THE POSTER CHILD FOR POST VATICAN II LOSS OF CATHOLIC IDENTITY AND THE BISHOPS WHO REFUSE TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CATHOLIC IDENTITY ARE BY NOT DENYING HER HOLY COMMUNION
The type of excommunication Rep. Nancy Pelosi needs is from the Holy Father himself, similar to the type of excommunication Father Feeney had from Pope Pius XII on February 13, 1953; there would be great symbolism if hers occurred on the same date, 2012!
A reporter , citing a letter from the U.S. bishops, in which the bishops vowed not to comply with the law, and asked: “will you stand with your fellow Catholics in resisting this law or will you stick by the Administration?”
[Pelosi answered:] “First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it,” the minority leader responded.
She knows exactly what she's saying. The fact is that typically she gets more press coverage than any bishop in the country, so if she says that something is Catholic, people will hear it, and many of today's uncatechized will believe it, as will her supporters. Thus she can use her Catholicism to her political advantage. Case in point; when she made such a big deal about praying to--I think it was Saint Joseph--that Obamacare would pass. As for schism, she doesn't care whether she has advocated it or not.
Some years ago, when someone told Ted Kennedy that he was advocating something that the bishops could never accept--namely, abortion rights--he responded "That's _their_ problem."
The fact that the bishops did, by their gross mishandling of the abortion issue for 30 years, _did_ accept abortion rights is neither here nor there, as is whatever happened to Kennedy at his judgment. The point is that Kennedy had decided how he was going to play abortion politically, and every bishop in the world, including the pope wasn't going to be enough to change that. Same goes for Pelosi.
What can I say? They have their reward. But that does nothing to mitigate the damage that this is causing.
I hope the Pope gets a copy of this. She has made her priorities perfectly clear and in public. Surely this public scandal is incriminating enough to take action against her. She is leading others into open rebellion against the Church's teachings.
Every problem in the Church today can be traced directly back to the Post Vatican II Aggiornamento nonsense. We didn't, and don't, need a sense of openness to the world. The Church should have stayed what she always was, a bulwark against what the world was and is. We should be standing on the hill saying to the world, "Follow Me", not rolling around in the mud at the base of the hill dialoging with apostates and heretics.
We can't excommunicate someone by popular vote, but it seems appropriate that the bishops would either ask her to explain her public stand against them or explain to us why they don't.
I run organizations that are far smaller than the Church, smaller even than a healthy Parish, but the people are really the same in mind. If you allow someone to publicly 'flout' the rules you are insulting those who do not, and encouraging others to do the same. You invalidate your position as leader and create, instantly, an informal leader whom others will seek out for guidance in your stead. That person will work against you behind your back until he, or she, is strong enough to challenge you to your face. By then it merely process.
I hope we are not in a situation where the leadership of our Church has been evaluated correctly as ineffective based on their pusillanimous handling of the sex abuse scandal rather than wiser for addressing it.
Prayer, fasting, and mortification is not how one prepares to watch a conflict from the bleachers; it is preparation to act in it.
I have had to punish people for their actions. There are times, many times, when there is no punishment that will serve to correct the individual. Rather it is done to publicly set that person apart from those who labour on in good faith and reward those good and faithful people with good company.
qwikness, the Ordinary for the Diocese can excommunicate someone formally.
Which is part of the problem with Pelosi. The Ordinary for her Home Diocese, Archbishop George H. Niederauer, weasels away from it by saying "she really spends most of her time in Washington", implying that it should be dealt with by the Ordinary there. The Archbishop for DC, Donald Cardinal Wuerl, correctly states that no matter how much time she spends in DC, her Home Diocese should do the deed, and since they won't he can't deny her the Sacraments. Niederaur's position is by far the weaker of the two, although Wuerl is being weaselly too, and not at all befitting his recently earned Red Hat.
Niederaur's Diocese is got to be among the most disgusting in terms of open Heresey being tolerated, and about the best thing I can find to say about the man is that he turned 75 last year and had to submit his retirement papers. May the Holy See send a true Holy Warrior to replace him with all due speed.
Here's a typical weasel quote from Niederaur:
"Our belief is that we have to hold up the standard of abstinence, and we do that in all of our teaching about sexuality by saying that sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong. Now that's a very high bar to set and I understand that. And I don't regret that - I subscribe to it and I teach it. I understand why people find it difficult and disagree with it. I understand why they do. I don't agree with them.... What I would say is that people who disagree with us can disagree without being disagreeable."
How could Catholics possibly be confused about their Faith's Moral Teachings with such outstanding demonstrations of Leadership from our Bishops?
11 comments:
She's been living in her own reality for years. Why change now?
I don't think this woman knows what she is saying. This doesn't excuse it, but surely she knows she has just advocated schism.
rcg
Anyone wanna' guess how Pelosi got to where she is now? First two guesses do not count...
rcg,
She knows exactly what she's saying. The fact is that typically she gets more press coverage than any bishop in the country, so if she says that something is Catholic, people will hear it, and many of today's uncatechized will believe it, as will her supporters. Thus she can use her Catholicism to her political advantage. Case in point; when she made such a big deal about praying to--I think it was Saint Joseph--that Obamacare would pass. As for schism, she doesn't care whether she has advocated it or not.
Some years ago, when someone told Ted Kennedy that he was advocating something that the bishops could never accept--namely, abortion rights--he responded "That's _their_ problem."
The fact that the bishops did, by their gross mishandling of the abortion issue for 30 years, _did_ accept abortion rights is neither here nor there, as is whatever happened to Kennedy at his judgment. The point is that Kennedy had decided how he was going to play abortion politically, and every bishop in the world, including the pope wasn't going to be enough to change that. Same goes for Pelosi.
What can I say? They have their reward. But that does nothing to mitigate the damage that this is causing.
I hope the Pope gets a copy of this. She has made her priorities perfectly clear and in public. Surely this public scandal is incriminating enough to take action against her. She is leading others into open rebellion against the Church's teachings.
How long can this be allowed to go on?
Every problem in the Church today can be traced directly back to the Post Vatican II Aggiornamento nonsense. We didn't, and don't, need a sense of openness to the world. The Church should have stayed what she always was, a bulwark against what the world was and is. We should be standing on the hill saying to the world, "Follow Me", not rolling around in the mud at the base of the hill dialoging with apostates and heretics.
We can't excommunicate someone by popular vote, but it seems appropriate that the bishops would either ask her to explain her public stand against them or explain to us why they don't.
I run organizations that are far smaller than the Church, smaller even than a healthy Parish, but the people are really the same in mind. If you allow someone to publicly 'flout' the rules you are insulting those who do not, and encouraging others to do the same. You invalidate your position as leader and create, instantly, an informal leader whom others will seek out for guidance in your stead. That person will work against you behind your back until he, or she, is strong enough to challenge you to your face. By then it merely process.
I hope we are not in a situation where the leadership of our Church has been evaluated correctly as ineffective based on their pusillanimous handling of the sex abuse scandal rather than wiser for addressing it.
Prayer, fasting, and mortification is not how one prepares to watch a conflict from the bleachers; it is preparation to act in it.
I have had to punish people for their actions. There are times, many times, when there is no punishment that will serve to correct the individual. Rather it is done to publicly set that person apart from those who labour on in good faith and reward those good and faithful people with good company.
rcg
What does it take to publicly excommunicate someone? Does the local Bishop or USCCB vote?
qwikness, the Ordinary for the Diocese can excommunicate someone formally.
Which is part of the problem with Pelosi. The Ordinary for her Home Diocese, Archbishop George H. Niederauer, weasels away from it by saying "she really spends most of her time in Washington", implying that it should be dealt with by the Ordinary there. The Archbishop for DC, Donald Cardinal Wuerl, correctly states that no matter how much time she spends in DC, her Home Diocese should do the deed, and since they won't he can't deny her the Sacraments. Niederaur's position is by far the weaker of the two, although Wuerl is being weaselly too, and not at all befitting his recently earned Red Hat.
Niederaur's Diocese is got to be among the most disgusting in terms of open Heresey being tolerated, and about the best thing I can find to say about the man is that he turned 75 last year and had to submit his retirement papers. May the Holy See send a true Holy Warrior to replace him with all due speed.
Here's a typical weasel quote from Niederaur:
"Our belief is that we have to hold up the standard of abstinence, and we do that in all of our teaching about sexuality by saying that sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong. Now that's a very high bar to set and I understand that. And I don't regret that - I subscribe to it and I teach it. I understand why people find it difficult and disagree with it. I understand why they do. I don't agree with them.... What I would say is that people who disagree with us can disagree without being disagreeable."
How could Catholics possibly be confused about their Faith's Moral Teachings with such outstanding demonstrations of Leadership from our Bishops?
Hmmm.... who to replace Niederauer?
Let's see...
Nickless
Sample
Chaput
No shortage of good men, good bishops. I think any of those would be a shock to the system in SF.
What an arrogant old biddie (who chews her cud like an old cow)!
Post a Comment