Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic bishops: Shun lawmakers who voted for NY same-sex marriage {Ecumenical thread}
beleiefnet.com ^ | 29.6.2011 | Elizabeth Tenety

Posted on 06/30/2011 1:10:26 AM PDT by Cronos

New York’s state’s Catholic bishops continue to blast the state’s passage of homosexual marriage this week, with one bishop calling on Catholic schools and other institutions to shun lawmakers in protest of the vote.

In an op-ed Sunday in the New York Daily News, Nicholas DiMarzio, bishop of Brooklyn, called on members of his diocese to “not to bestow or accept honors, nor to extend a platform of any kind to any state elected official, in all our parishes and churches for the foreseeable future,” a statement that may signal a new era in church-state relations in the Empire State.

Catholic bishops have previously fought high-profile battles with public officials who endorse policy positions contrary to official church teaching. The previous battleground was mostly limited to debates over the right to life, which is seen within Catholicism as a primary, inviolable value. (Catholics, the church teaches, may not vote for pro-choice politicians except for ‘grave reasons.’) But it is new that church leaders such as DiMarzio would include legislation on gay rights as sufficient cause to ostracize politicians.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism
KEYWORDS: gagdadbob; gaymafia; homosexualagenda; onecosmosblog; pinkalert
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-314 next last
Strong words, but strong enough?
1 posted on 06/30/2011 1:10:29 AM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; wagglebee; betty boop; xzins; P-Marlowe; Quix; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah
As requested, the Catholic church is going to do more than talk the talk. -- we call on our brethern to help us in this common fight against the common enemy

The previous battleground was mostly limited to debates over the right to life, which is seen within Catholicism as a primary, inviolable value. But it is new that church leaders such as DiMarzio would include legislation on gay rights as sufficient cause to ostracize politicians.

we have to ram this message into our CINO's heads and so too in the various denominations.

The politicos want the Church to not comment on these sins, but they want to interfere with us? hypocrites

2 posted on 06/30/2011 1:20:34 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

PROGRESS IS BETTER THAN THE OPPOSITE.


3 posted on 06/30/2011 2:43:57 AM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Quix

yes, and the next step in this progress is for all opponents of gay “marriage” to jointly get this farce repealed.


4 posted on 06/30/2011 3:23:03 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Quix
PROGRESS IS BETTER THAN THE OPPOSITE.

***************

[BUZ-Z-Z-Z-Z--E-E-R-R-RRR!!!!!]

THERE ARE TIMES WHEN GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION DEMANDS AN ABOUT-FACE RETRACING YOUR STEPS TO THE LAST POINT OF ERRONEOUS NAVIGATION....

THEN RESETTING YOUR COURSE ALONG THE PATHS OF LIFE THAT GOD DEEMS HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS IN HIS OWN SIGHT.

This is called "repentance".

5 posted on 06/30/2011 3:30:17 AM PDT by Wings-n-Wind (The main things are the plain things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Once more into the breach my dear friends. These arrogant leaders in NY hav e used lies and intimidation to redefine marriage against the will of the people., In their lying anti-God efforts which I openly accuse them of they generated polls o fpure fiction. The sdame polling agency found only 35-38 % of NY supported gay marriage the year before and magically that same agency (Quinnipiac) was not at 57% support less than a year later. Never mentioning the desire of the peoplet o allow for civil unions. So they liena nd lie and lie then forcibly pass MARRIAGE and fully know that this opens the box.

No other state has MARRIAGE like NY now will. and gee, isn’t it strange that not one of the 6 states with this have allowed the people to vote on it. Nope...judges and legislatures only.

Bastards! If for nothing else it is the deception they have used and the arrogance of power they have displayed that has me wanthing them all in jail for subversion o fthe will of the people.


6 posted on 06/30/2011 3:33:52 AM PDT by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I hope the leaders and pastors of theseGod-hating politicians will choose to take the right steps...

The sitting governor of New York should be shunned...
And summarily excused from fellowship of the congregation....
--AND--
...Lacking his sincere and demonstrative repentance...
....banned from The Lord's Table...

He made his choice-- and fought for his choice --
And signed his choice into state law--
--AND--
He will see to it that his immoral choices are enforced with the full weight of the law of the state.

It is now time for the ordained leaders of the church to make their difficult Biblical choice....

And put these so-called "leaders" out of fellowship!

Welcoming their repentance--they may be gently and cautiously restored...

If they shrug and walk off-- "Oh well -- those pesky Christians"...
--THEN--
We will know their professed "faith" and church membership was a sham from the get-go...

And we should let them go their way---

7 posted on 06/30/2011 3:43:58 AM PDT by Wings-n-Wind (The main things are the plain things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wings-n-Wind

I wholeheartedly agree.


8 posted on 06/30/2011 3:54:05 AM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wings-n-Wind

Sounds like plan. This world need solid ground not shifting sand.

Fine words are good.

Decisive action is even better.


9 posted on 06/30/2011 3:56:39 AM PDT by don-o (Please say a prayer for FReeper Just Lori.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wings-n-Wind; Cronos; Quix

There is no reason that the relevant bishop(s) should/could not write a warm letter to Cuomo, expressing concern over his wandering and defiance, urging him to reconsider his behavior, and then ‘medicinally’ excommunicating him.


10 posted on 06/30/2011 4:10:52 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wings-n-Wind

their professed faith has already been proven a sham when they voted yes on this bill. I could still be ok with one who abstained, but a true Christian would have voted No. Those who voted yes have already committed self-excommunication


11 posted on 06/30/2011 4:36:45 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

he can’t reconsider — it’s already signed into law. They need to say “you’re out. Join Gene Robinson’s bunch. Buh-bye.”


12 posted on 06/30/2011 4:37:42 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

The laws of the Empire State are of less concern than the soul of the governor, his consort, the legislators, and the people. Even if the governor’s signing the bill is scarlet, through repentance he can be made whiter than snow.

In other words, I think the bishops themselves need to do a gut check, focus their minds on their pastoral call and duty, and “come from” that perspective.

Then even their excommunication of Cuomo would BE evangelical, whether or not it was perceived as such.


13 posted on 06/30/2011 4:53:51 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

The laws of the Empire State are of less concern than the soul of the governor, his consort, the legislators, and the people. Even if the governor’s signing the bill is scarlet, through repentance he can be made whiter than snow.

In other words, I think the bishops themselves need to do a gut check, focus their minds on their pastoral call and duty, and “come from” that perspective.

Then even their excommunication of Cuomo would BE evangelical, whether or not it was perceived as such.


14 posted on 06/30/2011 4:59:35 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Nothing will be done.


15 posted on 06/30/2011 5:02:10 AM PDT by seoul62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Strong words, but strong enough?

Actions, and inactions, speak louder.

16 posted on 06/30/2011 6:33:12 AM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seoul62
Nothing will be done.

You are right, nothing will be done. In fact, the already homosexualized Catholic diocese will be emboldened to affirm and promote perversion even more, without so much as a peep from bishops.

17 posted on 06/30/2011 6:35:29 AM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
not sure what would be a good action. Archbishop Dolan ran a pretty vocal campaign against this

Next would be sending out a circular to all priests in NY that these guys are not to receive communion

18 posted on 06/30/2011 6:40:09 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: fwdude; seoul62
Actually the diocese is not homosexualised, and the gays will leave to join the ECUSA.

what will be done is witholding communion from them. Beyond this, the archbishop can't do much, right? He's already vocally opposed the bill and the Church will continue to oppose it

And Cuomo etc. have already excommunicated themselves.

19 posted on 06/30/2011 6:43:22 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; neverdem
Thanks for the ping, Cronos!

As requested, the Catholic church is going to do more than talk the talk. -- we call on our brethern to help us in this common fight against the common enemy

neverdem, would you kindly use your New York ping list to ask Freeper-constituents in New York to contact their own religious leaders to stand with the Catholics against this abomination?

20 posted on 06/30/2011 6:56:48 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Out of the entire Bible to choose from, the readings at Mass earlier in the week dealt with Sodom and Gomorrah.

I don’t think that’s an accident myself.


21 posted on 06/30/2011 7:10:32 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

I agree, there would be nothing wrong to publicly state that the actions of public Catholics have resulted in excommunicating themselves, and requiring a public admission from them that they were wrong if they want to repent. Otherwise the laity gets the impression that despite all the clear teaching on the issue it must not be too big of a deal when you get right down to it. Public discipline has a teaching function beyond that just the soul of the sinner, it can inform others of the gravity of the subject. Ask any teacher if they can effectively teach without using some form of public discipline.

Bishop skulls and the paving stones of hell have gone together since the begining of the Church. Hopefully some bishops will realize that by striving to never exhibit conflict in an attempt to be “pastoral” they are actually being very much less than “pastoral”.

Freegards


22 posted on 06/30/2011 7:11:03 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Why would a priest need to be told by his superiors that a militant, practicing homosexual or advocate of sodomy could not receive communion?


23 posted on 06/30/2011 8:12:46 AM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

INDEED . . .

Perhaps even a spritzer of the smell of the warmth of sulpher would be fitting . . . on the warm letter.


24 posted on 06/30/2011 9:04:04 AM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Next would be sending out a circular to all priests in NY that these guys are not to receive communion

Don't hold your breath.

The clergy has been rubbing elbows with Leftist politicians for so long that nobody is afraid of them.

25 posted on 06/30/2011 10:41:16 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.' - Homer Simpson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

This should have been happening across the country, and years ago. So many Catholics complicit in abortion with their votes, and very little said about it; in fact, “Catholic” states went to Gore, Kerry, and Obama. The Vatican should have replaced the whole American hierarchy.


26 posted on 06/30/2011 6:06:58 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix

LOL!

Let’s send a case of “Brimstone Brulé” cologne to every bishop in NY state, with instructions on how to spray it on paper....


27 posted on 06/30/2011 7:07:47 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Elendur; it_ürür; Bockscar; Mary Kochan; Bed_Zeppelin; YellowRoseofTx; Rashputin; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


28 posted on 06/30/2011 7:11:40 PM PDT by narses ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed
Heck, aside from the example, there's the sinner himself. The parent who never follows through seems like he doesn't mean it and the offense discussed seems like it is "not really so bad."

I can envision a letter saying something like,

"I am sure you don't really understand why I am taking this action. You may think it has to do with defects of my character or even my psychological health. The Lord knows better than I (and, I dare say, far better even than you, governor) my defects and psycho-pathologies. But this is about far more about what the Catholic Church teaches and holds to be important than it is about you or me.

"Despite repeated and sincere advice from those whose office in the Church is precisely to give such advice as well as to enforce pastorally the discipline of the Church, you have persisted in living an openly scandalous life, and have now endorsed a law providing state sanction for what the Church teaches to be a grave sin, an ethical and metaphysical impossibility, and a serious threat to souls.

"Intelligent people of good will might disagree about these things. But no intelligent and thoughtful person can fail to see that when a bishop turns a blind eye to open and notorious fornication and to the endorsement of the grave sin of sodomy he not only confuses the innocent, but neglects his duty to the sinner.

"That you may not understand why I do this is regrettable. But for me to fail to do it would be worse than regrettable, it would be treasonous, careless, and cowardly.

"Therefore, with deep regret and with fervent prayers for your spiritual growth, I must ask you not to present yourself to receive the Blesses Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood and I must direct all the clergy under my care not to give you the Sacrament if you should present yourself to receive it.

"May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit amend what is defective in both of us and bring us to speedy reconciliation."

... or words to that effect.
29 posted on 06/30/2011 7:33:46 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

INDEED.

LOL.


30 posted on 06/30/2011 7:34:48 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

Well put . . .

Perhaps it could be printed on . . . what would be fitting . . .

pondering . . .

toilet paper? Has some possibilities.

Hmmmmm . . .

I hear there’s edible undies.

Print it on some of those.

And suggest that perhaps the Bishop’s homosexual friends would be happy to help the bishop eat the words if he has trouble digesting them mentally.


31 posted on 06/30/2011 7:37:48 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

**Catholic bishops: Shun lawmakers who voted for NY same-sex marriage**

Yes, do it! Shun them!


32 posted on 06/30/2011 7:46:40 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
It's too darn difficult -- the Bishops still have some independence. It's good in some cases, but bad in others. There was the case of a Bishop in Australia who was gently asked why he preached against doctrine. He took 10 months to reply. Then the v asked him to resign. he took another 10 months to reply back "no". Finally they had to push him out.

Independence is good, but disobedience is difficult to root out without it getting to being too monarchical

33 posted on 07/01/2011 1:00:22 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

I don’t think there is any room for “independence” in the Church hierarchy; Luther was the logical extension of that mindset. While these disputes go on, people are dying and souls are lost; what could justify that? When Jesus told the rich man to give up his possessions and follow Him, and the man sadly turned away, Jesus didn’t run after him and say, “How about half the possessions?”. There is truth, and Satan’s deceit, and no reason to permit the latter because of diplomacy or the like.


34 posted on 07/01/2011 2:29:10 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

acting independently is what’s happening and has happened


35 posted on 07/01/2011 2:42:57 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

I understand that, and the flock has acted independently in deciding that the sacraments (in fact the Church as well) are no longer necessary. The hierarchy may react when the coffers are empty; that certainly spurred a lot of action on removing gay priests.


36 posted on 07/01/2011 2:54:45 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Alamo-Girl; wagglebee; MHGinTN; xzins; P-Marlowe; metmom; Quix; DJ MacWoW; ...
The previous battleground was mostly limited to debates over the right to life, which is seen within Catholicism as a primary, inviolable value. But it is new that church leaders such as DiMarzio would include legislation on gay rights as sufficient cause to ostracize politicians.

Well, the Church shouldn't try to mess with legislation. For one thing, that would be beneath the dignity of the Church, IMHO. It is not her role to minister to temporal, secular considerations.

But I don't think that's what DiMarzio is doing. His is an appeal to Catholic conscience, and the duties appertaining thereto.

Which, of course, will give the atheists, the Randians, and other ill-sorted distorted types a rash.... :^) NO RELIGIOUS INSIGHTS OR CONVICTIONS WHATSOEVER can ever intrude on the so-called "perfect societies" they are constructing in their minds....

On the other hand, I am sickened when self-described "Catholic" politicians — who presumably ought to know better, if they understand and live in the moral authority of the Church — not only sign legislation making gay marriage "legal" in New York; but then hold forth in full-throated, passionate cry for some ten minutes at least, about how "equality" has been extended to formerly persecuted American citizens. It's all about "Social Justice," you see!!!

Andrew Cuomo's orchestration and legitimization of gay marriage in New York necessarily involves the rejection of the very definition and justification of marriage that first emerged (according to a commonly accepted anthropological account) at the onset of male–female bonding, thought to have first occurred some 40 millennia or so ago....

On this account, "marriage" has been from the first about male protection of females, the bearers of their progeny; and the progeny born of their union in the reproductive act; i.e., the children produced within this exclusive bond.

Now, in New York — as in my home state, Massachusetts — "marriage" has nothing whatever to so with such considerations. Now, it's all about "legally" expressing one's personal sexual preferences. Or gender identification. Whatever. The emphasis here seems to be the rule of immediate self-gratification trumps all concerns about families and children.

Which, of course, has enormous social implications. The best way to undermine the foundation of American society, it seems to me, is to attack it at its basic unit — the family.

Which, of course, the "gay"–"rights" movement has been doing ever since it got started....

I sort of think that was about the 1930s, under the Weimar Republic, in Germany. Two films are useful viewing on this question: Bob Fosse's Cabaret, and Blake Edwards' Victor/Victoria.

Victor/Victoria is more to our point. But Cabaret perfectly captures the fundamental culture of total amorality, which as an historical fact actually produced — by "democratic means" — the total nightmare of Hitler and Nazism, and the furies of Hell he released on the world....

Good movies sometimes can tell you some useful things. Personally speaking, I find Cabaret and Victor/Victoria have been well worth viewing.

My sympathies are with DiMarzio on this question.

Thank you so much for writing, dear Cronos!

37 posted on 07/01/2011 1:57:37 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through, the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Cronos
Well, the Church shouldn't try to mess with legislation. For one thing, that would be beneath the dignity of the Church, IMHO. It is not her role to minister to temporal, secular considerations.

I disagree. If the church isn't concerned with legislation that directly affects AND infects society, then who should? And what then is the churches role? ANY church? Aren't believers to speak against sin? That includes the body, which is the church.

38 posted on 07/01/2011 4:36:34 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are at your door! How will you answer the knock?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Good points. Thx for the ping.


39 posted on 07/01/2011 7:23:51 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; Mind-numbed Robot; xzins; metmom; Quix; stfassisi
If the church isn't concerned with legislation that directly affects AND infects society, then who should? And what then is the churches role? ANY church? Aren't believers to speak against sin? That includes the body, which is the church.

Are you arguing that, e.g., Congressman Father Robert Drinan, S.J., was acting within his authority as a Catholic priest when he was serving in Congress?

If so, then why did Pope John Paul II give him the ultimatum: Resign from Congress, or resign from the priesthood?

As it turned out, Father Drinan resigned Congress.

He was a representative from my home state of Massachusetts, though not from my district. I was so relieved when he resigned. He was a bastion of "Social Justice," the "mild" form of Liberation Theology....

I have noticed this: Whenever the Democrat Party gets "religious," it always uses the language of Social Justice.... That is, it hijacks bastardized Christian themes — "Liberation Theology" — in order to alienate God's children from their Father, so to enslave them to and by the State....

That sort of thing does not accord very well with the values and principles that inform the Constitution of the United States — which guarantees religious liberty, liberty of conscience, to all its citizens.

I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church has a problem with the U.S. Constitution. JMHO, FWIW. At least not from the standpoint of Christian orthodoxy issuing from Rome.

But I do wonder, and fear, that the American Church has succumbed so much to the Kultursmog. The American Church has too much accommodated itself to the Zietgeist, the Spirit of the Age....

But it wouldn't be alone among Christian confessions/denominations in doing so.

40 posted on 07/01/2011 8:30:09 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through, the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
It is possible, as you inferred, that it is all related to this, a partial list of Communists Goals:

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

In addition, what should a priest's duty be toward a member who ran a whore house, dealt drugs, laundered money, etc.? After all, a Congressman's job is legislation. What should the church's attitude be toward atheists, rejection of them or rejection of their non-belief?

I am reminded of Jesus consorting with the ne'er do wells in the taverns because "That is where the sinners are."

These questions are not for you, betty boop. I think I know your answer but it is intended for general consideration and discussion if so desired.

41 posted on 07/02/2011 4:37:14 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (I retain the right to be inconsistent, contradictory and even flat-out wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

“”I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church has a problem with the U.S. Constitution. JMHO, FWIW. At least not from the standpoint of Christian orthodoxy issuing from Rome.”””

Actually,dear sister,the Church does have some problems with the constitution because of it’s too open ended and speaks of freedom and liberty with defining liberty and freedom in a complete Christian sense.

There are certain things in the constitution that have an outward Catholic shell which is ingrained in america’s founding fathers whether they realized it or not because even the forerunners of the reformation did not lose all Catholic tradition because it’s impassible to be a Christian and shed many of Catholic teaching.

Unfortunately, there was an inward rot that came from the enlightenment and the reformation that also had influence in the constitution that is rearing it’s ugly head of pragmatism and pluralism that lead to immorality being accepted as freedom and liberty

There are some good things in the constitution and there are some bad things which can be dangerous to a Christian as well

Pope Leo XIII wrote the following Encyclical on Americanism because he rightfully and correctly saw the dangers of this system
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L13TESTE.HTM

Here are some excerpts

The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: “For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.” —Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.

We cannot consider as altogether blameless the silence which purposely leads to the omission or neglect of some of the principles of Christian doctrine, for all the principles come from the same Author and Master, “the Only Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father.”—John i, 18. They are adapted to all times and all nations, as is clearly seen from the words of our Lord to His apostles: “Going, therefore, teach all nations; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all days, even to the end of the world.”—Matt. xxviii, 19. Concerning this point the Vatican Council says: “All those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.”—Const. de fide, Chapter iii.

Let it be far from anyone’s mind to suppress for any reason any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ. There is nothing closer to our heart than to have those who are separated from the fold of Christ return to it, but in no other way than the way pointed out by Christ.

The rule of life laid down for Catholics is not of such a nature that it cannot accommodate itself to the exigencies of various times and places. (VOL. XXIV-13.) The Church has, guided by her Divine Master, a kind and merciful spirit, for which reason from the very beginning she has been what St. Paul said of himself: “I became all things to all men that I might save all.”

History proves clearly that the Apostolic See, to which has been entrusted the mission not only of teaching but of governing the whole Church, has continued “in one and the same doctrine, one and the same sense, and one and the same judgment,”—Const. de fide, Chapter iv.

But in regard to ways of living she has been accustomed to so yield that, the divine principle of morals being kept intact, she has never neglected to accommodate herself to the character and genius of the nations which she embraces.

Who can doubt that she will act in this same spirit again if the salvation of souls requires it? In this matter the Church must be the judge, not private men who are often deceived by the appearance of right. In this, all who wish to escape the blame of our predecessor, Pius the Sixth, must concur. He condemned as injurious to the Church and the spirit of God who guides her the doctrine contained in proposition lxxviii of the Synod of Pistoia, “that the discipline made and approved by the Church should be submitted to examination, as if the Church could frame a code of laws useless or heavier than human liberty can bear.”

But, beloved son, in this present matter of which we are speaking, there is even a greater danger and a more manifest opposition to Catholic doctrine and discipline in that opinion of the lovers of novelty, according to which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the Church, that her supervision and watchfulness being in some sense lessened, allowance be granted the faithful, each one to follow out more freely the leading of his own mind and the trend of his own proper activity. They are of opinion that such liberty has its counterpart in the newly given civil freedom which is now the right and the foundation of almost every secular state.

In the apostolic letters concerning the constitution of states, addressed by us to the bishops of the whole Church, we discussed this point at length; and there set forth the difference existing between the Church, which is a divine society, and all other social human organizations which depend simply on free will and choice of men.

It is well, then, to particularly direct attention to the opinion which serves as the argument in behalf of this greater liberty sought for and recommended to Catholics


42 posted on 07/02/2011 6:06:32 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; betty boop

it’s impassible= it’s impossible


43 posted on 07/02/2011 6:08:26 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
interesting post -- I've not watched Cabaret.

you captured it correctly by pointing out how Naziism and Communism are amoral.

The furies of hell that the Nazis unleashed on Western and Eastern Europe are just a continuation of the hell that the Soviets unleashed in Russia.

44 posted on 07/04/2011 6:34:21 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
What worries me a lot about Naziism and communism is that they were historically inevitable from about the year 1500.

The Kingdom of Prussia started off as a kingdom of the Teutonic knights. They were defeated by Poland-Lithuania-Ruthenia with Czech and Rus support at the battle of Grunwald in 1410, and then later in 1456, but the Poles did not crush them, when they should have. The Teutonic knights continued, their grand-mastership becoming hereditary for the Hohenzollern family of Brandenburg

Then, post the Reformation, the Teutonic knights secularised and the Grand-Master became Lutheran and married and set up his own dynasty.

This would have been a good time for the Poles to destroy Prussia, but the Polish King (who was actually Swedish) Zygmunt Vasa allowed the Grand Master Albert Hohenzollern to let Prussia become a duchy on its own rights

Soon, by the 1700s this vile state was an army with a state with 40% or more of the state GDP dedicated to the military.

The Southern and Western Germans (Catholics AND Lutherans) despised the Prussians as uncultured, highly militarized barbarians

But the Prussians won and won, only defeated by the equally devilish Napoleon.

The German Empire they created in 1870 was an antithesis to the Germans of before -- where civil liberties, even religious ones were completely co-opted by the state. in the early 1800s the King of Prussia forced the Lutherans and Calvinists to unite even though they had utterly different fundamental beliefs. Net result -- people stopped believing in either and the resulting unity church became a state department

This intensely militarized society in 1870 inevitably led to World War I

Post WWI, this should have been exorcised, Germany split into north and south, but from the "stab in the back" conspiracy theory to the Beer-hall putsch to 1933 the rise was inevitable

45 posted on 07/04/2011 6:47:07 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; Alamo-Girl; Mind-numbed Robot; Matchett-PI; xzins; metmom; Quix; P-Marlowe; MHGinTN; ...
Dear brother in Christ, you wrote:

... the Church does have some problems with the constitution because of it’s too open ended and speaks of freedom and liberty with defining liberty and freedom in a complete Christian sense.... There are certain things in the constitution that have an outward Catholic shell which is ingrained in america’s founding fathers whether they realized it or not because even the forerunners of the reformation did not lose all Catholic tradition because it’s impassible to be a Christian and shed many of Catholic teaching.

Thank you for this insight. But what does this have to do with the U.S. Constitution?

Thank you for the magnificent meditation from Pope Leo XVIII — a world-class thinker in addition to his central importance as fearless defender of the Magisterium, a man of peerless impeccability in the transmission of the Holy Faith, a man deeply imbued in Truth in and by the Spirit of our Lord.

But Pope Leo didn't have a single word to say about the U.S. Constitution in these passages. Nor arguably, about anything having to do with specifically American culture....

Most Americans who know American history — Catholic or otherwise — know that the Constitution is not a prescription for how a man should live — in stark contradistinction to the moral law conveyed by the Magisterium of the Church.

The Constitution does not in any way establish the rights and duties of citizens. Rather, its sole purpose is to establish limits on the State, such that it cannot invade, violate, or abridge the God-given rights and duties of human individuals. The idea here is that it is not the State — the government, that is, at whatever level — that establishes what the revolutionary French (and later Karl Marx) declared to be "the rights of man." (We all know how that turned out.) Rather, the so-called "rights of man" are natural, innate liberties, preceding any form of government — because they are imbued in man by his Creator. That being so, no human institution can touch them. These unalienable rights are three in number: Life, Liberty, and the "pursuit of happiness" (e.g., private property sufficient to set a man free from basic want, so to pursue the "higher ends" of life in this world, presumably with a view to his life beyond it. At least I believe that is how the Framers of the Constitution looked at the problem.).

So since the Constitution is a negative constraint on overweening state power, and since it does not in any way suggest how an individual person ought to conduct his life, why blame the Constitution for the current moral degradation of modern American society? Pope Leo doesn't do that, in the admonition you quote, dear brother in Christ. Rather it seems to me, he is admonishing his bishops and the churches for their "compromise" with the Spirit of the Age, so to restock the church pews....

It is not a government's job to make people moral. That is the job of the churches. If the churches are failing in that duty, then we are stuck with a very ancient problem, IIRC first articulated by Plato: Any human society is only as good as the "human capital" (not his word) that composes it. If the people are disordered, then the State will be disordered. No positive law enacted by the State can cure that condition, nor make a society "good" in the absence of "good" people. Though an overweening State will always find a pretext to sell its plan to do just that. And any State is as it were "naturally" disposed to love Power more than Truth.

Which eternally threatens God-given human liberty, and even reason itself. God demands the essential condition of liberty for men, that they may freely choose Him. Or not as the case may be. No legitimate State can interfere with, constrain, or abridge this essential God–man relation, this ultimate choice that men make in their lives — a/k/a the right of exercise of free conscience.

Certainly I agree with you, dear stfassisi, that the American moral order has become quite degraded by now; and the "fruits" of the Enlightenment as they are now understood "by your average American" are probably partially to blame.

By that I mean the Enlightenment established the so-called "scientific method" as the sine qua non of human rationality. The only problem with the scientific method, it seems to me, is that it deals almost exclusively with direct observables. And yet, the things that are most important, most valuable, to humankind do not involve direct observables at all. Arguably, all such pertain to "unseen things"....

Today's verdict in the Casey Anthony trial illustrates the point I'm trying to make. I was quite surprised that Ms. Anthony had been exonerated by this jury of any category of homicide. Which I found puzzling; because IIRC, Judge Belvin Perry gave highly detailed jury instructions regarding the homicide charge: How the jury "justly" could find for first-degree murder "beyond a reasonable doubt"; or second-degree murder; or aggravated homicide involving a child, and one other I now forget. Judge "beautiful wine" further instructed the jury to find the "highest" offense proved by the State to either convict Ms. Anthony, or set her free.

My big surprise was not that, on the first count, the jury absolved Ms. Anthony of first-degree murder. What amazed me was their entire silence on the other three first-count potential charges. Didn't Judge Belvin Perry's jury instructrions require them to speak to these other potential charges? P-Marlowe, trusted counselor, what did I miss?

Anyhoot, the jury has spoken. Now I wonder what justice was served today — for either Casey Anthony, or for her dead child, Caylee — who assuredly did not murder herself?

But then again, reflecting on the poisonous state of American moral understanding these days, with a public that tolerates the wanton murder of a million American pre-borns a year, maybe what this case finally tells us is that the worth and natural rights of a pre-born child are not only null and void under American "jurisprudence"; but also that our society will not protect the the rights and life of an already-born child somewhere between the age of two and three....

Along this course of reasoning, it's not difficult to imagine that the unalienable right to life of any person of any age could be annulled by a contemporary American jury, if their "reasonable doubt" is sufficiently well-invoked. A most sickening thought....

What this case boiled down to was contending "expert evidence" that an uninformed and mildly educated jury was put into the position of having to evaluate. Reliable sources describe this jury — imported from Pinellas County — as "low-to-moderate" wage earners, mainly high school graduates, although one jury member didn't complete high school, and one other had a masters degree. My guess is these these jurors were so daunted by the expert evidence that there was absolutely no way they could have had anything but a "reasonable doubt" pertaining to it.

Which isn't to say that juries are stupid. It's just to say that the so-called "scientific method" has become such an idol in these days, that this jury ritually bowed their knee to it, suppressing absolutely everything they know from their own life experience and simple common sense.

My dear brother in Christ, this is not a "government problem." This is a cultural problem, finally a citizen problem.

Don't blame the U.S. Constitution for failings of the human spirit. Don't blame the courts for the peoples' ignorance.

If such exist, to me is seems the blame falls squarely on the institutions who are appointed by God to deal with issues of the human spirit and its Truth.

Thank you so very much for writing, my dear brother in Christ! I'm sorry my reply is so belated....

46 posted on 07/05/2011 3:06:55 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through, the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you for this insight. But what does this have to do with the U.S. Constitution?

The constitution is a product of enlightenment thinking and has certain protestant influence of nothing definitive when it speaks of liberty. Pluralism and pragmatism only leads to confusion of souls. As I said ,there are certain elements that are borrowed from Catholicism but they are not defined and concrete,but at least we can be grateful that these certain elements have been placed there by God

Liberty is definitive in Catholicism and it DEFINES sins that "liberates" a person to be free from sin by following dogmatic laws given by God to His Church

The constitution says we have "Unalienable Rights From God" which means nothing without being defined what these rights are in relation to sin against God being defined.

This is why pornography , abortion, gay marriage etc.. can be allowed as pursuit of happiness, freedom and liberty in this system that will eventually collapse it from within.

But Pope Leo didn't have a single word to say about the U.S. Constitution in these passages. Nor arguably, about anything having to do with specifically American culture.

His encyclical on Americanism does not have to mention the Constitution because it's pretty clear he understood that it embodies a NEW form of liberty that is NOT Divinely inspired.

What do you suppose Pope Leo is speaking of when he says the following statement on Americanism in his encyclical?

""These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church's teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty.""

Most Americans who know American history — Catholic or otherwise — know that the Constitution is not a prescription for how a man should live

Are you suggesting a Catholic should follow a document with many protestant enlightenment inspired idea's rather than what the Church actually teaches as if God usurped Church teaching and made the US a new sort of church founded by him?

The reason why the American Catholic church has faltered at times is because it made this mistake,dear sister!

47 posted on 07/05/2011 4:22:14 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; Alamo-Girl; Mind-numbed Robot; Matchett-PI; xzins; metmom; Quix; P-Marlowe; MHGinTN
His encyclical on Americanism does not have to mention the Constitution because it's pretty clear he understood that it embodies a NEW form of liberty that is NOT Divinely inspired.

In what way is Pope Leo's encyclical specifically about "Americanism?" In what way is the American idea not "divinely inspired?"

The Constitution is silent about a man's — a citizen's  — "Unalienable Rights From God." It is only the Declaration of Independence — our most basic and morally foundational document — that speaks those words. The Constitution itself speaks the language, not of God directly, but of "We the People" — a people who simply wished to live their lives "under God" directly, without harassment from the government.

And you think somehow this typical expression of pure "American liberty" is "chopped liver???"

If so, you do not have a clue about the exceptional American Project....

Because we want to live "under God," the State HAS to be curtailed in its power.

That is what the Constitution — precisely — is aimed at doing.

In which We the People constrain the government from interfering with, abridging, or annulling the free exercise of our God-given liberties.

A man cannot live under "two masters." Capice???

To that I will only add: If this is what you learn in your Church, then I would not be amenable to becoming a member of your Church.

Such a thing, to me, would stink of "social justice" thinking. And as long as the Holy Spirit abides with me, I cannot accept such thinking. And will not abide with it.

I'm a CHRISTIAN. AND an American.

I love my God first; after that, the country of my birth.

The Constitution of the United States of America is what brings these two commitments into alignment for me, in my personal life.

Thank you so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!

48 posted on 07/05/2011 4:57:38 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through, the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Sorry , I scanned through and forgot to see you said Constitution is “not” a prescription for how a man should live

Than what is the point of including the word God in the constitution if it has no prescription of how man should live?


49 posted on 07/05/2011 4:59:47 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
In what way is Pope Leo's encyclical specifically about "Americanism?"

The Encyclical is about Americanism,dear sister.It does not get any plainer than that

In what way is the American idea not "divinely inspired?"

Legal Abortion,Pornography, etc..If it was founded in the Divine it could never be legal and there would be laws against these atrocities.

""And you think somehow this typical expression of pure "American liberty" is "chopped liver???""

Pure liberty is freedom from sin and there would be laws defining that sin in a divinely inspired system system-only the Church has been given that system,not America

50 posted on 07/05/2011 5:20:17 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-314 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson