The NcR has a kind of straightforward article on the Vatican’s “crackdown” on the National Conference of Catholic Bishop’s initiative to prevent Catholic governmental leaders from receiving Holy Communion because they enable genocide, infanticide and abortion on demand even in the last moment of pregnancy, normally called murder.
What the article below indicates is what I agree. Bishops’ conferences have no teaching authority. Each bishop is the teacher, ruler and sanctifier of his diocese.
My complaint is with the NcR and all progressive catholics. They praise that which they love even if their praise undermines their other ideologies which make them criticize the Vatican when they rule in a way that they don’t like.
Let’s take the CDF. Just how angry were the progressives when the CDF said no to the blessing of homosexual unions because the Church can only blessing sinners, not their sins. Do you recall the NcR’s reaction. And in terms of that statement, it had Pope Francis’ imprimatur! The NcR and other progressives were apoplectic and bending over frontwards and backwards to say that the CDF had fooled the pope into signing off on it. YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS THIS UP. And the statement about Communion—no such imprimatur from the pope as the homosexual document but progressives uphold it as infallible and definitive. NONSENSE.
And there seems to be glee amongst progressives that the German synod is pushing back on the Vatican and the Holy Father himself and going forward with apostasy especially as it concerns gender ideology and the destruction of the Catholic sacramental system.
That’s the problem with progressives, no ideological consistency, only hypocrisy.
13 comments:
The point is that most bishops in the US are uncomfortable teaching and would prefer to leave certain subjects to the carefully crafted statements that come out if the bureaucracy of the USCCB. So if the USCCB is silenced, then these Bishops can be counted on to stay silent as well. If the CDF rightly says that teaching authority rests with the Bishop, that’s largely irrelevant because the individual Bishops are not by nature able or willing to say anything about anything. Putting a muzzle on the USCCB means putting a muzzle on 90% of the Bishops, and the ends justify the means.
But that’s the way it is—the local bishop teaches, rules and sanctifies. He stands or falls accordingly. Thus you have Gomez, Neumann, Strickland and a whole host of bishops who are willing to be prophetic but others who a democrat operatives. It’s always been that way. Think back to King Henry VIII. How many went along with him for political expediency and to save their neck?
If only the English bishops in Henry's day had a national conference to issue a carefully crafted statement that both sides could agree with. We might have been saved all the trouble with exiling Catholics, beheadings and priest holes.
Yes, it is called the killing the prophetic voice of individual bishops and the pope and cowardice when it comes to potential martyrdom for being prophetic.
And if early Christians had just offered that pinch of incense so that people would LIKE them, and them avoided that whole persecution thing, just think where the religion would be today.
Just another of the thousands of bizarre ancient sects in Rome forgotten now by everybody.
A priest who posts here has earned one of these certificates!
Father McDonald said..."The NcR and other progressives were apoplectic and bending over frontwards and backwards to say that the CDF had fooled the pope into signing off on it. YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS THIS UP."
Father McDonalD, you are correct.
Certain left-wing "journalists/Vatican observers" did not support Rome's ruling against same-sex blessings.
Therefore, said folks attempted to fool their readers/listeners into having believed that His Holiness, Pope Francis, did not understand, or even had read, the CDF's document in question.
It is absurd that the liberals in question believed that sentient adult Catholics would have accepted as valid such nonsense. But then, speaking generally, the left-wing has, time and again, misrepresented Pope Francis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Pope Venerable Pius XII:
"We expressed the same view in our Christmas Address of 1948. It is better, we said, to facilitate the migration of families into those countries able to provide them with the essentials of life, than to send foodstuffs at great expense to refugee camps.
"Therefore, when Senators from the United States, who were members of a Committee on Immigration, visited Rome a few years ago, we again urged them to try to administer as liberally as possible the overly restrictive provisions of their immigration laws."
Pope Venerable K,
Then the Vatican City should take the immigrants in and put their money where their mouth is!
Here is something for Anonymous K to consider:
Imagine a politician said he or she was “personally opposed” to racial segregation, slavery, human trafficking, or cannibalism, but he said he supports the right of others to partake in such activities. Nobody would take such a ridiculous statement seriously. So why is the same logic so often condoned when it comes to abortion or euthanasia?
Actually, the bishops and priests giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians are the ones politicizing the Eucharist.
“Imagine a politician said he or she was “personally opposed” to racial segregation, slavery, human trafficking, or cannibalism, but he said he supports the right of others to partake in such activities. Nobody would take such a ridiculous statement seriously. So why is the same logic so often condoned when it comes to abortion or euthanasia?”
Spot on!
Anonymous at 1:11 pm,
Notice how Father K and resident “scholar” Anonymous 2 won’t touch that statement? It’s like kryptonite to Dems!
Father K and Anonymous 2 still have not responded. Has the New York Times not told them what to think yet?
Anonymous:
That’s right. I have no idea how to respond to your thought experiment because, try as I may, I cannot find any guidance in the New York Times.
In the meantime, while I continue searching, I have a little exercise for you. Please list all the similarities and differences between “racial segregation, slavery, human trafficking, or cannibalism” on the one hand, and “abortion” on the other.
When you have produced your list, perhaps you will have an answer, or at least the beginnings of an answer, to your thought experiment.
Post a Comment