My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (CWNews.com)

The Curt Jester

JIMMY AKIN.ORG

Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« Vatican: Traditional Family Under Radical Attack | Main | Zarqawi Built Global Jihadist Network on Internet »

Friday, June 09, 2006

Comments

Marty

"The problem with these Church documents is that nobody seems to read them, much less give the assent of mind and heart required of faithful Catholics."

Nobody reads these documents because nobody except the bishops and a few priests know about them and how often do they advertise or have copies of them? Let's try this one on for size-NEVER!

When was the last time you were in church and ever heard about one of these documents from the pulpit and had it explained? Answer: NEVER

If you are living in California you're never gonna hear or see any of these documents regarding homosexuality for the exception of maybe a handful of parishes statewide and I don't think that is an exaggeration. Name one good holy bishop in California who would encourage informing their flocks about any of these documents? I bet you can't think of one bishop.

God help California.

 Mark

Stephen Brady is correct. There is a stranglehold on the Teachings of the Catholic Church by homosexual Bishops and clergy. California is in sad shape. That is why Father John Hardon, S.J. said "Unless we recover the zeal and the spirit of the first century Christians-unless we are willing do do what they did and to pay the price that they paid, the futuure of our country, the days of America are numbered." http://www.rcf.org (217)632-5920 Call Stephen Brady to dicuss strategies for dealing with the abuse of parish monies, corruption, and non-adherence to Catholic Teaching. The homosexual Hierarchy must protect their own. Their world depends upon it. -Stepen Brady

T. Shaw

Forgive me in advance.

Where is it taught that any of us (bishops and priests included) is incapable of grave error and sin?

It seems the concept that we must love the sinner and hate the sin has been subverted into love the sinner and promote the sin. That is just not right.

I'm not certain of the authenticity of this quote, but here goes:

"The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." St. John Chrysostom - OUCH!

Also,

St. Catherine of Siena’s admonition to Pope Gregory XI: "Uproot from the garden the stinking weeds full of impurity and avarice and bloated with pride. I mean the evil pastors and administrators who poison and corrupt the garden. Use your authority, you who are in charge."

Alas,

“Moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men.” General Patton

JDM

I think it's fantastic how the church is accepting this issue of homosexuality.

They don't approve it.
They accept it.

Today, it is known that when there is an issue that is creating a problem, after recognizing it, one must accept it.

I think that the church is in an acceptance era. Thank God. It's better than trying to exile or excommunicate everyone on the face of the earth.

It seems to me that the Catholic Church is simply trying to find a more peaceful and fruitful way to handles issues.

War isn't very popular. Whether issues can be handled in a way where war can be avoided, or simply delayed, only time will tell.

Aaron

JDM:

What else should we "accept?" Abortion? Euthanasia? You sound like a politician. McCarrick IS a politician; like so many other big city Bishops. Bishops should be leading souls to heaven, not "accepting" practices that will banish them from it.

wolftracker

We can probably expect more quotes like this from the Cardinal now that he is in retired status. Most unfortunate. There is already too much confusion among the faithful.

Janice

McCarrick's going to be like "Bishop" Thomas Gumbleton: insidious while he was active, horrific in retirement.

Kit

Why won't the Vatican do something about these guys? What can be done to a retired bishop?

TM Lutas

Here's a challenge for everybody, from the Cardinal on down on both sides of the issue. Can you define what civil marriage does? I suspect that you can't. Just on the federal level there are literally thousands of laws that have some role in defining it as a civil institution. Throw in the state, county, and municipal codes along with private sector rights and responsibilities and you get a great mass of law *which nobody understands*. If you can't define it, you can neither defend it properly nor reform it properly.

Give me a cite to a reliable listing of civil marriage rights and responsibilities or admit you don't really understand what you're talking about.

jake11

My, my, another thread about homosexuality. Careful, if certain members of the church are willing to accept same sex civil unions, then same sex marriage can't be far behind.

fedup

I don't know if JDM sounds like a politician, but he does not sound like a much of a Catholic to me. The mainstream Protestant denominations in the United States are very accepting and do not fight for (or believe in) anything. People are leaving them in droves. The greatness of the Catholic Church (in theory) is its unwillingness to bend to the everchanging winds of the times. I say this is true in theory because, in the United States at least, there are too many priests and bishops (and laypeople) who ignore this and just follow the current trends.

Father Joe

http://fatherjoe.wordpress.com

First, and foremost, such civil unions cannot be given ground because homosexuality is disordered and gay sexual acts constitute grevious sin. Before any item on a social justice agenda like health care or insurance or social security or pensions must come the matter of the soul and eternal salvation. Living with civil unions, in other words not putting up a fight about them, will further convince dissenters that homosexual acts are no big deal and that prohibitions against such perversions, even those bewailed in St. Paul, merely represent homophobic bigotry.

Second, while the sinful matter is the real gravity of the issue; even the immediate consequences do not entirely support the Cardinal's liberality about such unions. He means well, and speaks the diplomatic language of compromise, with which he is a grandmaster; however, such verbage can become self-contradictory and too much can be sacrificed to the pagan altar of modernity.

The repercussions for such recognition would be far-reaching and horrendous. Call it what you will, the outward sign value, as well as the many rituals and procedures to enter into such civil unions would still parallel heterosexual marriage. Marriage makes sexual congress between men and women respectable. Civil unions would give similar legal standing to same-sex relations, literally such exclusive preoccupations as anal and oral intercourse. Once created, how do we restrict civil unions to homosexuals and lesbians? Couples who reject traditional marriage would probably demand participation. There are already rumblings that polygamists would want legal standing for their unions, too.

One does not have to look far into the future to reckon upon headaches when Catholic institutions will be forced to give spousal benefits to gay partners of civil unions. We might not call it marriage, but such will be the message rubbed in our faces again and again. This will also make it impossible to discriminate against gay couples when it comes to adoption services. Boston Catholic Charities has already had to close their program down because of coercion to give children to gay couples. The list of difficulties seems endless. What was the Cardinal thinking?

People should, indeed, take care of one another. However, you do not need recognized civil unions to do that. It is a backward way of trying to help others.

Words are important, but actions can be even more crucial. People in the past understood this. Shack up with someone of the opposite sex long enough and the state could declare the union a common law marriage. Marriage is the name we give to that bond that is ordered by nature to the sexual life of properly orientated human beings and to the propagation of children. Gay civil unions would establish a recognized parody of marriage that would undermine the genuine nuptial reality.

The impression given when we speak of the marital bond between men and women as an IDEAL, is that conflicting bonds may have some real if lesser benefit for the couple and society. However, if we are discussing illicit bonds where mortal sin is the manner by which that unity is signified, then any allowance is a form of cooperation with evil. Marriage and heterosexual intercourse is not merely the ideal for the intimate bondings of men and women; it is the only valid means for such bonding. There is no moral evil with the chaste single life or with a vocation that requires celibacy. But society should not and must not formally recognize the sexual unions of men with men or women with women or adults with children or people with animals or relationships where there are multiple spouses or bisexuality or an atmosphere of free and recreational sex and pairings.

The recognition of civil unions, and many see marriage outside the sacramental-religious setting as precisely this and little more, would have the state indeed produce a new kind of secular marriage, even if it avoids the term, "marriage". It will be taught in our schools, if it is not already, as normative and healthy. It will be given moral and civil equivolence with the marriages of men and women. The real trouble that the Cardinal mentions is already happening; otherwise, this debate would not even be going on. Family structure is being questioned and rewritten– right now. Formal recognition of civil unions will merely be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Sodomy laws are largely ignored or removed from the books. Homosexuals move quickly through relationships and so you can bet that no-fault divorce will also accompany any such formal institution. The meaning of marriage will be further eroded by association and it will be seen as interchangeable with gay civil unions. Bisexuals may even pass from marriage into gay civil unions.

The liberal churches, like many of our Episcopalian colleagues, will bless same-sex pairings and their ministers will be authorized to conduct legal ceremonies just as our priests currently do for heterosexual marriages. Pressure will build on the Catholic parishes to do likewise. This is the future that is materializing before us, right now. Our only defense is not to compromise even one iota. We can urge the homosexuals to life-long chastity and celibacy; but we cannot turn a blind eye to immoral behavior or recognize unions that have no standing before God and which should have no legitimacy among men.

https://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/2006/06/10/cardinal-says-he-could-live-with-civil-unions/

Father Joe

It was as I had hoped! I just read that on Friday, McCarrick issued a statement distancing himself from his remarks, saying that he “misspoke.”

“In trying to reply to a question, I mentioned people who may need the right to take care of each other when they are grievously ill and hospitalized, but it was always in the context of the proposed legislation and in no way in favor of a lifestyle that is contrary to the teaching of the church and Scripture. … I regret any confusion my words may have caused. I just did not make myself sufficiently clear,” McCarrick said.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/192/story_19293_1.html

Joseph D'Hippolito

I realize that McCarrick has been the object of scurrilous accusations concerning his sex life. If those accusations are true, then it should not surprise anyone that he would support same-sex unions.

As far as "distancing himself" from his earlier comments, Father Joe, I frankly wouldn't put much stock in it. As Brown in Orange County, Calif. and Myers in Newark, N.J. have demonstrated, American bishops will protect their posteriors at any and all cost -- even to their credibility -- when called to account for public statements.

If you're not familiar with Myers, then read this exerpt from a piece I wrote about how the bishops dealt with Sen. Kerry's stance on abortion in the 2004 presidential election:

An American official at the Vatican told Time that "people in Rome are becoming more and more aware that there's a problem with John Kerry and a potential scandal with his apparent profession of his Catholic faith and some of his stances, particularly abortion."

Such concerns provide an opportunity for ambitious prelates to curry favor with Rome. Tom Roberts, editor of the liberal National Catholic Reporter, cites Newark Archbishop John H. Myers as an example.

"Myers fits this papal administration's template for upward career mobility," Roberts wrote. "Staunchly conservative, he is a prolific pastoral-letter writer, a soldier in a campaign against the prevailing culture and someone for whom, given the nature of those letters, there are no unanswered questions or shades of gray."

Myers, a canon lawyer who served as bishop of Peoria, Ill., before being appointed to Newark, wrote such a letter criticizing unnamed Catholic politicians in New Jersey for supporting abortion and demanding that they refrain from taking communion. Reaction was unexpected and intense.

One Catholic state senator said he would leave the church. Gov. James McGreevey, a former altar boy, said he would neither receive communion publicly nor let the church influence his positions.

Myers retreated.

"We have an understanding that I won't personally criticize [the governor]," Myers told the New York Times. "And we are working together on a lot of issues, like providing social services to the poor and helping people with HIV."

In other words, Myers chose retaining influence with politicians to asserting the Vatican's position.

jake11

Ah yes Joseph, McCarrick must support same sex unions because of the "scurrilous accusations regarding his sex life". Come on, you are delusional. It amuses me how paranoid the Catholic church is regarding this issue.

vincero

Let's see...

Scurrilous: 1 a: using or given to coarse language b: being vulgar and evil.

2: containing obscenities, abuse, or slander.

I can't believe what I'm hearing here. J. D'H on the one hand realizes that the accusations against Cardinal McCarrick are vulgar, evil, abusive, obscene, and slanderous. Yet, just for the sake of argument, is assuming that they are true.

This is no different from the politician who says that he believes that there is no truth to the rumor that his opponent beats his wife. No different than the question asked of a witness on the stand that is struck down as inappropriate by the judge. The question is out there, and in the minds of those considering the case. It can't be taken back.

Shame on you.

And to prove your case...why, an article you wrote, of course. Why don't you just call the Cardinal a homosexual and get it over with. Then we can all hate him as we most certainly should.



Joseph D'Hippolito

Points well taken, jake11 and vincero. OTOH, I have no reason to trust McCarrick. For that matter, I have no reason to trust any bishop's comments on current issues, sexual or otherwise. And, frankly, nothing would surprise me about McCarrick or about any other bishop, for that matter.

Dubliner

Joseph you're at it again. Your arrogance is breathtaking. You seem to have no reason to trust anone or anything except your own pompous rantings. You have a real problem with the church - and I suspect that there has to be a personal agenda here somewhere. Personal issues are never solved by wild rantings - whatever is your issue, and I bet there is one - you need to work through it in a way that will leave your integrity as a person intact. The present rantings are seriously compromising it!
Love from Ireland.

The worst enemies of the Church are the internanl ones, who have penetrated to the highest of the ranks, and to the most "saintly"of reputations.

Theirs is the greatest hell.
(Judas was a bishop)

Edward Dolan

Nobody reads these documents because nobody except the bishops and a few priests know about them and how often do they advertise or have copies of them? Let's try this one on for size-NEVER!

When was the last time you were in church and ever heard about one of these documents from the pulpit and had it explained? Answer: NEVER

Actually, going to school in Pittsburgh and attending Mass at St. Paul Cathedral there, I've found that Bishop Wuerl very often quotes and discusses papal encyclicals, if not necessarily some of the more obscure documents issued by the various committees. I, for one, have greatly enjoyed his homilies where he does reference the encyclicals, which is not something I've had happen in other churches I've attended.

Perhaps not an accident, then, that Wuerl was the one chosen to replace McCarrick.

James

I thought the same thing. How can he condone civil unions when that would imply homosexual pairings? Would he support a proposed law giving couples living together more rights, say in adopting children, etc.?

What seems so amazing is that some of these bishops don't even seem to pretend to be orthodox bishops anymore. Even crooked cops pretend to be upstanding ones. ...this seems to indicate a certain degree of boldness, because they don't even have to pretend anymore.

BT

http://www.adw.org/news/News.asp?ID=378&Year=2006

In fairness to Cardinal McCarrick, read his letter at the above link.

***Note from Thomistic***

Cardinal McCarrick's qualifications (mentioned in the link above) are analyzed in Roman Catholic Blog here:

Cardinal McCarrick Says He 'Mispoke' On CNN

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic