Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY STILL BASICALLY INTACT, SAY 2 U.S. BISHOPS
EWTN.com/Zenit.org ^ | 11-12-02 | Zenit.org

Posted on 11/12/2002 7:45:51 AM PST by Salvation

ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY STILL BASICALLY INTACT, SAY 2 U.S. BISHOPS

Revised Proposal on Clergy Abuse Builds on Dallas Norms, They Contend

WASHINGTON, D.C., NOV. 7, 2002 (Zenit.org).- The president of the U.S. bishops' conference contradicted widespread media reports alleging that the Holy See had rejected the policy suggested by the American bishops last June.

"Contrary to many news reports," Bishop Wilton Gregory said in a statement, "the Holy See did not reject or even 'soften' this work. In fact, it [remains] the foundation for what will become particular law in the United States."

In a letter dated Oct. 14 to Bishop Gregory, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, said the norms approved in Dallas, Texas, last June "can be the source of confusion and ambiguity."

Yet, Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, one of the four American bishops who participated in discussions of the proposed policy in Rome, agreed the revised proposal -- the product of a mixed U.S.-Vatican commission -- is not a retreat from the zero-tolerance position which came out of Dallas.

"No one remains in ministry who is a threat to children and young people," Bishop Lori said during a press conference Nov. 2.

Bishop Gregory summarized the effects of the law as follows: "This particular law will provide every diocese in the country with standards in canon law for protecting children and young people, reaching out to victims, assessing allegations against clergy, with the benefit of the advice of competent lay persons, and for keeping from ministry anyone who would harm children."

The updated policy calls for tribunals to hear the cases of accused priests and mandates that guilty clerics -- including those who committed offenses years ago -- be removed from Church work.

"Anyone who has committed even a single act of sexual abuse of children is permanently banned from ministry," Bishop Lori said.

Responding to criticisms from some quarters that the new policy would curtail the involvement of lay people in the disciplinary process, Bishop Lori said that lay sexual-abuse review boards would still participate in preliminary investigations of allegations of sexual abuse in an advisory capacity.

Furthermore, he said that the Church tribunals which in most instances would wield the ultimate decision-making power are made up of judges -- usually priests, canon lawyers and assessors -- who may or may not be lay people.

Bishop Lori characterized the revisions to the Dallas policy as a response to concerns from the Holy See about the lack of clear juridical procedure for handling allegations of sexual abuse by a priest.

Saying that the charter approved in Dallas had been drafted "rather hastily," Bishop Lori continued: "If you're going to go forward and deal with this, it's better to have clarity. And I think we now have a much greater degree of clarity. The zero-tolerance policy very much survives."

The revised norms will be presented to the U.S. bishops at their meeting next week.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; General Discusssion; History; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: bernadin; catholiclist; ewtn; freemasonry; knights; priests; sexualabuse; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last
Currently streaming video on EWTN.com

Both speaking in support and in opposition to new additions to Charter and other issues.

1 posted on 11/12/2002 7:45:51 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Catholic_list; father_elijah; nickcarraway; SMEDLEYBUTLER; Siobhan; Lady In Blue; attagirl; ...
Catholic discussion ping!

Please notify me via Freepmail if you would like to be added to or removed from the Catholic Discussion Ping list.

2 posted on 11/12/2002 7:47:14 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Our media is still in a feeding frenzy so no matter what the Church does, they will still report the negative. (of course they won't blame homosexuality)
3 posted on 11/12/2002 7:51:23 AM PST by NewCenturions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NewCenturions
Our media is still in a feeding frenzy so no matter what the Church does, they will still report the negative.

And twist the message to make it meet what they want it to be.

When I heard the outline ffrom Cardinal George last night, it sounded far tougher than anything civil law has. They just tightened up the whole thing.
4 posted on 11/12/2002 7:55:21 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
This outline?

Agenda

Items on the agenda include:

5 posted on 11/12/2002 8:02:12 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Voting on amendments to Roe vs. Wade right now.
6 posted on 11/12/2002 8:02:49 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
No, zero tolerance. But I'm glad they're addressing Roe v. Wade.
7 posted on 11/12/2002 8:06:49 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Addressing pastoral statement on Misa en Espanol right now. Moving quite swiftly.

Stressing importance of welcoming Spanish speakers from Mexico into the Catholic Church here.

Evangelization emphasized.

Pro and con statements as I type.

Our Hispanic (at my church) ministry started with 50 people at the first Misa en Espanol in 1999 and has grown to over 285 as of last week.
8 posted on 11/12/2002 8:13:18 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Yeah, it's tighter.

USCC expected to toss the hot potato to Rome and have Rome seriously weaken it. Instead, Rome simply asked for a few 'due process' items, which would be required under American civil-prosecution law anyway, and fired it right back.

That makes the Bishops really responsible for their actions, or lack thereof.

Not really what a sizeable number of American Bishops wanted...responsibility means accountability...
9 posted on 11/12/2002 8:13:41 AM PST by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
My Archbishop (Vlazny) speaking in support of the statement on Misa en Espanol and evangeliztion to the Hispanics who come to America from Mexico and other Spanish speaking countries.
10 posted on 11/12/2002 8:19:17 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Zero tolerance sounds like the way to go still. Finding out how they entered the ministry and closing that door should be a priority. This can not happen again.
11 posted on 11/12/2002 8:21:41 AM PST by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Different regions meetings being announced. Does anyone know what region their Arch/diocese is in?
12 posted on 11/12/2002 8:23:04 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
But I'm glad they're addressing Roe v. Wade.

Are they? Last Friday my mom found herself shanghaied to an intimate luncheon with our archbishop, packed with ring-kissing local Catholic worthies, with her as the joker in the deck. When she cornered him and asked what he intends to say publicly about exposing (CINO) Mary Landrieu as a pro-abort before our Dec. 7 runoff for the US Senate, he said he has no plans to do anything at all.

13 posted on 11/12/2002 8:25:12 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
Yes, they voted on a statement.
14 posted on 11/12/2002 8:27:22 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Raymond Arroyo now stating that tomorrow the discussion will be on the ammendment to the Charter.

Also commenting that he was surprised on a vote to issue a statement about Iraq. Talking about thw hawks and doves among the Arch/bishops.
15 posted on 11/12/2002 8:29:10 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All
Bishops will have an executive session this afternoon after the regional meetings.
16 posted on 11/12/2002 8:30:54 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Zero tollerance must mean zero in all forms. The bishops seem to be tip toeing around the homosexual problem in their preisthood. Until they are serous about removing homosexuals then this "agreement" will just be a means to a coverup.

From what I saw last week the vatican made a pretty clear notion that homosexuality was not to be tolerated. What happened this group did not hear the pope?

All people have their mistakes to bear. Some big some small. Being homosexual means you can't be a priest. end of discussion.
17 posted on 11/12/2002 9:19:27 AM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
I'm against zero-tolerance policies. If it were in effect when Cardinal Bernadine was in office,he too would have been suspended. As it turned out, it was a FALSE accusation and the Cardinal was allowed to die in peace.

Also, as you look around America you see how idiotic these zero-tolerance policies are, i.e. boys getting arrested for drawing a picture of a gun, 1st-grade boy getting suspended for kissing a girl on the cheek, HS girl getting suspended for giving classmate a Midol pill for her cramps. It's ludicrous.
18 posted on 11/12/2002 10:25:18 AM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
**
From what I saw last week the vatican made a pretty clear notion that homosexuality was not to be tolerated. What happened this group did not hear the pope?**

Maybe that is what the bishops are discussing in their 'executive session'!
19 posted on 11/12/2002 10:33:16 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
I'm against zero-tolerance policies. If it were in effect when Cardinal Bernadine was in office,he too would have been suspended. As it turned out, it was a FALSE accusation and the Cardinal was allowed to die in peace.

<> Not the case, if I remember correctly. I think what happened was the gentleman that accused the Cardinal later dropped the suit saying his disease had effected his memory to such an extent he couldnt be sure of his accusations. I don't recall the gentleman saying he had falsely accused anyone<>

20 posted on 11/12/2002 10:39:42 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
http://www.rcf.org/docs/beginningoftheend.htm

<>Cardinal Bernardin link<>
21 posted on 11/12/2002 10:46:29 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Gosh, and insisting on lots of legalistic due process for clerics and a statute of limitations on defrockings strengthens the document sooooooooo much. Makes me wish that the Pope was our head of state, he's so strict with his people.

Yup, the statute of limitations and due process - those are sure scriptural principles to be applied to those who claim to have a calling from God.

22 posted on 11/12/2002 11:06:01 AM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
They just tightened up the whole thing.

If you repeat it to yourself enough, you might even start believing it, and it will be less of a mischaracterization.

23 posted on 11/12/2002 11:08:35 AM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
If you repeat it to yourself enough, you might even start believing it, and it will be less of a mischaracterization.

You keep making snide comments and I'll ask the Blessed Mother to pray for you.
24 posted on 11/12/2002 11:12:18 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Thanks...There are two sides to every story; however, that article contains a lot of conjecture without any proof to back up most of their statements.

There is tangible evidence that the man made a false accusation against the Cardinal--his own words recorded in depositions, that's a fact that can be checked out and be documented.

I can say that Catholic Guy received an award from the masons and put in on a weblink too.

Zero tolerance doesn't work in the schools and it won't work in the church.
25 posted on 11/12/2002 1:05:56 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
I agree with you about zero tolerance,it was just a silly attempt to showboat and please the media.

But,Bernardin is another story.Despite the fact that one of my very favorite priests,Father Niehaus defends him,I can connect Bernardin with just about every homosexual appeasing bishop in this country.

He headed up the bishops'Conferences during the years that they lied to the Vatican,stonewalled all Catholic pleas for teaching Truth and stopping liturgical abuse,wrecking churches,and destroying tradition. He was a schmoozer and duplicitous.He steamrolled over the orthodox bishops and supported every piece of nonCatholic catholicism introduced.

I have personally attended seminars and classes where bishops praised him to the heavens,Gumbleton was one I particularly remember and all of the Call To Action people were there remembering "our brother Joseph".If I hadn't already suspected his involvement with things unCatholic that particular evening would have convinced me without any other knowledge.I know I cannot convince you,and I would not even want to but be cautious when you use him to exemplify the the possibility of the innocence of some accused priests.We who believe that truth telling is imperative have a much more difficult time when we find information we have used is incorrect than do those,who believe that truth is just one more thing subject to opinion and change according to the way the wind blows.

26 posted on 11/12/2002 1:34:44 PM PST by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: saradippity; Coleus
sara, I'm somewhat glad you got the same vibes I did...

Something with the whole Bernardine situation always seemed off. I'm not sure what it was, but what we got was not the whole story.

One Sunday the in-residence priest at my parents' parish, who was a close friend of Bernardine (and a flamer himself, but I'm sure not active) used the pulpit for catharsis. He was absolutely sincere, but I still think there was to Bernardine than met the eye.

We probably will never know the whole story either with both of them gone.
27 posted on 11/12/2002 1:42:26 PM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona; saradippity; Salvation; Catholicguy
Remember the subject of the thread is, zero tolerance. The Bernadin post was an example of why I don't like zero tolerance policies-- his liberalism, Masonic ties or being a queer had nothing to do with the subject matter. Let's face it, he was inappropriately charged by a guy who just didn't like priests or the Catholic Church. I always thought the masons wore funny hats and ran spaghetti dinners, when did they become satanic and anti Catholic?

About 5 yrs' ago, I picked up my local paper and much to my astonishment was the name of a high school classmate of mine on the top headline. He, a school teacher, had been charged with sexual abuse of a girl while working at a summer camp. Guess what happened? After having his reputation besmirched and no job for a year, it turns out the girl made it up. And of course, since she was a minor and a special ed. student, she was never charged with making false claims and perjury. So much for zero tolerance. At least he was able to get his job back.

Also, a priest I know gave tuition assistance to a single mom and her daughter at the parish school, after the tuition assistance stopped, the girl graduated 8th grade, mom wanted to send her daughter to a Catholic High School, guess what happened? Sex abuse allegations. It's so easy to do.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/745870/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/695054/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/682754/posts
28 posted on 11/12/2002 4:02:18 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
I agreed with you about the dangers of zero toletance. I also said what I was writing re Bernardin was only to give you a "heads up".

Have you read all of the many Papal Bulls and Encyclicals and other papal documents about the men with funny hats? The latest canon law about them used "secret societies" rather than calling them by name when saying that membership was forbidden to Catholics. When some priests in this country said there was no longer a proscription against joining them the Vatican responded to the direct question by saying it was still forbidden.

Can you tell me where to confirm that the accuser exonerated Cardinal Bernardin by more than "I can't really remember what happened"?

29 posted on 11/12/2002 5:08:20 PM PST by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
Can you tell me where to confirm that the accuser exonerated Cardinal Bernardin by more than "I can't really remember what happened"?>>>

Nope, I'll have to read the deposition. The charges were dropped so that must mean there was no evidence. This guy probably had many psychological problems and hated the church.
30 posted on 11/12/2002 5:23:22 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Remeber that their meeting tomorrow will deal with this issue. So you are right.......what we have now is conjecture.
31 posted on 11/12/2002 6:28:15 PM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: Desdemona
As I read it, canon law is tougher than our civil law. What galls me is that it wasn't being applied by the bishops. They failed to use the power that the Church put in their hands.
33 posted on 11/12/2002 6:57:35 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
Cardinal Bernardin perplexes me, really.

I have heard so many people I respect (RJNeuhaus is one) say that Bernardin was a wonderful man and loved the church and did so much good.

A few months ago I was in a store located within the world headquarters for Father Patrick Peyton's rosary crusade... now this place is pretty orthodox and the priests are Holy Cross priests and seem fine. I noticed Bernardin's book on the shelf and remarked that Bernardin seems to generate a lot of controversy. The priest was perplexed and said that he has only heard good things about Bernardin... go figure?

34 posted on 11/12/2002 7:16:08 PM PST by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
1. Zero tolerance upon proof is not extreme.

2. Priests more tollerant than lawyers? If you are a lawyer and you steal money out of a trust account, there is ZERO statute of limitations. A lawyer's license is always subject to being pulled for any misconduct whenever.

If a priest molests a child there should be no problem in pulling him out of dealing with the public at the very minimum.

3. "Queer" priests have no place in the church. It is w amazing the denial of the homosexual crowd who argue an adult male priest placing his genitals in another male (minor or not) is not a homosexual act.

--to borrow from another thread on FR. "geneder roles are taught and subjective but homosexual behavior is nature"?

4. The American Bishops better not make this a show boating exercise. This had better be real and they had better get some religion. The irony will be that the american branch of the church will be destroyed from within by the very forces the church has preached as a danger. They will become the ultimate proof of the evil corruption by the left on morals.
35 posted on 11/12/2002 7:37:29 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
"Being homosexual means you can't be a priest"

Yes, I can understand if he were a practicing homosexual. But, what about the one who recognizes he has that tendency but with the grace of God he is trying to overcome it. Remaining devout to his calling, he sruggles inwardly daily to overcome certain desires. Do we not give this priest an opportunity that he may, again with the grace of God, to overcome his tendency to and become a productive individual. I think compassion should be shown towards these priests and those who openly flaunt their lifestyles should be gone forever, zero tolerance would be the credo. I'm afraid a kind of 'witch hunt' will ensue and any priest who doesn't exhibit a 'certain manner' would be labeled and falsely accused. Yes, do 'tiptoe' for you no not what you are doing. Peace

36 posted on 11/12/2002 9:48:22 PM PST by ejo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo
You're welcome.
37 posted on 11/12/2002 10:22:28 PM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ejo
"Being homosexual means you can't be a priest"


"Yes, I can understand if he were a practicing homosexual. ..."


__________________

Hogwash. This is the weak leftist psychobable. Homosexual behavior is learned. Your pop-psychology falls into the homosexual propaganda. This is the same wrong thinking that removed homosexual conduct as an illness in the DSM-III and pedophilia from phychological disorders in DSM-IV. (at least until internal uproar cause the revision to uncerimoniously put in back in DSM-IV-RV).

There is ZERO hard science to support your "tendencies" argument. The nature vs nurture argument has been adressed in other threads in FR.

No homosexual priests. period. No maried priests period. No convicted child molesters. period.
38 posted on 11/13/2002 4:26:50 AM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
There is tangible evidence that the man made a false accusation against the Cardinal--his own words recorded in depositions, that's a fact that can be checked out and be documented.

<> Do you have access to the deposition? I heard it reported as I mentioned - that the gentleman did not say his accusations were lies, rather, he said his memory had been so damaged by his AIDS that he wasn't able to be certain the charges were true.

The other things mentioned in the piece about Card Bernardin are very disturbing. I gues one can just blow them all off and say they are unproven....no pattern heree...just move along.....nothing to see.

I will just speak for myself. I have always opposed the Masons. I do not plan to schedule a homosexual glee club to sing at my funeral. I don not think "listening sessions" with proabortionists are helpful. I do not think encouraging homosexuals to become priests and Bishops is helpful...Call me crazy....<>

39 posted on 11/13/2002 5:42:00 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Priest, etc,etc,etc,

Then what have we left?Somewhere, somehow some compassion has to be exercised. What would Jesus do? When he Himself sat with the sinners and the so-called intelligansia of that era riduculed Him for just doing what a lot of us are doing at this moment. I am not defending the militant homosexual, they will have to answer to the Almighty when their time comes. But I'm addressing that small percentage, why not extend that bit of compassion and not bitterness as they struggle to be chaste in their calling. You may think of me as naive when it comes to homosexuality, BUT I am trying to walk in their shoes for the moment and to experience their pain in their personal struggles. At this time prayer would help immensely instead of beratement to these lost souls.

40 posted on 11/13/2002 8:22:02 AM PST by ejo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Do you have access to the deposition? I heard it reported as I mentioned - that the gentleman did not say his accusations were lies, rather, he said his memory had been so damaged by his AIDS that he wasn't able to be certain the charges were true.>>>>>>

That excuse (his memory and AIDS) was just a tactic the lawyers used so he wouldn't be charged with perjury. The bottom line is that there was no trial and no guilt proven, if this man, the card, was a typical molester, there would have been hundreds of people coming forward. There were none. So, he may have been gay, an abortionist and a bad priest, but he was not a victim of zero tolerance and rightfully so because the policy is no good unless one thinks school children should be arrested and taken to police HQ because they play cops and robbers on the school playground. We have a good legal system in the USA, due process, let's keep it that way. It's bad enough we have these idiotic hate crimes laws on the books don't give the liberals more ammunition. Remember, many of the zero-tolerance policies are geared towards conservatives, i.e. guns, I've seen on the FR where kids were suspended for wearing pro-life and anti homosexual (I'm straight) tee shirts, etc. and it will never stop. I'm sticking with due process.

Remember the subject of the thread had to do with a zero tolerance policy. I still say I am against it and used the "card" , my classmate, a priest in my diocese and some school hysteria as examples. Zero tolerance policies are no good since it doesn't give the accused due process. This thread has nothing to do with homosexuals or Abortions only zero tolerance.

As far as the Masons, I've never seen any harm in what they do and when I see article and threads stating that someone was honored by them, it means nothing to me, it only leads me again to more unsubstantiated folklore, rumors,etc. I've heard it all: Satanists (no evidence) idolize false gods (no evidence). I have a black friend of mine who is a devout Christian and a former leader on his Prince Hall Lodge where he explained to me many of the ceremonies w/o divulging the secrets. Let see there is a bible present, God is mentioned, doesn't sound like devil worship to me. Also, my K of C council and the local Freemasons have a combined dinner dance every year with the blessings of Supreme (a letter of approval) and our chaplain. Now I guess your going to say that the supreme council of the K of C is demonic?

Sure, back in the 1700's the masons and a pope, only one pope, didn't get along, so he wrote and encyclical against it.
41 posted on 11/13/2002 8:42:05 AM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; sitetest
<> I guess you do have access to the deposition. Any links?

I don't think we have a good legal system.

I am in favor of dealing with homosexual priests, all priests who break laws - Commandments and positive secular law - with policies that don't violate Canon Law. The Bishops are supposed to know Canon Law or have Canonists that do. Their Dallas-dance was a joke. They knew it violated Canon Law.

One is still forbidden to be a Catholic and a member of the Masons. I suggest you do a little research on the history of the Masons and their malign intent re Church and Crown. I would suggest your "supreme" is underinformed. I will ping sitest for a response as he used to be a G.K. in the K of C.

42 posted on 11/13/2002 9:29:07 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm

<>Masonry link. (I suggest you are woefully underinformed re masonry)<>
43 posted on 11/13/2002 9:32:45 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/May1999/contents.html

<> LInk to Fr. William B. Smith answering a question about Masonry in Homelitic and Pastoral Review<><>
44 posted on 11/13/2002 9:45:21 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
The Yorkish rite is relatively benign; the Scottish Rite had always been bitterly anti-Catholic. The Latin rite is atheistic.
45 posted on 11/13/2002 9:55:58 AM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Thanks, I read it and will look into the book from Ignatius Press.

But once again, mass hysteria is the rule. The good father misinformed the questioner. The ceremony at a funeral is a very PUBLIC one, no secrets and nothing supernatural. I went to a wake last year of a person I knew from the Scouts, a protestant and mason, and there were the masons with the lambskin aprons which represented purity and holding an evergreen branch which I forgot what that symbolism meant. I think priests and others who were never masons should not talk about them since they are misinforming people and lying.

Fine, if the Church is against it, great, so let it be. I have no problem with that. But priests should not lie and tell false stories about the masons in regard to funeral services. Nothing of what the priest said in that article went on at the service I attended which was at the wake in full view of everyone. THere were no masonic ceremonies at the funeral or gravesite.

I've also seen the 4th-degree Knights at Funeral Services as well. And as a Knight let me tell you, we have our secrets from our 4 degree ceremonies as well. Since we are an organization with secrets, does the same Canon Law apply to us?
46 posted on 11/13/2002 10:04:13 AM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
bump too read later
47 posted on 11/13/2002 10:07:59 AM PST by meema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; Catholicguy
Dear Coleus and Catholicguy,

I saw your ping, CG. Why do you seek to arouse the dead?? ;-)

(I just completed some state regulatory compliance stuff, and though I'm not dead, I half-wish I were.)

* * * * * WARNING * * * * *

This post is from the point of view of Catholic teaching. I don't personally have any significant contact with freemasonry, and thus, nothing that follows is based on my own experiences. Any efforts to engage me on this issue will prove futile. It is the teaching of the Church, I believe and obey. But I'm without first-hand knowledge or experience to engage in any sensible discussion about freemasonry.

Catholic teaching on freemasonry is venerable and consistent. The Church has always condemned membership in masonic lodges, since masonry began sometime during the Enlightenment.

The Church teaches that freemasonry is, of itself, a religion, with all the trappings of beliefs and rituals. The Church further teaches that the basic religion of freemasonry is a kind of natural theology. While there is nothing wrong with natural theology of itself, it is incompatible with Catholic faith for a Catholic to belong to another religion, especially which does not accept things like the divinity of Jesus Christ, etc.

Additionally, many masonic organizations, both here and in Europe, have anti-Catholic histories. Masonic institutions in the West and Midwest played important roles in passing anti-Catholic laws in those parts of the nation. Many masonic institutions have or had anti-Catholic oaths as part of their membership rituals.

This isn't to say that freemasons are evil. That isn't what Church teaching asserts. Thus, cooperating in various civic events with masons is certainly not against the teaching of the Catholic Church. Lots of other religions deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, and various Christian denominations deny one or more truths of the Catholic faith. This doesn't mean that it is somehow wrong to participate in civic life with these other institutions. But it would be inappropriate for a devout Catholic to also belong to the Baptist congregation down the street.

"Let see there is a bible present, God is mentioned,..."

At a masonic facility dominated by Muslims, a Koran would be used. At a masonic facility dominated by Jews, a Torah might be used. Masonry doesn't decree the presence of a Bible, nor does it affirm the particular teachings that are found in the Bible, except insofar as they confirm its own natural theology.

"Sure, back in the 1700's the masons and a pope, only one pope, didn't get along, so he wrote and encyclical against it."

The ban against membership in freemasonry has been consistent from that time to the present day.

I think that this is the relative part in Canon Law:

"Can. 1374 A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty - one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict."

Though for reasons relating to editorial style, freemasonry is not mentioned by name in the current Code of Canon Law, the code refers to organizations including freemasonry, and the general penalty for active membership is usually interdict.

Here is an EWTN link to the Vatican document explaining the current code in relation to freemasonry, followed by some commentary:

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/freemasonry.htm



sitetest
48 posted on 11/13/2002 10:10:41 AM PST by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Masonic secrets cannot be told even to a priest in the Confessional, so it is a question of where one's ultimate loyalty lies. You may have heard about the anti-masonic party that was started in the United States in the 1830s, which included John Quincy Adams. Modern day Masons may not but the Masons of that time were deeply into political conspiracy.
49 posted on 11/13/2002 10:28:31 AM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Dear Coleus,

"But once again, mass hysteria is the rule. The good father misinformed the questioner. The ceremony at a funeral is a very PUBLIC one, no secrets and nothing supernatural."

I suppose that you're responding to the information given by Fr. William Smith at the link provided by CG in post 44.

I think that you misread Fr. Smith's response. He didn't say that the masonic funeral rituals were secret, or were supernatural. He said that it is likely that they didn't occur DURING a Catholic funeral, but rather, likely took place AFTER the Catholic services were completed, at the gravesite.

He said that only masons could engage in the actual ritual, not that the ritual was secret.

He said that masonry forbids the performance of the ritual during the religious services of another religion.

Where is Fr. Smith in error?


sitetest
50 posted on 11/13/2002 10:32:01 AM PST by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 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