tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post3560191827319524106..comments2023-06-28T04:21:47.815-04:00Comments on DOR Catholic: With tongue firmly planted in cheek ...Mike Sheahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05152225895101756147noreply@blogger.comBlogger156125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-71413700894144388322009-12-22T18:16:28.609-05:002009-12-22T18:16:28.609-05:00EVERYONE CALM DOWN!
Thanks.EVERYONE CALM DOWN!<br /><br />Thanks.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03276399524715304339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-27596610748763077732009-12-22T17:25:12.604-05:002009-12-22T17:25:12.604-05:00He made that comment as he was leaving. While he...He made that comment as he was leaving. While he was shielding child abusers he was as orthodox as they come. <br /><br />Are you seriously trying to say that conservative/orthodox bishops were not involved in the scandal?<br /><br />Also, priestly celibacy is a discipline, not dogma. I thought orthodox was about dogma. Is it unorthodox to discuss traditions that are not dogma?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-46801026402718912772009-12-22T10:47:30.183-05:002009-12-22T10:47:30.183-05:00The same Egan who supported married priests? Umm, ...The same Egan who supported married priests? Umm, nice try?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-41170974047519915082009-12-22T00:43:47.474-05:002009-12-22T00:43:47.474-05:00Does the name Law ring a bell?
And Egan is no pro...Does the name Law ring a bell?<br /><br />And Egan is no progressive. <br /><br />"DENISE LAVOIE, Associated Press Writer<br />AP Online<br />05-11-2000<br />Bishop Egan Is Staunch and Friendly<br /><br />BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (AP) -- The new head of the New York Archdiocese is described as friendly and down-to-earth but a staunch defender of the Roman Catholic Church's conservative positions on issues such as abortion and homosexuality."<br /><br />Look out for those staunch and friendly types. <br /><br />I know that one Defender of the Universal Church thinks Ireland is not part of that universe, but every one of those bishops who were and are responsible for the worst abuse yet come to light is very, very conservative, what those here would call kick-ass orthodox, though considering the horror perhaps another adjective should be chosen. There is no such thing as a progressive bishop in Ireland. <br /><br />The fact is that bishops of all stripes shielded predators in priest's clothing. <br /><br />It's been asked why parents allowed these priests such access to their children, why they trusted them so much. One reason was because they were seen as above suspicion, somehow more than normal mortals, closer to God than we. Another is that they did not view them as sexual human beings. The idea of a priest even having sexual thoughts was unthinkable. This was because people believed without question that all or most priests truly are chaste and celibate. That is an assumption that has been proven false. <br /><br />Would those here leave their child alone with a priest they considered orthodox? If so they would be doing what the parents of abused children did. The perceived orthodoxy of a priest is not a reliable indicator that he is or is not a predator. <br /><br />Of course most priests are not child abusers, but the fantasy that they are somehow more than mere men has been shattered. <br /><br />The abuse scandal made that much more difficult the job of the majority of good priests but I question how many of them were aware of abuse committed by their peers and kept quiet about it because they were ordered to by their superiors or because of the seal of the confessional. <br /><br />If anything good comes out of the scandal it will be that the Church is not immune from the law when it comes to crime committed by its clergy. Hopefully current and future bishops will follow the new guidelines and report crimes the first time they hear of them. Hopefully too the Vatican which initially rejected the USCCB's "One Strike" rule will do the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-9622753989418786452009-12-21T22:33:32.736-05:002009-12-21T22:33:32.736-05:00"So, not to excuse Bishop Clark for not calli..."So, not to excuse Bishop Clark for not calling the cops, but lots of conservative/small "o" orthodox bishops did the same, often on a grander scale."<br /><br />Grander than Weakland and Pilarczyk, two very progressive bishops?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-74081887893964546932009-12-21T17:49:40.189-05:002009-12-21T17:49:40.189-05:00Let's address that. I'm on record saying ...Let's address that. I'm on record saying that any bishop, including Bishop Clark, who sheltered child abusers should resign or be fired. I asked another Anon I was going back and forth with if he would agree to getting rid of conservative/orthodox bishops who did the same thing. He/she said yes. <br /><br />Looking into the history of the scandal leads one to wonder if the reason bishops didn't just call the cops had something more to do than protecting the Church's and their own reputations, finances, and the "protect your own" mentality present in other organizations like police departments. <br /><br />My favorite pope, Pope John, put his stamp on a directive to all bishops to observe strict secrecy on the subject of solicitation and sexual perversion among the clergy. This has been spliced and diced but it takes a wild stretch to say it didn't instruct that cases of child abuse by priests should be handled strictly in-house with no police or outside authorities. <br /><br />This led me to wonder, what would happen if an individual bishop DID call the cops? Would the Vatican be pleased? Would be be disobeying orders? It's a question worth considering. <br /><br />I don't know what Bishop Clark's personal decisions would have been in the cases of abuser priests under his management or what those of other bishops would have been if such a secret Vatican document didn't exist, but it's possible some of them might have been forbidden by the Church from calling the cops. <br /><br />Never-the-less, they should have shown the personal courage to do it anyway then offer their resignation to the Vatican if charged with disobedience. Those that didn't still should have offered to quit when the scandal became public. <br /><br />In Ireland one bishop called upon others to do the right thing and quit. That didn't happen here. Bishop Clark seems like the kind of guy who should have stepped forward and said, "I can't go along with this, I need to call the police" or "What we did was wrong, I offer my resignation". Perhaps he and others did. Perhaps their offers of resignation were refused and they were ordered to keep the matter secret. I wouldn't be surprised if that came out someday. This is entirely speculation, but so are a lot of things. <br /><br />So, not to excuse Bishop Clark for not calling the cops, but lots of conservative/small "o" orthodox bishops did the same, often on a grander scale. It would be easy for me to compile a list. <br /><br />So let's be honest, that's not your beef with Bishop Clark is it? It has nothing to do with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-64663835736082130922009-12-20T17:00:50.795-05:002009-12-20T17:00:50.795-05:00Anything is better than our protector of child abu...Anything is better than our protector of child abusers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-13268017965113512992009-12-20T13:27:32.633-05:002009-12-20T13:27:32.633-05:00But you have hopeful speculations, don't you? ...But you have hopeful speculations, don't you? You just don't want to reveal them to me. <br /><br />That's OK, I can see the wish list on the posts you send to each other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-64708314747487072312009-12-20T11:40:41.089-05:002009-12-20T11:40:41.089-05:00"You all have pretty strong opinions about wh..."You all have pretty strong opinions about what Bishop Clark is doing wrong. Why is it a trap to ask what you hope a future bishop will do right?"<br /><br />One is based on fact, the other is based on pure speculation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-73876452272990462992009-12-19T22:59:47.298-05:002009-12-19T22:59:47.298-05:00So what do you all mean by an orthodox bishop, ort...So what do you all mean by an orthodox bishop, orthodox teaching, orthodox parishes and an orthodox DOR? Are you looking for that to include some kind of enforcement or is it OK to just talk about it and hope it will sink into people? <br /><br />I'm relieved that the members of this forum aren't looking for a bishop and priests who will denying or not denying communion based on the public and private sins of DOR Catholics, that they only want to state official Church teaching, have more traditional masses and let the Holy Spirit do the rest. <br /><br />Or do I have that wrong? <br /><br />You all have pretty strong opinions about what Bishop Clark is doing wrong. Why is it a trap to ask what you hope a future bishop will do right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-13356846168902872142009-12-19T20:18:58.836-05:002009-12-19T20:18:58.836-05:00ding a lingding a lingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-16011774240458431482009-12-19T18:40:49.874-05:002009-12-19T18:40:49.874-05:00"Again, if you were a bishop, if you could de..."Again, if you were a bishop, if you could decide, would you extend the communion ban to politicians who supported programs that included contraception and other things the Church says no to?"<br /><br />But I'm not a bishop, nor will I ever be in all likelihood. Hypotheticals don't matter and only serve the purpose of you attempting to trap me in saying something that you are prepared to pounce on. Sorry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-16200171485193729252009-12-19T16:00:52.586-05:002009-12-19T16:00:52.586-05:00All Church teaching? Other than abortion? If a C...All Church teaching? Other than abortion? If a Catholic candidate or legislator supports foreign aid that might include contraception should he be denied communion? Despite in-person appeals at the Vatican by neo-conservative American Catholics our current and previous popes said the Iraq invasion did not satisfy the definition of a just war and should not be done. Should they and all the Catholic legislators who supported and voted for it anyway be denied communion? What about Catholic legislators who support capital punishment as PUNISHMENT, not simply a last-ditch effort to protect society from murderers in a Third World or apocalyptic society where prisons don't exist? Should they be denied communion? Where do you draw the line?<br /><br />If bishops expand what Catholic legislators must and must not vote for because they're Catholics non-Catholics and Catholics who don't agree with that will avoid voting for Catholics. It seems that today's conservative U.S. bishops would have disagreed with JFK when he said he wouldn't govern as a Catholic, that he wouldn't take orders from his religious leaders. I've read on orthodox/conservative/whatever Catholic forums that this is a view held by many orthodox/conservative/whatever Catholics. If those are the new rules then we will have a lot less Catholic legislators because even the non-Catholic Religious Right uses contraception. <br /><br />Again, if you were a bishop, if you could decide, would you extend the communion ban to politicians who supported programs that included contraception and other things the Church says no to? <br /><br />As far as abortion pro-choice politicians (remember, I'm anti-abortion) please explain to me why the pro-choice Republican governor of California has not been denied communion nor have any other pro-choice Republicans. How in the world is this not a double standard? Despite protests to the contrary it appears to the general public that the majority of U.S. bishops support the Republican Party and reserve their heavy ammunition for Democrats.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-72760452008884400462009-12-18T18:21:07.838-05:002009-12-18T18:21:07.838-05:00Again, this all at the discretion of the bishop. W...Again, this all at the discretion of the bishop. When it comes to politicians supporting legislation contrary to Church teaching, yes, there should be consequences for that. The denial of Communion makes sense, since if the person is in a state of mortal sin, they shouldn't be receiving Communion anyways until they confess their sins before God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-90753814902344204302009-12-18T17:08:32.393-05:002009-12-18T17:08:32.393-05:00Is it OK to ask what you would like to see as far ...Is it OK to ask what you would like to see as far as enforcement? Would you be in favor of denying communion to more than legislators who vote for pro-choice legislation (remember, I'm anti-abortion)? What about other Catholic public figures who publicly state their disagreement with Church teaching? Supreme Court Justice Scalia comes to mind. He stated publicly during a speech that he thought the Church was wrong about the death penalty. He specifically said it was wrong, not that he just didn't like it, but that it was wrong. His position on that teaching is the same as Catholics who think the teaching on contraception is wrong. I don't see the difference. If the bishops told him how to decide a case on capital punishment he'd tell them to bud out. And he's Opus Dei. Then there's Sean Hannity. He's another conservative who has publicly stated his disagreement with Church teaching, this time on contraception, proving that it's not just "progressive" Catholics who reject it. Both of these Catholic public figures have stated very publicly that they do not believe and will not follow certain Church teachings. Yet they are not denied communion. I know, abortion trumps all, but don't the rules say that you're not supposed to receive communion unless you are in a state of grace after you've confessed and repented your sins and stated your intention not to commit them again? Scalia and Hannity have no intention of doing that. They have said flat out that they don't think violating a particular Church teaching is a sin and they're not bothered by it. <br /><br />Aren't we really saying that denial of communion is limited to those who commit or aid in abortion and those who divorce and remarry without an annulment? <br /><br />Would you, if you could decide, go beyond that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-82310402994091472302009-12-18T12:34:58.376-05:002009-12-18T12:34:58.376-05:00"but in a future more orthodox DOR how much u...<i>"but in a future more orthodox DOR how much un-orthodox stuff excluding abortion and remarriage without an annulment could a Catholic publicly do before he/she was denied Communion?"</i><br /><br />That's really up to the bishop, not me. We'll see when it happens. All I can offer you is speculation, and that wouldn't do much good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-65163077316491947142009-12-18T00:16:25.785-05:002009-12-18T00:16:25.785-05:00I get that.
But if a Catholic legislator signed...I get that. <br /><br />But if a Catholic legislator signed onto a bill promoting condoms, for AIDS for instance, would he be called on that by his bishop?<br /><br />I'm not equating contraception with abortion - I'm anti-abortion - but where's the line? <br /><br />Maybe I'm full of it. No; check; I'm defiantly full of it, but in a future more orthodox DOR how much un-orthodox stuff excluding abortion and remarriage without an annulment could a Catholic publicly do before he/she was denied Communion? <br /><br />If you're saying I'm talking about something that would never happen then I think you're agreeing with me that there is some amount of known sin even without Confession that could be overlooked at least as far as not denying the sinner Communion, hoping and encouraging them of course to repent.<br /><br />I guess the real point of bringing up who can and can't receive Communion is at what point we really clamp down on those who are not considered orthodox enough. <br /><br />I think there may be a variety of opinion here, but I'm not sure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-38618161350319047972009-12-17T23:49:52.175-05:002009-12-17T23:49:52.175-05:00"But we don't kick them out (though I'..."But we don't kick them out (though I've thought about it) because they won't obey."<br /><br />Nobody is kicking anyone out because of condoms. You continue to modify the facts to make your arguments. Abortion on the other hand is a different matter, which incurs excommunication.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-78978380380696327012009-12-17T23:33:27.963-05:002009-12-17T23:33:27.963-05:00"Not change the Church's teaching.."..."Not change the Church's teaching.."<br /><br />I don't expect it to change. <br /><br />But again, what do you want to do with the 95% of Catholics who knowingly reject an important part of that teaching?<br /><br />When we say orthodox we're talking about believing and obeying all of what the Church teaches, right?<br /><br />I won't get into what % buys or doesn't buy the Iraq War, the Death Penalty, Universal Health Care, Preferential Option for the Poor, etc, but again, what is the consensus on the 9 in 10 Catholics who flat out refuse to obey the ban on contraception? That's a pretty big disobedience. It says that most Catholics have concluded that they have a personal say in what the Church tells them to do. <br /><br />I sympathize with those who long for the days when Catholics were more obedient, but facts are facts. Do you seriously want these Catholics to stop receiving Communion and probably leave the Church? If not, why? <br /><br />One good reason might be that the Church can't afford to lose over 90% of it's members. No organization could. <br /><br />I have teenagers. We have family rules. They rebel against them all. Just because they don't follow our rules doesn't mean we stop calling them rules. We evaluate if they still make sense and if they do we continue to stand by them whether they are followed or not. Even in disobedience the existence of rules provides some kind of moral break. I hope. <br /><br />But we don't kick them out (though I've thought about it) because they won't obey. We pull our hair out, stamp our feet, then tell them we love them. <br /><br />We stopped forcing them to go to Mass at 16. They were confirmed and we figured it was up to them. We were dragging them and they were ruining Sunday for everyone. I told them that they were Catholic whether they wanted to be or not because they were baptized, once in, never out. I mentioned from time to time that they were welcome to join us just for company, whatever. I told them that regardless of everything the Catholic Church was the Real Deal, the One and Only True Church established by Jesus Christ. <br /><br />The oldest had a college Anthropology project that he needed family photos for. He said they had to be of important family events. We pulled them and most were Baptisms, First Communions, Confirmations, Summer Bible Camp etc. From his captions you would think we were the most perfect Catholic family in the world. On each one he wrote something about how he was raised Catholic and this was an important part of his life. No doubt there was a good deal of b.s. but there was some real enthusiasm as he worked at the dining room table. <br /><br />On weekends he won't admit it, but he is appreciating the home he couldn't wait to leave. He says, "Love you guys" instead of "You're ruining my life!" He calls me "Dude" instead of what he used to call me. <br /><br />And he is remembering that he is Catholic. <br /><br />Next week he will join us for Christmas Eve Mass and I am sure he will be glad to be there. Someday he might have kids of his own and realize what an important gift his faith is to live as best he can and pass on. <br /><br />That is why I am not in favor of "smaller, purer", why I am not in favor of denying Communion to Cultural, Seasonal, or Whatever Catholics. If we followed the letter of the law my son would not receive Communion because he hasn't been to Mass in months and Confession in more. If we were to suggest that he would never return and might never rediscover the Catholic that is and will always be within him. <br /><br />I understand why those who faithfully follow Church teachings get steamed when those who don't join them in the Communion line, but what would be the result be if they didn't? A much shorter line. <br /><br />Let's keep my kids, me, and other imperfect Catholics in that line so that down the line we can grow the Church and ourselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-66755025768516725922009-12-17T18:29:30.054-05:002009-12-17T18:29:30.054-05:00"Now what are you going to do about them? &qu...<i>"Now what are you going to do about them? "</i><br /><br />Not change the Church's teaching just because people don't like it. Morality is not a popularity contest. For example, many more people today support homosexuality, but that does not mean the Church should say homosexual acts are acceptable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-29678684462131257292009-12-17T16:54:13.297-05:002009-12-17T16:54:13.297-05:00"I think it's bad, I think it's kille..."I think it's bad, I think it's killed our Church, I think it'd be better if it didn't happen. But that doesn't matter, I accept the Council. That's quite different than you, who disagrees with contraception issues and also disobeys."<br /><br />Thank you for your honest opinion, but I haven't told you what I do or don't do, as I wouldn't ask you. I have only state fact, that 95% or more of Catholics disagree with and disobey this teaching, that 95% or more are not orthodox. There, I said it. No quotes. <br /><br />Now what are you going to do about them? <br /><br />95%<br /><br />That's almost all the Catholics in the world. <br /><br />How small are you willing to get to achieve an orthodox laity?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-16232271565734376822009-12-17T14:52:35.235-05:002009-12-17T14:52:35.235-05:00ALSO -
The Novus Ordo Mass came after the Council...ALSO -<br /><br />The Novus Ordo Mass came after the Council, not from the Council itself. The liturgy was called to be made by Sacrosanctum Concilium, but the liturgy itself was not actually created by the Council.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-74847690908100590272009-12-17T14:50:49.188-05:002009-12-17T14:50:49.188-05:00An important item has been left out in the previou...An important item has been left out in the previous few comments: Vatican II (unlike Vatican I) did not define any new dogmas about the faith, so to apply infallibility to it would be incorrect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-16943298316722896032009-12-17T14:12:01.240-05:002009-12-17T14:12:01.240-05:00"OK, then can we drop "progressive"...<i>"OK, then can we drop "progressive" too? Because I see "them" getting bashed regularly."</i><br /><br />You're the only one putting in quotes, so don't tell me to do anything.<br /><br /><i>"Because as I understand it the difference between a schismatic <br />"Catholic" and a Traditional, Conservative or small "o" orthodox one is accepting Vatican II as a good thing because it was brought forth by a pope and the Church or denying that it was really of the Church. Those who think it was an error and can't say that the Church was in error (because it can't be) rationalize that it wasn't the true Church that did it. Do I have that right?"</i><br /><br />Your understanding is incorrect. Orthodoxy refers to assent to Church teaching, not whether or not you like it. No one needs to think VII is a "good thing" as you put it. The Church has been in error in the past -- recall the Arian heresy.<br /><br /><i>"So, Vatican II itself - good or bad? Do you accept it but wish you didn't have to? Would you be happier if it never happened?"</i><br /><br />I think it's bad, I think it's killed our Church, I think it'd be better if it didn't happen. But that doesn't matter, I accept the Council. That's quite different than you, who disagrees with contraception issues and also disobeys. <br /><br /><i>"And what should I call Catholics who think the NO and other changes brought by VII were not improvements "</i><br /><br />It's absolutely disgusting to call what we have today improvements. The intention was to simplify the liturgy for the laity, not to enhance it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3421048675188238799.post-54952282148167029502009-12-16T23:55:13.492-05:002009-12-16T23:55:13.492-05:00OK, then can we drop "progressive" too? ...OK, then can we drop "progressive" too? Because I see "them" getting bashed regularly. <br /><br />Small "o" orthodox is how I see "conservative" Catholics who want to "reform the reform" and return to more "traditional" worship forms describe themselves. I've been corrected on calling them "conservative" as confusing a political and social term with a religious one. <br /><br />What would you prefer I call those on this forum and others who share the same sentiments and views?<br /><br />I would prefer to call us all "Catholics".<br /><br />But that is not what I see here and elsewhere. I see an us vs. them fight, "them" being Catholics who are deemed not "orthodox". <br /><br />One question I would like to ask those here is do you think Pope John and the Church made a mistake even convening Vatican II? Do you wish it had never happened? Because as I understand it the difference between a schismatic "Catholic" and a Traditional, Conservative or small "o" orthodox one is accepting Vatican II as a good thing because it was brought forth by a pope and the Church or denying that it was really of the Church. Those who think it was an error and can't say that the Church was in error (because it can't be) rationalize that it wasn't the true Church that did it. Do I have that right? <br /><br />So, Vatican II itself - good or bad? Do you accept it but wish you didn't have to? Would you be happier if it never happened?<br /><br />I'm glad it happened. I remember the Latin Mass, following the English in my missalette, the priest's back facing us, not being able to enter a Protestant church even when the minister's kids invited me to their attached house because the nuns said I couldn't, that all Protestants were going to hell including my playmates and I'd go there with them if I came over for milk and cookies. <br /><br />I don't want to go back to that Tradition. Would I like to attend a mass like the one when I was a kid just to experience it again, sure, but I defiantly don't want to do it every Sunday.<br /><br />I know this is not a TLM forum, but it seems like everyone wants to go back to the good old days when things were fine, not broke and didn't need fixing. Well, things weren't 100% fine in the 50's which is why Pope John called for Vatican II. Many conservative (or whatever you want to call them) Cardinals and others tried to delay or stop it. Many conservatives today seem to want to turn VII in on itself by saying most of what came out of it wasn't what was really intended and we need to "reform the reform", which I read as roll things back and make VII a footnote in Church history.<br /><br />So, VII, good or bad? <br /><br />And what should I call Catholics who think the NO and other changes brought by VII were not improvements and would like to see valid but rarely practiced liturgical traditions restored to everyday use?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com