To: sitetest
At least do not villify those who disagree with you.Any disagreement we might have is in tactics. I think we share the recognition of the Church's teaching on this particular sin, and agree as to what the bishop's stance should be. I just think that the archdiocese of Boston has a greater priority right now, which is addressing those who have been turned away from the faith by abusive clergy and the church's inability to deal appropriately with abusive clergy. Those Catholics deserve O'Malley's attention more than a coupla renegade politico's. Archbishop O'Malley has set the right tone.
Kerrey and Kennedy are educated men, and are probably well-acquainted with the rules of the Church. That they choose to defy them is not the will of the church but rather a lack of will on the part of Sens. K&K.
Let's not forget, also, that these powerful lawmakers and aspiring president are the elected representatives that Boston area Catholics have supported for many, many years, and whether we like it or not, Kennedy's public values mirror the social values taught by the church. To publicly and imprudently shame these men, in my view, might needlessly repel them from future fruitful alliances with the Church.
To: St.Chuck
Dear St.Chuck,
"Any disagreement we might have is in tactics."
Then the disagreement should end at that point, rather than deteriorating to vicious name-calling.
"and whether we like it or not, Kennedy's public values mirror the social values taught by the church."
Maybe once upon a time, they did. But the fact is, the political programs effected by Chappaquiddick Ted and his comrades have failed abysmally to achieve the social goals set by the Catholic Church. It is more likely that the social programs endorsed by many conservative Republicans will better achieve many of those goals than the tried-and-failed, morally-, socially-, and economically-bankrupting programs and policies of liberals.
That many Catholic clergy and prelates are unable to distinguish between Church teaching, and failed liberal programs to achieve these teachings, doesn't mean that Chappaquiddick Ted's "public values mirror the social values taught by the church", just that the clergy and prelates are partly blind. They confuse their politics, often deeply held, with Church teaching.
"I just think that the archdiocese of Boston has a greater priority right now, which is addressing those who have been turned away from the faith by abusive clergy and the church's inability to deal appropriately with abusive clergy."
I think that the exclusive focus on abusive priests and execrable bishops covering up for them is wrong. I read the posts here of many Catholics, and I think that a lot of the folks in the pews hold similar views and questions. The abusive priests and bad bishops are only part of it. As Fr. Neuhaus has said, the issue is, "Fidelity, fidelity, fidelity."
There is a core of Catholic laity who yearn to see their bishops stand up for the FAITH. To exercise fidelity to the FAITH. I think that must be part of the healing process, as well.
"Those Catholics deserve O'Malley's attention more than a coupla renegade politico's."
Starting to deal with the pollution of the Church by men like this is part and parcel of what the bishops ought to be doing, now. I think that regular Catholic layfolks are looking for this, wishing for this. Thinking that the predator priest problem is separate from the problem of tolerating anti-Catholics within the sanctuary is, I think, a mistake. Tolerating the likes of Chappaquiddick Ted and Comrade Kerry are part and parcel of the lack of fidelity shown by our bishops, priest, and by, also, our Catholic laity, who have voted for these perverse moral monsters.
The guilt for the situation in the Church today does not belong only to Paul Shanley, Rudy Kos, Bernard Law, Rembert Weakland, & Co. The guilt, the moral guilt, lies also with laity who have voted for Chappaquiddick Ted, Comrade Kerry, Bill & Hill, (in my own state) Parris Glendenning and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. The guilt for the degraded life of the Church in the United States, and I suppose in all the West, lies as well with layfolks who have voted in this sort all throughout the First World. The guilt lies with rank and file Catholic, folks in the pews, who have divorced, contracepted, and aborted with the best of the pagans. Who have compromised, over and over, fidelity to Catholic truth and faith.
I think that a large number of Catholics sense this in their souls, if they haven't precisely formulated in their minds. I think that a large percentage of Catholics are ready for priests and bishops who begin, again, to act like Catholic priests and bishops, and I think a large percentage of Catholics are ready to follow such men.
I'm sure many may resist at first. I suspect most will resist for a while, and then will realize that what is happening is to the good. Some may leave. Fewer than many suspect, I think. I believe that within the soul of every single baptized Catholic is the soul of a sheep who can hear his Master's voice. I think that when the bishops and priests start speaking again with that voice, that part of each Catholic soul will re-awaken, and many, most, will follow.
Pope John Paul II is such a man who has spoken this way through his pontificate. He awoke the docile sheep within my own soul, I heard the voice of my Master, and I have been trying to amend my life since.
But when bishops trim their sails, hem and haw, try to avoid the tough dialogue, I don't hear that voice. When Archbishop O'Malley says that pro-abort politicians are "KKK without sheets", I hear my Lord's voice. When he says that it is up to the individual pro-abort Catholic politician to decide whether or not to receive, I hear an ecclesial politician.
sitetest
113 posted on
08/03/2003 4:43:14 PM PDT by
sitetest
(As for lighting matches, when one compares one's opponents in debate to pharisees...)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson