The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionSignals from Rome: engagement and confrontation
Oct. 06, 2009
Thomas Patrick Melady
In a two-month period, Rome sent American Catholics two clear signals. One was on engagement -- the historic meeting of President Barack Obama with Pope Benedict XVI on July 10. The other signal was on the resignation of Scranton, Pa., Bishop Joseph F. Martino on Aug. 31.
For the past decade there has been considerable discussion centered around two words: engagement and confrontation.
These two words are at the heart of the question of how American Catholics respond in a pluralistic democracy to policies that run counter to Catholic teachings.
Engagement emphasizes the use of strategy to convince the other side about the validity of a position and being civil about it. Confrontation on the other hand represents firm opposition to any civil discussion of the issue on the basis that the issue is non-negotiable.
The actual matter energizing these discussions is abortion. While there are other issues, they do not ignite the passion as abortion does.
Engagement
A significant signal came from Rome in regard to the July 10 meeting of President Obama with Pope Benedict. The pope was prepared extensively for the meeting. What were the overriding goals and ideals of the 44th President of the United States? They were carefully researched and the Holy See was well prepared for this historic meeting.
The initial contacts were all well planned. In an unprecedented first step, Pope Benedict in a warm message congratulated President Obama on his election and did not wait until it was official several weeks later when the Electoral College met. One friendly gesture was followed by another and the then President-elect Obama telephoned the Holy Father in late November last year.
In the weeks and months following the election, there was a mini surge of attacks on the newly elected president by a few Catholic clerical and lay leaders on his position concerning abortion. It was soon noted at the time that Vatican connected media at the same time refrained from such criticism.
The July 10 Obama-Benedict meeting occurred several days after the Vatican released to the public the new encyclical "Charity in Truth" which in so many ways converged with ideas of the new U.S. president.
The meeting itself could be classified as a model for two leaders discussing the world issues in a civil way. One was the question on how to develop a dialogue with the world Islamic community. This has been a number one challenge for the United States and also for the worldwide Christian community.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
While convergence characterized most aspects of the Obama-Benedict conversation, one subject was discussed where there was disagreement. It was the question of the legality or the right of a woman for an abortion. The Catholic teaching was clearly stated by Pope Benedict, and President Obama set forth why he believed in the right of a woman to select abortion.
Engagement is the one word to describe the Benedict-Obama meeting of July 10th.
Confrontation
Less than two months after the Obama-Benedict meeting, another event occurred that also was a signal from Rome. On Aug. 31, after seven years as the bishop of Scranton, Pa., Joseph F. Martino, announced his resignation. At 63, a relatively young age for a bishop, he stepped down for reasons of "health." There is no new assignment as the head of a diocese or other church structure for him.
Bishop Martino gave the appearance of being the advocate of confrontation. In the quiet area of Scranton, located in the northeastern corner of Pennsylvania, Scranton was from the standpoint of culture a very Catholic city of around 75,000 inhabitants. A majority were the children or grandchildren of Irish, Italian, and Polish immigrants who came mostly as workers in the complex of coal and steel mines, factories and related small business operations.
The beauty of the American dream was soon realized. Scranton is the home of both the University of Scranton and Marywood University, both Catholic institutions.
Catholic social teachings were part of the culture. The labor movement had strong local support and many Catholics from neighboring areas visited the Basilica of the National Shrine of St. Ann for prayer and spiritual direction.
Within a year after his installation as bishop in 2002, the atmosphere began to change. The bishop gave the appearance of being ready to speak publicly in regard to the political leadership of the state and the country.
Whereas the appearance of the overwhelming number of U.S. bishops was pastoral, the statements from Bishop Martino seemed focused on President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Senator Robert P.Casey Jr., D-Pa. Media seems to give more headlines to negative statements than to positive ones. A good number of such negative statements came from the then bishop of Scranton.
In the past few years Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl, Baltimore Archbishop Edwin O'Brien, Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali, and New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan have been clear and unambiguous about Catholic teachings on all major issues. Their image was and remains pastoral. But Bishop Martino was in the news on political issues more than the four archbishops!
In my opinion, a signal was sent from Rome. After seven years of a confrontational style of governance, the resignation of Bishop Martino was accepted by the Holy See. Cardinal Rigali of the neighboring Philadelphia archdiocese will administer the diocese until a successor is selected by Pope Benedict. The new bishop will have the best wishes of many faithful Catholics in this northeast corner of Pennsylvania who understand that there needs to be plenty of healing in this historic Catholic corner of their state.
In my recent visit to Rome, it was easy to see the impact of Pope Benedict's engagement style. It is also apparent that there are some differences with some aspects of the style and rhetoric present in the U.S. Catholic circles. While many in Rome view the Catholic health network in the United States as being a symbol of Catholic inspired caring for the sick, one prelate in Rome said he could not understand some of the recent criticism in American Catholic circles of the Catholic network. Even more strongly was the surprise that some Catholics in the United States criticized Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley for presiding at the funeral of the late Senator Edward Kennedy.
Engagement or confrontation? These are sometimes a mixture of styles. Modern communication makes it possible to learn and observe one from the other. In 2009, the signals from Rome are clear. Will it make a difference in 2010?
[Thomas Patrick Melady has served three Republican presidents. He was U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican in the administration of President George H.W. Bush and is president emeritus of Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Conn. He now serves as professor and senior diplomat in residence at the Institute of World Politics, Washington.]
I don't think too much should
I don't think too much should be read into Pope Benedict's meeting with Obama. Obama is indeed the President of the USA. How could the Pope say he wouldn't meet with him? The USA is important to the Vatican. The Pope also met with Hans Kung. A mistake to be sure but hardly an admittance that Kung was anything other than a heretic which he clearly is.
Dear paultre, Thank you very
Dear paultre,
Thank you very much for sharing so clearly your views upon this issue, so divergent, even openly dissenting, from the views of the long time US Ambassador to the Vatican (was he not the first?) who, with years as a Vatican watcher, mover and shaker within his resume, sees signals now not of confrontation but of serious and mature engagement, in particular with the present President of the United States. I wonder whether I should accept your felicitously fact-free assessment more readily than the reasoned perceptions of Ambassador Melady . . .
In any case, I would very much appreciate further information of the sources from which you draw your conclusions, especially regarding the Reverend Father Hans Kung, whom you oddly label "heretic." Could you please indicate for me any official declaration from the Vatican employing this term in relation to the most longstanding and eminent Swiss Roman Catholic theologian. Perhaps the fact the Reverend Father Hans Kung got the present Pope his first teaching job in itself stands as reason to meet gratefully with him now. Could we not in fact find greater Vatican condemnation of the former Bishop of Scranton, as described in this learned article, who has not been offered a new position anywhere at all, for reasons of his "health?"
Dear Mon Frere, I appreciate
Dear Mon Frere, I appreciate your rather spirited defense of Hans Kung as a “ longstanding and eminent Swiss Roman Catholic theologian” who apparently has not only made brilliant and deeply contemplative insights in theology such as reinterpreting papal infallibility but he also helped the current Pope get his first job! You were of course quite right to ignore the fact that he was dismissed from teaching at a Catholic institution because his ideas could lead to confusion and error among the unenlightened faithful which by the way, are estimated to represent 99% of the laity and roughly half the clergy. Far from being a heretic in the formal sense of the word, Hans Kung is truly among the select few that rise above the mediocrity of Catholic thought and tradition and by their intellectual power shine as they point out the alternative path in life.
Dear Joseph, Thank you so
Dear Joseph,
Thank you so much for clearing up whatever confusion and error my own clumsy comments create.
Now, let us read our Kung (and help my confusion and error there as well, please!)!
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Isuggest you define heretic
Isuggest you define heretic before you accuse Hans Kung of being one. You certainly have not read the message of the article: The Vatican aims for engagement; you choose confrontation.
Hans Kung is most definitely
Hans Kung is most definitely not a heretic. He is a brave and shining light, in other words, a prophet.
If, as you say, Hans Kung is
If, as you say, Hans Kung is "clearlty a heretic" then why is it he is till a priest in good standing in the Church
though not allowed to officially teach in Catholic institutions. I would have expected that he would have been excomminicated if he is, indeed, a heretic. What do you suppose wnet wrong?
paulte on Oct. 06, 2009. You
paulte on Oct. 06, 2009.
You stated:
"I don't think too much should be read into Pope Benedict's meeting with Obama. Obama is indeed the President of the USA. How could the Pope say he wouldn't meet with him? The USA is important to the Vatican. The Pope also met with Hans Kung. A mistake to be sure but hardly an admittance that Kung was anything other than a heretic which he clearly is."
--------------------------------------------------------------
It's well-known that Ratzinger was Cardinal Joseph Frings' peritus at Vatican II, and some Catholics think this means he was a liberal young reformer. Vatican II was doubtless an exciting forum for an ambitious 35 year old theologian, but it is crucial for an understanding of Ratzinger to keep in mind that his Vatican II was the early council, with its emphasis on ressourcement, a return to the sources of Catholicism. The mature Council's liberalism, culminating in Gaudium et Spes, frightened him and he fought it in word and print.
However, Ratzinger also happily furthered his academic career, progressing from Bonn to Munster to Tubingen during and immediately after the Council, bringing personal good out of seeming professional backpedalling.
Ironically, the last move, to Tubingen, was largely due to the good offices of Hans Kung. But these were the turbulent '60's. Kung was not afraid of lively give and take with his students and colleagues, but Ratzinger was. The student unrest and increasing radicalization of his fellow faculty in 1968 disturbed him to the point that, in 1969 he left Tubingen, the most prestigious and erudite university in Germany, and went to Regensburg, a new university he had just helped establish to create a new generation of docile, orthodox theologians.
Once again, when his beliefs and now his authority were challenged, rather than dialoguing, he ran to what was secure and controllable.
The Vatican, and especially Pope John Paul II, continued to favor Ratzinger and he gave them loyal service, including rallying the German bishops around JPII's decision to strip Hans Kung, his former friend and benefactor, of the right to teach as a recognized Catholic theologian.
Ratzinger also began the attack on liberation theology and its theologians which he continued through the 1980's. Thus, when John Paul named Cardinal Ratzinger head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1981, Ratzinger was a known entity — a rock-solid, ultra-Catholic, brilliant, hard-working, and single-minded, perhaps even ruthless, defender of his vision of the Church — which coincided with John Paul's vision quite well.
Hans Kung is no heretic----but Joseph Ratzinger had/has no qualms about "stabbing a friend in the back" to further his ambitions. Pope Benedict XVI is a frightened man---who wants to drag the entire Church back to pre-Vatican days of fear, legalism, Puritanical condemnations of other Christians and Jews.
Yes, Paulte, Pope Benny, knows what side his bread is buttered on. He needs the United States. At least, the Pope did show that he can listen/dialogue on important social issues with President Obama, and vice-versa.
Interesting, Paulte, that you
Interesting, Paulte, that you call Father Kung a heretic. That is the same word initially used to describe Thomas Aquinas! Seems all great thinkers in the catholic church are called heretics and then rehabilitated when there thoughts can be used to give power to a Bishop or Pope. Wonder what word the Jewish Church officials applied to the rebellious Christ?
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
To all above, I repeat, Hans
To all above, I repeat, Hans Kung is a heretic who has been removed from teaching as a Catholic theologian. His specific heresy is denying the infallibility of the Pope as taught by the doctrinal Council Vatican I. I guess he is a priest in good standing because JPII lacked the guts to defrock him in the same way he lacked the guts to expel Sr Theresa Kane from her religious order!
I'll pre-empt any responses to me. As Annie Hall would say, well lah-di-dah!
And I assume that Benedict
And I assume that Benedict also "lacks the guts"?
Perhaps you ought to offer your services to the Vatican - since it is quite clear that two successive popes failed to excommunicate Kung for heresy, it seems that they do not truly understand what is going on - and obviously you do - and they must be in dire need of your wisdom and counsel.
It is interesting that the church has recently affirmed Luther's premise that we are "saved" by faith alone. However, since the church never "changes" a teaching, but simply "develops" it, and now states that the church's former statements (for the last several hundred years) were "misinterpreted" and they are not "changing" anything that was taught before, perhaps someday it will also see the need to "develop" the teaching on "infallibility" that was manipulated through Vatican I by Pius IX through various machinations worthy of the most seasoned and corrupt politicians. It was a definition that had never before been used. And many, including Kung, have clearly articulated the reasons why this definition of infallibility is simply wrong. But, since the PTB in Rome can never admit to making mistakes, it must let a suitable amount of time pass (often centuries) before "developing" the doctrine because some had "misunderstood" or "misinterpreted" its meaning. In the meantime, it is at least smart enough not to excommunicate Kung. After all, look what happened when Luther was excommunicated? (I believe that as of the 21st century, Rome has now pretty much said that Luther was right in all 95 of the theses that started the cascade of events that eventually led to his excommunication).
I have found that those who "pre-emptively" announce that they will not address any responses to their opinions know that their opinions do not rest on reason or facts nor intellectual arguments - and that they cannot defend them as anything other than what they are - personal opinion - assertions that cannot be supported in a legitimate and scholarly discussion.
And another thing, if the
And another thing, if the teaching on papal infallibility was simply wrong as you say, then why did Vatican II take it as normative in the document "Lumen Gentium" which has many references to Vatican I as well as that most holy council, the Council of Trent?
The heretic Kung & his ilk were very influential at the council termed Vatican II but they were not able to get the council Fathers to validate their heresy. This was most obvious with the infamous note which undercut the teaching on collegiality. The Holy Spirit was at work with the truly orthodox 20% of the bishops who thrawted the teaching on collegiality which they viewed as heresy.
I did respond to your
I did respond to your nonsensical post twice. They only posted one response. The bottom line is that Luther remains a heretic. JPII had the opportunity to retract his excommunication but he did not. He had some sense, not much. As one of my friends says, he was a deluded visionary. The joint Catholic-Lutheran statement was a joke. Rome gave up nothing according to the Missouri Synod which refused to participate. The bottom line is that the elect is saved by grace. The reprobate (half of humanity accoring to St Thomas Aquinas) perishes because they refuse the grace of salvation. Put that in your Liberal pipe & smoke it!
So placing a point of
So placing a point of interrogation behind the would Infallible is heresy?
Like this?
Infallible?
Am I now a heretic as well?
Or Questioning?
Thinking?
Considering?
Evaluating?
Teaching?
Teaching to think?
In other words: doing theology?
Answer me; can't you see my printer's box is running low on question marks?
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)?
Mon frerer, 1000 doubts or
Mon frerer,
1000 doubts or questions do not equate to a denial of faith according to John Henry Cardinal Newman!
paultre
paulte, You clearly don't
paulte, You clearly don't understand heresy, good standing, "expelling" or probably many other such Church issues. And you clearly don't understand that the authority of these judgments are not yours to make.
Furthermore, responding to
Furthermore, responding to all of you above taking issue with my theological insight, one other point. I followed the Kung controversy way back when and from everything I read, it was clear that he denied the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope. I remember Protestants claiming him as one of their own (gladly). "He talks just like us.", according to one. It took a very long time for him to be disciplined as well as Curran. I think Curran focused on lower level teachings like the teaching against contraception which is clearly not infallible. I don't recall hearing about any other theologians denying papal infallibility.
I don't make a charge of heresy lightly. But if one PUBLICLY denies a De fide teaching, which papal infallibility certainly is, then that person by definition is a heretic.
Perhaps you worthies above so in love with the Catholic Church, so accepting of the whole Deposit of the Faith can name other theologians who reject the infallibility teaching and remain in good standing as priests or laymen? Also, is Kung able to preach from the pulpit since he is allegedly a priest in good standing? So he can preach but not teach, is that it? Paulte must confess that he is just too logical to understand that one! I bet it would even confuse St Dominic!
If the Church's purview gets
If the Church's purview gets any narrower, or similar to yours, what is left in the Church, the rigid, the constipated, the intolerant; and call yourself holy. Alas, authority before dogma, yet in the middle ages it was determined that the councils were superior to the pope. What happened to that. We find ourselves with an increasingly narrow hierarchy, which is exclusionary, self-defining and declares itself inspired by the Holy Spirit. What the Great Kung has declared is that 'infallibility' "taught by the doctrinal Council Vatican I" is not supported by history. It has been arrogated by deceit, conceit; resulting in condemnation of all who know otherwise.
A Council has no validity
A Council has no validity unless a Pope calls it in the first place and then signs off on the documents.
...interesting, perhaps a
...interesting, perhaps a review of Church history might help you. In early Church history, it was the emperor who called a church council, it was the emperor, who invited the pope, who incidently was called by the same nomenclature as the other bishops(Papa, a term 'father', used by all the bishops then). There were no popes as there are today until Leo, the Great. In some of the Church Councils the pope was not invited; in others disinvited. For example, Constantine called the council in Nicaea in 325, all the bishops were to attend save the bishop of Rome, who was not invited. The principals in charge of the Church have usurped its present position, arrogating to itself total authority, the pride of any autocrat. Now for "a council has no validity unless a Pope calls it in the first place and then signs off on the documents" bcomes silly in the historical-analytic sense. For those who check their brain on the mantel and ascribe to the acquiescing devotional hope, wish and a prayer Church you are the perfect foils for the follies which befall a misogynistic, homophobic counter enlightenment.
Engagement is what is needed
Engagement is what is needed in our country and church at this time.This article certain makes a good argument for it. In terms of Senator Kennedy, the problem with his funeral for many of us was not the public nature of the funeral or that he was given a Catholic funeral, it was all of the eulogizing that bordered on canonization. To many wanted to speak, both clergy and laity and used the funeral Mass as the vehicle for this. In addition, the General Intercessions were too politicized and personal to the senator. Praying for the repose of his soul and entrusting his soul to God's mercy is what our Funeral Masses should do. They shouldn't be canonizations.
Perhaps your politics
Perhaps your politics speaking here, because you sure didn't have to watch any of it, and I'll assume you didn't attend.
I find it interesting that
I find it interesting that you define "engagement" as the "use of strategy to convince the other side about the validity of a position and being civil about it." Many people, myself included, would define engagement as an on-going exchange of views intended to develop mutual understanding of differing positions, beliefs and assumptions about important questions, enabling strangers to become neighbors and live together even and especially when they might continue to disagree on some things.
The definitions provided in this article merely distinguish between the level of civility involved in an effort to convert "the other" to your own position, and while by your definition, engagement may seem more open and appropriate than confrontation, the goal of both seems to prevail in your position.
Where does compassionate understanding come into the mix?
Thank you Anonymous, Your
Thank you Anonymous, Your points are not only interesting but well taken.
As for the funeral of Ted
As for the funeral of Ted Kennedy, too many of us, yes Catholics, hate the rich and are quick to see that archbishops and such cater to them if this is true or not. We do not see the good many of these people do, and if we counted all their transgressions heaven help us when ours are counted.
As for abortion, this is murder, yes, and we have to do what we can to stop it, hopefully with compassion where it is needed and heeded. But--even here we can't judge. Don't stop talking and caring and, if necessary, shed tears. Always pray, it makes us strong and love is a mighty thing.
Just a suggestion but the
Just a suggestion but the pope may want to consided Raymond Lahey, the bishop who just resigned in Nova Scotia for the Scranton job. Of course there's that little matter of kiddie porn importation charges that has to be cleaned up first.
Nice !
Nice !
Typical drivel from Melady.
Typical drivel from Melady. Bishop Martino is on fire with the Faith, and he has suffered for it; may God bless him! By contrast, Melady displays all the passion and conviction of a dial tone. Ambasador, are you now reduced to publicy ridiculing a bishop, with no evidence whatsoever of your claims?
Yes, but was he on fire for
Yes, but was he on fire for the Catholic Church or the Republican Party? The perception that the latter was the truth led to his ouster.
You seem to forget that every
You seem to forget that every bishop and archbishop you mentioned publicly criticized Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama. Pastoral or not, they objected.
As for "the surprise that some Catholics in the United States criticized Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley for presiding at the funeral of the late Senator Edward Kennedy," I can only wonder to whom you were talking? Those aging retirees Cardinal Cottier or Cardinal Martini? That papal master of ceremonies has-been Archbishop Piero Marini? The guy at the cafe on the Via della Conciliazone who would tell you anything you wanted to hear just to get your Euros that took you for a ride selling you that $15 pastry and cup of cappuccino? The folks I talked to in Rome (2 cardinals, a bishop, and two priests) were shocked and disappointed.
yes, but those folk you
yes, but those folk you allegedly talk to in Rome want you to buy them that fifteen dollar cup of coffee and twenty dollar doughnut, and so will tell you anything.
"Even more strongly was the
"Even more strongly was the surprise that some Catholics in the United States criticized Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley for presiding at the funeral of the late Senator Edward Kennedy."
Even for a country grown accustomed to the loud and constant voice of the radically-wrong right, the criticism of Cardinal O'Malley or the strange belief that Senator Ted Kennedy should not have a Catholic funeral were astonishingly ugly. I'm glad that the Vatican is finally seeing the obvious.
Great article, wonderful
Great article, wonderful insights
As a priest in a "schismatic"
As a priest in a "schismatic" church, I'm able to look with some knowledge from the outside in.
So far, I have been favorably impressed with Benedict XVI, whom we acknoledge only as the patriarch of the Latin rite, and Sean Cardinal O'Malley OFM Cap, who seems to have a true Franciscan soul.
Cardinal O'Malley made a sound pastoral decision in allowing a Catholic funeral for Sen. Kennedy and by participating. I do not believe he presided, that was a priest who was a long-time friend of Sen. Kennedy.
Of course, I also wonder about the state of the souls of some of those who wanted to deny Teddy a Christian burial. Judge not, yet ye be judged, saith the Lord.
It may be wishful thinking on
It may be wishful thinking on my part, but doesn't this column sound like the "Common Ground" of Cardinal Bernardin? No matter how strongly one holds this or that position, there is still going to be much about the Church on which we all agree. In fact, I would opine that we all hold the vast preponderance of the teachings in common. Beyond that, when we do differ, it more frequently a matter of degree than total disagreement.
Of course, it is Mr. Melady's opinion that Bishop Martino was asked to resign, which may or may not be accurate. The point is, however, it is irrelevant if Bishop Martino was asked to resign or if he truly did resign due to health reasons. The point of the article does not depend on what was involved with Bishop Martino.
The ambassador seems to
The ambassador seems to imply, and I do infer from his remarks, that the engagement-oriented persons in the Vatican who worked at facilitating the papal conversation with President Obama were somehow instrumental in facilitating the resignation of the Bishop of Scranton. I wonder how that might have occurred?
Also, I wonder if the Ambassador or anyone else might weigh in on whether the same (or other) engagement-oriented persons in the Vatican are aware of Archbishop Raymond Burke's continuing confrontational (Bishop Martino-like) communications and other actions, outside the sphere of his new Vatican responsibilities, directed at the American Church (criticizing Cardinal O'Malley's services for Senator Edward Kennedy, and pushing for or perhaps even instigating, through Cardinal Rode, the Vatican investigation of American nuns)?
Perhaps the inscrutible ways of the Vatican include waiting to see whether the signals that have been sent, will have a beneficial effect. Also, in the instance of Archbishop Burke, perhaps one cure would be to put more Vatican work on his Vatican desk.
We in St Louis wish there was
We in St Louis wish there was a way to keep Burke in Rome, or anywhere, but out of St Louis. He has reappeared many times in his watered silk,lace and gold brocade to officiate at minor ultrconservative group masses and meetings. He poses asthe Archbishop Emeritus of St Louis! We now have a man who appears pastoral, humble and human, Archbishop Carlson, and the last thing we need is the divisive, crude, and truly ignorant Burke reappearingg periodically. Can't someone in Rome,the Pope e.g,keep him busy and buried there? We pray.
It would appear his Roman
It would appear his Roman office boys prefer to keep him here.
Why?
These reasons you enumerate?
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
God Bless the work of Pope
God Bless the work of Pope Benedict XVI. Let us all pray that the USA and the world will embrace a culture of life.
It reminds me of the attitude
It reminds me of the attitude that Jesus had to those whom he might have disagreed. Well done Pope Benedict. Don't let the fringe right force you into their partisan politics.
In regard to Sen.Kennedy, it
In regard to Sen.Kennedy, it was wholly appropriate for Cardinal O'Malley to preside at the final commendation (he did not offer the sacrifice of the mass for Sen. Kennedy) because although Sen. Kennedy did support access to abortion, the rest of the issues he supported in this life were quite in line with Catholic social teaching.
What is troubling is the fact that there seems to be no quarter given in the church these days for human imperfection in these matters. Nobody in this life can achieve divine perfection and we are by definition imperfect creatures. That being said, do we want the kind of church where people are cursed, denied the grace of the sacraments to help them get through this imperfect existence? Quoting St. Paul,"may it not happen!" Sen. Kennedy was hardly perfect, yet he lived a Catholic life as best he could. We are not all going to respond to the question at the crux of moral theology, "what must I do in this moment?" the same way. Sen. Kennedy responded, as we all do in the way he thought best and could live with.
Rafael, I would disagree that
Rafael, I would disagree that "the rest of the issues [Senator Ted Kennedy] supported in this life were quite in line with Catholic social teaching. Kennedy was a supporter of embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage, both of which are diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching.
Bishop Martino has in his
Bishop Martino has in his posession information more relevant than the tired replay of a by-gone era. He, himself, is not bygone but the issue has been settled. The post-Roe v. Wade era has matured and evolved. Those born that year (1973) now are grandparents. Their children might ask, "What debate?" The freedom to explore ideas abound.
The text message and the video tells them of their importance in identifying their cultural stripes. Certain items are on their hard drives and will remain, even if they, personally, choose to accept Catholic teachings that peers reject. They know their place in popular culture. The big question is whether you wish that they be 'catholic' in their fellowship or absent Sunday.
I'm finding that the Church
I'm finding that the Church of Rome is so heavily divided that I am fearful and find it difficult to accept many of its teachings. I love the "Church" but I will not allow it to destroy my "Faith in Jesus Christ". The Church is suppose to be the vehicle upon which the "Gospel of Love" message should be conveyed, but too often the Church gets into the way of this message. The clergy needs to review its' effectiveness as messergers.
As far as Ted Kennedy is concerned, I believe that in his 47 years in the Senate, accomplished more than the Church has, because although wealthy, it did not get in his way of "Service to the People of God." He doesn't need to be canonized his works speak for themselves. "Faith without good works is empty", and in his case his was "Faith with good Works".
Very good article, which I
Very good article, which I hope will have some affect on the Catholic Republicans who seem to only "have eyes for the departed Bush and Chaney."
Engagement is what is needed on health care reform, and the many other issues which face our country. I hope the Vatican can give Bishop Burke more work in Rome to keep him busy there instead of pushing the Republican propaganda here.
Mr. Melady fails to grasp the
Mr. Melady fails to grasp the nature of confrontation.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines confrontation as ": the act of confronting : the state of being confronted: as a : a face-to-face meeting b : the clashing of forces or ideas :"
The clashing of forces or ideas. Hmmmm? Isn't the clashing of forces or ideas to be expected when we live in a culture that allows any number of grave evils which are Not in line with Catholic teaching? Sometimes confrontation is unavoidable when you stand up for what you believe. Catholics are called to stand up and profess what we believe in the public square. (For anyone who doubts this please read "Render Unto Caesar" by Archbishop Chaput before you comment)
This does not mean that Catholics should be brash, crass, or uncharitable when engaging a pluralistic society. However, there is no peace without truth.
Dear Max: Why should I read
Dear Max:
Why should I read the personal opinion of Archbishop Chaput before responding to your "Catholics are called to stand up and profess what we believe in the public square"? Let us follow Jesus' Words and Examples.
It's not Mother Church who
It's not Mother Church who does not wish to engage political leaders. It is the political leaders who refuse to engage the Church with integrity and honesty. First among those is the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
While at Notre Dame University, President Obama talked a good game about respecting the right of conscience on issues related to abortion. However, now the time has come for the rubber to meet the road, he and his administration have proven that all he intends to do is talk.
Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina, a 130 year old Benedictine college, recently removed contraception, voluntary sterilization and abortion from the faculty health care policy after learning that these coverages had been accidentaly included in the policy. Employees who opposed this move by the college filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (a department of the Obama Administration) on the grounds that the college was engaging in "gender discrimination". The EEOC initially dismissed the complaint as being groundless, but just a few weeks later, the EEOC mysteriously reveresed course and demanded that the College reinstate the coverages or else.
Belmont Abbey College, unlike other Catholic-in-name-only colleges and institutions, was merely adhering to the Church's teaching. In other words, a school dedicated to handing on the teaching of the Church is also actually adhering to that same faith! Yet, the US government, the Obama Administration, is trying to force Belmont Abbey College to engage in behavior that violates its core beliefs. Where is the respect, the protection, of conscience that President Obama promised at Notre Dame?
The Benedictine President of Belmont Abbey College said that he would rather close the school than to go against the Church's most fundamental teachings on the sanctity of human life. Truly a man of great integrity, unlike a politician who says one thing at a Catholic college and who does the exact opposite when action is actually required!
If the Church wants to engage in political and social issues, I think that is wonderful. The Church always speaks from a position of integrity on these issues. It would be nice if the political leaders would too.
why so confrontational?
why so confrontational?
Belmont Abbey is nothing more
Belmont Abbey is nothing more than a front for the Legion of Christ and the vast sums of money they provide. Closing it under these circumstances provides this particular president an opportunity for the Legion to take it over and get it out from under his own Benedictines.
If what Green relates is
If what Green relates is actually true (always a question), obviously this president seeks any limp reason whatsoever to close the school. How does he dare presume dictate medical policy for all of his serfs and their entire families? Most medieval of him, and most likely many of these employees are not even baptized and/or practicing (or legally documented), otherwise, why bother? If they are practicing Catholics there is no need to remove from their medical insurance that which they will never use. If tey are not Catholic, why impose upon them Catholic practices, except through loving conversion, and as Ambassador Melady here puts it: engagement?
===========================================================
An attempt to confirm Gren's account reveals this from Wikipedia:
In early December 2007 it was discovered that the Belmont Abbey College healthcare policy covered "abortion, contraception and voluntary sterilization." These were removed by the administration immediately after they were discovered. Following the change in policy eight faculty members filed formal complaints to the North Carolina Department of Insurance, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the National Women's Law Center about the removal of contraceptive coverage, the latter threatening a lawsuit on behalf of the eight faculty members. The Abbot and the administration have stated that they have no intention of reinstating those portions of the health care plan. The school's administration has received statements of support from Catholic news sources and other organizations.
In May 2008, the student newspaper, the Belmont Abbey Crusader, published an article pointing out that the Abbey still profits from two stores on its land that sell contraceptives, including a pharmacy.
A Professor of Theology at Belmont Abbey College (Ray Wentowski), is quoted as stating that the larger issue "is about the responsibility of the College as a Catholic and Benedictine institution neither to sponsor nor promote activities that the authoritative teaching of the Church considers seriously immoral."
The Abbot defended the existence of Wal-Mart and Rite Aid on Belmont Abbey land, stating that "[They] are preponderantly good operations, i.e. 99 percent or more of their business is not problematic, and the employment generation and economic stimulation they provide for the community of Belmont are worth tolerating a small amount of evil. The Abbey is not willing to lease to them because they sell contraceptives, but despite it."
======================================================================
The current president of the college (oddly unnamed in Green's accounting) may be found at
http://belmontabbeycollege.edu/president/commencement08.aspx
The abortion issue in the
The abortion issue in the case of a catholic politic like Ted K. cannot be treated as another common political issue, such as for example the current financial crisis or the global warming.
Those who support abortion, who perform it, who ease or consel it are incurring excommunication "ipso facto latae sententiae" because it is considered as a murder.
In that case one cannot say like Ted Kennedy "I am personnally against abortion, but..." That's too easy: "I am personnally against the Jews persecutions, but..." (that too was heard during WWII).
I don't know which spiritual dispositions Kennedy had just before dying. One can guess that he confessed to a holy priest who showed him that his stance on the issue was wrong and seriously sinful and that he had to repent to avoid ending into Hell, and that thus he complied.
But in the doubt (only his confessor knows), in my opinion the Church had to give him the minimum service: Non official catholic funerals with one priest only. Cardinals and bishops were superfluous for the salvation of his soul.
I know of a lot of fervent catholic faithfuls who never supported abortion whose families were upset bcs they couldn't even have one priest for their funerals bcs of the priests shortage.
Canon Law or no Canon Law;
Canon Law or no Canon Law; That is the question.
It is good that the Pope and
It is good that the Pope and the President of the United States get together. However, it does show that the Catholic church and the Democratic Party platform are strange bedfellows. The Democratic Party long ago latched on to the women's movement (abortion) and the gay agenda (legitimize homosexuality). The Catholic church is in disagreement with both movements. It continues to baffle me that so many Catholics side with (and vote for) liberal Democratic platforms. casino online
Correction. The Republican
Correction.
The Republican Party and Roman Catholics have always made very bizarre bedfellows, and we know who is ever on the top (ugh, not a pretty mind picture! Michael Novak and Dick Cheney?.
Normatively and historically, spiritually, morally and philosophically, a Roman Catholic in America has always been Democratic.
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
I am glad to see Church
I am glad to see Church Fathers fighting back against the pressures to change Catholic Church teachings on faith and morals. It is not a democracy but a unique institution founded by Christ Himself to preserve and pass on the Divine Truths. I am very glad that the Church and a a few brave and shining lights are resisting 'situation ethics' and 'pick and choose' Catholicism. Society may place great emphasis on individual freedoms and desires or inconvenient restrictions to behaviour, but some things are not open to change because they are not ours to change and the Catholic Church is one of them. It is a universal instrument to teach all humankind, not another level of government to overcome or circumvent.
By all means, Pope Benedict
By all means, Pope Benedict should engage with President Obama. But Biden, Pelosi, Kennedy (RIP) et al should all get the finger-waving treatment. Your mother has every right to tell you to clean up your act.
Real adults rightfully do not
Real adults rightfully do not acknowledge nor respond to finger-wagging.
The hierarchy needs to disarm its' arrogant approaches based on the false premise of trickle-down religiousity.
Real adults rightfully do not
Real adults rightfully do not acknowledge nor respond to finger-wagging.
The hierarchy needs to disarm its' arrogant approaches based on the false premise of trickle-down religiousity.
People deserve wealthy life
People deserve wealthy life time and credit loans or just bank loan would make it much better. Because freedom is grounded on money state.
Post new comment