Posted on 04/20/2002 4:14:07 PM PDT by Notwithstanding
In a strong message days before a summit of U.S. churchmen on a sex abuse scandal, Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II said Saturday that priests must live celibate lives and avoid scandalous behavior. Bishops, he said, must investigate such behavior and take action to end it.
I am a ram among the sheep.What sheep?
I am a ram among the sheep.If you were a real ram you would be posting in Latin.
Speaking of attending Mass, I notice you've been on here for at least two hours.
Did the SSPX dispense with Sunday mass attendance or, horror of horrors, do schismatics go whenever they get good and ready?
No I was not aware of that, and should have been. Are you saying that these Franciscan didn't lock doors? Or did they in fact make a moral judgement that some supplicants (Jewish civilians) should be welcomed and other supplicants (Nazi SS) should face locked doors and the appearance that a house is empty? If they did the latter, which I suspect was the case, they were true heros precisely because they did presume to judge merit.
Even among monks, priests, and nuns there are heros and others not so heroic. I know nothing about the Franciscans but gladly accept that the wonderful report above.
I am most of the way through reading "Monte Cassino" by David Hapgood and David Richardson, which is about a famed Benedictine abbey in World War II. I would say from that book that the Benedictines at this one particular abbey were, on average, morally better than the average person, but still normally human. Sometimes the doors were locked against quite worthy supplicants, other times even Nazi "supplicants," coming as slave catchers, were, under extremely difficult circumstances, allowed in.
I feel that there was some implication that I was being anti-Christian, although I am probably being too sensitive. In any event, I am not anti-Christian or anti-Catholic. As for the Christians in the church, only some of them Catholic, how can one generalize? Based on the Washington Post story, it is quite clear that not all the religious Christians in the church have the same viewpoint. They are under enormous pressures and are perhaps facing situations not fully covered by the rules of their order.
Speaking of attending Mass, I notice you've been on here for at least two hours.
Did the SSPX dispense with Sunday mass attendance or, horror of horrors, do schismatics go whenever they get good and ready?
I am a ram among the sheep.Sounds more like a confused sheep in ram's clothing.
You guys only have one Mass? Is it in a church or a funeral home, as the one around here is?
Well I guess that does it. The order has been given, and it will be followed...ya right. I think that the Vatican doesn't understand how much the world has changed in the last 50 years. Real truths never change; however this is not a truth, but a rule that was implemented around 1200.
You got any blacks in your SSPX congregation or is it, as I suspect, lily white? We've got black families, Hispanic families, Indian families, Pakistani families, and a very large Tongan community.
Lots of women, too. All of them happy and beautiful.
As to the criticism of criticism, every Tom, Dick and Harriet with access to a bible of whatever flavor seems to regard himself or herself as an expert on how the Roman Catholic Church ought to govern its affairs. This is quite impertinent at best and downright rude and counterproductive more commonly.
This particular moment in history is not a time when Catholics will do their usual patient job of putting up with criticisms not rooted in knowledge. A previous poster apparently not Catholic pointed to that portion of Scripture which seems to justify divorce for reasons of adultery as not being accepted by Catholicism. I will defer to those more knowledgeable among my co-religionists as to whether that comment was accurate or whether there is some Scriptural analysis which trumps or better explains that one, but it does appear to me that we rely on the more general statement from the Wedding Feast at Cana: What God has joined together, let no man put asunder and thus we do NOR allow annulments (Church annulments which differ from government annulments) for reasons arising after marriage. It is at least a fair criticism that is made and a fair ground of argument.
Part of what is going on here is an inhouse Catholic fight over governance of the Church with AmChurch liberals seeking, as usual to destroy the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church and accommodate it to the American way of democracy, "progress", moral slippery slopes, empowerment of women to govern men within the Church, birth control, an end to celibacy, Bozo the Clown Masses (not the ordinary Novus Ordo but cutting edge fiascos complete with environmentalist hymns worshipping mother earth), communal meal Masses in place of the emphasis on making immanent upon the altar of the one and only sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross. These tendencies began over a century ago with the desire of Bishop Ireland of Minneapolis to worship the false God of American culture. That desire was condemned by Leo XIII.
If your faith is in the flag, the Bible and no darn taxes or simply in Scripture alone, fine, but we are a little more complicated for good or for ill and we are having an internal war now. If you want to fire your pastor for some reason, it's none of the business of Catholics. How we govern our Church is none of yours. Ironically, under the First Amendment, that is even the American law.
Given the turmoil WITHIN the Catholic Church over the spectacular scandal caused by the usual pack of liberal dimwits in the AmChurch hierarchy (Law who is the Kennedy family Cardinal du jour, Mahoney, the late and unlamented Bernardin who had the Windy City Gay Men's Chorus sing at his funeral, the Mad Monk of Milwaukee, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam) who claim, at least Mahoney does, that celibacy is at fault, this is no time to be hearing from our fundamentalist brothers their deep scholarly insights on what is wrong with our Church. This is a time for Catrholic introspection and infighting.
We Christians have many causes in common. We have many enemies in common. What we do not have is the luxury of being able to pick at each others' scabs in public.
Jimmy Swaggert's failures and Bernard Law's failures were not proof of any invalidity of the beliefs or preaching of either which must stand or fall on the merits of the doctrines and not of the speakers. If the worst of sinners proclaims Jesus Christ Lord and Savior, that sinner is right. If the most charitable and wonderful of human beings denies that status of Jesus Christ, that person is wrong.
Recently, an Ohio priest committed suicide, very possibly consigning himself to hell in the process. When non-Catholics take this opportunity at this time of internal pain of Catholics here, to either pick at the usual scabs or, in some cases, to take an opportunistic moment to try and pick off and "convert" weak-minded Catholic stragglers to some other form of Christianity, you do not know us very well nnor are we likely to regard those efforts as merely the acts of misguided allies.
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.