Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bishop Confirms National Catholic Reporter is Not a 'Catholic' Publication
Catholic Culture ^ | 1/25/13

Posted on 01/26/2013 7:11:01 AM PST by marshmallow

Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, Missouri, has confirmed that the National Catholic Reporter should not advertise itself as a “Catholic” publication.

In a column appearing in his diocesan newspaper, Bishop Finn notes that he, as the bishop of the diocese in which the Reporter is located, has the duty to “call the media to fidelity.” He cites the Code of Canon Law, which (in #1369) calls for “a just penalty” for anyone who “excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.”

The National Catholic Reporter, Bishop Finn remarks, has taken an editorial stance that puts the publication at odds with the Church, by “officially condemning Church teaching on the ordination of women, insistent undermining of Church teaching on artificial contraception and sexual morality in general, lionizing dissident theologies while rejecting established Magisterial teaching, and a litany of other issues.” He reveals that he has received numerous complaints about the Reporter’s editorial policies.

(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Theology
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

1 posted on 01/26/2013 7:11:15 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Another attempt to destroy our society by breaking down our beliefs and standards.


2 posted on 01/26/2013 7:17:43 AM PST by CarmichaelPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Next you’ll tell me the Christian Science Monitor isn’t Christian. /snark


3 posted on 01/26/2013 7:20:20 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Nice start, but does the Press Office of the Holy See speak for the church?

Seems I recall some apologists attempting to make the claim that it does not, regarding a statement in support of recent gun restriction and control efforts by the Obama administration.

So, does the Press Office of the Holy See speak for the church, or not? If not, should it too cease being called Catholic?


4 posted on 01/26/2013 7:32:34 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

It is the job of of the Press Office to release reports or other info from Vatican. If a member uses it to give their opinion on an issue, then it is just their opinion. The resent remark about guns was somewhat on the order of “it is good to limit violence”, which even the NRA would agree with.


5 posted on 01/26/2013 7:43:43 AM PST by cotton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cotton

So, Fr. Federico Lombardi, sj, Director of the Press Office of the Holy See, was merely offering personal opinion via his capacity as director of that office?

What, then, is the position of the church? Does Fr. Federico Lombardi speak in opposition to it? Or, does he speak in support of it?

Is he not under obedience?

Interesting surname for a Vatican spokesman, by the way, Lombardi, historically speaking.


6 posted on 01/26/2013 7:53:26 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...
... the rest of the story.


Bishop Finn reminds his readers that in 1968 his predecessor, Bishop Charles Helmsing, directed the editors of the Reporter to remove the word “Catholic” from the title of their publication. The newspaper’s editors refused. Bishop Finn says: “From my perspective, NCR’s positions against authentic Church teaching and leadership have not changed trajectory in the intervening decades.”

The bishop discloses that soon after arriving in Kansas City, he sought to engage the Reporter editors in a discussion of their fidelity to the Catholic Church, but was rebuffed. “At other times, correspondence has seemed to reach a dead end,” he adds.

Bishop Finn concludes that “I have a responsibility as the local bishop to instruct the Faithful about the problematic nature of this media source which bears the name 'Catholic.'” He says that he remains willing to discuss the issue with the Reporter staff, but as things stand, “I find that my ability to influence the National Catholic Reporter toward fidelity to the Church seems limited to the supernatural level.”

7 posted on 01/26/2013 7:58:00 AM PST by NYer ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

I have never seen the Church take a position on ‘gun control’ for citizens. They would oppose the ‘gun violence’ by criminal elements. Fr. Federico Lombardi may have used incorrect wording in the statement and showed his feelings rather than any Church position. The report by Bishop Finn was re:Reporter posting opposition to moral and doctrine teaching of the Church.


8 posted on 01/26/2013 8:10:11 AM PST by cotton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cotton

I’ve certainly seen the Southern Baptist Convention do it.

http://m.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=13370


9 posted on 01/26/2013 8:37:07 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer

True.

And not to be confused with the very good “National Catholic Register”.


10 posted on 01/26/2013 8:38:19 AM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

There might be a legal way to neuter the NCR with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), by catching it pirating copyrighted material produced by the church.

Granted, the word “Catholic” cannot be copyrighted, but the NCR uses a lot of copyrightable material to attack the church, that if copyrighted, overcomes most “fair use” provisions, since they are a for profit newspaper.

It is unlikely a settlement could shut them down, but it could require them to put a disclaimer on the top of their front page, that they are “Not authorized by the Catholic church, and are published as parody only.”


11 posted on 01/26/2013 8:41:34 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Where are the apologists arguing that this is just one bishop’s opinion and he doesn’t speak for the church? And the old throw away, something about the floor being paved with the skulls of bishops?


12 posted on 01/26/2013 10:00:07 AM PST by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Would he also go so far as to say that a number of members of the USCCB are not Catholic in their teaching as well. I can think of at least one Bishop, several priests and a deacon that all voted for Obozo.
13 posted on 01/26/2013 10:08:58 AM PST by verga (A nation divided by Zero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

You wrote:

“So, does the Press Office of the Holy See speak for the church, or not?”

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no.

“If not, should it too cease being called Catholic?”

Has it ever been called ‘Catholic’? I don’t think so.

You now have your answers. See how easy that was?


14 posted on 01/26/2013 11:11:23 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

You wrote:

“Where are the apologists arguing that this is just one bishop’s opinion and he doesn’t speak for the church?”

1) This is the opinion of the last four bishops of that diocese.
2) He speaks for his particular church, and he is certainly, and undeniably, correct.

“And the old throw away, something about the floor being paved with the skulls of bishops?”

You seem to be babbling nonsensically. Why?


15 posted on 01/26/2013 11:15:02 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

... and yet again the basic question at issue remains ignored and unanswered.


16 posted on 01/26/2013 11:39:50 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

What question?


17 posted on 01/26/2013 11:55:17 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
The question would be: Does the Catholic Church support Obama administration efforts to restrict and control the Constitutional right of American citizens to bear arms?

Or, is the statement issued by Fr. Federico Lombardi, Director of the Press Office of the Holy See reflective of the church as a whole?

Some claim he merely spoke his personal opinion in his capacity as Director of the Press Office of the Holy See.

I find it puzzling that there has been no attempt to correct any misperception, if Fr. Lombardi's statement is indeed at odds.

Does this help?

18 posted on 01/26/2013 12:05:41 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

You wrote:

“The question would be: Does the Catholic Church support Obama administration efforts to restrict and control the Constitutional right of American citizens to bear arms?”

I see no evidence the Church either supports or opposes any such specific action on Obama’s part in regard to gun control. The Church will regard this as a prudential matter best solved within America.

“Or, is the statement issued by Fr. Federico Lombardi, Director of the Press Office of the Holy See reflective of the church as a whole?”

Your question doesn’t work. Some of what Lombardi said is true (e.g. opposing gun smuggling). Yet guns in America is a separate issue from anywhere else. Even when it comes to smuggling - the Church is all for it when it means getting guns to people who are oppressed and have no other choice but to take up arms.

“Some claim he merely spoke his personal opinion in his capacity as Director of the Press Office of the Holy See.”

I think he spoke his opinion based on his understanding of Church teaching.

“I find it puzzling that there has been no attempt to correct any misperception, if Fr. Lombardi’s statement is indeed at odds.”

Why would there be? The Church really doesn’t work to satisfy you - an anti-Catholic on the internet. Quite frankly, you will oppose the Church no matter what she teaches so why do you even care?

“Does this help?”

Not really. This seems to be more about you then anything else.


19 posted on 01/26/2013 12:19:05 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Still with the non-answers but notching it up to make it about me. Standard fare for the FR apologists and completely par for the course.

Thank you for the exposition, and have a good day.


20 posted on 01/26/2013 12:25:19 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
(1) It doesn't matter if it was the opinion of the last forty bishops if he just offering his opinions, which he is.

(2) HIS church? He decides what the diocese will believe? I was sure it was just one diocese, part of the Catholic church as a whole.

“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
attributed to Athanasius. (quoted by Catholic apologists)

“You seem to be babbling nonsensically. Why?”

Because I only write for educated and informed.

21 posted on 01/26/2013 12:30:42 PM PST by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Where are the apologists arguing that this is just one bishop’s opinion and he doesn’t speak for the church? And the old throw away, something about the floor being paved with the skulls of bishops?

For the benefit of lurkers, no individual bishop defines or promulgates Catholic dogma, whether it relates to the intercession of the saints, purgatory, the nature of grace, the priesthood, the morality of abortion or any other element of Catholic teaching. That is reserved to the teaching magisterium of the Church comprising the Pope and bishops united to him. The word "speak" is often used loosely and this is sometimes what is meant when people talk about "speaking" for the Church.

An individual bishop is, however, sent by the Church to preach the Gospel to those who have it not in a particular diocese and also to safeguard it and enforce its teachings amongst Catholics, which is exactly what is happening here, so there is no contradiction.

Should an individual bishop neglect to do this by failing to oppose the spread of error or even worse, contributing to its dissemination, he himself becomes a heretic. Hence the phrase..."the floor of hell is paved with the skulls" of bishops."

Hope this helps.

22 posted on 01/26/2013 12:33:18 PM PST by marshmallow (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; RIghtwardHo; Reaganite Republican; Clintons Are White Trash; HerrBlucher; mgist; ...
+

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.

23 posted on 01/26/2013 12:43:52 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; RIghtwardHo; Reaganite Republican; Clintons Are White Trash; HerrBlucher; mgist; ...
+

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.

24 posted on 01/26/2013 12:44:20 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Nice start, but does the Press Office of the Holy See speak for the church? Seems I recall some apologists attempting to make the claim that it does not, regarding a statement in support of recent gun restriction and control efforts by the Obama administration. So, does the Press Office of the Holy See speak for the church, or not? If not, should it too cease being called Catholic?

Ahh yes....that word "speak" again (see post 22).

Yes, it's supposed to "speak" for the Church. It handles press releases and interacts with the press, in a somewhat similar manner to the way the White House Press Secretary handles relations with the media. However, sometimes things go wrong and the guy out front will say something which hasn't been cleared with the Chief. A "clarification" will then be issued and damage control will ensue. I think folks understand this situation.

With regard to the subject of this thread, readers will doubtless understand the difference between a decades long, deliberate campaign of dissent and revolt against essential and non negotiable aspects of Catholic faith and teaching (The Reporter) and a single, off-the-cuff remark on an issue not central to the deposit of faith by a Press Officer (Lombardi).

25 posted on 01/26/2013 12:51:15 PM PST by marshmallow (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

You wrote:

“(1) It doesn’t matter if it was the opinion of the last forty bishops if he just offering his opinions, which he is.”

It is his opinion, but he is the legislator for his diocese so his opinion can be turned into canon law on a limited basis - so it matters. Also, his opinion is absolutely correct in the objective sense. The NCR is not Catholic. That is objectively true.

“(2) HIS church?”

Yep.

“He decides what the diocese will believe?”

In prudential matters, yep.

“I was sure it was just one diocese, part of the Catholic church as a whole.”

It is. You don’t really know what you’re talking about do you?

“Because I only write for educated and informed.”

But you’ve shown yourself to be neither educated or informed on this matter.


26 posted on 01/26/2013 12:52:09 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

You wrote:

“Still with the non-answers”

No, I gave excellent answers to the questions asked. I always do.

“but notching it up to make it about me.”

It’s always about the anti-Catholic. That’s why they post here in threads posted by Catholics.

“Standard fare for the FR apologists and completely par for the course.”

And irrefutable.


27 posted on 01/26/2013 12:54:24 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
This individual wrote an essay supporting gun control. He did not do so in his capacity as Press Secretary. It would be like Jay Carney writing an essay for the Washington Post. It would be a way to voice his opinion, but it would not necessarily be "speaking for" the Administration.

The Chruch's teachings on self defense are crystal clear, and this liberal Italian's personal opinions do not trump the magisterial teachings of Popes and the Catechism.

In his Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II writes:

"......Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defense, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense."

He goes on to say:

"...legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason."

Pope John Paul II knew exactly what happens when innocents are disarmed, having lived under both Nazism and communism. He did not believe in disarming citizens and neither does the Catholic Church, this spokesperson's personal opinion notwithstanding.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is crystal clear on self defense:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
2265
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

When you look at the highlighted areas from both Pope John Paul II and the Catechism, it is crystal clear that the Church teaches that the family has the right to defend itself, including the use of deadly force.

28 posted on 01/26/2013 12:57:44 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; a fool in paradise

This Bishop must be against social justice!


29 posted on 01/26/2013 12:59:53 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
It does help. By your statement every single bishop that is aware of what the National Catholic Reporter espouses must either join Finn in his opinion or be guilty of heresy and the sin of omission.

No stampede of bishops to join Finn. Guess they're all heretics.

30 posted on 01/26/2013 1:07:58 PM PST by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

“Because I only write for educated and informed.”


31 posted on 01/26/2013 1:19:26 PM PST by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

“But you’ve shown yourself to be neither educated or informed on this matter.”


32 posted on 01/26/2013 2:18:47 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
It does help. By your statement every single bishop that is aware of what the National Catholic Reporter espouses must either join Finn in his opinion or be guilty of heresy and the sin of omission. No stampede of bishops to join Finn. Guess they're all heretics.

Once gain, for the benefit of lurkers, a bishop is tasked with the pastoral care of his own particular diocese. In the case of Bishop Finn, that diocese is Kansas City where the NCR has its offices. There is no canonical requirement for a bishop to monitor, approve or comment on the pastoral duties of bishops in other dioceses. This is known as "jurisdiction" and a bishop has it for his own diocese alone. Aside from legal issues, it is also not remotely practical, given the number of Catholic Dioceses in the US (~200)and the number of issues with which each bishop has to deal. IOW, no bishop is obliged to join Bishop Finn in his endeavors to change how the National Catholic Reporter names itself, which is the issue here. Likewise, someone in the Diocese of Savannah (my own diocese) who decided to use the name "Catholic" in an inappropriate way, would be out of the reach of the Bishop of Charleston. Readers will recall another recent example where Michael Voris of the then "Real Catholic TV", was instructed by the Bishop of Detroit, in whose diocese Voris has his operations, to drop the name "Catholic" because it implied some official connection to the Church. Voris complied and changed the name to "Church Militant TV". Sadly, the NCR isn't quite as respectful of ecclesiastical authority.

While the name issue may not be under the purview of other bishops, the dissemination of this publication in other dioceses most certainly is and whether this publication is allowed to be displayed in churches of other dioceses would definitely be within the responsibility of other bishops. Some have indeed banned it in the past while others have not and yes, they are heretics.

However, with the advent of the internet, publications like the NCR can now make an end run around restrictions such as being banned from churches and reach a wider audience.

Once again, I hope this helps.

33 posted on 01/26/2013 3:05:20 PM PST by marshmallow (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Yes, it's supposed to "speak" for the Church. It handles press releases and interacts with the press, in a somewhat similar manner to the way the White House Press Secretary handles relations with the media. However, sometimes things go wrong and the guy out front will say something which hasn't been cleared with the Chief. A "clarification" will then be issued and damage control will ensue. I think folks understand this situation.

Thank you for dealing with the question directly.

It is certainly understandable, if a spokesman has freelanced and interjected his own opinion, requiring correction. It happens frequently in government, less frequently in the private sector, and on rare occasion in the religious sphere.

But, I missed this clarification somehow. Can you be so kind as to direct me to it?

It would be a relief, to know that our Catholic brothers and sisters have the support of their church here on FR, being such a pro-2A site and all.

Don't you agree?

34 posted on 01/26/2013 3:15:45 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
But, I missed this clarification somehow. Can you be so kind as to direct me to it?

There hasn't been one and there won't be one. Those are for politicians generally or in the Church's case, for issues of grave import relating to the Catholic faith. See post #25, paragraph 2.

It would be a relief, to know that our Catholic brothers and sisters have the support of their church here on FR, being such a pro-2A site and all. Don't you agree?

A relief to whom? Americans are constantly and vociferously angry at the Vatican over something or other. If it's not guns, it's the birth control issue or abortion or homosexuality. The noise of the pro-2A cohort is hardly audible in Rome over all the other screaming coming from this side of the Atlantic.

Most people are aware of the Church's teaching on this issue, I think, and anyone with a genuine interest in what the church teaches about the right to self defense can find it HERE.

Again, how best to implement this teaching in the civic arena is a prudential matter, which is just one more reason why Lombardi's statement will be allowed to stand.

35 posted on 01/26/2013 3:45:58 PM PST by marshmallow (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

I see.

So, it’s regarded as a matter of little import, not warranting clarification.

That is a pity. The 2nd Amendment is the means of last resort to support all the other rights so defined.


36 posted on 01/26/2013 3:57:05 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Don't take it too hard.

Think about it in terms of mission.

The word "guns" doesn't feature prominently in the Catechism. Likewise, the New Testament isn't big on whatever was the more primitive alternative, 2,000 years ago.

37 posted on 01/26/2013 4:03:52 PM PST by marshmallow (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Sometimes, matters regarded as peripheral and of little import do intrude upon one’s ability to pursue one’s mission, thus becoming of greater import than initially imagined.

Your church appears to be a little too comfortable with and trusting of governmental edict. I’d think history would point out the potential folly of this. I’d think very recent events would as well.

But, Lombardi’s statement of encouragement regarding impending attempts to restrict 2A rights will stand as is, unaddressed in your estimation.

I regretfully agree with your assessment.


38 posted on 01/26/2013 4:18:19 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Your church appears to be a little too comfortable with and trusting of governmental edict.

In the US (and perhaps the West in general) over the past half-century..........definitely!!

Elsewhere in the world.....not so much.

The Church does know a thing or two about persecution.

39 posted on 01/26/2013 4:28:06 PM PST by marshmallow (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Bishop Finn reminds his readers that in 1968 his predecessor, Bishop Charles Helmsing, directed the editors of the Reporter to remove the word “Catholic” from the title of their publication.

By what authority?

40 posted on 01/26/2013 4:28:06 PM PST by Sloth (Rather than a lesser Evil, I voted for Goode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Yes, it knows a thing or two, on both sides of the equation.


41 posted on 01/26/2013 4:32:22 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

Canon Law - which at that time the NCR claimed to be bound by as all Catholics were.


42 posted on 01/26/2013 4:56:16 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

You wrote:

“I see. So, it’s regarded as a matter of little import, not warranting clarification.”

Why would it be?

“That is a pity. The 2nd Amendment is the means of last resort to support all the other rights so defined.”

Not outside of America it isn’t. And that’s exactly why it might be “regarded as a matter of little import, not warranting clarification.”


43 posted on 01/26/2013 4:59:38 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Take that up with the Director of the Press Office of your church, who deigned to comment upon such a provincial matter, irrelevant to the world at large.


44 posted on 01/26/2013 5:05:27 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

You wrote:

“Take that up with the Director of the Press Office of your church, who deigned to comment upon such a provincial matter, irrelevant to the world at large.”

Not irrelevant, just not relevant enough to need further clarification to your satisfaction.


45 posted on 01/26/2013 5:06:56 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I see.


46 posted on 01/26/2013 5:13:08 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
If Rev. Federico Lombardi of the Vatican Press office prefers Fettucini Alfredo over Veal Parmagiana, that does not means that Catholics must follow his lead. Likewise as to gun control. He is a liberal airhead who was embarrassing Blessed ohn Paul II before he started embarrassing Benedict XVI. Gun control is not a matter of faith or morals.

Much of the content of the National "catholic" Reporter does deal with faith and morals, from a decidedly anti-Catholic point of view. Lately, it has been edging ever closer to being an apologist for abortion as well as women's ordination, birth control (the one "sacrament" clearly and enthusiastically supported by NCR).

The NCR has editorialized that young Bishop Finn (generally a conservative and therefore in NCR's view guilty of actual Catholicism) should resign because he was murkily convicted of not putting some kiddie porn viewing priest immediately into outer darkness and was convicted in a court of law. However, predecessors of Bishop Finn have been denouncing NCR as a non-Catholic fraud posing as "catholic" for many years.

47 posted on 01/26/2013 5:25:27 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Broil 'em now!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Now that’s just plain silly.


48 posted on 01/26/2013 8:29:29 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

What, expecting clarification as to whether the Director of the Press Office of the Holy See was speaking in an official capacity when issuing a statement in support of impending Obama administration efforts to restrict the 2A? That’s silly?


49 posted on 01/26/2013 8:36:49 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Silly yes.

I’m concerned about your concern about my concern about the Church of God.

But thank you for your concern.

{^_^}


50 posted on 01/27/2013 7:51:12 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 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