Birds of a feather...
Posted on 06/05/2010 5:20:03 PM PDT by grand wazoo
I get your point.
Related stuff by Mrs. Don-o on this FR thread. Please notice that I'm not taking Mr. Simoneau's (or Abp Gomez') side: I'm refuting them.
But I'm sure you didn't read this document, either
You evidently didn't know that...But I wish you would quit running on and on for months about things you don't know anything about...
It is painfully apparent that even though you were posting on this two months ago, you still have not read the actual document which you call the "global authority" encyclical. You have evidently relied on some skewed press summary...
Mrs. Don-O. You take great liberties with the rules on this forum.
Not only have I posted from the entire encyclicial, I have stated that I actually paid hard-earned cash to buy a copy of this idiotic and dangerous treatise written by a man whose agenda is antagonistic to liberty, democracy and the welfare of the majority of this planet.
I also encouraged others to do so because the most damning evidence of Ratzinger's communism is his own words in black and white. Perhaps you missed my suggestion, so I'll refrain from offering you the same snarky comments you made to me about "not knowing what you're talking about."
The rest of your screed is just that.
Believe whatever propaganda you wish. This country is still a republic. For now, anyway.
Thanks again for presenting clarity.
Forever, it seems to me, the Catholic church has honored the principle of subsidiarity.
I would like to make a comment also about “globalization”.
Born in the 1920’s, I can remember a time when it would have been surreal to imagine that one could take passenger international flight. It was enough just to think about air warfare in WWI and WWII (prop engines). It would have been surreal to think that you didn’t have to go to the wall to lift the receiver off the hook and call someone—IF you could get them off the party line first. I still remember my grandmother’s phone number, which I had to ask the operator to dial for me. (it was 74K !) It would have seemed surreal to think that I could talk to my son on another continent on a cordless phone, or that I can do so now by looking at him on the computer monitor as we speak. I can even go to google earth and see where my son is at this moment.
Much younger people can’t imagine such a world as I knew in my youth.
All of these highly technical things have been the impetus for global communication, global commerce, global posting of realtime news, global transit. By the very nature of the time we live in, we can’t escape the global situation anymore.
But that does not, nor should not, eliminate sovereignity of nations. Every sovereign nation wills—or should will—to be self-governing. That is the whole meaning of the importance of the law of subsidiarity.
The concept of sovereign nations governing and protecting themselves as opposed to international global terrorism, is a whole other concept of what happens when there is abandonment of national self-governance.
We can’t turn back the clock on the world gone global. But we are certainly called to bring Christ to it, as we’ve been called to do in every era since the Resurrection.
If you think that amounts to supporting Hamas terrorism, you are wrong, and you don’t understand his pastoral heart.
Finally, here’s a Fox News video of a Hamas cartoon which portrays Pope Benedict as a Nazi, draped in a Danish and an American flag and protecting the USA and Denmark under his robes. I don’t know about you, but in my eyes, anyone Hamas blasts as “criminal, arrogant, ignorant, and stupid” has received an honor worth coveting.
I think, Dr. E., you should pay a little more attention to the enemy of your enemies. He may not be "your pope" but will certainly prove to be your ally.
As am I, believe it or not.
**********************
Excellent post, Mrs. Don-o. As always.
Do you, as a conservative, believe along with Joseph Ratzinger, that the U.N. should be strengthened and that U.S. sovereignty should be put under the control of a “global authority” given a power of enforcement “with teeth?”
What else is new?
Certainly the encyclical IS dreadful.
That one paragraph is sufficiently dreadful.
However, the duplicity evident in the document makes it more dreadful.
Almost as dreadful in some respects . . . it seems impossible for even some of the non-rabid clique, more rational Roman Catholics et al
to read the encylical with anything resembling the standard dictionary Non-Roman Catholics et al use.
That’s incredibly mystifying.
How is it that Alice’s Rabbit Hole has sooooooooooooo much influence over the basic perceptions of so many RC’s?
Horrifically puzzling, at best.
Mrs. Don-o,
It is well known that some anti-Catholics here do not actually read the documents that they claim to know.
Ohhhhh Reaaaaly?
Of intrest to me in this snippet is the fact that the German side of my family never talked about compulsory enrollment into the Hilter Youth. And my family can cite by name everyone in the town who joined and jsut as importantly who didn't.
Hhhhmmmmmmmmmmm
It is logical . . . given the system and mentality . . . that all locales were the same . . . though I wonder if that was true.
Your religion has taken subsidiarity and found a way to make it sound good to you guys...
Main Entry: sub·sid·i·ar·i·ty
Pronunciation: \ˌsəb-si-dē-ˈer-ə-tē, səb-ˌsi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1936
1 : the quality or state of being subsidiary
2 : a principle in social organization: functions which subordinate or local organizations perform effectively belong more properly to them than to a dominant central organization
1 a : furnishing aid or support : auxiliary b : of secondary importance 2 : of, relating to, or constituting a subsidy
Main Entry: 1sub·sid·i·ary
Pronunciation: \səb-ˈsi-dē-ˌer-ē, -ˈsi-də-rē\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin subsidiarius, from subsidium reserve troops
Date: 1543
Reserve troops, under A central command...
Sounds good, kinda...
It's a pyramid...There is no sovereignty outside of the central authority...No more sovereignty of nations as we know it...
Within the US, Washington is the central authority...We are a sovereign nation...We used to have sovereign states but that is long past...
Under your popes' subsidiarity, they want to run the world like they do your religion...One guy at the top...Everybody follows the central rules...You're allowed to go about your business, make your little decisions, even elect your local officials AS LONG AS they don't veer away from or conflict with the framework of the Central Authority...
Just like the former Soviet Union...Just like your religion...
No Thanks...
I'm quite taken aback. Please forgive me.
I can only say that since you've read the document, it's got to be possible to sort out the other two sources of difficulty, namely:
I'm not trying to be to obscure here; I'm just trying to find out where the specific disagreements are coming from on the Veritas document.
The main areas of misunderstanding --- in my experience--- come from the assumption
In my opinion, these are the areas where clarification would be needed.
On the other hand, concerning Crimen and the Pope's 2001 letter, I see a clear misunderstanding. Nobody was forbidden, let alone "threatened with excommunication," for speaking publicly about being sexually assaulted by priests. That is absolutely flat wrong.
It has at all times been the responsibility of those involved (victims and witnesses of crime) to bring charges and prosecute the perpetrator (we're speaking of civil and criminal trial), and it has always been the responsibility of the (local) bishop, IN ADDITION TO THIS, to apply ecclesiastical penalties (canonical investigation and trial).
These are separate issues. Crimen applies to canon law, not secular law; and your stated opinion that this applies, in any way, to civil or criminal proceedings is simply incorrect.
Let me show you how this works. When there’s a credible allegation against a priest, three things have to happen, and fast:
Please keep in mind that this is what the bishop must do, locally. (It's exactly what mine, Bishop Richard Stika of Knoxville, did immediately when he was given credible information this past April that a priest had abused a teenager back in the 1970's.) It is not the job of the Vatican, it is not done in Rome, it is not the responsibility of the Pope, it is not related at all to Crimen Sollicitationis, and it is entirely different from laicization (which is done in Rome). And by the way, it is not called "defrocking."
"Laicization," which the part that does happen in Rome (since 2001) and which means being dismissed from the clerical state, has little relevance to the abuse cases. Laicization simply means the man is dispensed from his vows, such as the vow of celibacy and the vow of obedience to his bishop, and has permission to live "as a layman."
When you think about it, you realize that laicization means less restriction (no vow of celibacy) and less supervision (no vow of obedience.) The vast majority of laicizations are not connected to crimes of any sort, they're requested by the priest himself because he doesn't want to have the responsibilities of the priesthood anymore.
I hope I'm making myself clear here. In abuse cases, laicization is not actually what you want.What you want is for the bishop to cooperate with the cops, put an end to the alleged abuser's assignment and his faculties, and insist that he stop violating his vows of celibacy and obedience. You don't just release him from his vows.
It's this confusion between the bishop's duty, and "the Vatican's" duty, which has enabled news outlets like the New York Times to make wrongly-directed charges against the Pope concerning, for instance, the Milwaukee case.
Let me repeat: cancellation of all assignments, and suspension of all priestly faculties, is something that happens locally. It is not the same as laicization, it does not happen in Rome, it does not involve the Pope, and it is the responsibility of the Bishop.
Bishops are responsible for the many ghastly and shocking instances of negligence, cover-up, transfer and reassignment ("pass the trash"), etc. that happened especially in the 1970's and '80's. It is shocking and appalling, in some cases criminal, and in some cases (God knows) damnable.
Someday we'll be able to do a fist-bump across the continent :o) --- for now, I'll just say Amen.
No confusion. When a bishop asks the Vatican for help with a pederast priest (which means releasing that bishop from the restrictions put upon him by the Vatican, including going to the police) and when that bishop is met over and over with stonewalling, dismissal and a refusal to act, then it becomes clear a crime has occurred which includes aiding and abetting a criminal, conspiracy and covering up a crime.
Worse, it's possible to wonder if the Vatican permitted these criminals to continue sexually abusing children because basically the Vatican doesn't think this is really a problem. Merely the prerogative of an "another Christ."
Because the Vatican is so clearly guilty here and has so little legal standing in these cases, it comes out with the outlandish (and pretty darn hilarious) defense that churches and parishes and bishops are all independent and autonomous of Rome. lol.
If only.
I'm just trying to find out where the specific disagreements are coming from on the Veritas document.
We can eat a seven-course dinner of steak and baked potatoes and blueberry pie, but it only takes a pinch of arsenic added to the Bearnaise sauce to kill us. Truly, the devil is in the details. Lenin couldn't have written it better.
In the case of Ratzinger's "global authority" encyclical, it's a lot more than a pinch. Amid all the sweet longing for daffodils and world peace, there is at its heart, corruption and enslavement to a one-world power.
Wonder who Ratzinger hopes that will be?
67. In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.
And now begins the equivocation, the backtracking, the further explanation which denies the black and white written words read with our own lying eyes.
Frankly, I'm weary of this game. It's pretty pathetic when "conservatives" fall for this line straight out of the Communist Manifesto...
Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries." -- Karl Marx"...In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.
There is an authority that has more than global reach, God’s Kingdom, but some do confuse that with the U.N. at times.
Birds of a feather...
That observation is not supported by the facts.
Unlike the correct observation that some Roman Catholics do not now nor have they ever read the Bible.
Imagine that. Factual evidence contradicting the monster PR machine working overtime to tidy-up this pope.
Unsuccessfully.
You wrote:
“That observation is not supported by the facts.”
Yes, it is. I can remember a long discussion about Crimen sollicitationis, for instance, where it was clear the document was neither read nor understood. Catholics had read it and understood it.
“Unlike the correct observation that some Roman Catholics do not now nor have they ever read the Bible.”
I am sure some have not. Then again, I can truthfully say that about some Protestants too.
"No confusion. When a bishop asks the Vatican for help with a pederast priest..."
There's your confusion right there. The bishop's responsibility when he has a pederast priest on his hands is (1) to cooperate with cops and criminal investigation. (2) To terminate the priest's assignment (e.g. whatever his "job" is: assistant pastor, campus ministry, whatever). (3) To suspend his faculties (his permission to hear confessions, celebrate Mass, minister the sacraments, any time, anywhere.)
He does not need the Vatican's "help" for any of this. It is the bishop's job to do this without delay. Period.
Is there any part of that that remains a question for you?
Abp Weakland's complication was that the Deaf School pederast (Lawrence Murphy) was very ill and living in a care facility (not even in his diocese, Milwaukee, but in the Diocese of Superior), and Weakland wanted to make sure that wherever he was buried, he wasn't buried as a priest. So he wanted him laicized, meaning, he wanted him released him from his vows. The dying Murphy didn't want to be laicized. And there was the sacramental matter to be resolved by the Vatican.(This is a question of whether Confession was abused. Again, this is not the criminal matter: this is the canonical matter.)
None of this has anything to do with the guy being criminally prosecuted, terminated from assignment, or suspended from priestly faculties. It has to do with the ecclesiastical (not secular) question of whether his funeral arrangements are going to be those of a cleric or a layman.
The criminal matter was to be dealt with, totally and completely, in Wisconsin, USA. Not by the Holy See. Not by the Vatican. Not by some guy at a desk at the Piazza del S. Uffizio, Roma, Italia.
All the Holy See would have a hand in, would be the technical question of the dispensation of vows (laicization), which would determine whether he would have the status of clergy or laity.
When contested, laicization requires a canonical trial. Murphy contested it. A canonical trial was in fact initiated, and Murphy died while a defendant in that trial. Do you get that?
A good afternoon to you.
Mo' later, on Veritas.
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.