Who would have thought such a thing as this was possible??? And, pray tell, what "Catholic" bishop would be responsible for this? Barbara Kralis has the answers and we shouldn't really be surprised. The evil one targets our bishops and priests in an effort to disperse the flock so that they may become easier prey.
In a recent interview, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of the diocese of Tucson made some interesting comments that deserve public scrutiny. He discussed the upcoming November Presidential election, as well as the upcoming November United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' plenary meeting. It is clear the bishop confuses the already confused Catholic reader.
LifeSite.com recently wrote: "Bishop Gerald Kicanas is among that cadre of US bishops who is himself well liked in Democrat and liberal Catholic communities for his vocal support for left wing and "progressive" peace and justice issues. Bishop Kicanas was praised by the aggressively abortion-supporting Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, for his 'softer' approach to pro-abortion politicians using Catholic venues to publicize their positions."
In his interview, Bishop Kicanas speaks of the importance of voters considering the "vast array of issues" in voting. This is not correct. Abortion is the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other human rights. Let's see what the late Pope John Paul II had to say about this question:
"The inviolability of the person, which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. 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" (Pope John Paul II, Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici, "On the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the Modern World," Dec. 30, 1988, No. 38b).
....Bishop Kicanas further states the question of formal cooperation in an abortion has not been answered by the Church. It has been answered - one cannot promote abortion or homosexuality or any of the other evils against innocent life without the prospect of excommunication and expectation of discipline of canon 915 [the denial of Holy Communion]. Conspirators who incur the excommunication can be defined as those who make access to the abortion possible. This certainly includes doctors and nurses who actually do it, husbands, family and others whose counsel, legislation, promotion and encouragement made it possible for the woman, and those whose direct practical support made it possible [financially, driving to the clinic etc.].
...Bishop Kicanas further responds that people are trying to pit one bishop against another on the issue of denying Holy Communion. Is it not a reality that it is the bishops who are not united in the Catholic faith and 'they' are a house divided? The people in the pews are not conspiring but are simply watching, questioning, why does this conference of U.S. bishops fail to obey the Divine Law of the Church.
...Bishop Kicanas next says that the USCCB is having a discussion regarding pro-abortion politicians 'after the elections' because the conclusion could be "misused" [sic]. Many are wondering who would "misuse" such a discussion? Is it at all possible that the 260 plus U.S. bishops who failed to enforce canon 915 against pro-abortion politicians fear upsetting their pro-abortion politician friends and upsetting a potential Democrat Party win by discussing it at an earlier time?
...If the bishops really believe abortion is evil, then why is it acceptable to their Conference that 'bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action?"
Charity requires that I refrain from answering that question today...
No comments:
Post a Comment