Posted on 10/06/2009 6:17:53 AM PDT by marshmallow
Rather than “hijacked”, I’d say the pro life movement was a political orphan till it was adopted by the right. I am not about to kid myself that the segment of the political establishment self-identifying as right wing gives a flip about abortion as a matter of natural law or civil rights: for them it’s boob bait for the bubbas.
The GOP has historically had a very substantial pro-abortion membership (let’s not forget who appointed Justice Blackmun to the SCOTUS, and whose National Security Advisor produced a National Security Memorandum declaring abortion to be “vital” to US interests).
There is no political home for right-wingers in this country, perhaps because there’s almost no true right wing. Catholics are natural right-wingers, but in America their political perception is clouded by centuries of cohabitation with protestants.
It is perfectly fine for politically active lay Catholics to proclaim themselves as such; indeed, it’s an evangelical duty. We lay people are the ones who have to live in the world and promote its sanctification. The clergy serve in a different sphere. Yes, there’s no lack of Catholic clergy in the March for Life (probably plenty of Orthodox as well). Is this hypocritical or un-american? I don’t think so. Taking it to the streets is an extraordinary expedient, to meet an extraordinary need. It’s not at all the same as having priests running for office or accepting secular positions in business.
I’ve no idea of Archbishop Chaput’s credentials as a theologian. Given the unserious formation and environment now prevailing, not to mention the process by which non-clubbable men are culled from the lists of priest marked for early promotion, I don’t expect anyone in the American hierarchy to resemble an Old Testament prophet, much as I’d enjoy the prospect. As for Chaputs’s politics, he’s a citizen and entitled to his views. I’ve never heard him accused of partisanship, and I hope he’s shrewd enough to avoid being co-opted by those interested in the Church only as a flag of convenience.
Before I sign off here, it's worth noting that there is no area of human endeavor or activity which does not fall within the Church's purview. That includes political and civic affairs. It especially includes political affairs. It applies in spades to the defense of human life. In so far as there is a moral aspect to all human activity, the Church is perfectly within its rights to measure these against the Christian Gospel and provide moral guidance just as John the Baptist told the secular leader of his own time that it was not right for him to sleep with his brother's wife.
You have it half right. Politics should not infect the Church. The Church should infect politics. There is no area of human life where there is no room for the Gospel. To say otherwise is to lay the foundations for the terrible secularism, otherwise known as the "separation" of Church and state which has wrought such havoc to this country.
“Someone who has voted for Duckass because of family and ethic reasons, thinks defending infants from infanticide is not worth doing because others are involved, and feels a reunified Church would mean giving up control of their little part of a fractured Body of Christ is not an opinion that matters.”
Well, you see, your hierarchs and indeed your Pope care very much what the Orthodox attitude is, even mine, but you of course are free to work to create your own version of The Church, no matter what your non American politician hierarchs think. Better yet, like I said, tell everyone what awful people we are and then perhaps the reunion nonsense will stop. Why not go chasing after your own disobedient kids, the Protestants?
“Rome doesn’t “need” you at all.”
Of course it does. Rome is quite frank about that.
“What both Rome and Constantinople “need” is to obey the Lord’s clear command in John 17:20-23.”
Surely you are not suggesting that Orthodoxy succumb to the World and jump on the political bandwagon of the likes of Burke or Chaput or Martino? Is God now endorsing American politics so long as it is spouted from a Latin rite bishop?
“No. The sad fact is that we love you, despite your flaws.”
No you don’t; you are infatuated, not in love. If you want to be one with us, let Rome put aside its innovations, reject the World and become Orthodox.
“It is perfectly fine for politically active lay Catholics to proclaim themselves as such; indeed, it’s an evangelical duty.”
Absolutely
“We lay people are the ones who have to live in the world and promote its sanctification.”
Agreed; and I will add that the political activity of the laity should be informed by The Faith.
“As for Chaputs’s politics, he’s a citizen and entitled to his views.”
Fine; but his political views are not a measure of Christian orthodoxy and through his simplistic theology they should not be presented as such. The laity, as we see here, is all too ready to measure theology and The Faith exactly that way!
“I hope he’s shrewd enough to avoid being co-opted by those interested in the Church only as a flag of convenience.”
We’ll see. Neither Burke nor Martino were and now we see Chaput going after a highly respected Vatican theologian and Cardinal. Sometimes I wonder if some of your bishops aren’t preparing to “go it alone”.
Thanks, but I don't really need you to interpret "Rome" for me.
Surely you are not suggesting
I meant exactly what I said. Christian unity is commanded by Christ himself; schism is the result of sin.
Orthodoxy has "succumbed to the world" over and over again. Usually it was the Pope of Rome who pulled your chestnuts out of the fire. cf Iconoclasm, Monophysitism, Arianism, etc.
I never saw Burke or Martino as having been co-opted. They were being bishops: teaching and laying down the law. The fact that their doing so was politically inconvenient to one side doesn't make them tools or partisans. Are you suggesting their enforcement of discipline was selective? I'd need to see some evidence of that.
“Usually it was the Pope of Rome who pulled your chestnuts out of the fire.”
Up to the 8th century you are absolutely right...and you have seen me say exactly that on multiple occasions. Since the 8th century, and especially since the 11th century, having broken with the Patriarchates of the East, Rome has lived another life altogether.
“Only one of the ancient patriarchal sees still thrives in our time. Sometimes, the Holy Spirit makes things crystal clear for those with eyes to see.”
Agreed. The last thing any of us want is to be joined at the hip with a dead or dying denomination, more involved with the World than the theosis of the People of God.
Reagan put it this way:since we don’t know, why not give the baby the benefit of the doubt?
Dead and getting deader. All the Christians are being driven out of of Muslim lands as they make plain that their supposed respect for the People of the Book is a lie. Those European Christians who so scorn the Israelis, sip tea with Muslims who conceal daggers in their robes.
Well, if the theosis is identified with the likes of the Assyrians, then truly the questions arises: when the Lord returns will he find faith on the earth?
Stay off of this thread.
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.