Posted on 01/26/2013 7:11:01 AM PST by marshmallow
(2) HIS church? He decides what the diocese will believe? I was sure it was just one diocese, part of the Catholic church as a whole.
“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
attributed to Athanasius. (quoted by Catholic apologists)
“You seem to be babbling nonsensically. Why?”
Because I only write for educated and informed.
For the benefit of lurkers, no individual bishop defines or promulgates Catholic dogma, whether it relates to the intercession of the saints, purgatory, the nature of grace, the priesthood, the morality of abortion or any other element of Catholic teaching. That is reserved to the teaching magisterium of the Church comprising the Pope and bishops united to him. The word "speak" is often used loosely and this is sometimes what is meant when people talk about "speaking" for the Church.
An individual bishop is, however, sent by the Church to preach the Gospel to those who have it not in a particular diocese and also to safeguard it and enforce its teachings amongst Catholics, which is exactly what is happening here, so there is no contradiction.
Should an individual bishop neglect to do this by failing to oppose the spread of error or even worse, contributing to its dissemination, he himself becomes a heretic. Hence the phrase..."the floor of hell is paved with the skulls" of bishops."
Hope this helps.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Ahh yes....that word "speak" again (see post 22).
Yes, it's supposed to "speak" for the Church. It handles press releases and interacts with the press, in a somewhat similar manner to the way the White House Press Secretary handles relations with the media. However, sometimes things go wrong and the guy out front will say something which hasn't been cleared with the Chief. A "clarification" will then be issued and damage control will ensue. I think folks understand this situation.
With regard to the subject of this thread, readers will doubtless understand the difference between a decades long, deliberate campaign of dissent and revolt against essential and non negotiable aspects of Catholic faith and teaching (The Reporter) and a single, off-the-cuff remark on an issue not central to the deposit of faith by a Press Officer (Lombardi).
You wrote:
“(1) It doesn’t matter if it was the opinion of the last forty bishops if he just offering his opinions, which he is.”
It is his opinion, but he is the legislator for his diocese so his opinion can be turned into canon law on a limited basis - so it matters. Also, his opinion is absolutely correct in the objective sense. The NCR is not Catholic. That is objectively true.
“(2) HIS church?”
Yep.
“He decides what the diocese will believe?”
In prudential matters, yep.
“I was sure it was just one diocese, part of the Catholic church as a whole.”
It is. You don’t really know what you’re talking about do you?
“Because I only write for educated and informed.”
But you’ve shown yourself to be neither educated or informed on this matter.
You wrote:
“Still with the non-answers”
No, I gave excellent answers to the questions asked. I always do.
“but notching it up to make it about me.”
It’s always about the anti-Catholic. That’s why they post here in threads posted by Catholics.
“Standard fare for the FR apologists and completely par for the course.”
And irrefutable.
The Chruch's teachings on self defense are crystal clear, and this liberal Italian's personal opinions do not trump the magisterial teachings of Popes and the Catechism.
In his Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II writes:
"......Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defense, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense."
He goes on to say:
"...legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason."
Pope John Paul II knew exactly what happens when innocents are disarmed, having lived under both Nazism and communism. He did not believe in disarming citizens and neither does the Catholic Church, this spokesperson's personal opinion notwithstanding.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is crystal clear on self defense:
When you look at the highlighted areas from both Pope John Paul II and the Catechism, it is crystal clear that the Church teaches that the family has the right to defend itself, including the use of deadly force.
This Bishop must be against social justice!
No stampede of bishops to join Finn. Guess they're all heretics.
“Because I only write for educated and informed.”
“But you’ve shown yourself to be neither educated or informed on this matter.”
Once gain, for the benefit of lurkers, a bishop is tasked with the pastoral care of his own particular diocese. In the case of Bishop Finn, that diocese is Kansas City where the NCR has its offices. There is no canonical requirement for a bishop to monitor, approve or comment on the pastoral duties of bishops in other dioceses. This is known as "jurisdiction" and a bishop has it for his own diocese alone. Aside from legal issues, it is also not remotely practical, given the number of Catholic Dioceses in the US (~200)and the number of issues with which each bishop has to deal. IOW, no bishop is obliged to join Bishop Finn in his endeavors to change how the National Catholic Reporter names itself, which is the issue here. Likewise, someone in the Diocese of Savannah (my own diocese) who decided to use the name "Catholic" in an inappropriate way, would be out of the reach of the Bishop of Charleston. Readers will recall another recent example where Michael Voris of the then "Real Catholic TV", was instructed by the Bishop of Detroit, in whose diocese Voris has his operations, to drop the name "Catholic" because it implied some official connection to the Church. Voris complied and changed the name to "Church Militant TV". Sadly, the NCR isn't quite as respectful of ecclesiastical authority.
While the name issue may not be under the purview of other bishops, the dissemination of this publication in other dioceses most certainly is and whether this publication is allowed to be displayed in churches of other dioceses would definitely be within the responsibility of other bishops. Some have indeed banned it in the past while others have not and yes, they are heretics.
However, with the advent of the internet, publications like the NCR can now make an end run around restrictions such as being banned from churches and reach a wider audience.
Once again, I hope this helps.
Thank you for dealing with the question directly.
It is certainly understandable, if a spokesman has freelanced and interjected his own opinion, requiring correction. It happens frequently in government, less frequently in the private sector, and on rare occasion in the religious sphere.
But, I missed this clarification somehow. Can you be so kind as to direct me to it?
It would be a relief, to know that our Catholic brothers and sisters have the support of their church here on FR, being such a pro-2A site and all.
Don't you agree?
There hasn't been one and there won't be one. Those are for politicians generally or in the Church's case, for issues of grave import relating to the Catholic faith. See post #25, paragraph 2.
It would be a relief, to know that our Catholic brothers and sisters have the support of their church here on FR, being such a pro-2A site and all. Don't you agree?
A relief to whom? Americans are constantly and vociferously angry at the Vatican over something or other. If it's not guns, it's the birth control issue or abortion or homosexuality. The noise of the pro-2A cohort is hardly audible in Rome over all the other screaming coming from this side of the Atlantic.
Most people are aware of the Church's teaching on this issue, I think, and anyone with a genuine interest in what the church teaches about the right to self defense can find it HERE.
Again, how best to implement this teaching in the civic arena is a prudential matter, which is just one more reason why Lombardi's statement will be allowed to stand.
I see.
So, it’s regarded as a matter of little import, not warranting clarification.
That is a pity. The 2nd Amendment is the means of last resort to support all the other rights so defined.
Think about it in terms of mission.
The word "guns" doesn't feature prominently in the Catechism. Likewise, the New Testament isn't big on whatever was the more primitive alternative, 2,000 years ago.
Sometimes, matters regarded as peripheral and of little import do intrude upon one’s ability to pursue one’s mission, thus becoming of greater import than initially imagined.
Your church appears to be a little too comfortable with and trusting of governmental edict. I’d think history would point out the potential folly of this. I’d think very recent events would as well.
But, Lombardi’s statement of encouragement regarding impending attempts to restrict 2A rights will stand as is, unaddressed in your estimation.
I regretfully agree with your assessment.
In the US (and perhaps the West in general) over the past half-century..........definitely!!
Elsewhere in the world.....not so much.
The Church does know a thing or two about persecution.
By what authority?
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.