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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 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