aggravated about and with good reason.
Michael A - I very much recall writing the statement you posted. I will be happy to have a reasonable, adult conversation with anyone. TJM has shown repeatedly that he is incapable of that kind of conversation. You, with your baseless accusations and you apparent inability to discuss a topic without taking three or four deviations makes it difficult to discuss anything with you.
For example, I asked above for an example of hope Pope Francis "has allowed other religions to take positions that make the church look like we’re ceding to their positions" and you reply with, "Father K's school of diplomacy is to cozy up to enemies of the Church's doctrine and to despise those who dearly want to preserve it." and "As Director of Ecumenism in your diocese could you please tell us what your greatest achievement has been in that role?" That's not exactly an on-topic, adult conversation.
So, yes, I am interested in talking, but not with someone who can't engage in a meaningful, coherent way.
Fr. K you have repeatedly abused others here, including the lovely Bee. You don’t respond to me because I point out what you truly are and you can’t handle it
As my name has come up, albeit indirectly in the sentence Michael A quoted, I suppose it might be appropriate for me to comment. I certainly do not want to leave Father Kavanaugh dangling while everyone here takes a swipe at him. Not that he can’t acquit himself quite adequately, but I do feel the need to respond to sentiments and approach being ascribed to me (patience, for example).
I very much empathize and sympathize with Father Kavanaugh. Did anyone read his first post carefully? He says quite clearly at the end of it that “[t]here is much to talk about here.” And this is surely correct. Father Kavanaugh goes on to say “[B]ut it has to be done with clarity and understanding, not news byte comprehension.” And surely this is correct too. Indeed, any one of the enquirer’s points could take up an entire meeting, and perhaps even more. And as Father Kavanaugh says in a later post on this thread, he is “happy to have a reasonable, adult conversation with anyone.”
I read the statements preceding the final sentence in his first post as setting out the premises with which he will enter the conversation, much as the statements and questions to which he is responding set out the enquirer’s premises. We all enter conversations with certain premises. But sometimes the conversation results in us changing our views because we learn something we did not know before. As Pope Francis says in his homily, which is the subject of a later thread, we encounter, listen, and discern.
Notice the word “reasonable” in Father Kavanaugh’s characterization of his desired conversation. The word connotes exchanging “reasons” on both sides of the conversation. But it also connotes more—being able to interrogate and challenge those reasons. And the reasons themselves must be rational (which does not entirely exclude emotion, hence one can talk of the rationality of emotions) and must adhere to certain rules of logic, as in no ad hominem attacks or other provocative, logically fallacious forms of argument.
Father Kavanaugh doubtless feels very frustrated, as do I, when we attempt to have a reasonable and rational conversation and it results not in such a conversation but in its opposite—an unreasonable and irrational response.
TJM and Michael A—will you now commit to engaging in the sort of reasonable and rational conversation I have described?
P.S. All this said, each one of us can overreact or come across as too adamant sometimes (I know I have on occasion and I suspect Father Kavanaugh may be willing to concede that he has too), but is the fact that we can all fall short of an ideal a valid reason for striving to attain it as far as possible?
Let me add that I hope your parishioner is able to find inner peace in whatever way is determined to be most beneficial. I'm not saying that I'm in anyway special because I did, but the barbs being volleyed by some have not once considered your parishioner and how we as Catholics can help one of our own who might be suffering. For the naysayers, providing truthful responses to questions such as these is helping and comforting. Telling people what they want to hear is not helping, it's protestant.
Folks, I'm not sucking up to Fr. MJK but, this "conversation" is just offensive. As I've mentioned before, I don't give a rat's a$$ about the consequences, what's fair is fair, what's right is right.
"Blogger Thomas Garrett said...
Father, this has all been discussed here before, to no good end.
This post is Kavanaugh bait. You got what you wanted. Now let everyone else waste their time attempting to reason with him.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz."
- This is NOT "Kavanaugh" bait. Fr. MJK was merely responding to what Fr. AJM posted which, introduced politics as one of many talking points. Point missed: Distressed parishioner, agreed to have his thoughts/questions shared. Is this really helping? Honestly, no sympathy/pastoral sensibilities in this comment.
"Blogger Jerome Merwick said...
Once again, we have the semi-public spectacle of an ordained priest behaving beneath his dignity revealing his obsession with politics and the even-great obsession to always prove he is right and get that old "last word" in. No one here expects complete agreement on all issues, but this particular priest insists on the old "echo chamber" canard and continues to presume to know the motivations and thoughts of anyone who disagrees or calls him out. It's cringeworthy and I am embarrassed for him.
Honestly Father McDonald, your patience is a lesson for all of us."
- I mean really, who the hell are you besides "Jerome Merwick"? You show up recently, we've been here for years, and you take liberties with your virtual "mouth" that I don't know where the entitlement comes from other than hiding behind a keyboard. Decorum, maybe? Hint: You might be trying the patience of a few here.
a
"Blogger TJM said...
I guess Fr. K has no Catholic accomplishments"
- TJM, I really want to like you as I think we're wired similarly however, this comment is the winner for the day. Here's an accomplishment, the indelible mark of holy orders!
Fr. AJM, thank you for posting this if you choose to do so. This is out of hand in my humble opinion, perhaps you agree. I can only imagine what your Bishop thinks should he choose to read these comments. Better the proverbial "ninnies" comment. At least some of it is genuine and not just empty barbs and opinions backed up by absolutely nothing tangible. By no means is it you, Fr. MJK or Fr. Fox. None of you needs this nonsense. Again, I appreciate you posting people's comments so they can own their words and the world can either appreciate their insight, or "see them for the a$$es that they are" (partial and slightly reworded quote of the late Cardinal Dennis Dougherty).
Father Kavanaugh,
I don’t mind when you comment on politics, it’s just that it does seem to be a more important subject to you than it should be. I commented before that it appears that your politics come first and religion is down the list. Your remarks on this thread offer more proof for my position.
I count items #s 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9 as political topics and #3 as a crossover subject. You argue that 8 of the 10 items have nothing to do with politics. Take another look at the topics because you are way off.
My comments that you say were off subject were right on target. They showed how your claim to be open to dialogue is pretty much a farce. You weren’t willing to yield any ground to the parishioner who is genuinely discouraged because he worries about the future of our Church. You went 10/10, detailing why the guy is either delusional or a liar who is misrepresenting the facts. As a priest designated with a job that requires some diplomatic sensitivity it might be best to show that you possess the skills required for the job by acknowledging that a person might have some reasonable concerns.
I do believe you cozy up to enemies of Church because of your strident support for people like the Squad members et.al. They hate Church doctrine and you like them. They’re your comrades, not mine.
I haven’t yet read any comments from you about how wonderful other faiths are, but I do know that many of the them hate our Church and what we teach. I’ve never read you share your ecumenical experiences with us and that’s why I wondering about what you might consider a great success. Since you don’t have any great ones to cite maybe you can just mention any kind of success. Do you have any?
BTW: When you suggested, in adult fashion, that I’m too stupid to know the real meaning of ecumenism, you might want to take a look at the USCCB website on the subject and you’ll see that maybe the term is a little broader than your narrower definition. If you can’t find it in your heart to have some dialogue with conservative Catholics that’s really not good for an ecumenical director. Have you treated conservative Catholics in your parish in a similar manner? Do you offer at least one Mass each weekend where people don’t have their ears meowed full with “taste and see” over and over? Implementing a change like this could be an opportunity for a great success that I would admire you for.
PP.S. Please insert the word “not” before the word “striving” in the P.S.
Michael A - Tell me how, for starters, my statement, "There are no "moral issues" that prevent a Catholic from receiving any one of the three vaccines for coronavirus. No one has a right to behave in a way that is likely to cause harm to others" is political.
Do politics determine the statement from the CDF: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html ?
Do politics determine the long-standing moral teaching of the Church regarding our responsibility to care for the well-being of our brothers and sisters? (I would refer you to Genesis 4:1-3 and Luke 10:25-37)
This is not a political statement. It is based on the moral teaching of the Church which, in turn, is based on the teaching of Sacred Scripture.
How, please, is is a political statement?
One thing I can always rely upon: In any contentious "discussion" here, I can always come back a few hours later and, inevitably, one person will be there with the last word. That alone, speaks volumes.
"Blogger Jerome Merwick said...
One thing I can always rely upon: In any contentious "discussion" here, I can always come back a few hours later and, inevitably, one person will be there with the last word. That alone, speaks volumes."
Poor you. What is wrong with someone addressing baseless accusations? There, a question. You can have the last word. It's all about the little victories that fill up our days, right? I may need to respond, however, if anything from you is foundationally weak.
I get so fed up with the entitlement.
Father Kavanaugh,
I enumerated the topics that are political and they are clearly such. The vaccine has been made a political issue regardless of how you approached the subject. I understand that there are many people who believe that unborn child tissue was used to develop the vaccine and that's why your statement is wrong that there are no moral issues that should prevent people from getting the vaccine. The pharmaceutical companies, from what I understand, claim this not to be the case. I don't know what the the truth is but for people who believe this to be true, they do have a moral case for not wanting to take the vaccine. Thank you providing the CDF document. I do not agree with you that this document unequivocal supports your position. I read lots of ifs, buts and maybes in this document which makes me more suspicious than I was before I read it. The way I read it they acknowledge that aborted human cells might have been used and may be present in some vaccines. I'm left to figure out which ones.
I didn't argue that all of your comments were political, I stated that the subjects are political. I agree with you that we have an obligation to care for our brothers and sisters but I believe that it is false to accuse people in this country of being climate criminals/immoral because they use some AC. I think our nation is very responsible when it comes to the issue and the Pope is pointing his finger in the wrong direction.
Have you told people from the pulpit that they need to start adding climate abuse as a sin to confess? If you feel this strongly about the subject than tell them that you want to start hearing this sin frequently acknowledged in the confessional. In your mind and the Pope's there are lots of sins being committed in this area so you should start having long lines on Saturdays. You might need to add an extra time slot.
Please give some thought to offering some liturgical options to your parish. It would be a wonderful expression in the true spirit of ecumenism.
Post a Comment