Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
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.
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.
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
Why would a priest need to be told by his superiors that a militant, practicing homosexual or advocate of sodomy could not receive communion?
INDEED . . .
Perhaps even a spritzer of the smell of the warmth of sulpher would be fitting . . . on the warm letter.
Don't hold your breath.
The clergy has been rubbing elbows with Leftist politicians for so long that nobody is afraid of them.
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.
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....
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
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.... or words to that effect."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."
INDEED.
LOL.
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.
**Catholic bishops: Shun lawmakers who voted for NY same-sex marriage**
Yes, do it! Shun them!
Independence is good, but disobedience is difficult to root out without it getting to being too monarchical
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.
acting independently is what’s happening and has happened
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.
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!
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.
Good points. Thx for the ping.
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.
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.