FROM CRUX: (my astute comments embedded in red within the text.)
Speaking of the American context specifically, recently three of your fellow American cardinals and synod delegates had a meeting with Pope Francis to discuss challenges in the American Church. Many were surprised that you weren’t also part of that meeting. Is there a reason you didn’t participate?
I didn’t get the invitation. I didn’t get the invitation. I have no idea. I don’t know if they asked for the meeting or that the Holy Father asked them. I simply don’t know.
In a press conference Cardinal [Joseph] Tobin said he had requested the meeting with the pope…
I have no idea.
If you had been there, what do you think are some challenges that were important to discuss?
I would think the health of our ecclesial community would be one. Are we a healthy Church? That is, are we a healthy Church that’s rooted in the truth and living in the faith as best we can, practicing charity? And are we a Church that has something to say to the rest of the world? Why become a Catholic? (This is an astute comment and may be the reason the other three cardinals and the pope didn’t want him there as they don’t want to listen this kind of reasoning which is orthodox. Synodal Catholicism is infected with worldly concerns and talking, chattering, talking and incessantly talking about this, that and the other. It is neurotic talking. Did I say it is obsessed with talking?)
How do you think synodality can help in responding to these challenges?
It gets us talking to each other. One of the things that I am most impressed with, both last year’s gathering, this year’s gathering, is the fact that it’s an environment in which people can honestly speak to one another, hear one another, and not condemn one another. It’s a delightful opportunity to have someone raise an issue of significance that challenges me, to listen, to attempt to understand what’s prompting that opinion and maybe even to learn. A conversation that you enter into where you already have the answer is not a conversation. (And this is what Catholicism is reduced to under synodalism. It is all about, talking, talking, talking. Where are the perennial truths? Where is the call to perfection as St. Teresa of Avila demanded? Where is the call to repentance and individual reform, especially in the areas of ethics, addictions, self absorption and sexuality, most needed today? Where is any of that. No, neurotic and power hungry Catholics zwant power, decision making and their sinful lifestyles confirmed. They want nothing to do with sin, repentance and the call to holiness and a moral way of life. What a disaster for the Catholic Church, what Cardinal Pell stated, the last 13 years have been a catastrophe!)
13 comments:
Why is not the Cardinal and Pope not protesting the imprisonment of this African-American mother for peacefully protesting outside an abortionatorium?
In a heartbreaking plea to the American public, a devastated husband blasted the Biden-Harris regime after his wife, Bevelyn Beatty Williams, surrendered to federal authorities to begin her three-year prison sentence.
Her crime? Peacefully protesting outside an abortion clinic in violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.
On July 24th, in a Southern District Court, Judge Rochan handed down the harsh 3-year sentence, making it clear that Bevelyn was to be made an example for others.
“She told me before sentencing that I would not be defined by my sentence, but then proceeded to rip me away from my two-year-old daughter for three years,” Bevelyn said."
Every Catholic bishop and priest should be hanging their heads in shame. I have never been so ashamed of my "Church"
TJM:
“Her crime? Peacefully protesting outside an abortion clinic in violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.”
Now, I was not in the courtroom, and I know very little about this case. It may well be that this sentence was unjustly harsh. But I do think that, before evaluating the sentence, we should try to get the facts straight. Unless the Department of Justice is just lying, the defendant’s protests were hardly “peaceful”:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/tennessee-woman-sentenced-41-months-prison-violating-freedom-access-clinic-entrances
If you have evidence that the Department of Justice account is incorrect, please share it with us. Truth matters.
Mark J.
Speaking of Cardinal Gregory...
Also from Crux.: October 17, 2024 A.D.
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2024/10/d-c-cardinals-says-being-prolife-is-about-more-than-just-abortion
ROME – With less than a month to go before the United States presidential election, the cardinal archbishop of Washington has stressed the importance of having a broad understanding of key national challenges and has urged Catholics not to be single-issue voters.
Speaking to Crux while in Rome for this month’s Synod of Bishops on Synodality, Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington said, “No political party and certainly no individual candidate that I’ve experienced embraces the full range of Catholic social, moral teaching.”
“Obviously, the reverence, the respect of human life is a dominant concern,” he said, but added that the “umbrella of respect for human life” must also cover issues such as immigration, imprisonment and capital punishment, poverty, racism and depression among young people.
The Church must provide “a larger vision of, what does it mean to respect human life?” Gregory said, saying, “all who are engaged in public office have an obligation to help us to understand better the full panoply of human dignity.”
On the issue of abortion and whether a Catholic can in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate, Gregory said, “If you isolate it in those terms, does that mean you dispense with voting for someone who denigrates immigrants, who promotes capital punishment?”
“Yes, it is foundational, the dignity of unborn life, but does it dispense with all of the other awful proposals that are out there? Can I sleep saying I didn’t vote for this person because of their position on abortion, but I’ll ignore the other issues that also fall under the umbrella of the dignity of human life?” he said.
As Catholics, he said, “We have to say, look, it’s foundational, it’s the first moment of human dignity, but it’s not the last.”
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Perhaps one could argue that the American Church isn't his priority and his approach cannot become the priority.
Murder is the gravest offense again human life. Locking your home to keep illegal intruders out is not an offense against human life, but the intruder is offending your life. Governments have the authority, given them by the 4th Commandment, to make laws to protect their citizens from people breaking into the country illegally. There must be just laws for legal immigration. Deportation of those who break immigration laws is not murder. To equate the murder of children and preventing illegal immigration shows coloring book Catholicism with no basis in hierarchy of Catholic truths.
Father McDonald,
I am unsure what this expression “coloring book Catholicism” is supposed to mean—does it refer to immaturity as in children who use coloring books? If so, with respect, coloring book Catholicism is focusing ONLY on the issue of abortion and ignoring everything else or focusing ONLY on the issue of immigration and ignoring everything else. The USCCB document Faithful Citizenship provides good, mature guidance on how to avoid such coloring book Catholicism and how to form a mature Catholic conscience. Cardinal Gregory and Mark Thomas seem to have this more mature approach in mind.
Mark J.
Mark – The harm from a Catholic perspective that pro-abortion politicians have brought upon our country over the years is obvious. Can you point to a proportional harm that pro-life politicians have brought upon our country?
Dave,
I appreciate the question, but I am not going to answer it here, for two reasons.
First, both Father Kavanaugh and I have addressed the issue of “proportionate reasons” in numerous previous posts, and it is exhausting having to continually repeat oneself. Suffice it to say—yet again—that the USCCB documents carefully delineates the reasoning process that any conscientious Catholic should follow—and it most certainly admonishes against “single issue” voting.
Second, I think you are asking the wrong question with respect to the upcoming election. The question is not what pro-life politicians HAVE done in the past. But what they are LIKELY TO DO in the future. But I have in mind only one political candidate—Trump—who can hardly now be called pro-life anyway, although in his case the harm he has done in the past is likely to be replicated on steroids if he is reelected.
By the way I am not “shouting” with the “all caps” but they seem to only way to emphasize language on the Blog.
Mark J.
Mark – I see part of the discernment process evaluating what have those politicians, for whom I have voted, have done while in office. It is an indication of what they and politicians of similar ideology will likely continue to do.
I have seen posts from you discussing the USCCB guidance in the abstract of potential proportionate reasons as well as posts concerning Trump in particular, but I have not seen a post in which you describe how you have implemented the USCCB guidance in the past and discerned proportionate evil in policies supported in general by pro-life politicians. Maybe I missed such a post by you of that nature.
Regardless, I respect everyone’s personal decisions on their approach to using this forum including not responding to questions they prefer not to answer for any reason.
Dave,
You ask about pro-life politicians in general, but I do not understand how it is possible to identify harms wrought by such politicians “in general.” The question only makes sense to me when comparing individual politicians about whom one is called to make a conscientious decision.
And yes, I have in the past explained my reasoning regarding individual politicians, tracing the reasoning process and the multiple considerations the USCCB document identifies as part of that reasoning, although it is an exhausting process to do so. All someone on the other side is expected to do, it seems, is utter one word: Abortion. What those of us on the other side are expected to do, by contrast, is provide a lengthy discourse on our reasoning process despite the candidate’s position on abortion.
A little while ago I had had enough of playing this futile game. Why should those not voting for the so-called pro-life politician always be on the defensive? Why shouldn’t those supporting the so-called pro-life candidate be put on the defensive?
And so, as you may recall, I devised a very elementary thought experiment directed to those supporting Trump-Vance and the MAGA Republican Party:
“Imagine, for the sake of argument, that the Harris-Walz ticket and the Democratic Party is the pro-life ticket and party opposing abortion and that the Trump-Vance ticket and MAGA Republican Party is the pro-choice ticket and party supporting “reproductive freedom,” but everything else stays the same. Now examine your consciences and ask yourselves: Would I now vote for Harris-Walz and the Democrats or for Trump-Vance and the MAGA Republicans? If you are true to your principles and consciences, as presented here, you MUST vote for Harris-Walz and the Democrats, right?
“Consequently, it is only if you agree that you must vote for Harris-Walz and the Democrats that your arguments about abortion being the preeminent issue hold water and deserve respect because they are offered with complete sincerity and integrity. Otherwise, please stop it.
"Please understand that I am making no judgments about the sincerity and integrity of anyone here arguing that abortion is the preeminent issue and that one must therefore vote for Trump-Vance and the MAGA Republicans. I merely intend to invite a necessary introspection and seek to identify the conclusions that necessarily follow from such introspection.”
You know what the response was? Crickets. From which I inferred that those here attacking me and Father Kavanaugh for daring to suggest one might vote for Harris-Walz either lacked the necessary self-awareness to realize how they were using abortion to rationalize their support for Trump-Vance, or they were indeed self-aware and simply arguing in bad faith (in every sense of the word). I do not place you in either of those camps but assume you did not see the post.
[continued]
[continuation]
I am trying to be restrained but I have had it with Trump. He lies constantly, he cheats, he projects onto others exactly what he is (e.g., “the enemy within”), and he gaslights. In my view, those who refuse to acknowledge this are either blind or they just don’t care, perhaps because abortion is indeed the only issue that matters to them. But history will hold them responsible for what happens if he is re-elected (and even if he isn’t, because he has already laid the groundwork for claiming he won even if he loses)—despite his characteristic attempts to rewrite history.
Dave, I cannot abide lying. It makes me very, very angry—hopefully, a righteous anger. I know all politicians lie, but Trump and the Trump campaign lie constantly. Just yesterday, Lara Trump was at it again, lying about the $750 emergency disaster relief being a loan. It is NOT a loan. That is a bald-faced lie and she, Trump, and Vance know it. I suspect that the harm they have done by the disinformation (i.e., lies) they have propagated about hurricane disaster relief is incalculable.
So, I stand with all those former and current Republicans who reject Trump and MAGA, and with all those former members of the Trump Administration, including those such as John Kelly who regard Trump as an unabashed fascist. Consequently, yesterday I cast my vote for Harris-Walz.
Mark J.
Mark – Your hypothetical scenario is impossible to answer with certitude given that the discernment process related to conscience formation involves the key steps of prayer and listening for God’s voice. My ask of you was simply to describe your actual experiences with this process in which you decided not to vote for a prolife candidate not named Trump as the result of the discernment process, leading you to conclude that such candidate supported proportionate evil. An example would be helpful for discussion. If you have already posted one of this nature, I missed it. I will not ask again as I respect a decision on your part not to participate.
Back to your hypothetical, there is human reasoning as part of the discernment process. Part of the discernment process would be coming to a deeper understanding of Harris’ current positions to see if there is a proportionate evil given that her abortion position is off the table in your hypothetical. I cannot see myself voting for a candidate that has the extreme abortion position that she holds (which would be Trump’s in your hypothetical). But without going through spiritual component of the discernment process, this exercise has little value in my opinion.
I can also tell you that I have been in a similar position as your hypothetical as I was very liberal in my younger days (volunteer for one of Gary Hart’s primary runs as an example). It was largely the abortion issue that led to a decade-long process of moving to the other side of the political spectrum. Discussions with two pro-life women in particular and prayer helped me see that my “personally opposed but” position was no longer tenable as I came to the fuller realization of the grave evil of abortion.
Post a Comment