Today's Messages (off)
| Unanswered Messages (on)
| Forum: Liturgical Renewal and the Reforms of Vatican II |
|---|
| Topic: Ted Kennedy |
|---|
| | Topic: Happy Thanksgiving! |
|---|
| Happy Thanksgiving! |
Wed, 26 November 2008 05:30 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Busy today with holiday preparation.
Hope everyone has a wonderful day tomorrow! 
|
|
| | Topic: Welcome back to Year B |
|---|
| | Topic: Saint of the Day (November 22, 2008) - St. Cecilia |
|---|
| Saint of the Day (November 22, 2008) - St. Cecilia |
Sat, 22 November 2008 08:41 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
AmericanCatholic.org
November 22, 2008
St. Cecilia
(3rd century)
Although Cecilia is one of the most famous of the Roman martyrs, the familiar stories about her are apparently not founded on authentic material. There is no trace of honor being paid her in early times. A fragmentary inscription of the late fourth century refers to a church named after her, and her feast was celebrated at least in 545.
According to legend, Cecilia was a young Christian of high rank betrothed to a Roman named Valerian. Through her influence Valerian was converted, and was martyred along with his brother. The legend about Cecilia’s death says that after being struck three times on the neck with a sword, she lived for three days, and asked the pope to convert her home into a church.
Since the time of the Renaissance she has usually been portrayed with a viola or a small organ.
Comment:
Like any good Christian, Cecilia sang in her heart, and sometimes with her voice. She has become a symbol of the Church's conviction that good music is an integral part of the liturgy, of greater value to the Church than any other art. In the present confused state of Church music, it may be useful to recall some words of Vatican II (see below).
Quote:
“Liturgical action is given a more noble form when sacred rites are solemnized in song, with the assistance of sacred ministers and the active participation of the people.... Choirs must be diligently promoted, but bishops and other pastors must ensure that, whenever the sacred action is to be celebrated with song, the whole body of the faithful may be able to contribute that active participation which is rightfully theirs.... Gregorian chant, other things being equal, should be given pride of place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded.... Religious singing by the people is to be skillfully fostered, so that in devotions and sacred exercises, as also during liturgical services, the voices of the faithful may ring out” (Constitution on the Liturgy, 112-118).
|
|
| | Topic: Lutheran Welcomes Papal Comments on Justification |
|---|
| | Topic: Thanksgiving Prayer |
|---|
| Thanksgiving Prayer |
Thu, 20 November 2008 06:36 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation!
It is from your goodness that we gather today in this United States of America to give you thanks and praise for the blessings you have showered upon us.
We thank you for this bountiful land - the plains, forests, mountains, rivers, lakes and deserts.
We thank you for the people native to this land - for the lessons we have learned together.
We thank you for the diversity of people you gathered to these shores from around the world.
We thank you for our history - for the freedoms we cherish as well as for the scars that have challenged our integrity.
In the face of many challenges, amid forces that try to divide us, you keep blessing our desires for justice and unity.
You have allowed us to offer hope for many in the world, you have blessed us to defend the cause of liberty and freedom.
We are sorry for the evil of slavery and for the ongoing sin of racism among us.
We are sorry for the times we have been a cause of division in the world, for when our greed and our use of the world's resources has hurt the rest of the world, especially the poor.
We grieve that we have become a culture insensitive to the absolute dignity of every human life and that we continue to struggle to know how to protect the basic human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.
We beg you for the gifts of conversion and healing, for ourselves, and for the sake of the most vulnerable of the earth.
We trust in your mercy, O Lord, our God, and we ask you to renew us with hope and re-dedication to thanksgiving.
May we grow in gratitude today for the many gifts you have given us - gifts beyond what most of the world can imagine.
With our thanksgiving, we ask you to bless us with generosity, that we might welcome the stranger and care for those most in need, because you have been so good to us.
Allow us to be good stewards of the many gifts you have given us.
Bless our families and loved ones. Bless our nation and the whole family of nations.
We know you have given us gifts to allow us to make this nation greater and the world better, and so we thank you.
Grant us greater understanding, solidarity, compassion, unity, justice and peace.
We make our thanksgiving and entrust our prayers to you, in the name of Jesus, who himself prayed that we may be one.
Amen.
by
Andy Alexander, S.J., Creighton University
|
|
| | Topic: Pope Clarifies Luther's Idea of Justification |
|---|
| | Topic: Maryland pro-life decision |
|---|
| | Topic: Revised Grail Psalter |
|---|
| Revised Grail Psalter |
Thu, 13 November 2008 04:51 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Bishops choose Revised Grail Psalter for liturgical use in U.S.
BALTIMORE (CNS) -- The U.S. bishops chose the Revised Grail Psalter produced by the monks of Conception Abbey in Missouri over the Revised New American Bible translation of the Book of Psalms for liturgical use in the United States. The vote at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' meeting in Baltimore Nov. 12 was 203-5 in favor of accepting a recommendation of the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship to adopt the Grail Psalter for use in all liturgical settings. The decision also must be confirmed by the Vatican. There was little debate before the vote and no amendments could be made to the translated psalms. Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the Committee on Divine Worship, said the Revised Grail Psalter also had been recommended over the Revised New American Bible version by the Committee on Doctrine's Subcommittee on the Translation of Scripture Text and by the now-defunct music subcommittee of what was then called the Committee on the Liturgy.
- - -
|
|
| | Topic: Bishops again take up section of missal translation rejected in June |
|---|
| Bishops again take up section of missal translation rejected in June |
Tue, 11 November 2008 12:22 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
BALTIMORE (CNS) -- Continuing a process that began in 2006 and is expected to last at least until 2010, the U.S. bishops took up another lengthy section of the English translation of the third edition of the Roman Missal Nov. 10. The bishops were to vote on a heavily amended version of the Proper of the Seasons -- made up of the proper prayers for Sundays and feast days during the liturgical year -- on Nov. 11, five months after the 700-page translation was rejected at the June meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Orlando, Fla. Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the bishops' Committee on Divine Worship, presented the translation on the first day of the USCCB fall general meeting in Baltimore and outlined the steps his committee had taken since the June rejection of the document. "We have been very encouraged by the participation of the body of bishops" in the amendment process, he said. Of the more than 300 new modifications submitted to the document after the June meeting, Bishop Serratelli said, more than 90 were related to syntax, grammar and sentence structure; 14 were made to break up long sentences; 13 corrected inaccuracies in the translation; and 180 dealt with concerns about vocabulary.
|
|
| | Topic: Another Open Letter |
|---|
| Another Open Letter |
Fri, 07 November 2008 09:18 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
By John L Allen
For the record, nobody from the Obama transition team has solicited my advice about relations with the Vatican, and I would frankly be surprised if the question were yet on their radar screen. Others, however, are already speculating about how things might shake out; on Wednesday, for example, Reuters moved a story predicting a “tricky” relationship between Rome and the Obama White House because of the abortion issue. As a thought exercise, I decided to pen an open letter to the president-elect about U.S.-Vatican ties over the next four years.
Mr. President-elect:
This letter is a plea to make U.S.-Vatican relations under your administration a priority, because of the enormous good in the world that could be accomplished by exploiting natural areas of common concern.
I’m aware that the stars may not seem especially well-aligned for such collaboration. A small number of Catholic bishops in the United States made statements during the campaign that favored your opponent, which may have left a bitter aftertaste among some of your supporters and advisors. It’s also clear to everyone that, barring a dramatic change of heart on your part, the White House and the Vatican will have deep differences during your term over “life issues” such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
I would urge you, however, not to allow those points to obscure four basic political realities.
First, the Vatican and the United States need each other, whatever their differences may be in a given historical moment. What the United States is in the realm of “hard power,” meaning coercive military and economic might, the Vatican is in terms of “soft power,” meaning the capacity to stir action on the basis of ideas. Religion is a powerful motivating force in human affairs, and the pope has the biggest bully pulpit of any religious leader. It’s simply bad for everyone if these two forces are not on good speaking terms.
Second, it’s smart politics for you not to neglect the Vatican. As you know better than anyone, in some ways your reelection campaign in 2012 has already begun. You won the Catholic vote overall this time, but narrowly lost white Catholics; working cooperatively and respectfully with the Vatican could help you and your party with that group.
Third, the Vatican has a centuries-old diplomatic tradition of dealing with governments that, in one way or another, don’t follow the church’s line on certain matters. Despite those disagreements, Vatican diplomacy typically strives to keep lines of communication open and to seek common ground. In other words, they’ll want to do business with you where they can.
Fourth, the Vatican is eager for good relations with the United States in particular, regardless of which party happens to be in power. The Vatican deeply admires the robust religiosity of America, in contrast with the pervasive secularism of much of Europe. The Vatican also believes that the United States is its most natural ally in promoting religious freedom and human dignity around the world.
The potential for collaboration is very real, because there are numerous areas where your policy positions dovetail with the social teaching of the Catholic church and the diplomatic interests of the Vatican. Among the most obvious examples are immigration, economic justice, peace, and environmental protection. In a statement this week congratulating you, Vatican spokesperson Fr. Federico Lombardi also expressed the Vatican’s desire to work together on Iraq, the Holy Land, Christian minorities in the Middle East and Asia, and the fight against poverty and social inequality.
In each area, you will find a clear track record of teaching from recent popes and a strong determination on the part of the Vatican’s diplomatic apparatus to move the ball. In fact, many of these topics represent areas in which the Vatican was at odds with the Bush administration and has longed for new American leadership.
Pope Benedict XVI himself has clearly opened the door to a positive working relationship.
The pope sent a telegram on Wednesday calling your election “a historic occasion,” and offering his prayer that God will “support you and the American people, so that through the good will of all, a world of peace, solidarity and justice can be built.” Lombardi likewise expressed hope that you “will be able to match the expectations and the hopes directed towards the new president, effectively serving justice and rights, finding the best ways to promote peace in the world, favoring the growth and dignity of persons with respect for essential human and spiritual values.”
You’ll notice that neither the pope nor his spokesperson explicitly mentioned abortion or other areas of disagreement, and certainly their tone suggests that concern for the “life issues” will not exclude cooperation in other areas. On the contrary, the Vatican seems to be doing everything it can to invite it.
May I suggest one more possibility for U.S.-Vatican partnership? I believe there is a historic opportunity for your administration and the Holy See to work together to move the international community, at long last, toward serious engagement on behalf of peace and development in Africa.
You are a hero to much of Africa, giving you a degree of political capital on the continent that no other Western leader could rival. At the same time, 2009 is shaping up as a “Year of Africa” in global Catholicism. Over the next 12 months, Pope Benedict XVI will visit Cameroon and Angola; the African bishops will hold their plenary assembly in Rome; and bishops from all over the world will converge on Rome for a “Synod for Africa.” All this suggests the possibility of synergy between the world’s most important political and spiritual leaders -- i.e., you and the pope -- to promote peace and development for Africa, where the world’s most impoverished and abandoned people are today found.
If you’re interested in forging such a partnership, the first important choice to make is who to send to the Vatican as your ambassador. Ideally, you will turn to someone known to have your ear, who will have real political influence in your administration, and who also knows the Catholic world. What you’re looking for, in other words, is a Democratic equivalent of James Nicholson, President Bush’s first Vatican ambassador. Nicholson had served as the chair of the Republican National Committee, and helped to steer the party’s outreach to Catholic voters. Bush sent a clear signal with that nomination that he was interested in the Vatican, and this is one case where it would behoove you to follow his lead.
Finally, one last piece of unsolicited advice: Mr. President-Elect, whatever else you do, please try to avoid repeating the mistakes of the last Democratic administration with regard to the Vatican.
In his memoirs, former Vatican Ambassador Raymond Flynn tells a depressing story from 1994 illustrating what I mean. During the lead-up to the U.N. conference on population in Cairo in 1994, Pope John Paul II called Flynn to the Vatican on a Saturday morning to personally request a telephone conversation with President Clinton. Flynn relayed the request urgently to the White House that afternoon, and got no response. He called again on Sunday and on Monday, both times with no results. Frustrated, Flynn then got on a plane to Washington on Tuesday. He cooled his heels outside the president’s office that night and most of Wednesday. Finally, he was admitted to the White House’s pre-Cairo war room, where he was told by Assistant Secretary of State Timothy Wirth that “nobody is getting a chance to lobby the president on this one.” Dumbfounded, Flynn explained that the Bishop of Rome is not a lobbyist, and that it would be seen as a profound act of disrespect if the president wouldn’t even get on the phone. After almost a week, Clinton finally agreed to take the pope’s call.
The episode was symptomatic of a basic disinterest within the Clinton team about the Vatican, which at times shaded off into hostility. The result was that the U.S.-Vatican relationship during the Clinton years was more often defined by predictable differences than by imaginative areas of common purpose.
For what it’s worth, Mr. President-Elect, my advice is to get on the phone if the pope calls. Better yet, initiate the conversation yourself. You might be surprised about where it goes.
|
|
| | Topic: Why so many pro-life Catholics backed Obama |
|---|
| Why so many pro-life Catholics backed Obama |
Wed, 05 November 2008 07:05 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
November 5th, 2008
Andrew Greeley
It would appear from the pre-election polls that more than half of American Catholics voted for Barack Obama. How could they do that when their bishops ordered them to vote for John McCain? In fact, no such order was issued, though some bishops came pretty close to it. Most bishops were content with a somewhat obscure statement about the evil of abortion which also urged Catholics to consider all the items on the Catholic pro-life agenda.
Some years ago, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger issued a statement on the subject to which he added a footnote about cooperation in evil. Sometimes such cooperation can be “formal and direct,” as when one votes for a pro-choice candidate because one deliberately agrees with and supports that position. Other times, however, the voter does not approve of the candidate’s position on abortion but votes for him because of other “proportionate” reasons. Then the cooperation is “material and indirect.”
What might such a reason be?
It might have been that while the candidate did not reject abortion, he supported most of the other Catholic positions on life, i.e. he condemned unjust wars, the death penalty, torture, kidnapping, cruelty to immigrants that his opponents implicitly support.
Some bishops and priests argue that abortion is such a horrible evil that there can be no proportionate reason. That might be their opinion, but it goes beyond Catholic ethical demands. Another — and similar — stand might be that the Catholic voter would have to abstain from all politics since there are very few political leaders who support the whole list of Catholic life issues. Opposition to abortion does not by itself exhaust the moral obligations of the Catholic social ethic.
The pro-choice enthusiasts who think they have fulfilled their moral responsibility when they reduce that social ethic to abortion do not understand Catholic teaching. Abortion certainly violates Catholic respect for life, but so do many other actions that are common in many modern societies — like torture, the death penalty, unjust war, cruelty to the elderly, abuse of children, racial injustice — what the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin called the seamless garment of life.
If McCain were elected, we were told, he would have appointed judges who would have reversed Roe vs. Wade. Perhaps that would have happened, but we kid ourselves if we think that the present court would in fact do that. Moreover, if it did, state laws would continue to apply.
Ultimately, Catholics must strive to persuade others by the depth and power of their commitment to life issues. Ranting at others because they are “killing babies” may be emotionally satisfying, but it doesn’t change people’s minds. In a society like ours, one needs to build a coalition to change people’s minds on such an issue. Arguing with them and trying to impose the Catholic notion of natural law on them by political power won’t work.
Only living the whole Catholic social ethic, as difficult as that may be, will provide examples that may change the anti-Catholic prejudice that the most fanatical pro-lifers create. It will not be an easy task. But Catholics can only achieve any progress against abortion by the good example of their lives.
|
|
| | Topic: Vatican spokesman expresses hopes for Obama's presidency |
|---|
| Vatican spokesman expresses hopes for Obama's presidency |
Wed, 05 November 2008 06:14 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805613.htm
By Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Although papal custom is to wait until inauguration day to send a congratulatory message to a new U.S. president, the Vatican spokesman expressed his hopes for Barack Obama's presidency just a few hours after his victory was declared.
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi told reporters Nov. 5 that Catholics "are praying that God will enlighten and assist" the new president.
"The task of the president of the United States is an immense and heavy responsibility, not only for his own country, but for the whole world given the weight that the United States has in every sphere on the world scene," Father Lombardi said.
"We all hope the new President Obama will be able to respond to the expectations and hopes that have been placed in him, serving human rights and justice, finding the best ways to promote peace in the world and favoring the growth and dignity of persons with respect for essential human and spiritual values," Father Lombardi said.
|
|
| | Topic: God of All Nations... |
|---|
| God of All Nations... |
Wed, 05 November 2008 04:49 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
...Father of the human family,
we give you thanks for the freedom we exercise
and the many blessings of democracy we enjoy
in these United States of America.
We ask for your protection and guidance
for all who devote themselves to the common good,
working for justice and peace,
at home and around the world.
We lift up all our duly elected leaders and public servants,
those who will serve us as president and vice-president and legislators.
Heal us from our differences and unite us, O Lord,
with a common purpose, dedication, and commitment
to achieve liberty and justice in the years ahead for all people,
and especially those who are most vulnerable in our midst.
Amen.
(from Catholic Household Blessings and Prayers)
|
|
| | Topic: Conference Calls For Deeper Knowledge of Liturgy |
|---|
| Conference Calls For Deeper Knowledge of Liturgy |
Tue, 04 November 2008 22:16 |
 M Anon
Messages: 1251
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
http://www.zenit.org/article-24159?l=english
OXFORD, England, NOV. 4, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Before the divisions over the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council can be healed, liturgy needs to be more fully understood and lived, concluded a congress held at Oxford University.
The one-day congress on "Scripture and Liturgy in the Theology of Benedict XVI" took place Saturday at the Catholic chaplaincy of the university. Nearly 300 attended the event sponsored by the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, founded and directed by Scott Hahn, professor of theology and Scripture at Franciscan University of Steubenville.
The Center for Faith and Culture in Oxford, the U.K. outreach program of Thomas More College in New Hampshire, organized the conference. Stratford Caldecott, director of the center and conference organizer, told ZENIT that "it is no secret that Catholics are still deeply divided over questions of liturgical style and use, many of them nursing wounds that have never completely healed" since the introduction of reforms in the wake of Vatican II.
"Now, with pressure building under Benedict XVI for a far-reaching 'reform of the reform,' some fear a new wave of liturgical changes causing further division in a generation that has grown used to the 'novus ordo' (new order)," he added. "Such disagreements emerge whenever a public forum is created in which to discuss the question of liturgy."
Caldecott said the conference's message was clear: "Before any real healing of these wounds can take place, the nature and meaning of the Church's liturgy needs to be more widely understood and lived."
Speakers
Papers were presented by four speakers: Dominican Father Aidan Nichols, author of numerous books including "The Thought of Pope Benedict XVI" and the forthcoming "G.K. Chesterton, Theologian"; Michael Waldstein, the Max Seckler Professor of Theology at Ave Maria University in Florida; Adrian Walker, an editor of "Communio" and translator of Benedict XVI's book "Jesus of Nazareth"; and Scott Hahn.
"All the papers highlighted the fact that that the Bible is fundamentally a liturgical book," said Caldecott. "The canon of Scripture was originally determined by the decision to read certain books at Mass. Old and New Testament both point toward the body of Christ, dead and risen, which is then received in the Eucharist. The homily itself should lead the faithful from the act of listening to the Word to receiving it in communion."
The conference organizer said after several conference participants spoke, a single thread emerged that all agreed upon: "The liturgy cannot remain frozen, nor can abuses be left unaddressed, but the most urgent need of all is for mystagogical catechesis. Young people as well as old need to become aware of the cosmic nature and theological depth of the Mass."
Hahn underlined in his address -- titled "Eucharistic Kingdom and the World as Temple" -- the meaning and beauty of the liturgy by drawing attention to the fact that "we are with Jesus in heaven, whenever we go to Mass."
Caldecott commented: "Only if this understanding is present will the necessary liturgical changes be understood and accepted."
|
|
| | Topic: I'm from Massachusetts... |
|---|
| I'm from Massachusetts... |
Sun, 02 November 2008 08:04 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
...It's a done deal here.
http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2376
Obama, who stands for social justice, was the choice of California. Too bad they believe it's their civic duty to take away from some people who live in a non-traditional marriage. They deny “the law which we had from the first,” a law of love.
[Updated on: Wed, 05 November 2008 15:10]
|
|
| | Topic: Halloween/All Saints |
|---|
| | Topic: May they rest in peace |
|---|
| May they rest in peace |
Wed, 29 October 2008 14:43 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
News: Two Jesuits Killed in Moscow
Posted at: 2008-10-29 09:25:00.0
Author: James Martin, S.J.
From the Press Office of the Jesuit Curia in Rome, this morning:
Two Jesuits, Fathers Otto Messmer and Victor Betancourt, killed in Moscow
On Saturday 25 October, Father Victor Betancourt, an Ecuadorian Jesuit working in the St. Thomas Philosophical, Theological and Historical Institute in Moscow, was killed in his home. Two days later, after returning from a trip abroad, Father Otto Messmer, Superior of the Russian Region, was also killed in the same place. On Tuesday 28 October, alarmed by the fact that he hadn’t heard from the two men, a fellow Jesuit who lives in another community went to visit them at home. On finding the dead bodies, he immediately contacted the police.
The police investigations have yet to come to any firm conclusions about cause of these violent deaths.
Father Otto Messmer, son of a profoundly Catholic family of German origin and a Russian citizen, was born on 14 July 1961 in Karaganda, Kazakhstan. He entered into the Society of Jesus on 1 September 1982 in Vilnius and was ordained a priest on 29 May 1988 in Riga. He took his final vows in Novosibirsk on 7 October 2001 and was appointed Superior of the Independent Region of Russia of the Society of Jesus on 13 October 2002. Two of his brothers are Jesuits: Monsignor Nikolaus, Bishop of the Kyrgyzstani city of Bishkek, and Hieronymus, from the German Province.
Father Victor Betancourt was born on 7 July 1966 in Guayaquil, Ecuador. He entered into the Society of Jesus on 14 September 1984 in Quito and was ordained a priest in the same city on 31 July 1997. He undertook his Jesuit training in Argentina, Ecuador, Germany and Italy. In 2004, he defended his doctoral thesis in Theology in the city of Rome. Since 2001, he had been responsible for those considering a vocation as Jesuits and at the time of his death he was a theology professor in the St. Thomas Philosophical, Theological and Historical Institute in Moscow.
Father General, Adolfo Nicolás SJ, issued an appeal to all Jesuits to provide assistance and support to, and demonstrate their solidarity with, the Jesuits of the Russian Region in this difficult moment. He expressed his closeness to families of the deceased and thanked the Church for issuing its condolences as soon as the news of the tragedy was made public.
Father General Nicolás urged the whole Society to pray that our fellow Jesuits rest in eternal peace and for an end of all forms of violence.
R.I.P.
James Martin, SJ
|
|
| | Topic: (All Souls) |
|---|
| | Topic: The Catholic Vote |
|---|
| The Catholic Vote |
Sat, 25 October 2008 12:31 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Can a conscientious Catholic vote for McCain?
By JOE FEUERHERD
Published:
October 24, 2008
One of the worst kept secrets in Washington is that John McCain really doesn’t care very much about the so-called social issues — abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools. McCain’s policy passions lie elsewhere — primarily military and foreign policy issues. Fair enough.
No less than former Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a conservative Catholic leader, said as much earlier this year. “It’s amazing to hear what John McCain is trying to convince the voters he is all about,” Santorum explained during the Republican primaries.
“The bottom line is, I served 12 years with him, six years in the Senate as one of the leaders of the Senate, trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn, on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.”
Santorum, who now supports the Arizona senator, once worried that McCain would appoint moderate-to-liberal judges, that his support for the intrinsic evil of embryonic stem-cell research revealed a moral blind spot, and that McCain, who previously opposed overturning Roe v. Wade, would neglect the abortion issue.
Even today McCain opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, another intrinsic evil. Santorum’s concerns seem justified. McCain-the-maverick may really be a closet moderate, though the necessity of shoring up the Republican base in this election has obscured that record.
Given McCain’s well-deserved reputation as an anti-spending hawk (he opposed, for example, increasing government-sponsored health insurance to children living in poverty) and his desire to expand the Bush tax cuts, it’s difficult to see how he would use government to promote the common good. He’s clearly out of step with mainstream Catholic teaching here, though, of course, such concerns are matters of prudential judgment, not intrinsic evil. Still, the conscientious Catholic must consider these issues, even if they do not merit equal weight with other matters.
Further, as the United States finds itself fighting two wars and an elusive terrorist threat, McCain seems inclined to use military force before all other avenues to resolve a conflict have been exhausted. He has endorsed the Bush Doctrine which, in direct conflict with Catholic just war teaching, holds that the United States may launch a preemptive war to counter a perceived enemy.
This should be a cause for concern to the conscientious Catholic voter — though perhaps not a deal breaker.
McCain, meanwhile, backed down under pressure from the White House from his opposition to the Bush administration’s torture policy. Torture, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is an intrinsic evil.
Can a conscientious Catholic support McCain? Some might see this as a close call.
McCain’s opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, promises programs that will reduce the nation’s abortion rate — a rational alternative to simply returning the issue to the states to consider (as McCain now supports). Obama, like McCain, opposes a constitutional amendment on gay marriage and embraces federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
They share similar views on immigration policy and agree that climate change is caused by people and should be addressed. And Obama, on the range of important-if-not-essential issues — such as universal health care, diplomacy over confrontation, equal pay for equal work, the minimum wage, the right of unions to organize — is clearly more in-step with the church.
Still, to those Catholics who believe that rhetorical support for overturning Roe v. Wade is essential, that the Iranian and North Korean threats should be addressed without negotiation, that the war in Iraq must result in an unambiguous U.S. victory, and that tax cuts to those at the top 1 percent of the nation’s income strata will promote the common good, a vote for John McCain is not only acceptable.
It is a matter of individual conscience.
Joe Feuerherd is NCR publisher.
|
|
| | Topic: Unchain God |
|---|
| Unchain God |
Sat, 25 October 2008 10:53 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
|
Unchain God
We need to unchain God from our smallness,
from our restricted imaginations, and stand in awe of the unknowable. We must stop enlisting God in our causes,
as sponsor of our ambitions and greed. We must stop insisting that we know precisely what God believes about issues,about political strategies and whose side he cheers in the spasms of human violence we call war.
Feudalism, historians remind us, was an economic, political, and social system based on land, loyalty and the need for security and protection. Its linchpin was unquestioned loyalty.
As a layered social phenomenon,it was hierarchical in nature.
At the lowest rung of the feudal order, serfs, the laity,
almost exclusively uneducated peasants,were allowed to live on the land they worked,the land of the nobility,and to keep a modest portion of the food they produced while supplying the necessities of life for their superiors. In return for their labor,serfs enjoyed the protection of the vassal from marauders and other invaders. Their lot was difficult,no land, no education, no power, no voice!
So the pope, the king in this scheme,grants benefices, or dioceses to his bishops in exchange for homage, loyalty and obedience.The bishops in turn grant benefices to their priests
in exchange for the same and lay serfs get to come to church
and reap a modest amount of spiritual food for life’s journey.
When Constantine made Christianity the official state religion in 313, the church over centuries adopted the trappings and conceits of royalty.
There is a built-in arrogance,a high regard for power and property, an immediate tension introduced between accumulating power and exercising authority over subjects and the rather contrary demands of the Beatitudes, the essence of our gospel.
A larger frame for understanding the almost incomprehensible response of the bishops worldwide and on up to the pope himself
to the sexual abuse crisis, is the model of rule the church is trying to maintain into the 21st century.
Their first instincts, we know, is to protect the institution
and their own standing in it. The benefices they enjoy depend on keeping the marauders out, so victims and their families become enemies, threats to the good order of the prince’s holdings.
This crisis wasn’t and isn’t about sex. We can forgive sexual sins and sexual sinners. This crisis became a true crisis
when it became about abuse of power and authority.
Increasingly the leaders today of this supposed pilgrim community
(of followers of the way of the cross, of those who are following the Christ who rejected retaliation, who ate with sinners, who came here principally to display the Mercy of God
rummage through the old props closet to restore the garments and affects of royalty as a way to reclaim their idea of Catholic identity. And what should our identity be?
Lamb of God?
Suffering Servant?
Dispossessed Healer?
Incarnation of the Mercy of God?
Nonviolent Christ?
Mitres?
Robes?
Tyranny?
GIRMS?
Smaller Purer Church?
Exclusivity?
You decide.
John Chuchman
Inspired by a talk by Tom Roberts to
CTA-Michigan 2008
|
|
| | Topic: Anger, fear will linger after Election Day |
|---|
| Anger, fear will linger after Election Day |
Thu, 23 October 2008 07:46 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Andrew Greeley writes....
The key word for those who hate and fear the possibility of an Obama presidency is “Afro-centric.” I don’t know where they picked it up — maybe they heard it on the Fox network or read it on one of the Web pages about the ineffable Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But it means the destruction of “our America” as we know it. We don’t know enough about the candidate, we don’t know where the man comes from or what he wants. In fact, he may be the anti-Christ, or he may be an Arab or some kind of Muslim. He’s not one of us. He’s not pro-American. Someone ought to investigate him and tell the country the whole truth. He has friends who are terrorists. He should come clean and tell us why he wants to be president, why he wants to take away our American freedoms. We have to protect our children from the Afro-centric nation that he will create. And where did he get all that money he’s using to register ex-convicts to vote in the election? We have to stop him before it’s too late.
There is no point in trying to argue with these folks. They know the truth about the Democratic candidate, and if you can’t see the truth about the conspiracy, then you must be part of it.
The surveys show that most Americans don’t accept this theory of a conspiracy to steal the election and, at this writing, the majority are inclined to vote for Sen. Barack Obama. It would appear that at best, as careful data analysis seems to suggest, the “Bradley effect” — whites lying to interviewers about their voting intentions as they did in the defeat of Mayor Tom Bradley in Los Angeles some years ago — affects only a minority of white voters.
Yet the hatred is out there, as the New York Times discovered when it sent a reporter across the country to study the matter, and as many young people discovered while canvassing in places like Indiana and Ohio.
Perhaps they are not typical, perhaps they are too small a minority to make any difference. . . .
Perhaps.
However, the climate of the country, made toxic (a must-use word these days) by the spin doctors and the experts and the troublemakers seeking public office, is dangerous. A black man should not, cannot become president of the United States.
If Sen. John McCain wins, the young people and the minorities will be furious, especially if it appears that the GOP has for the third straight time stolen an election by disenfranchising voters it doesn’t like. And if Sen. Obama wins, the worried, the frightened, the true believers, the haters will not go away. The winner in either case will find it difficult to govern.
I have been reading a book about the interregnum between the election of President Abraham Lincoln and his inauguration four months later. The secession crisis could not wait that long for a solution.
The man elected this November will have to wait only half that time. Will the present worldwide economic crisis wait that long, and will the anger, the fury, the hatred stirred up by this long campaign, especially if the outcome is close, be an obstacle to economic recovery?
One wonders how a campaign that both parties promised would bring the country together has come so far as to risk tearing it apart. It is hardly likely that historians who will study this lunatic campaign will have a hard time deciding which party is to blame.
Nor will they likely look to Afro-centrism as an explanation.
|
|
| | Topic: Justice, Freedom of Conscience and the Right to Dissent |
|---|
| | Topic: Dawn Patrol on a Med Student's Experience |
|---|
| Dawn Patrol on a Med Student's Experience |
Wed, 22 October 2008 16:44 |
M Anon
Messages: 1251
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
http://dawneden.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-saw-some-things-i-can t-get-out-of-my.html
'I saw some things I can’t get out of my head'
Med student 'incredibly freaked out' after a day at Planned Parenthood
I asked the doctor about why he does what he does and he said "I have a great job–no one else can have a patient walk in the door with a huge problem and completely fix that for them in five minutes."
The one with the "great job" is "a 66 y/o male doctor who has performed 200,000 abortions in the past almost-40 years."
The one writing about him is a first-year medical student who loves baby animals—she named her blog Pudu Overload as a tribute to the world's smallest deer. She is also a supporter of legalized abortion. [The blog is now offline—see update below. It was here.]
Yesterday afternoon, the young student came home after spending the day witnessing what goes on inside a Planned Parenthood, and wrote a blog post attempting to process the experience. Beneath the cognitive dissonance, one can see a conscience struggling to assert itself. She is proud of her "pro-choice" bonafides and wants to be on the side that she truly believes is the one that is right—yet she knows she saw death and dismemberment.
Can you imagine, the first time an abortion supporter sees the "procedure" for what it is, how much mental effort it must take to try to reconcile—or just block out—the horrific reality of legalized butchery?
Since Pudu Overload may remove or alter her post after it is highlighted here, I am reprinting it in full, adding paragraph breaks:
today I watched 10 girls younger than me have abortions at the downtown planned parenthood.
I was more nervous than I've been in a very long time taking the train down this morning and walking past the protesters and wondering what I was going to see and who I was going to talk to.
The morning was awkward–shadowing the ultrasound technician who didn't want me there and then hovering in the hallway for hours trying to get counselors to invite me into their counseling sessions. Finally I was assigned to a 66 y/o male doctor who has performed 200,000 abortions in the past almost-40 years. He had me sit behind his right shoulder and talked me through what he was doing and nothing seemed so horrible.
I went with the nurse after the first procedure to see the tissue that was evacuated and although that was the thing I was most scared to do, it was fine and just looked like blood and white fluff.
I asked the doctor about why he does what he does and he said "I have a great job–no one else can have a patient walk in the door with a huge problem and completely fix that for them in five minutes." I stayed in his operating room for most of the afternoon and was surprised by how okay things felt–he was friendly and respectful of his patients and very matter of fact about the whole thing.
The part that made me really uncomfortable came later on when I moved into the OR next door. The doctor there was a middle-aged woman with incredibly understanding, calm bedside manner. The first two cases I saw her perform were gentle and careful and not upsetting.
The third patient was a girl my little sister's age whose pregnancy was much farther along than the others I saw. Coming into the room, she was shaking and scared and the doctor took ten minutes (twice as long as the actual procedure) to make sure she was ready and sure about her decision. Once the patient calmed down and was anesthetized, the nurse hooked up ultrasound to help with the more difficult case. This time I could clearly make out a head and arms on the screen, and I sat down and had to look away during most of the procedure.
Afterwards, the nurse brought me to the back room again and I saw some things I can't get out of my head. Leaving the clinic through a waiting room full of upset pregnant teenagers, I felt respectful of and impressed by the doctors I met, both of whom have been stalked and threatened many times because of what they do. At the same time, I'm incredibly freaked out by the whole thing and don’t know how to think about it. It simultaneously seems like a small and an enormous thing.
|
|
| | Topic: Balancing Rights |
|---|
| Balancing Rights |
Wed, 22 October 2008 08:16 |
M Anon
Messages: 1251
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Surely black comedy about the trains running on time are not necessary to make the point that some aspects of a question may be more important than others?
October 17, 2008
Bishop Hermann: ‘I thought you should know’
Judgment Day is on its way
by Bishop Robert J. Hermann, Archdiocesan Administrator
Judgment Day is on its way. We cannot stop it. We don’t know when it will come, but just as surely as the sun rises daily, the Son of Man will come when we least expect.
Judgment Day is on its way. For many, this coming election may very well be judgment day, for this election will measure us. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus tells us in 10:32-33: "Everyone who acknowledges Me before others, I will acknowledge before My heavenly Father. But whoever denies Me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father."
Judgment Day is on its way. When my time comes, I will be measured by my Savior for the decisions I have made. I will either be acknowledged by Jesus or denied by Him in the presence of our heavenly Father. The question I need to ask myself is this: What kind of witness will I give to Him when I go into the voting booth this election day?
The decision I make in the voting booth will reflect my value system. If I value the good of the economy and my current lifestyle more than I do the right to life itself, then I am in trouble. Pope John Paul II, in his post-synodal apostolic exhortation Christifideles laici tells us: "Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination."
The right of our children to be protected from destruction is greater than my right to a thriving economy. I am living proof of this, since I am here because my parents believed this priority and lived it. My desire for a good economy cannot justify my voting to remove all current restrictions on abortion. My desire to end the war in Iraq cannot justify my voting to remove all current restrictions on abortion.
My parents got married about one year before the stock market crash of 1929, and yet they raised 15 children in the midst of the Great Depression. They had no money. My mother made her own wedding gown and her own bouquet of flowers. I have my parents’ wedding picture on the wall of my office, and I am reminded every day of the sacrifices they made for life.
We had no money, but we had each other! My parents were at home with us for three meals every day. We had plenty to eat because we raised almost all of our food. We seldom got new clothes, but we wore hand-me-downs, unless my mother would buy materials and make our clothes. We lived in poverty, but we learned the value of hard work. We had no running water or electricity. We had no TV, Internet or cell phone. Yet, we were very happy because we had life! We had each other! Today, all 15 children in my family of origin are most grateful for the sacrifices Mom and Dad made so that we could have life. Making sacrifices for each other brought us incredible joy and enhanced our dignity, because it gave us a chance to participate in serving each other!
In an article written by Pope John Paul I, printed in the current issue of Magnificat, the pope reflected on the life of Andrew Carnegie, who wrote: "I was born in poverty ... but I would not exchange the memories of my childhood with those of a millionaire’s children. What do they know of family joys, of the sweet figure of a mother who combines the duties of nurse, washerwoman, cook, teacher, angel and saint?" Does life get any better than this, when gifts of creativity, generosity and faith are nurtured in the midst of poverty? This is the abundant life on this earth, because it is fueled by faith and sacrifice! Perhaps this is not so much poverty as it is faith-filled luxury.
Judgment Day for us is on its way. Those 47 million children our nation destroyed are still living. We have destroyed their bodies, but their souls are still alive. When our Lord comes again, they may very well be there to judge us. Even worse, Jesus tells us that whatever we do to the least of our brethren, we do to Him. We would truly shudder if we heard the words, "I was in your my mother’s womb but you took my life!"
It is quite possible that we might see these children, but, depending upon the choices we have made, we may very well be separated from them by a great chasm which cannot be crossed, much as the rich man who ignored Lazarus, the poor man, during his lifetime here on earth but was separated from him after death. The rich man was in flames, but Lazarus was in the bosom of his heavenly Father.
The Catholic Church teaches, in its catechism, in the works of Pope John Paul II and in the writings of Pope Benedict XVI, that the issue of life is the most basic issue and must be given priority over the issue of the economy, the issue of war or any other issue. These same teachings inform us that when both candidates permit the right to abortion, but unequally so, we must chose to mitigate the evil by choosing the candidate who is less permissive of abortion.
Judgment Day is on its way! I may deny it. I may pretend that it is still far away, I may deny that my actions are sinful, but that will not change God’s judgment of me.
The deepest problem with many of our Catholics is that they have become so accustomed to rationalizing away a life of sinful actions so that they seem to be on cruise control, heading in the wrong direction. "If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts."
My goal is not to engage you in some political party way but to engage you with our Savior and His teachings. We need to constantly challenge our accustomed behaviors in the light of the Gospel. We may say that we are following our conscience, but are we informing our consciences with the truth about these issues? Cardinal George Pell of Australia has said that we must follow truth and our conscience, but be steeped in truth so that our consciences be rightly formed.
Perhaps having to face these issues during this coming election can turn out to be a grace that truly awakens our need to learn more about the teachings of the Catholic Church, and then to use the Sacrament of Reconciliation so that we can receive His mercy and bring our behavior into conformity with the mind and heart of Christ. It is not too late to admit our sinfulness and turn to the Lord in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. When we do this, both we and the heavens will be filled with joy!
Judgment Day is on its way. Pray your way into conformity with the teachings of Christ and His Church. Pray the family Rosary daily between now and Election Day so that you may not only make the right choice but also have the courage to discuss these issues with others who may have been misled by our materialistic culture. Include the candidates in your prayer intentions. It is my hope that our discussions will bring all of us to our knees to seek help from above.
|
|
| | Topic: Requirements of Social Justice |
|---|
| Requirements of Social Justice |
Wed, 22 October 2008 08:12 |
M Anon
Messages: 1251
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
From the USCCB site:
Legal Protection for Unborn, Support for Mothers Both Needed,
Say Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy
WASHINGTON—"Our faith requires us to oppose abortion on demand and to provide help to mothers facing challenging pregnancies," Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia and Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., said in an October 21 statement. The bishops urged Catholics to study the teaching of the Church, rather than rely on statements and materials from outside groups and individuals.
Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy made the joint statement in response to arguments that the Church should accept the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision on abortion as a "permanent fixture of constitutional law" and should concede that the only way to reduce abortions is to provide more government support for pregnant women. At the same time the two bishops also responded to those who argue that the Church's efforts against abortion should focus solely on restoring recognition for unborn children's human rights and that proposals to provide social and economic support for pregnant women distract from that effort.
Cardinal Rigali chairs of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities. Bishop Murphy chairs the bishops' Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.
"Providing support for pregnant women so they choose to have their babies is a necessary but not sufficient response to abortion. Similarly, reversal of Roe is a necessary but not sufficient condition for restoring an order of justice in our society's treatment of defenseless human life," they said.
The bishops also noted that "in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision knocked down laws against abortion in all 50 states, fabricating a constitutional 'right' to abortion that continues to haunt and divide our society....Roe v. Wade is a clear case of an 'intrinsically unjust law' we are morally obliged to oppose. Reversing it is not a mere political tactic, but a moral imperative for Catholics and others who respect human life," they said.
The bishops added that legalizing abortion had greatly increased annual abortions in the United States. "The law is a teacher, and Roe taught many women, physicians and others that abortion is an acceptable answer to a wide range of problems."
The bishops noted strides made in modifying Roe v. Wade's unjust legal precedent and drew attention to the many lives saved by the modest laws and regulations allowed under Roe. They voiced concern that the pending pro-abortion "Freedom of Choice Act" (S. 1173, H.R. 1964) in Congress would threaten strides made in limiting abortions.
"Bans on public funding [of abortion], laws requiring informed consent for women and parental involvement for minors, and other modest and widely supported laws have saved millions of lives. Laws made possible by reversing Roe would save many more," they said.
"On the other hand, this progress could be lost through a key pro-abortion proposal, the 'Freedom of Choice Act,' which supporters say would knock down hundreds of current pro-life laws and forbid any public program to 'discriminate' against abortion in providing services to women," Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy said.
"By protecting the child's life to the maximum degree possible, improving life-affirming support for pregnant women, and changing the attitudes and prejudices imposed on many women to make them see abortion as an acceptable or necessary solution, we will truly help build a culture of life," they said.
The full text of the joint statement may be found at www.usccb.org/prolife/Rigali-Murphy-Joint-Statement.pdf.
|
|
| | Topic: Elderly priest stirs up ugly ... |
|---|
| Elderly priest stirs up ugly ... |
Wed, 22 October 2008 07:56 |
M Anon
Messages: 1251
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Perhaps I should have used weasel words in the title, some might say...
Or what Jon Stewart calls a "cavuto": DID elderly priest stir up ugly racism...?
I don't know for which of the two candidates I will vote.
I may write in.
But for whomever I vote, I don't want it to be on the basis of lies and innuendo.
There are bloggers as unquestioningly "for the other side" as our moderator.
http://opinionatedcatholic.blogspot.com/2008/10/father-andre w-greeley-says-governor.html
How must it be to be priest in the twilight of your years and just be so bitter.
Who knows where this bitterness comes from? Perhaps because he looking at World Wide Catholicism and knows that so much of the things he advocated were failures. Perhaps he sees the current trend in Catholic worship and thought and is just angry. Maybe he realizes that more and more people really don't care what the National Catholic Reporter thinks including his fellow priest.
Perhaps the news networks that often called him up so many times to be the "Dissident" Catholic voice don't seem lately to be finding his name in the roledex.
Solution call out a women he does not know and call her racist.
'South Pacific" is a morality play for our time. Sarah Palin is the Ensign Nellie Forbush -- an All-American girl as racist, this time a racist with her eye on the White House. She can stir up crowds to shout "Kill him!" at the mention of the presidential candidate of the other party a couple of weeks before the national election.......
Ensign Nellie Forbush (the incomparable Kelli O'Hara) finds redemption at the end of South Pacific. She turns to her true love and escapes the obligation to wait for the enchanted evening on which he might suddenly might appear across a crowded room. For Sarah Palin, such an easy escape hardly seems possible. How can she ever justify silence when she heard a cry for lynching?.....
By the way. The United States Secret Service is saying this whole "Kill him " thing did not happen
http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_ says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html
Secret Service says "Kill him" allegation unfounded
By Andrew M. Seder aseder@timesleader.com
Staff Writer
SCRANTON – The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.
The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Obama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him."
News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.
Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.
“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.
He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.
Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell “kill him.”
“We have yet to find someone to back up the story,” Slavoski said. “We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it.”
Hackett said he did not hear the remark.
Slavoski said Singleton was interviewed Wednesday and stood by his story but couldn’t give a description of the man because he didn’t see him he only heard him.
When contacted Wednesday afternoon, Singleton referred questions to Times-Tribune Metro Editor Jeff Sonderman. Sonderman said, “We stand by the story. The facts reported are true and that’s really all there is.”
Slavoski said the agents take such threats or comments seriously and immediately opened an investigation but after due diligence “as far as we’re concerned it’s closed unless someone comes forward.” He urged anyone with knowledge of the alleged incident to call him at 346-5781. “We’ll run at all leads,” he said.
|
|
| | Topic: saturday wedding question |
|---|
| | Topic: Supporters of women's ordination stage small protest |
|---|
| | Topic: Liturgy and Social Justice |
|---|
| Liturgy and Social Justice |
Sat, 18 October 2008 06:17 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
I ask this question knowing that some of you will most likely ignore it, but I'm curious about what you believe.
What does our celebration of Sunday Eucharist have to do with social justice? How does the liturgy help you to make decisions related to social and political issues?
|
|
| | Topic: readings October 19, 2008 Year A |
|---|
| | Topic: An African Bishop for Obama |
|---|
| An African Bishop for Obama |
Sun, 12 October 2008 05:56 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Rome
While American bishops are usually circumspect about declaring their electoral preferences, at least one African prelate currently attending the Synod of Bishops in Rome feels no such scruples. Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria, said today he would “obviously” vote for Barak Obama if he could cast a ballot on Nov. 4.
Known as a strong advocate for social justice, Onaiyekan said Obama’s pro-choice record wouldn’t stop him from voting for the Democrat.
“The fact that you oppose abortion doesn’t necessarily mean that you are pro-life,” Onaiyekan said in an interview with NCR. “You can be anti-abortion and still be killing people by the millions through war, through poverty, and so on.”
A past president of the African bishops’ conference, Onaiyekan is widely seen as a spokesperson for Catholicism in Africa. During the synod, he was tapped to deliver a continental report on behalf of the African bishops.
Onaiyekan said the election of an African-American president would have positive repercussions for America’s image in the developing world.
“It would mean that for the first time, we would begin to think that the Americans are really serious in the things they say, about freedom, equality, and all that,” he said. “For a long time, we’ve been feeling that you don’t really mean it, that they’re just words.”
Onaiyekan said he’s aware that many American Catholics have reservations about Obama because of his stand on abortion, but he looks at it differently.
“Of course I believe that abortion is wrong, that it’s killing innocent life,” he said. “I also believe, however, that those who are against abortion should be consistent.
“If my choice is between a person who makes room for abortion, but who is really pro-life in terms of justice in the world, peace in the world, I will prefer him to somebody who doesn’t support abortion but who is driving millions of people in the world to death,” Onaiyekan said.
“It’s a whole package, and you never get a politician who will please you in everything,” he said. “You always have to pick and choose.”
Onaiyekan also addressed the current economic crisis, saying that it could actually be good news for poor countries if it means a fundamental overhaul of what he regards as “unjust” global structures.
“There’s a system there which keeps poor nations in poverty, no matter what efforts we make,” Onaiyekan said. “People in the poor nations are neither lazy nor stupid. They work hard and get nothing for it, or worse, they work hard and other people take it away.”
“Both in Europe and in America, there’s a call now for a major review of what’s happening, that it’s not going to be ‘business as usual’ anymore. Those of us in poor countries should consider that a welcome development, provided that in the new structure which is going to be built, truth and justice will play a stronger role.”
The Synod of Bishops on the Bible runs Oct. 5-26 in Rome.
|
|
| | Topic: readings for Sunday, October 12 |
|---|
| | Topic: Twenty-seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time |
|---|
| Twenty-seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time |
Tue, 30 September 2008 12:02 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
October 5, 2008
http://www.usccb.org/nab/100508.shtml#gospel
The second reading stands out for me.
These lines:whatever is true, whatever is honorable,
whatever is just, whatever is pure,
whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious,
if there is any excellence
and if there is anything worthy of praise,
think about these things.
Every Sunday we are fed in Sacrament by what is true,honorable,just,pure,lovely,gracious,excellent and worthy of praise...Christ's presence.
In that case approach the table and...Keep on doing what you have learned and received
and heard and seen in me.
Then the God of peace will be with you.
How about some other ideas or thoughts?
|
|
| | Topic: apostolic succession |
|---|
| | Topic: 25th Sunday Ordinary Time |
|---|
| 25th Sunday Ordinary Time |
Tue, 16 September 2008 06:52 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
September 21,2008 readings:
http://www.usccb.org/nab/092108.shtml#reading2
This gospel brought to mind our discussion on illegal immigrants.
God doesn't pick and choose who he loves and forgives, even when we bend the rules. Sometimes in certain situations rule breakers need even more love than those who follow blindly. Jesus chose to sit and eat with sinners and lovingly showed them the way. He didn't talk of punishment or rewards in proportion to how they behaved. He still doesn't. He wants us to listen and "hear the cry of the poor" and love as he does.
Thoughts on jealousy or God's mercy?
[Updated on: Tue, 16 September 2008 06:56]
|
|
| | Topic: "We must speak to them with our hands..." |
|---|
| "We must speak to them with our hands..." |
Tue, 09 September 2008 05:08 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
September 9, 2008
St. Peter Claver
(1581-1654)
A native of Spain, young Jesuit Peter Claver left his homeland forever in 1610 to be a missionary in the colonies of the New World. He sailed into Cartagena (now in Colombia), a rich port city washed by the Caribbean. He was ordained there in 1615.
By this time the slave trade had been established in the Americas for nearly 100 years, and Cartagena was a chief center for it. Ten thousand slaves poured into the port each year after crossing the Atlantic from West Africa under conditions so foul and inhuman that an estimated one-third of the passengers died in transit. Although the practice of slave-trading was condemned by Pope Paul III and later labeled "supreme villainy" by Pius IX, it continued to flourish.
Peter Claver's predecessor, Jesuit Father Alfonso de Sandoval, had devoted himself to the service of the slaves for 40 years before Claver arrived to continue his work, declaring himself "the slave of the Negroes forever."
As soon as a slave ship entered the port, Peter Claver moved into its infested hold to minister to the ill-treated and miserable passengers. After the slaves were herded out of the ship like chained animals and shut up in nearby yards to be gazed at by the crowds, Claver plunged in among them with medicines, food, bread, brandy, lemons and tobacco. With the help of interpreters he gave basic instructions and assured his brothers and sisters of their human dignity and God's saving love. During the 40 years of his ministry, Claver instructed and baptized an estimated 300,000 slaves.
His apostolate extended beyond his care for slaves. He became a moral force, indeed, the apostle of Cartagena. He preached in the city square, gave missions to sailors and traders as well as country missions, during which he avoided, when possible, the hospitality of the planters and owners and lodged in the slave quarters instead.
After four years of sickness which forced the saint to remain inactive and largely neglected, he died on September 8, 1654. The city magistrates, who had previously frowned at his solicitude for the black outcasts, ordered that he should be buried at public expense and with great pomp.
He was canonized in 1888, and Pope Leo XIII declared him the worldwide patron of missionary work among black slaves.
Comment:
The Holy Spirit's might and power are manifested in the striking decisions and bold actions of Peter Claver. A decision to leave one's homeland never to return reveals a gigantic act of will difficult for the contemporary mind to imagine. Peter's determination to serve forever the most abused, rejected and lowly of all people is stunningly heroic. When we measure our lives against such a man's, we become aware of our own barely used potential and of our need to open ourselves more to the jolting power of Jesus' Spirit.
Quote:
Peter Claver understood that concrete service like the distributing of medicine, food or brandy to his black brothers and sisters could be as effective a communication of the word of God as mere verbal preaching. As Peter Claver often said, "We must speak to them with our hands before we try to speak to them with our lips
|
|
| | Topic: September 11 |
|---|
| September 11 |
Tue, 09 September 2008 04:01 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
9/11. SEVEN YEARS ON
Joan Chittister
We are seven years away now from the incineration of the Twin Towers when, in one blow, 19 radical religious zealots with a memory for Crusades and hatred for the United States turned the world upside down. Or we did. It’s very hard to tell seven years later who really did more of the turning.
What specific concerns drove these men to the point where they would give up their own lives just to injure ours is hard to tell. Few asked, and fewer still seemed to care. In the midst of national grief—and for many, anger — all that mattered, apparently, was who to strike in retaliation. Anybody would do it, it seemed. And so we did.
The world needn’t have changed the day the Towers went down or even, perhaps, with the military attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan. It certainly changed, however, on the day when, without clear proof of Iraq’s involvement, without undeniable certainty, without the approval of most of the world, the United States roared over Iraq on bombing raids and rolled into Baghdad to tear down the statue of Saddam Hussein.
On that day — not long after the whole world had grieved with us over the merciless loss of 3,000 innocent U.S. lives — the world divided in its loyalties, most of them against us.
Now the United States, once the most open country in the world, has become a country under siege. Now we make 80-year-old widows and 6-year-old boys take off their shoes in our airports to make sure they are not carrying explosives designed to harm us again. Now we have been longer at war with the ghosts of these 19 men than we were with Nazi Germany in World War II. Now we have become invaders, torturers, paranoid partners in global destabilization. The people who would “meet us with flowers singing in the streets” have left us with more than 30,182 wounded, many of them permanently disabled, and more than 4,150 dead.
Flush with weapons, we are now too poor to afford education grants or social security or universal medical insurance. Now we, too, pick up people in grand random sweeps, call them terrorists, hold them without charge, detain them with lawyers, cage them like animals, and fight with one another over whether or not we are a “Christian” country. If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny. But it’s not.
We have changed the globe; divided it into armed and arming camps. We have accelerated a new kind of arms race with smaller countries of the world intent now on getting nuclear weapons themselves. After all, aren’t we the ones who made the concept of “Mutually Assured Destruction” the ultimate defense strategy?
We have changed the Constitution (or ignored it) to allow domestic spying. We have changed the country: stripped it of its liberties and enlarged the powers of the administration to such an extent that we face the prospect of being governed more by the king of a republic than by the president of a democracy. But worst of all, perhaps, we have traded in “America the Beautiful”—whom much of the world revered, or at least respected — for America the Brutal, whom the world now mistrusts. Now we have really given the radicals something to fight about. Indeed, the anniversary of 9/11 is a sad day for peacemakers, not unlike the crucifixion when the work of a lifetime seems lost.
At the same time, it may be one of the most glorious moments in the history of peacemaking. There is in it the resurrection of an idea: There is no glory in war. And more, there is no victory in it either. There is only the silence of the innocent dead in a cause without a cause.
The Twin Towers are not the only thing that went down seven years ago. What went down is the soul of a country that once put principle over power. Is such a country Christian? Only if it, too, rises from the values that have died with it. And soon.
|
|
| | Topic: Voting for the Common Good |
|---|
| Voting for the Common Good |
Mon, 08 September 2008 13:52 |
Anne
Messages: 3816
Registered: April 2004 |
Senior Member |
|
|
You can download this very informative booklet.
http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/voting-the-common-good
As long as you inform your conscience, use prudence, and maintain
a commitment to the common good, you are well on your
way to making a decision that is consistent with the call of our
Catholic faith.
...from the conclusion of this booklet.
|
|
| | Topic: Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good |
|---|
|
Pages (13): [ 6 ]
Current Time: Fri May 24 14:33:41 PDT 2013
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.80487 seconds
|
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
