The National Chismatic Reporter finally draws a line in the sand and in its typical bogus magisterium, competing with the true Magisterium, it sets forth its disgust with Pope Francis. If only the Holy Father would listen to the divisive voices of the trouble makers in the Church who have caused such great damage to the Church these past 50 years. SORRY NCR, IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN, THESE RENEGADES MUST REFORM AND BELIEVE WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, BELIEVES, TEACHES AND PROCLAIMS TO BE REVEALED BY GOD. BELIEVE IN THE OFFICIAL MAGISTERIUM, NOT THE BOGUS mAGISTERIUM OF NUNS OR OF THE NCR OR ANY OTHER IDEOLOGUES IN THE CHURCH! PRESS HERE FOR THE WHINERS AT THE NCR AND THEIR CROCODILE TEARS AND GET YOUR VIOLIN OUT TO PLAY!
A few excerpts from FISHWRAP:
The more something changes, the more it stays the same. It's a cliché, yes, but it seems to be an increasingly apt one to apply to the situation between women religious and the Vatican.
There have been high hopes for Pope Francis among those left spiritually bruised by the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI. Francis paid his own hotel bill after the conclave, took the bus with the rest of the bishops, refused to move into the papal apartment, claimed to want a "poor church," and celebrated Holy Thursday at a juvenile detention facility where he washed the feet of 10 men and two women.
But a month after his election, a fly got caught in the balm Francis was pouring over the church's body. LCWR leaders were informed in a meeting with the doctrinal congregation's lead cleric, Archbishop Gerhard Müller, that the new pope had reaffirmed the mandated reform of the their organization.
Less than a day later after his stunning admission, Cardinal Braz de Aviz was apparently taken to the doctrinal congregation's woodshed. The Vatican quickly released a statement claiming that the media (namely, the report in NCR) had misinterpreted Braz de Aviz's words and that Braz de Aviz and Müller "reaffirmed their common commitment to the renewal of Religious Life, and particularly to the Doctrinal Assessment of the LCWR and the program of reform it requires, in accordance with the wishes of the Holy Father."
Perhaps the greatest irony is that the Vatican is punishing women religious for failing to strictly adhere to doctrines that they have had no voice in developing and no role in shaping -- precisely because they are women.
The look and feel of the papacy may be changing under Francis, but the fundamental understanding magisterium's authority and the requirement that the women obey the men, I'm afraid, will continue to stay the same.
66 comments:
Whenever I read something from these enemies of the Church, I sigh and wistfully think of the Thirteenth Century and all the really cool methods they had for dealing with these people. I swear, their screams would sound like a Bach cantata to me...
Why are they allowed to have the name "Catholic." ChurchMilitant.tv (formerly RealCatholicTV.com) had to change theirs.
ultra traditionalists still in union with Rome are more obedient than ultra liberals. I suspect there is a move to have Catholic dropped from their name if they don't represent what the Magisterium and their local superiors in the Church, their bishop says.
The part that I really don't understand is the author's confusion. I also have rules to follow to be a Catholic that I have no voice in forming. They are either embarrassingly ignorant (stupid) or are intentionally misrepresenting the Catholic Church. If they believed in what they say, the duplicitous heretics should vote with their feet. I shall vote with my knees.
Heretics and dissidents make me angry and frustrated.
Is that wailing and gnashing of teeth I hear?
The look and feel of the papacy may be changing under Francis, but the fundamental understanding magisterium's authority and the requirement that the women obey the men, I'm afraid, will continue to stay the same.
Ephesians 5. NOW.
A good priest like Pope Francis and like Benedict XVI and John Paul II before him knows what it means to obey: he obeys Jesus, and Jesus obeyed the will of His Father. That whole blather about "the women obeying the men" is a convenient dodge: everybody obeys something or someone, whether or not they want to admit it. The far more intriguing question is whom or what.
Speaking of the false magisterium of whiners with regard to obedience: one of the things that is wonderfully freeing about obeying the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church is this-- that means I don't have to obey THAT lot and their insufferable drivel.
To which I say: jolly good.
All of this name-calling sounds a little bit...adolescent.
"careerists, minions, enemies of the Church, embarrassingly ignorant, stupid, heretics, dissidents, whiners..." Hope nobody lives in a glass house.
Gene, do you really want to torture the people at NCR? You're joking, right?
What is a "careerist"? What does "National Chismatic Reporter" mean
I bet Jesus loves this piece. Jolly good.
NSR was reprimanded about the use of "Catholic" in their title as far back as 1969. Do you really think they give a damn about what any bishop says?
Father!
there seem to be only "crickets" chirping over at Praytell blog. Don't any of your friends over there want to chime in on the Pope and LCWR?
I don't want you to gloat, but perhaps you might ask them if they are throwing their support behind Pope Francis in his latest campaign! or perhaps are they only 'fair weather friends'? cafeteria francistas?
Brotherton, you reading Jesus' mind now? LOL! The people at NCR, and others like them, are enemies of the Church. As far as I am concerned, nothing is too bad for them. They are intransigent, unrepentant, and aggressively seek to undermine the Magisterium.
Why don't you run on back over to Pray for Tail instead of bothering us with your silly observations...
KC, MAYBE PRAYTELL IS WORKING HARD AT COMING UP WITH A STRATEGY OF DAMAGE CONTROL SINCE THEIR INITIAL EUPHORIA OVER THE POPE'S SIMPLICITY WAS ILL FOUNDED. PRAYTELL FAILED AND MISERABLE, TO RECOGNIZE THAT POPE FRANCIS' SIMPLICITY IS A PART OF HIS STRATEGY TO CALL US CATHOLICS BACK TO THE BASICS, MEANING THE BASICS OF THE MAGISTERIUM AND OBEDIENCE TO THE FAITH AND MORALS AND CANON LAWS OF THE CHURCH, WHAT IS CALLED THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH, WHICH THE LIKES OF PRAYTELL AND OTHERS WOULD SCOFF AT SUCH A CONCEPT AS THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH!
Richard, your comment is extremely naive. And, by the way, your comment itself engages in the sort of judgment you're condemning. But, alas, you don't seem to understand the Catholic teaching (that is, Christ's teaching) on judgment and discernment.
At any rate, Christ is all Truth. So, surely he loves when truth is illustrated clearly and his sheep brought to the fountains of Truth.
Richard, check out the graphic lede for the Tuesday 7 May.
They'll know we are Christians by our love...
Richard: Be careful not to confuse love with false charity. I myself don't want to torture these people (except with Gregorian chant and a reverent Tridentine liturgy, which would probably seem like the fires of hell to them); I just want them to go away and follow their own consciences, which are at variance with the mind of the Church, and quit scandalizing the faith. But they aren't going to to that.
As for you: Do you recommend that instead of torturing these folks, we give them "Obedient Catholic of the Year" awards instead? If you were in charge, what stance would you take towards them?
Hey, Botherton, indeed they will...our love for the Church, for one another, and for those who are actually open to Christ's love as mediated by the Church.
It doesn't seem very loving to let people continue along a path that could lead to eternal damnation...
Ah, love....*sigh* The most over used word in the language and almost made devoid of meaning through its banal bandying about in everything from tawdry "love" affairs and jaded self-indulgent movies and TV to endless trite homilies in pulpits and ambos all around this tired and cynical society.
Sometimes love trumps love...OK, Botherton, let's say you just love everybody, no matter who...rapist, terrorist, pederast, murderer, heretic, homo, even maybe traditional Catholics. Then, let's say, you are sitting home one evening watching CNN or MSNBC...or maybe Two and a Half Men or Big Bang Theory and all of a sudden a feral minority breaks in with intent to kill your wife or child or loved one or maybe even you. You have a pistol...wait, no, you are a lib so you don't like guns...ah, I know...your Republican next door neighbor accidentally left his pistol in a chair and you figured out how to use it without killing yourself first. So, do you love your family member enough to kill the rapist/murderer/terrorist...I hope so. Well, some of us love the Church more than those who would destroy her...get it?
Gene,
I particularly loved the love scene in Deliverance.
Don't you just love what I did there? :-)
Anon 5, Once again, I yield to your superior wit...LOL!
Tina Turner: "What's Love Got To Do With It? :)
For the record, RealcatholicTV changed their name to ChurchMilitantTV by choice. Yes the Archdiocese of Detroit (now there's a joke of a title) did complain about it, but a) turned out said ArchBishop had no jurisdiction since RCTV/CMTV is produced in Cincinnati; and b) RCTV feels it would have won any challenge; however being good Catholics (Traditionalists tend to think on a bigger scale than I-Me-Mine) they said let's not make this about us and simply change to avoid the controversy and focus the real mission of our Apostolate. Hence the name change. In short, the exact opposite of NSR which was ordered to remove catholic from their title in 1969 and has pridefully refused to do so for 40+ years.
And no one asked me, but.....
HELLYA I WANNA TORTURE THOSE HERECTICS. It just might save their souls. Can't think of a greater act of love than that.
Gene and Anonymous 5,...Peace and Love be with you both.
St. Augustine: 'City of God'.
Hey, Botherton, what did you do...light up the bong?
Richard: peace be with you, too, but that doesn't answer the question I put to you. I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say to it.
When I first stumbled across this website, I recognized Fr. McDonald as the former pastor of the Church of the Most Holy Trinity, here in Augusta. I am not a parishioner there. I go to St. Mary on the Hill. I was curious, however...I looked around...I signed up. I was also curious about the fact that so many "members" seemed to use an alias or some code name to identify themselves. Now that I have been reading and blogging for a few days, I think I understand. If I posted some of the trashy stuff I have read today from some of my ultra Catholic, ultra "sophisticated" fellow-bloggers, I probably wouldn't want anybody to know who I was either.
Who are you people? I invite you all to go on Facebook and look for Richard L Brotherton Sr. You can find out all about me. I'd really like you to tell me...and the world who you are.
Peace and Love....(and, of course, LOL)
Richard, many of us are friends in real life being St. Joseph parishioners (or former parishioner, in my case). And we have also posted many identifying bits of information about ourselves over our years positing here.
I know you're a newcomer so you don't know about all that.
For my part, I welcome you here. I can say that the only thing I dislike about people's posts here is when they pull punches and obfuscate. I hope you'll feel free to post your thoughts and I'll post mine. That way, we can learn from each other and have a productive discussion.
If you're interested in my background, I'll tell you since I'm not on Facebook. I'm 29 years old and am an attorney who represents people on Alabama's death row. My whole career, I've been a criminal defense attorney representing indigent defendants and I did so for about 5 years in Macon. I converted to Catholicism from atheism at Easter 2008. I helped teach RCIA at St. Joseph in the past.
I love discussing the Church and am passionate about it. I hope we can have some good, forthright discussions here.
Richard, I can't speak for others, but if you re-read my posts here, i think you'll see that I have never attacked you personally or spoken to you in anything but a tone of respect. I attack ideas, not people. If an idea is a sound one, it survives my attack. If it's unsound, it doesn't need to survive. Regardless of this, I do my best to maintain an air of respect towards persons on this blog, but I am ruthless when it comes to requiring reasoned arguments from others in defense of the positions they advance.
Gene can be a very rough customer, I freely admit, and I often disapprove of his approach here. But one thing I've learned from him and his long experience is that modernists will do nearly anything to avoid giving straight answers to hard questions that would reveal them in fact to be modernists who dissent from the Catholic faith and Catholic authority.
To my question regarding how you would respond to the modernist dissent expressed in the NCR, you wished me peace and love. I expressed my appreciation and I reciprocated, but I also noted that your reply was nonresponsive to my question, and I asked again for a response. Your next reply was again nonresponsive, instead being the same sort of ad hominem attack, though considerably milder, than you accuse others here of making on you.
I ask a third time, with respect: how would you respond to the statements in the NCR that others here find to be modernist heresy?
You now seem very clearly to be dodging my question. If you again dodge, all I can say is that Gene may be grossly disrespectful and as rough as sandpaper, but he will once again be proved to be right regarding modernists' refusal to engage in reasoned dialogue. You certainly won't be the first modernist on this blog to have thus refused. And each such refusal is further evidence that modernists are dangerous subversives who are enemies to the faith.
Am I to be strengthened in this conclusion? That's up to you. Will you answer my question, put to you in good faith, or will you dodge it again?
Botherton, So, this is all about you, then? Another typical modernist, self-indulgent, "hey, look at me," response. I don't really care to know anything else about you. Your first post on here was trumpeting that you were a "liberal Democrat" and that you did not like a lot of what you read here...("hey, look at me"). That is all I needed to know. It tells me that you are a cafeteria Catholic and an Obama supporter. Why would any Catholic want to know anymore about someone like that?
I, myself, have complained about the many "anonymous" posts on the blog. Many of those have been modernists, too. My name and info are all here.
And, now, to my good friend and mentor Anon 5 with whom, if you want to engage, you had better have something of substance to offer or you will be made to look a fool...it is always fascinating to me that modernists, apostate Priests, and cafeteria Catholics can come on this blog, attack the Magisterium, mock the liturgy, attack Fr. MacDonald, prevaricate and engage in all kinds of intellectual dishonesty but, when I confront them and call them what they are, I am grossly disrespectful? How, then, should one address the enemies of the Church?
Am I to assume from this that one can attack the Magisterium, lie, dissemble, and mock the liturgy but, as long as it is done with sweet words and a smile, it is not "grossly disrespectful?"
Botherton,I have made many theological and doctrinal posts on this blog ( I have two graduate degrees in Theology and Church history from major protestant grad schools). None of the modernists on here have ever chosen to address them or engage me in dialogue. So, if you want substance, it is here. Mainly, I think, you are seeking an antagonist and an audience. Whatsamatter, you get bored over at Pray for Tail?
Gene, please stop attacking people and using derogatory means of addressing them, I simply don't like it and will stop publishing your comments if these continue. Critique in a charitable way their comments and stop with the personal attacks and insulting ways of addressing them!
Fr, thank you for making my point...
PS I really don't see anything in my above post that is "derogatory" or "disrespectful."
Gene: first, I'm honored by your choice of the word "mentor." I think you do me too much credit.
Second, you pulled a PI on me (I know, them's fightin' words!). I never said you were being "grossly disrespectful." You do give as good as (or better than) you get (by your own admission), but sometimes, from my perspective, that generates more heat than light. I have this naieve belief (uttered without irony) that if you just reason with people, they'll come around. But you convince me more and more every day that our opponents are in darkness and don't care for the light (I'm put in the mind of Screwtape's comment to Wormwood, paraphrased here: "Those silly people think that our goal is to teach!"). They don't want reasoned argument because they don't like where those arguments lead.
Nevertheless, I like to give them a chance, which so far they haven't taken.
Case in point: Richard sounds like he's signed off. Probably no arguing with him anyway.
In short: the only thing to be gained by debating these people is to show the weakness/perversity of their position to the silent majority and so to win that majority over. It isn't to win over the modernists we debate, which I doubt is possible. But to do that, we have to give them a chance (to put their necks in the logical noose, that is.)
Your servant,
A5
Anon 5, In my opinion, your question is silly and meaningless. Neither you nor I is now, or ever will be "in charge" of anybody else's faith or religion. There's a wonderful folk song that naive hippies, like me, often like. Part of it says "My own life is all I can hope to control. Let my life be lived for the good of my soul...let bring peace...peace will...peace will come...and let it begin with me."
Based on many of the discussions/arguments that we've had on this blog with modernists, I now propose the following for your consideration:
GENE’S LAW: A modernist will say almost anything to avoid making an express denial of an article of the Catholic faith when that denial would clearly reveal him to be in heresy or schism. This avoidance is to allow him to maintain the fiction that he is a Catholic while a) enabling him to subvert the faith from within or b) shielding him from facing hard truths about what he really believes and whether he is really in communion with the Catholic Church.
MILLIES’S COROLLARY: Modernists often enjoy trolling, which gives them additional incentive to follow Gene’s Law.
EXAMPLE: Here are the modernist’s top ten (non)answers to the question “Do you believe in the literal Virgin Birth?” (Transubstantiation may be substituted.)
1) “I don’t owe you an answer.” (Variation: “You have no right to ask me that.”)
2) “I’ve already answered that.”
3) “I answer that every time I say the Creed/recite the Eucharistic Prayer.”
4) “Why is it so important to you that I answer that?”
5) “You’re too hung up on litmus tests/doctrinal stuff.” (Variation: “That’s beside the point.”)
6) “I’m offended that you ask me that.” (Variation: “How DARE you accuse me of not being Catholic?”)
7) “They will know we are Christians [note: Christians, not Catholics] by our love.”
8) “You’re judgmental! That means YOU’RE the REAL non-Christian [note: not “non-Catholic] here!”
9) Ignores/pretends not to understand question.
10) Random ad hominem attack.
Bishop Lessard, one of our bishop emeriti use to rail against the song "Let there Be Peace..." What he railed against is the part where it says "let it begin with me." His point is that it meaning peace begins and ends with God, not me and if me can make peace it is by God's gift. So the hippie songs of the 60's and 70's were truly narcissistic in content, much like the free love and drug culture is spawned where the pleasure principle was taken to new heights and even applied to religious experience and sensation. That generation which is now aging and dying really was into me, it was and is the "me generation" which is inimical to true Catholicism and classic Christianity.
Mea culpa, mea culpa . . . I went back an re-read what I composed late last night. I DID say Gene was grossly disrespectful. And I compounded that by saying that he had pulled a PI-ism.
All negligence on my part, not a deliberate lie.
Anon 5, That is ok...say 500 Ave's and push a peanut up St. Jo's steps with your nose and you will be forgiven...
Botherton just proved Anon 5's laws with his response.
Asking him how he would deal with the enemies of the Church is rather like asking the weasel how he would deal with the dog for killing chickens...
Richard - You've already found that some of the few folks who post here are unwilling or unable to respond with charity or understanding to those who disagree with them. That's what Fr. McDonald approves of (as the blog owner, he has to approve postings before they appear) and that's we get. The objective is to drive away any and all who disagree.
You can get dragged into the nasty accusations and the baseless personal attacks, but I don't think that is the manner in which a good person should behave.
This reflects the general nastiness of our public discourse, so I suppose, in that sense, it should not be surprising.
I hand around these parts 'cause it's fun - yes, that does make me a strange one, but I enjoy that, too.
Like me at Praytell talking about nasty commenters, but, yes it is fun to hand around there.
Anon 5...re. dodging questions: I asked you and your blog buddies to identify yourselves...to me, and to the world. I didn't get a name from you or from anybody (except Fr. McDonald).
I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say about it.
And BTW, that little exchange between you and Gene about rape and a feral "minority" and "Deliverance" was real classy Catholicism.
Dominus vobiscum, Pax vobiscum.
(I was an altar boy when all of the Masses were in Latin)
To be fair, though, Fr. Kavanaugh, from time to time we actually have some pretty good discussions on here...
I guess you missed my comment then, Richard...
Ah...now we see that Botherton has yanked Ignotus' chain and they are both howling. Isn't this great? LOL1 Throw a rock and the hit dog hollers...
Pater, Thank you for your comment. As you may know, I too am a bit of a strange one... who occasionally enjoys poking a pointy stick at self-righteousness and pomposity. See...I'm making "progress"...already learning, from my brief experience here, how be rude and insulting. Maybe some day I'll fit in and be accepted.
Re: names. Botherton, if you had the initiative to check the membership section, my name and info are all right there.
Now, about this classy Catholicism you like to sarcastically toss about...which do you suppose is a greater offense to the Church some angry devout Catholics who speak a bit harshly to those that mock the Magisterium...or self-righteous faux Catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe and remain in the Church, living a lie, while trying to de-construct her from within? Which do you reckon is a greater offense to Christ? Who do you reckon will have the most to answer for before the Righteous Judge? Hmmmmm...
"vobiscum" (with your spirit) is to be used only within the context of a liturgical celebration, otherwise the correct greeting is "vobis" (with you), as in "pax vobis" (peace be with you). The "with your spirit" is reserved in particular for addressing those of Holy Orders, specifically the celebrant/priest because he, through his ordination, has taken on the Spirit of Christ.
Richard,
I borrowed that "Deliverance" line from attorney and humorist Bob Steed. I have often used it over the years in the way of the South laughing at itself. It was apropos to the moment because of its use of the term "love" and how that word is both misunderstood and misused in today's society. Whether or not you're gay, or pro-gay, NOBODY could mistake the violence that took place in that scene for any kind of love (except homicidal and utterly selfish eros). If you read anything Catholic or homophobic in it, it was in your reading, not in my intent. Yet you leapt to judgment, and your response was to sneer at me for being "classy." It seems like your hands are awash in the same nastiness that you have deplored finding on others' here.
Next: I'm not sure what you're suggesting by your statements that I remain anonymous. Do you mean to claim that I am a coward, sir? If so, please state it plainly so that I may not misunderstand you on such a crucial point. The fact is that I use many handles on many different blogs, FB accounts, and such, and for many different reasons, all of which are based in privacy concerns. None of these concerns affects, or should affect, the validity of the arguments I put forward here; they stand or fall regardless of my identity or anonymity. I'm not dodging, as you are: I'll clearly state that I refuse to reveal my identity to you. I've been persecuted in the past (and I don't use that term lightly) by a modernist Catholic priest for my orthodoxy. In fact he kicked me while I was was down in that I was suffering some major life stresses when he sanctioned me for my orthodoxy. I still feel the effects of that persecution to this day. I'm not going to open myself up to that again.
I stress, yet again, that I have consistently maintained a respectful tone toward you, but you have now resorted to calling me names and, as I read it, insinuating cowardice on my part. If I'm wrong about that, then please correct me. If you want to have a rational and discussion with me, as I have repeatedly requested of you, I respectfully await your answer to my question about how you would deal with the modernist and disobedient statements of the NCR. If you continue to refuse to answer it (as you have now done for the third time), I will simply write you off as yet another trolling modernist according to my recently-enunciated Gene's Law.
Correction:
*to be addressed by those with Holy Orders*
This is why the rest respond "cum spiritu tuo" (with your spirit).
Dick - Don't worry that Gene thinks you "attack the magisterium." He thinks the same of me. Under his former screen name, this is what Gene has to say about the magisterial teachers, aka, the bishops' of our Church:
"pinnanv525 said...
Ality, You mean the USCCB... United States Communist Cabal of Bishops...LOL! God help us...I cringe every time I hear they are meeting."
Mockery and scorn are his M. O.
Ignotus, That wasn't mockery and scorn...you mean that isn't what it stands for? Dang! Who'd a thunk...
So, he's "Dick" now? How apropos...does he call you "Mick?"
Richard, I do not comment here as much as others, but I do follow the comment section closely. Although I may not agree with some of their comments toward others, I do understand the anger and frustration they feel.
Pater Ignotus, In regards to Fr. McDonald's policy about comment approval: I'm fairly certain he approves most comments, the exceptions being blasphemous, sacrilegious, and otherwise harmful comments. I'm sure he personally objects to some of the things said in these comments; but, censoring comments because he personally disagrees with them isn't his way of dealing with it. Of course, I shouldn't presume to speak for him, and I may be wrong.
And Richard, you also say "I asked you and your blog buddies to identify yourselves...to me, and to the world. I didn't get a name from you or from anybody (except Fr. McDonald)." Technically, they don't have to tell you who they are, because it is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion.
And, I think I need not point out the irony in your use of ultra "sophisticated" fellow-bloggers as a subtle insult, all the while deploring the use of insults.
Here's the deal, y'all...to the various charges that have been leveled against me, I throw myself on the mercy of the court. I may be an ultra liberal, an intransigent, I may confuse love with false charity...all the stuff y'all said (and may yet say). I'm not as positive about things religious as many of you seem to be.
I'M 80, I'm retired, I have time on my hands. I enjoy my computer..having a discussion, a debate.. an argument even. It keeps my juices flowing. Sometimes it's about politics...I poke at my conservative, tea party friends. This time I was poking at you. Y'all are much more intense (tense too)about Catholic minutia than I am. There's another folk song that I love that says "I believe in love and I live my life accordingly. But I choose to let the mystery be". I think I may have made some of you angry. I apologize.
You probably won't miss me when I'm gone. And I am gone. May go poke a Republican.
Peace will come..let it begin with you.
P.S. Fr. McDonald, aren't you sometimes just a little bit embarrassed about this whole deal?
As one who hears confessions and knows the human heart somewhat well, nothing embarrasses me! :)
Well, Dick, at 80 years old, just how much time do you have on your hands? Maybe you ought to re-consider some of those Catholic minutia you mentioned...like repentance, Confession, and Last Things...just a thought.
BTW, Ignotus, satirizing Bishops is not attacking the Magisterium. Bishops are not infallible and do not speak ex cathedra...thanks be to God.
Gene - More NewSpeak! You can attack the "magisters" without attacking the magisterium. Planning isn't planning! The list grows and grows....
Dick - Some people, alas, won't be happy until they make everyone else as miserable and unhappy as they are. Blessings! Regards to Ann and the crowd.
Of course, Fr. Kavanaugh, you know that the bishops aren't "the Magisterium" unless they are in union with the Pope in matters of faith and morals and in continuity with the Tradition. Then, it is the particular bishops who are in union and not the national conferences.
The USCCB is not a part of the Magisterium. Most of their actions are done through lay groups without much involvement from the bishops.
So, it is very likely that the USCCB will come out with things that warrant satirizing or should be outright rejected by the people. At the least, many of their actions in recent years warrant discussion and involve things about which Catholics are free to disagree (I'm thinking particularly about their stance on immigration issues, which they continue to attempt to sell as Catholic dogma when it isn't).
I think one crosses the line when making improper comments about one's bishop. But, the USCCB is a political arm. To suggest we should not criticize it when it needs criticizing is simply wrong.
And, if one day the USCCB happens to do something good, hopefully we can all cheer them for that. I hope that day comes when they decide that the second "C" part of their name is more important than the "US" part.
As for the secondary discussion here, none of us who have commented here for an extended period of time are beyond reproach for some of the things we've said. We've had heated discussions and have all lost our tempers at one point or another. I think the use of cross-talk and thinly veiled insults is just as disappointing as what Fr. Kavanaugh is calling NewSpeak.
Did we step into a world where it is more "loving" to rashly accuse others for their perceived lack of "love"? Have we (myself included) forgotten that detraction is a sin? The fact that it takes place on the internet doesn't excuse it. I hope both our priest and lay commenters (again, myself included) can remember this even when the debates are heated...
Richard: Please define what you mean by "Catholic minutia." If by that you mean the doctrinal truths of the Catholic Faith, and if you don't think those truths to be important to one's salvation, then how is it you identify yourself as Catholic, i.e. what is it that makes someone a Catholic if not profession of the divinely-revealed truths of the Catholic Faith?
You see, for the orthodox people here, no matter how civil or uncivil they may be, it makes a difference to one's salvation what one believes. Christ certainly seemed to think so, and the Church has always taught so. If it really is minutia to you, then perhaps you don't grasp the orthodox belief that you are playing with fire with your approach to ideas and beliefs. That's why they're treating you so seriously.
As to being "positive" about things: I take that to mean certain or sure about some things. Is that what you meant? Again, you make that sound like a bad thing. "To have doubted one's own first principles is the mark of a civilized man," as Holmes said, has much merit. But one may profess the doctrines of the faith while acknowledging that some of those doctrines reflect truths that are incomprehensible to the human mind. It is indeed part of the Catholic faith to "let the mystery be," but that isn't _all_ of the Catholic faith. Again, if you reject those doctrines as being nothing more than minutia, how do you reconcile that with identifying yourself as Catholic? Are you afraid to ask yourself that question for fear of where it may lead you?
And, by the way, you skirt the same fallacious argument from authority that you seem to condemn in us when you play the role of wise old man--I'm 80, I've lived a long time, listen to my wisdom, grasshopper. So why is it ok in your case and not in ours to argue from authority?
Marc - I find nothing from the USCCB to be contrary to faith and morals. Do you? If so, the burden is yours to show, without any shred of doubt from any Catholic, that this is the case.
No bishop has ever tried to "sell" the USCCB's immigrtation policy as dogma. That is simply not the case. If you can show otherwise, do so.
We also had a Bishop recently say, "We do not need to be talking to students about saving their souls, we need to talk to them about saving the planet." Yeah, right, how 'bout them Bishops...LOL!
Father, as is clear from what I wrote, I didn't claim the USCCB was teaching contrary to the Church's teaching on faith and morals. If I was going to say the USCCB was acting in a contrary way to Catholic teaching, I would have said so.
The USCCB does a bad job, in my opinion, on a lot of things - like their handling (or lack thereof) of the abortion issue, so-called gay marriage, and the fight for Catholic religious freedom. Perhaps their doctrine is correct, but you can't tell it very clearly from their pastoral approach.
As for immigration -- Consider Abp. Gomez of Los Angeles recently claiming America is "losing its soul" over the issue of immigration. This is not a dogmatic issue and yet this archbishop is making it one. Reasonable Catholics can disagree on this issue. Surely one cannot lose one's soul over a debatable topic.
For me, I believe countries have a right to secure their borders. But, I don't know how to effectively handle the immigration issue in the US. But, Catholic teaching doesn't give an answer to this issue directly even though Abp. Gomez seems to think it does... That's my whole point. I don't necessarily disagree that the US should care for immigrants, but Catholics aren't compelled to support immigration reform by our dogma.
I hasten to add:
I am not knowledgeable enough about the topic of immigration reform to discuss it with any merit. Honestly, it's not an issue that interests me. In my line of work, I have encountered and represented immigrants. I sympathize with their plight, and I think our Christian duty calls us to allow no person to go be forced leave their homeland in search of basic necessities like food and safety. I'm just not sure how that duty works itself out in a geo-political way, so I can't really discuss the issue with any precision.
I do know that we could all come up with proposals and none of them would be dogmatic, though. So, this issue, unlike those involving intrinsic evil and the rights of the Church and her people, are not so clear that the USCCB should be lobbying politicians for some particular result. And yet, that appears to be a part of the USCCB's platform and activities.
Finally, it's not that I dislike the USCCB, I just think it is a worthless institution. I think it allows American bishops to push their own responsibilities to their flock off on others. Personally, I'd like to hear and obey my archbishop, but it seems like Cardinal Dolan is the only one we ever hear from.
In fact, my parish, during the General Intercessions prays for our archbishop and for Cardinal Dolan. Of course, Cardinal Dolan certainly needs and deserves our prayers. I just think the idea of the bishops' conference is antagonistic to the idea of subsidiarity and can poorly shape individual bishops and lead to their shirking their responsibilities to their own flocks.
Marc - "Losing its soul" is not a dogmatic statement, in any way shape, or form.
No one, not Abp Gomez or any other bishop, has ever said that the USCCB proposed reform of our immigration laws is a dogmatic issue. You are creating an argument where none exists.
The USCCB has a right and a duty to lobby politicians for reform of our nation's immigration policies (or financial policies, or drug testing policies, or military policies) because these policies directly impact the health and wellbeing of humans. These impacts are moral issues, and the bishops are teachers of morality.
Reasonable Catholics can surely disagree with a proposal by the USCCB, but they have to do so using the Church's teaching that underpins the proposals.
Post a Comment