Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mel Gibson: $5 Mil to Fringe Church (FOX attacks "antiquated Catholic ideology")
FOX ^ | Friday, February 20, 2004 | By Roger Friedman

Posted on 02/20/2004 5:46:17 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines

Mel Gibson's put his money where his mouth is. By now everyone in the world knows he's spent $25 million to make "The Passion of the Christ" and promised nearly $25M more to market it.

But what you may not know is that Gibson has also put up $5.1 million so far to run his own personal church near Malibu.

Last year Christopher Noxon wrote in The New York Times that Gibson had donated $2.3 million to make Holy Family Catholic Church in Agoura Hills, California a reality. Holy Family rejects the universally accepted teachings of the Second Vatican Conference and chooses to stick with antiquated Catholic ideology.

Bu it turns out that Gibson has donated a little more than twice that amount to Holy Family since 1999, according to federal tax filings. And that's not counting 2003, since the most recent report has not yet been filed.

Gibson and his wife Robyn are listed in federal tax records as directors of the Holy Family Catholic Church. The church is run out of Gibson's Icon Production company offices, with an Icon employee responsible for keeping the church's books.

The Gibsons' tax-free donations to Holy Family are made possible by a charity they established called the AP Reilly Foundation, which is named for Mel's late mother. The foundation was created on October 29, 1999 for the sole purpose of creating the church.

The church, by the way, has an unlisted phone number, keeps its address a secret and has asked those who have the information not to release it.

Gibson is no stranger to controversy when it comes to voicing his opinion about his religious beliefs. In a 1992 interview with the Spanish magazine El Pais, his comments about homosexuals — which cannot be printed here — caused an international stir.

In the same interview Gibson talked about the fact that his brand of Traditionalist Catholics did not subscribe to the Second Vatican Council's 1965 rulings on various subjects including who was responsible for the death of Jesus Christ.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Current Events
KEYWORDS: catholicbashing; catholiclist; christianlist; clashofcivilizatio; medianews; presstitutes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-333 next last
To: leprechaun9
There was also a very good reason behind the use of Latin, it united the Church across national borders, it was basically a way to circumvent the "Tower of Babel" issue.
251 posted on 02/20/2004 5:23:40 PM PST by olde north church (American's aren't more violent, we're just better shots!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
He, therefore is excommunicated. The Decree excommunicating Marcel Lefebvre was issue by John Paul II in 1988.

Gibson isn't affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X, so Cardinal Gantin's declaration of ipso facto excommunication doesn't concern Gibson.

Also, the ipso facto declaration of Lefevbre and the bishops associated with him do not apply to anyone other than the bishops, let alone the faithful who attend Society chapels. In fact, recently Bishop Perle of the Eclessia Dei Commission said that it was permissable to attend Masses at Society chapels and even could even make a donation to the collection.

Finally, when the local Bishop of Hawaii declared five Catholics who attended the Society chapel in Honolulu excommunicated in 1993, Cardinal Ratzinger himself declared that the Bishop overstepped his authority and that the people who attended the chapel were Catholics in good standing.

You need more evidence to declare Gibson a schismatic than the fact that he attends a unauthorized Latin Mass.

252 posted on 02/20/2004 5:27:57 PM PST by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Clintons a commie
You need more evidence to declare Gibson a schismatic than the fact that he attends a unauthorized Latin Mass.

I no longer care.

253 posted on 02/20/2004 5:30:08 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Eva
There is a lot of nonsense printed about traditional Catholics in the newspapers by reporters who don't know what they're talking about. Gibson's father may be a sedevacantist--someone who is Catholic but believes the present pope is illegitimate--but there has never been any indication that Gibson shares his view.
254 posted on 02/20/2004 6:18:58 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
I hate it when irreligious people try to express opinions about any type of Christianity. They think that we are all nuts, and speaking of nuts, I think that Mel's dad may be a little senile.
255 posted on 02/20/2004 6:31:57 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Gibson is no stranger to controversy when it comes to voicing his opinion about his religious beliefs. In a 1992 interview with the Spanish magazine El Pais, his comments about homosexuals — which cannot be printed here — caused an international stir.

Here, we get to the real reason why so many in the media want Mel to fail. God forbid that anyone have an opinion that differs from the Official Follywood Dogma!

256 posted on 02/20/2004 6:33:43 PM PST by Paul Atreides (Is it really so difficult to post the entire article?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
I suggest that Jews stay home and not see the movie. Period. This is a Christian movie by a man of faith designed to be understood by Christians. I suggest that Jews take the advice given to Christians when an anti-Christian movie is made--don't buy a ticket.
257 posted on 02/20/2004 6:34:31 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
The notion that a good Catholic can't reject Vatican II is ridiculous. It was a pastoral, not a dogmatic council--hence nothing it decreed is binding. In fact, it was a disastrous event which led to a widespread collapse of the faith.
258 posted on 02/20/2004 6:39:48 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
The Church's quarrel is with its own history and tradition.
259 posted on 02/20/2004 6:42:14 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You're still talking about "decrees of excommunication" issued by the Pope against the SSPX. This is patent nonsense. There was no decree. It was latae sententiae--automatic, an assumption based on the violation of a canon law. But the same law provided exceptions--one of which Archbishop Lefebvre evoked in good conscience. Hence, no excommunication.
260 posted on 02/20/2004 6:46:31 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: lonevoice
Thanks for the ping, lonevoice.

Bump.

261 posted on 02/20/2004 6:55:31 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul (Freedom isn't won by soundbites but by the unyielding determination and sacrifice given in its cause)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
"True ... I are one ..."

As I said earlier: "I think we must live in two different universes."

You have my best wishes and my prayers.
262 posted on 02/20/2004 8:52:24 PM PST by rogator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: rogator
Sad that you consider Christians a "different universe" from you as a Catholic.
263 posted on 02/20/2004 8:56:43 PM PST by AgThorn (Go go Bush!! But don't turn your back on America with "immigrant amnesty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Actually i would say that the Second Vatican Council's 1965 rulings dont exactly folow gods law but bends to appropriate those of a lesser value to true catholicism

Mel is free to worship any way he wants to contrary to popular belief this is still a free country with freedom of and or from religion whichever you choose !

And its his money and no one elses Buisness but those he chosses to worship with and God Himself but there will be those who will oppose mel just because hes mel and he IS a free thinker!

God Bless God and Mel Gibson more power to both of them !
264 posted on 02/20/2004 9:01:00 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (Jhn 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Just out of curiosity, have you read the Vatican II documents?
265 posted on 02/20/2004 9:10:09 PM PST by rogator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
"Sad that you consider Christians a "different universe" from you as a Catholic."

You are puting words in my mouth. I do not consider other Christians a "different universe" from myself as a Catholic.
Based on the context of our brief discussion I was referring to the perception of whether or not Vatican II has helped or hurt the mission of the Church. We are obviously looking at this from two seperate directions and a very different background. I am sorry that my words left room for misunderstanding.
There are several thousand religious denominations claiming to be Christian. The vast majority to some degree or other contain essential elements of Christianity but unfortunately differ among themselves as to the full meaning of the term.
266 posted on 02/20/2004 9:32:37 PM PST by rogator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: rogator
Are you trying to draw me into a debate about Vatican II? Because I won't do it. You can argue about it with others.
267 posted on 02/20/2004 9:41:38 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
No I am not. Some of your comments have led me to believe that you have read or heard what various liberals have had to say about it rather than having read the documents, themselves.
Adios and good luck.
268 posted on 02/20/2004 9:53:12 PM PST by rogator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
BTT
269 posted on 02/21/2004 12:31:29 AM PST by Robert Drobot (God, family, country. All else is meaningless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
What is the difference in making a MOVIE called "The Passion" and making the MOVIE "Schindler's List"? They are both MOVIES (interpretation of, as in, freedom to interpret)


Schindler's List (review of)

No-one, of course, would have gone to see an honest movie about the Holocaust. It would have been in German (or Czech, Polish, French, Dutch, etc.) with subtitles. It might begin with a middle-class Jewish family living comfortably in Germany in 1933. It would have tracked the changes in their life after Hitler's election; the events of Kristallnacht, November 10, 1938, as they are beaten up and their windows broken; their arrest and shipment to a concentration camp; at movie's end, they are gassed at Dachau; the final shot, smoke and ash billowing from incinerator smokestacks at night.

Schindler's List is dishonest because the number of Schindlers in Germany, or for that matter anywhere in Europe, was so small as to be statistically insignificant. But Hollywood cannot tell the story of the everyday or mainstream, not the humdrum ordinary or, apparently, even the horrible ordinary. Hollywood must always be about exceptions. Its films cannot portray everyday work; the employee must defy his boss, quit his job or rob his company at gunpoint. To relate the story of the extermination of six million Jews (and four million others, lets not forget; not only Jews died in the camps), Hollywood must pick the happy story of a man who rescued Jews, even though there were so few who did. (Why not tell the story of the teenage Roman Polanski instead? The family to which his father entrusted him as the Warsaw ghetto was being encircled sent him back--but kept the money they had been paid and all his belongings.)

Steven Spielberg is Jewish, but was incapable of making a story about the Jews; he must adopt a heroic Gentile as the center of his story. Why? He must have felt--lets grant the grace that these were all unconscious choices--that we Jews are still the outsider, the other, even in sympathetic America; that no-one would relate to a Jewish story. Schindler's List is of a piece with those movies about other ethnic groups that set a kindly white person in the foreground. Barbara Hershey in A World Apart; Donald Sutherland in A Dry White Season; Sissy Spacek in A Long Walk Home; Sam Waterston in The Killing Fields; all these examples come to mind, but there are hundreds of others.

There is a very revealing bit of business in Schindler that resembles a similar bit in The Killing Fields. When Schindler, atop the hill with his mistress, watches the clearing of the ghetto, amidst the black and white panorama, we see the sole touch of color in the whole movie: a little girl wearing a red dress. Why has Spielberg engaged in this fantasist touch? So that when the prisoners forced to burn bodies later come upon the little girl's corpse, we can recognize her, amidst the hundreds of other bodies, by the tatters of the red dress. In The Killing Fields, we see a more realistic or veristic scene, a man with a plastic bag on his head being dragged away; later, when Dith Pran passes the man's floating corpse, we recognize it by the bag. What's really going on here: in each case, the director needed a gimmick, a red dress or a plastic bag, to allow us to identify an otherwise anonymous, fungible corpse among the mass of corpses. In each case, its not hard (while acknowledging some real-world problems for the storyteller, to make a corpse noticeable, among so many) to detect a racist subtext: just as the other director may have needed the plastic bag because he feared that, to his audience, all Cambodians look alike, Spielberg may have feared that all his Jews (little girl included) would blend together, while only Schindler, the Gentile, stood out. And for the most part, the Jews in Schindler's List do blend together.

It is very hard also to watch the Jews in the movie becoming pets. Schindler appears to be attached to them as if they were so many turtles; again, I am reminded of the children dressing up ET in their mother's clothes, or carrying him around on their bicycles. God bless Oskar Schindler for protecting the Schindlerjuden, whatever his motives; but there are times in the movie when he appears to think of them as if they were so much property.

There are no tough moral choices in the movie. Schindler does not agonize, or even lose a night of sleep like Jean Valjean, before risking himself; there are no Sophie's Choices in the movie; when he sets his Jews to work making munitions, we are told he is sabotaging the munitions, so that they cannot blow anyone up; and when the Jews walk over the hill at the end, they are walking not into the strife-torn Israel of today, but into a golden fantasy Jewish state.
270 posted on 02/21/2004 1:29:59 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: steplock
The 7th church mentioned in Revelations - the church at Laodicea - is the apostate church.
271 posted on 02/21/2004 1:42:32 AM PST by 185JHP ( "The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
THanks.
272 posted on 02/21/2004 4:39:19 AM PST by dennisw ("Cuz we'll put a boot in your ass it's the American way" - Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Askel5; ...
Technically, Gibson's church is "fringe," since it is not in union with the Los Angeles archdiocese and is outside the Catholic mainstream.

No good Catholic could stay in union with Abp. Mahoney and his peculiar New Age Black Mass.

Archdiocese of Los Angeles


Welcome to

Ministry With Lesbian and Gay Catholics

 

Leaving a legacy of hospitality, The-Tidings 8/17/01

Summer Institute, June 25-29, 2001 at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles

 Always Our Children by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops

'Here I Am, Lord' The Tidings article

Homily by Fr. Peter for 15th Anniversary

February 04, 2001, letter from Cardinal Mahony 

February 04, 2001, letter from Fr. Peter Liuzzi

MLGC 15th Anniversary Celebration February 4, 2001

Events Listing Parish Group Listings 

Statement by Fr. Peter Liuzzi, O.Carm. on Proposition 22

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Home][What's New][Services][Contents]


Click here for a picture of priests gathered around the bishop at the 15th anniversary Mass

"Priest writes book for homosexual Catholics and their families"

Resources available from MLGC

Letter From a Website Surfer

Statement on California Proposition 22 The "Limit on Marriage" Initiative by Cardinal Roger Mahony December 20, 1999

en español:La Declaración de la Proposición 22 de California La Iniciativa del "Limite en el Matrimonio"

Homosexuality and the Church by Fr. Peter J. Liuzzi, O.Carm.

Debunking the myth of a 'cure' for homosexuality by Fr. Peter J. Liuzzi, O.Carm.

Statement on the Murder of gay university of Wyoming student, Matthew Shepard
by Father Peter J. Liuzzi, O.Carm.

Los Angeles' Cardinal Roger Mahony made the following statement on February 2, 1986: The Ministry With Lesbian and Gay Catholics; its' primary goal: "to foster a spirit of community and fellowship among gay Catholics so that they can offer and receive mutual support in living out their lives of faith within the Church" .

Our Mission: To remind all Catholics, even those who discover that they are gay or lesbian, that through their baptism, they still remain full members of the Catholic Church, and Christ's' body, and are thus encouraged to participate fully in parish life.

The Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics recognizes that all persons who are lesbian and gay are capable of living a full Catholic life in union with all members of the Church community.

[Dividing Line Image]

Christopher Williams, a gay Catholic, states the following: "For the longest time I felt like a Godless outcast, but the MLGC has shown me that I can belong, fully to God's kingdom, feeling proud to be a Catholic. I only had to choose to
. "I'm participating fully now in parish activities, and I love it!"


Contact Information:mlgc@la-archdiocese.org

 Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics,  3424 Wilshire Blvd., Second Floor,

 Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 637-7337 .... Fax: (213) 637-6337
Copyright © 1997, Los Angeles Archdiocese.
Last modified: 08/30/01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hit Counter

 

273 posted on 02/21/2004 4:43:05 AM PST by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Ping list, please email me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: keats5
" During family get togethers, my Catholic relations frequently express anger over the Vatican II changes. I have to think this must be a common opinion among mainline Catholics."

It is. V2 was a turning point. The liberal commies became ascendant. Their heterodox destruction of the liturgy and the culture was done with deliberation both inside and outside the Church. The Council itself isn't the issue, rather what the sodomite scum who tried to take over the Church did with it. They are dying off, going to jail and being exposed on a daily basis as the Holy Ghost returns order to His Church. Come home to Rome, the cleansing is ongoing.
274 posted on 02/21/2004 4:47:40 AM PST by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Ping list, please email me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Askel5; ...
"The number of people who attend the Tridentine Mass in the United States is less than a million; the number of Catholics is over 62 million."

Whoa "deacon". If the Bishops OBEYED ROME and made the Indult easily available, then what? For 20 years after V2 people were DENIED the Latin Mass. Abp. L's courage forced an Indult and most American Bishops ignored Rome's clear answer - the Indult remains a small, often ignored part of the question. Too many of the "bishops" in "union" with Rome ran seminaries for queers while booting true, heterosexual and orthodox vocations. Read Michael Rose in Good Bye Good Men. "Union" with sodomites and satanist may satisfy your self proclaimed legalism, but for my family WE REJECT that perversion of God's Church.
275 posted on 02/21/2004 4:55:30 AM PST by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Ping list, please email me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: keats5
I'm not Catholic, but my roots are Irish Cathloic, as are my husband's. During family get togethers, my Catholic relations frequently express anger over the Vatican II changes. I have to think this must be a common opinion among mainline Catholics.

Vatican II didn't change any teachings of the Church but it did change the language and some traditions of the Mass. Many "innovators" encouraged and implemented changes that were not mandated by Vatican II and a lot of Catholics are unhappy with the way *some* maybe even most priests now say the Mass. But the essense of the Mass never changed (the host is still consecrated and therefore becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ) it's just the more modern elements of it that some people become angry over.

276 posted on 02/21/2004 6:41:23 AM PST by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lonely NY Conservative
I don't know if this is where Mel stands or if he has thrown his hat in with the Lefebvre gang.

Last night EWTN rebroadcast an interview with Mel Gibson and he specifically said "Christ died for ALL" and that it wasn't the Jews that were responsible for the death of Christ it is ALL of us who are responsible. That didn't strike me very SSPX-like. Also he said he "was over-run with Jesuits" on the set - hired for language and historical purposes.

277 posted on 02/21/2004 6:45:00 AM PST by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
I suggest that Jews stay home and not see the movie. Period. This is a Christian movie by a man of faith designed to be understood by Christians. I suggest that Jews take the advice given to Christians when an anti-Christian movie is made--don't buy a ticket.

Whoa, ultima. Are you in effect saying that "The Passion of Christ" is anti-semitic? Mr. Gibson has gone to great lengths to say that he hopes everyone sees it and is changed by it. He has also said that Jesus Christ died for ALL of us - regardless of our creed.

278 posted on 02/21/2004 6:57:46 AM PST by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Of course I'm not saying this. But anti-Semitism is a vague charge that can mean almost anything somebody wants it to mean. Is it anti-Semitic to depict Jewish leadership as rejecting Christ in 33 A.D.? His rejection, after all, didn't take place in Norway. So what was Gibson supposed to do to depict the Passion? Jewish critics have said they want him to blame the Romans exclusively. But that is not in the historical texts, nor in traditional teachings, whatever a minority of historical-critics say.

It is true the Church has always denounced blaming the Jews collectively for Jesus' death. Even before Vatican II it had done so--though journalists gloss over this fact and pretend Vatican II alone declared this (thus tying Gibson's principled opposition to Vatican II to his supposed opposition to all Jews). Trent, for instance, was explicit about not assigning collective guilt to the Jewish people. However Jewish critics read these decrees as absolving the Jewish leadership of two thousand years ago as well from any historical participation. They do not do this. History, after all, is history.
279 posted on 02/21/2004 7:33:39 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
What you say is only partially true. The Novus Ordo is not just a Mass that's a variation of the ancient Mass of Catholicism. It is actually subversive of the faith--dangerous for Catholics. The Catholic elements are admittedly present--the valid Consecration--and the actual sacrifice--but they have been hidden and subverted. In some dioceses, particularly in the midwest, they have been totally obscured. In more traditional dioceses--such as those in the Northeast--this is less apparent. Yet statistics tell the real story: since the advent of the Novus Ordo, there has been a precipitous decline in the faith.
280 posted on 02/21/2004 7:46:13 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Are you out of your gourd? Why would you suppose the SSPX would not agree that we are all responsible for Jesus' death? What kind of bizarre prejudice do you harbour against the SSPX to state such an outlandish thing? To even state this so casually is shocking to me. SSPX affirms whatever the Church had affirmed before Vatican II. It does not in any way shape or form believe, for instance, that the Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Jesus, or that we are not all responsible. You need to set the record straight on this and not spread slanders about a group of dedicated Catholic priests about whom you know nothing about.
281 posted on 02/21/2004 7:53:53 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Holy Family rejects the universally accepted teachings of the Second Vatican Conference...

Many Roman Catholics find the "teachings' of Vatican II to be universally unacceptable.

The Holy Family (Jesus, Mary and Joseph) no doubt have found the "teachings" to be reprehensible.

When the results of Vatican II have proven such a disaster to the Church I would think that the franchised American Catholic Church and their managerial-type bishops would work overtime to swing the Church into conformance with the Vatican.

Instead, the American franchise (that's what most of the bishops feel they have going here in North America) grinds out heresy and disenchantment!

282 posted on 02/21/2004 7:57:13 AM PST by JesseHousman (Execute Mumia Abu-Jamal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
I'm not out of my gourd. Read what you wrote again:

"I suggest that Jews take the advice given to Christians when an anti-Christian movie is made--don't buy a ticket."

And what inference about "The Passion of Christ" can be made from the words that you used above.

283 posted on 02/21/2004 8:05:54 AM PST by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
he specifically said "Christ died for ALL" and that it wasn't the Jews that were responsible for the death of Christ it is ALL of us who are responsible. That didn't strike me very SSPX-like. Also he said he "was over-run with Jesuits" on the set - hired for language and historical purposes.

Good catch. He nailed every answer.

284 posted on 02/21/2004 8:11:15 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Look, I went to see "Elizabeth" which had plenty of Catholic villains. It made me uncomfortable and angry. I shouldn't have bought a ticket. This goes for the few Jews who feel squeamish about seeing what happened historically 2000 years ago. They needn't buy tickets. This was the remedy suggested for Christians who protested that "The Last Temptation of Christ" was anti-Christian, though it was not based on the Gospels but on the fevered imaginings of a novelist. As for my stating you're out of your gourd--this was in reference to my other post. You virtually called a group of devout priests bigots--just as you're intimating that I am one for saying what I said about not buying tickets. You are actually projecting bigotry where it doesn't exist--which apparently comes from your own prejudices.
285 posted on 02/21/2004 8:25:18 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
ping
286 posted on 02/21/2004 8:32:06 AM PST by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Gibson follows an excommunicated sect.

He, therefore is excommunicated. The Decree excommunicating Marcel Lefebvre was issue by John Paul II in 1988."

Your remarks are contrary to those of Msgr. Camille Perl of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, but right in line with what most neo-Catholics say about the pre-Novus Ordo liturgy.
287 posted on 02/21/2004 3:08:34 PM PST by RaginCajunTrad (Proud to be a Trad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Fox needs to know that this is a SSPX (dissenting group) church built by Gibson.

SSPX is a group of priests under bishop Lefevbre (France) that broke with Rome. Their Masses tend to be very traditional.

Fox needs to check out with the facts and tell the truth.
288 posted on 02/21/2004 3:11:05 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Fox needs to know that this is a SSPX (dissenting group) church built by Gibson.

SSPX is a group of priests under bishop Lefevbre (France) that broke with Rome. Their Masses tend to be very traditional.

Fox needs to check out with the facts and tell the truth.
289 posted on 02/21/2004 3:13:00 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leprechaun9
**Is ABORTION "universally rejected" by members of the Catholic Church?**

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, yes. I cannot vouch about in practice.

But why does the left hate the Catholic Church so much? Because it is the one institution that the left cannot crack and which has stood tall and steady against the killing of the unborn.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."


290 posted on 02/21/2004 3:19:05 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stylin_geek
**That's an "exclusive" church.**

And therefore it is not Catholic!

The marks of the Catholic Church are one, holy, Catholic (universal), and apostolic. Obvious Gibson's church is not open to all and so it is not universal or Catholic.
291 posted on 02/21/2004 3:20:57 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: westerfield
**I imagine that if he didn't do this, he would have to contend with groupies showing up there**

No it is a private church and is not a part of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. It is NOT a Catholic Church in union with Rome.
292 posted on 02/21/2004 3:23:14 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
**The Pope leads an institution that Gibson no longer believes in.**

Very well stated.
293 posted on 02/21/2004 3:24:59 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
We can't be the judge of that -- that is entirely between Mel Gibson and God.

God knows all of our thoughts, all of our actions, the hairs on our heads..............oh, I forgot -- you are in the choir. LOL!
294 posted on 02/21/2004 3:28:35 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
80 percent have voted with their feet. Where did you get that figure?
295 posted on 02/21/2004 3:31:01 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
We keep having this discussion...............People are coming to the Catholic Church!

Catholic archdiocese of Washington [D.C.] has largest ordination class in 14 years

Roman Catholic friar community growing

Retiring priests pose problem for the Archdiocese of Boston

Church Is Still Attracting Converts

Former Anglican priest ordained Catholic priest in San Francisco

Planted in tradition Orthodox churches are gaining presence, members amongst Protestants

AM - Anglican clergy defect for Catholic Church

Archdiocese has active, engaged laity (Archbishop Burke article)

296 posted on 02/21/2004 3:33:17 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Good ferreting.
297 posted on 02/21/2004 3:34:18 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: olde north church
I read the First Reading or The Second Reading from the ambo once a month. What is wrong with a woman doing the readings? Men do it too, so I don't see the problem.

BTW, you are a baptized Catholic and, as such, are always invited back to the Church. Check around at the different diocese in New Jersey and find a church that has a returning Catholics progrma. I think you will get a lot of questions answered.

If it is a marriage matter, that too can be addressed, but only by the priest or deacon.
298 posted on 02/21/2004 3:41:51 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
What are you saying here? Are you judging any woman who might read one of the readings at a Mass?

I am just offended by your statement.

And please know that I am against having women priests!
299 posted on 02/21/2004 3:48:08 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
At least you saw the humor in the statement about women.

But I am guessing you do not approve of a woman being a lector or reader. Am I right?
300 posted on 02/21/2004 3:49:32 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-333 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