Posted on 06/30/2011 1:10:26 AM PDT by Cronos
New York’s state’s Catholic bishops continue to blast the state’s passage of homosexual marriage this week, with one bishop calling on Catholic schools and other institutions to shun lawmakers in protest of the vote.
In an op-ed Sunday in the New York Daily News, Nicholas DiMarzio, bishop of Brooklyn, called on members of his diocese to “not to bestow or accept honors, nor to extend a platform of any kind to any state elected official, in all our parishes and churches for the foreseeable future,” a statement that may signal a new era in church-state relations in the Empire State.
Catholic bishops have previously fought high-profile battles with public officials who endorse policy positions contrary to official church teaching. The previous battleground was mostly limited to debates over the right to life, which is seen within Catholicism as a primary, inviolable value. (Catholics, the church teaches, may not vote for pro-choice politicians except for ‘grave reasons.’) But it is new that church leaders such as DiMarzio would include legislation on gay rights as sufficient cause to ostracize politicians.
BB-””But I do not see Pope Leo prescribe any practical remedy. For there is no way to repair the brokenness of this world “”
Pope Leo offered many remedies(I am actually a nerd who has read the majority of his encyclicals)There are too many to post of his remedies,but he even wrote one on a Christian Democracy and was a huge advocate of Christian unity against state error
GRAVES DE COMMUNI RE
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18011901_graves-de-communi-re_en.html
Christian Democracy, by the fact that it is Christian, is built, and necessarily so, on the basic principles of divine faith, and it must provide better conditions for the masses, with the ulterior object of promoting the perfection of souls made for things eternal. Hence, for Christian Democracy, justice is sacred; it must maintain that the right of acquiring and possessing property cannot be impugned, and it must safeguard the various distinctions and degrees which are indispensable in every well-ordered commonwealth. Finally, it must endeavor to preserve in every human society the form and the character which God ever impresses on it. It is clear, therefore, that there in nothing in common between Social and Christian Democracy. They differ from each other as much as the sect of socialism differs from the profession of Christianity.
7. Moreover, it would be a crime to distort this name of Christian Democracy to politics, for, although democracy, both in its philological and philosophical significations, implies popular government, yet in its present application it must be employed without any political significance, so as to mean nothing else than this beneficent Christian action in behalf of the people. For, the laws of nature and of the Gospel, which by right are superior to all human contingencies, are necessarily independent of all particular forms of civil government, while at the same time they are in harmony with everything that is not repugnant to morality and justice. They are, therefore, and they must remain absolutely free from the passions and the vicissitudes of parties, so that, under whatever political constitution, the citizens may and ought to abide by those laws which command them to love God above all things, and their neighbors as themselves. This has always been the policy of the Church. The Roman Pontiffs acted upon this principle, whenever they dealt with different countries, no matter what might be the character of their governments. Hence, the mind and the action of Catholics devoted to promoting the welfare of the working classes can never be actuated with the purpose of favoring and introducing one government in place of another.
8. In the same manner, we must remove from Christian Democracy another possible subject of reproach, namely, that while looking after the advantage of the working people it should seem to overlook the upper classes of society, for they also are of the greatest use in preserving and perfecting the commonwealth. The Christian law of charity, which has just been mentioned, will prevent us from so doing. For it embraces all men, irrespective of ranks, as members of one and the same family, children of the same most beneficent Father, redeemed by the same Saviour, and called to the same eternal heritage. Hence the doctrine of the Apostle, who warns us that “We are one body and one spirit called to the one hope in our vocation; one Lord, one faith and one baptism; one God and the Father of all who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”(2) Wherefore, on account of the union established by nature between the common people and the other classes of society, and which Christian brotherhood makes still closer, whatever diligence we devote to assisting the people will certainly profit also the other classes, the more so since, as will be thereafter shown, their co-operation is proper and necessary for the success of this undertaking.
I have to say BB, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Leo XIII are strikingly similar and have been graced by God with brilliant minds directed towards love for building a strong Christian Society
BB-””I am a realist. And so I do not believe that what you seek is achievable in this broken world.””
But Dear Sister, this mindset causes people to throw up their hands and do nothing. We are called to be the light of the world in Christ and we must do what we can to change hearts and not be discouraged
“For I was hungry and you gave Me to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me to drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; naked and you covered Me; sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me”-Matt.25:35-36.
No, they did not. Slavery was not abolished until Abraham Lincoln got it through Congress. I trust that you do not confuse Lincoln with the Founding Fathers.
I wonder where the Roman Catholic Church was when slavery was going on throughout Europe and the world for millenia and what it has done about slavery that is STILL going on in parts of the Middle East and Africa?
I believe that a whole series of Papal encyclicals were listed from about the time that slavery first became widespread.
I just do not agree that separating the church from the state was a bad thing. I do not for one minute believe Jesus advocated for a church state. The reigns of power that the Roman Church assumed never had a result that proved good for it or for mankind.
See Poland today. Cronos is living it, so he has first hand knowledge.
Unless there is freedom to choose our preferences in worship - or even to not worship - then there can be no true inward heart-change to live lives that honor and glorify God.
Your Calvinist friends will be grieved to hear you say this.
The Catholic Church had no business becoming entangled with secular powers and, when they did so, that was when they began to decline in their clarity of the Gospel message. With their lust for riches and status and their persecution of fellow humans for the sake of holding onto that power, they lost the spiritual argument for holding forth the banner of the body of Christ.
Will you argue that regarding the various Protestant denominations that became the state religion?
This world is NOT the kingdom of God and, in its current state, can never be.
Since the 1500s, that has become plain.
You probably should go back and read the posts leading up to that one to get the context of why that was said. Some claims were made that had America been established as a "Catholic" country, these ills would not have happened.
So, how about your church?
Thanks for the pings and your usual excellent points.
Will I have to always nitpick my posts like you seem to do? Of course I know about Lincoln, but there WERE many of the founders who were personally opposed to slavery and, because of the Southern states' positions, it was not pressed at that time. A civil war was eventually fought over it and other issues and it was abolished less than a century after the establishment of our country. It hardly started in America, but was in existence practically since the beginning of mankind.
I believe that a whole series of Papal encyclicals were listed from about the time that slavery first became widespread.
How nice. How much "teeth" have they put behind them? Is owning a slave a mortal sin, now? Was it back then?
See Poland today. Cronos is living it, so he has first hand knowledge.
Poland is not a Roman Catholic "state". Though the majority of its citizens are Catholic, it is a constitutional democracy. The Pope is not its ruler and never was. THAT was my point.
Your Calvinist friends will be grieved to hear you say this.
Sigh....this is getting old. Anyone with a brain would agree that unless a person has a heartfelt faith, they will not live to honor and glorify God with holy lives. Will you stop with the "your Calvinist friends.." silliness? Is it so difficult to understand that we can agree about the major tenets of Christianity, disagree about certain things, and still be brothers and sisters in Christ? Is THAT what is bothering you that it comes up so frequently? Are you disappointed we don't fight more or something?
No truly democratically free country can be ruled by religion. It is called a "theocracy", when that happens. One day when Christ truly does rule and reign on earth we will know how life is supposed to be lived. But that will not happen until he returns. I can wait.
So how about my church what? Does my church practice slave ownership? No. Does my church think it should be ruling the country? No.
The same question you asked stfassisi. Where was your church when slavery was going on throughout Europe and the world for millenia and what has it done about slavery that is STILL going on in parts of the Middle East and Africa?
My question had to do with the discussion regarding the founding of this country and the ideal of freedom of religion and it being challenged by arguments about definitions of morality being lacking. Since I don't wish to get sidetracked into a who did what when argument, I'll leave it at that. Like I said, go back to the start of this thread and you will understand the context of my question.
I've followed the thread from the start. I understand the context. I also note that you have refused to answer, although you will pose that question to others and expect an answer.
I suspected after the first time you obfuscated that we'd not get an answer from you. We know what that says about your church.
Though I know you are probably just goading me and being provocative and all, I will attempt to answer your "question", though I am also pretty sure you will not like my answer.
"My" church is the body of Christ of which I became a member when I first trusted in Jesus Christ as my Savior. There have been several local congregations during my life that I have fellow-shipped with other Christians. I was first led to Christ and baptized in a Southern Baptist Church. I have also attended non-denominational churches in the past.
If you had gone back and caught the gist of the conversation, then you would have seen that it started with a post claiming America was not started under the blessings of God because it was not a "Catholic" country. I answered that it was certainly the intent of the founders to establish a country that was free of the tyranny of state religions as well as other forced governments and that this allowed the true freedom to worship as ones heart dictates. That only when faith is genuine, can true obedience and honorable living be experienced. This was followed with a poke that "slavery" was not evidence of God's blessing. Since the poster said the Roman Catholic should be the rightful state religion in order to be considered blessed by God, my response was to challenge the Roman Catholic Church's history regarding slavery.
So, I hope you realize that the discussion was not trying to say one church was better than another regarding the issue of slavery, but rather that religion - and especially the Catholic one - is not essential to establishing a free, constitutional democracy. It certainly was the case that the founders had a deeply felt faith in God and most were Christians and their ideas of liberty and unalienable rights being endowed by our Creator were Bible based. They also knew that, unless men were constrained by the laws of nature and nature's God, the success of this country would prevail or fall.
So as much as you seem to want to make this about me and "my" church, it is not about that. And you know nothing at all about what that "says" about my church. I can see a trick question from a mile away. Suspect what you wish, I doubt whatever I say will matter. Ecumenical threads should avoid acrimony, right?
The same as my response asking about your church's history regarding slavery.
So as much as you seem to want to make this about me and "my" church, it is not about that.
So, in essence, you can ask that question about my church, but we're not allowed to ask it about your church. Right.
And you know nothing at all about what that "says" about my church.
That you have no answer "says" a lot about your church.
I can see a trick question from a mile away.
It was the same question you asked. Nothing more, nothing less. But once it's asked of you, it suddenly becomes a "trick" question. Got it.
I doubt whatever I say will matter.
You are right so far, since nothing of what you have said gets even close to providing an answer to the "the question".
Ecumenical threads should avoid acrimony, right?
It's only acrimony if we ask it about your church?
Though I know you are probably just goading me and being provocative and all,
Easy on the acrimony.
I will attempt to answer your "question",
You seem to have talked about everything else with the exclusion of providing an answer. With all the obfuscating so far, you could have answered several times over.
I meant to also ping you to my post above.
Well, maybe they "ought"; but government cannot compel this "ought."
In the second place, where have we ever seen an example of a governmental institution that has ever remained "absolutely free from the passions and the vicissitudes of parties" in American history, or even world history?
Indeed, the Church itself — not a governmental institution, but a spiritual one — is riven by "faction" (passionate parties) even now. Do I need to provide examples?
Back to the first point, for the government to try to "compel" an "ought" is, to me, an exercise in futility — not to mention probably an overreach of its constitutional powers.
The reason I believe that goes back to Plato. He noted that a civil/political society (the polis) can only be as good as the human capital that comprises it — that is, the good order of the state is the natural result of the good order of its citizens. If the citizens are disordered, there is not a single legislative act, nor any combination thereof, that can transform citizens' "disorder" into the order which serves the common good of society.
Indeed, boatbums has already pointed out this problem: "Even the laws we have today are not enough to constrain those whose hearts are evil." And then she adds: "And only until Christ rules and reigns upon this earth will we truly have a world wherein righteousness dwells." And I so agree.
This is why I believe Pope Leo's splendid essay — which I find so beautiful — is an exercise in idealism. It seems to me that the Christian-inspirited political order he describes is a glimpse into the state of affairs that will come into effect with Christ's Return, and the Kingdom He will then establish.
I do not see man effecting anything like this within the order of space and time — that is, from within the order of finite Creation.
Unless, of course, it should be God's Will that it be so.... And then, so it would be.
But with this observation, we are no longer in the realm of political theory; we are in the realm of God's Spirit....
Speaking as a "philosophical realist," how on earth could Pope Leo's "model" ever be implemented anyway? This is what I meant about his model's being "impracticable."
Though I welcome any suggestions about how that might be done!
Dear brother, you wrote, "Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Leo XIII are strikingly similar and have been graced by God with brilliant minds [you left out Pope John Paul II!] directed towards love for building a strong Christian Society."
Oh, I so agree! Still, I doubt any of these world-class thinkers ever meant to suggest how that would translate into actual, concrete political structures. Pope Benedict XVI in particular seems reticent on this topic.
My belief is these three towering figures were addressing the spiritual man, not the political man. If I might put it that way. Those who can respond to this magnificent call to God's Grace will become better "human capital," and their proliferating existence in a society will tend to raise its moral quality over time. It is only in this way that a just political order can emerge, absent a direct miracle from God.
You took me to task for my observation, "I am a realist. And so I do not believe that what you seek is achievable in this broken world." Well, the above is my attempt to explain why I feel/believe that way. FWIW.
But I am not in the least discouraged! And I have plenty to do....
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear brother in Christ! And especially for sharing the social thought of Pope Leo with us. I find him a splendid thinker.
THX 4 PINGS N GOOD POINTS.
betty boop wrote: “...My belief is these three towering figures were addressing the spiritual man, not the political man. If I might put it that way. Those who can respond to this magnificent call to God’s Grace will become better “human capital,” and their proliferating existence in a society will tend to raise its moral quality over time. It is only in this way that a just political order can emerge, absent a direct miracle from God.”
That is exactly want the early settlers in America (including the Framers) believed, also:
A TREASURY OF PRIMARY DOCUMENTS
http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/primarysources.html
Primary Source Documents Pertaining to Early American History
An invaluable collection of historical works which contributed to the formation of American politics, culture, and ideals
The following is a massive collection of the literature and documents which were most relevant to the colonists’ lives in America. If it isn’t here, it probably is not available online anywhere.
ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE (500 B.C.-1800 A.D.)
Scroll down to “Seventeenth Century Sources Relating to American History”
Scroll down under that category and find this:
Massachusetts Bay School Laws (1642) Requiring that every father teach his children the Catechism; if not, the children shall be taken from the home. (A “hot” link to it)
Will I have to always nitpick my posts like you seem to do? Of course I know about Lincoln, but there WERE many of the founders who were personally opposed to slavery and, because of the Southern states' positions, it was not pressed at that time.
You said that: Slavery was going on long, long before America was even a dream in someones collective heads(s). So, I do not hold that against the founders. Certainly, they saw the wrong in it and abolished the practice in post 114. Some of the founders were against slavery and other freed their slaves when this country was established, true, but that is not abolish. Not nitpicking - a very important point.
A civil war was eventually fought over it and other issues
Certainly - although the greatest issue was not slavery as a stand alone issue, but the issue of states' rights to govern themselves and the right to secede from a nation that they no longer wanted to be a part of was the main deal breaker in the South's eyes.
How nice. How much "teeth" have they put behind them? Is owning a slave a mortal sin, now? Was it back then?
Why not revisit the encyclicals listed a couple of pages ago on this thread with the portions highlighted pertaining to slavery and tell me?
Poland is not a Roman Catholic "state". Though the majority of its citizens are Catholic, it is a constitutional democracy. The Pope is not its ruler and never was. THAT was my point.
That is not the meaning of what I was trying to convey. I said that Poland is the most Roman Catholic nation on earth, after the Vatican. I never said that the Pope was its ruler; although the procession in the streets of the newly elected government with the Archbishop of Warsaw and a large number of clergy in that procession is heartwarming indeed. I believe that Cronos, since he moved there, is experiencing it in full colour and every detail.
Sigh....this is getting old. Anyone with a brain would agree that unless a person has a heartfelt faith, they will not live to honor and glorify God with holy lives. Will you stop with the "your Calvinist friends.." silliness? Is it so difficult to understand that we can agree about the major tenets of Christianity, disagree about certain things, and still be brothers and sisters in Christ? Is THAT what is bothering you that it comes up so frequently? Are you disappointed we don't fight more or something?
Sometimes, my dear boatbums, you will find that it is not always just about you.
No truly democratically free country can be ruled by religion. It is called a "theocracy", when that happens. One day when Christ truly does rule and reign on earth we will know how life is supposed to be lived. But that will not happen until he returns. I can wait.
Oddly enough, there is much discussion about the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States and how Christian each was/is on some threads right now.
Very good and thank you. I will ping you to post 137.
Gagdad Bob talked about John Paul and Vatican II on his blog Friday, HERE
Oh my, dear Matchett, but Gagdad Bob has hit it clean out of the ballpark again.... Amazing insights; highly recommended reading!!!
And then, Dr. Godwin leaves us with this thought:
No earthly manifestation is or can be absolutely normative for man. Again, the norm is up ahead, in the future (although it once manifested in time and history). It is that toward which we are evolving, the better-on-the-way-to-the-perfect. Thus, for man it is always the new normal. Or, to put it another way, you're not normal unless you're made new.All of which leaves me simply speechless, out of pure admiration for what has been so comprehensively said....
Thank you kindly for constantly linking me to the latest of Gagdad Bob's treasures, dear brother in Christ! And thank you so very much for writing!
p.s.: All bolds above my responsibility, added for emphasis; otherwise, it's all Gagdad Bob's....
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.