From: Galatians 2:1-2, 7-14
Visit to Jerusalem
------------------
[1] Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. [2] I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. [7] But on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised [8] (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), [9] and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; [10] only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do.
Peter and Paul at Antioch
-------------------------
[11] But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. [12] For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. [13] And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. [14] But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
****************************
Commentary:
1-10. St Paul had ended his first apostolic journey by returning to Antioch in Syria, from where he had set out. We know that the Christian community in that city, which was an important crossroads of race and culture, had developed as a providential result of the dispersal of Jerusalem Christians following on Stephen's martyrdom (cf. Acts 11:19-26). Some of these refugees had brought the new faith to Antioch but had confined themselves to preaching and converting Jews. Later, through the activity of other Christians, Jews of the Diaspora, that is, domiciled outside Palestine, and pagans also began to adopt the new religion. Barnabas had been commissioned by the Jerusalem church to organize the young Christian community in Antioch (cf. Acts 11:19-24). He later chose Paul, who had been living quietly in Tarsus, to act as his assistant (cf. Acts 11:25-26).
The disciples in Antioch, where the name "Christians" was first used to describe them, belonged to the whole gamut of social and ethnic backgrounds, as we can see from the short list of "prophets and teachers" of the church at Antioch (cf. Acts 13:1-3): some were of African origin, like Symeon "who was called Niger"; others came from the western Mediterranean, like Lucius of Cyrene; Manaen was from the household of Herod the tetrarch; and there were Jews from communities outside Palestine--for example, Barnabas and Saul themselves.
Among these different types, we find some Christians of Jewish background who felt that pagan converts to Christianity should observe the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law (including the detailed precepts which Jewish tradition kept adding to that Law); these guardians of the gate of entry into the chosen people were requiring that pagan converts be circumcised, as all Jews were.
When these "Judaizers" from Jerusalem (cf. Acts 15:1) asserted that circumcision was necessary for salvation, they were raising an issue which went much deeper than simply conforming to the Law of Moses: was the Redemption wrought by Christ enough, of itself, for attaining salvation, or was it still necessary for people to become part of the people of Israel, conforming to all its ritual requirements?
Clearly, this question was a source of considerable division. Acts 15:2 refers to its causing "no small dissension". The present passage of Galatians shows that Paul, receiving a revelation from God, decided to grasp the nettle by stating unequivocally that Christ's redemption--on its own, and alone--brings salvation. In other words, circumcision was not necessary, nor did the elaborate ritual regulations of Judaism apply to Christians. In Jerusalem Paul expounded "the Gospel" he had been proclaiming to the Gentiles. He was accompanied by Barnabas, and by a young disciple, Titus, the son of pagan parents, quite possibly baptized by Paul himself (cf. Tit 1:4, where he calls him his "true child"), who would later became one of his most faithful co-workers.
1. Between his conversion and the date of his letter, St Paul had visited Jerusalem three times (cf. Acts 9:26; 11:29-30; 15:1-6). Of these three journeys he here mentions only two, omitting the time he and Barnabas went there (cf. Acts 11:29-30), because that visit was not particularly significant.
The Judaizers' demands were inadmissible and clearly dangerous. That was why Paul and Barnabas had opposed them openly at Antioch, and in fact it was their failure to achieve unity and peace on this point that had led them to go up to the Holy City to obtain a decision from the Apostles themselves and the priests living in Jerusalem.
10. The Acts of the Apostles show us how concerned the early Church was about looking after the material needs of its members. We can see this, for example, when it tells us about "serving tables", which refers to the work of giving help to the needy: this began to take up more and more time, with the result that the seven deacons were appointed to allow the Apostles to concentrate on their own specific work--prayer and the ministry of the word or preaching (cf. Acts 6:1-6).
St Paul was faithful to this charge about not forgetting the poor, as we can see from many references in his letters to collections for the poor (cf. 1 Cor 16:1-3; 2 Cor 8:1-l5; 9:l5; etc.). Indeed, one of the reasons for his last visit to Jerusalem was to hand over the monies collected in the Christian communities of Greece and Asia Minor.
11-14. In his dealing with Jews, St Paul sometimes gave way in secondary matters, provided that this did not take from the essence of the Gospel: he had Timothy, whose mother was Jewish, circumcised "because of the Jews that were in those places" (Acts 16:3), and he himself kept to Jewish practices in order to allay suspicion and jealousy (cf. Acts 21:22-26). Similarly, he recommends patience and certain understanding towards those "weak" in the faith, that is, Christians of Jewish origin who held on to some Jewish observances connected with fast days, clean and unclean food and abstinence from the flesh of animals sacrificed to idols (cf. Rom 14:2-6; 1 Cor 10:23-30). But on the key issue of Christians' freedom from the Mosaic Law, the Apostle was always firm and unambiguous, relying on the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem.
Paul's correction of Peter did not go against the latter's authority. On the contrary, if it had been just anyone, the Teacher of the Gentiles might have let the matter pass; but because it was Cephas, that is, the "rock" of the Church, he had to take action in order to avoid the impression being given that Christians of Gentile origin were obliged to adopt a Jewish lifestyle.
Far from undermining the holiness and unity of the Church, this episode demonstrated the great spiritual solidarity among the Apostles, St Paul's regard for the visible head of the Church, and Peter's humility in correcting his behavior. St Augustine comments: "He who was rebuked was worthier of admiration and more difficult to imitate than he who made the rebuke [...]. This episode serves as a fine example of humility, the greatest of Christian teachings, because it is through humility that charity is maintained" ("Exp. in Gal.", 15).
12. When he speaks of these Judaizers as coming "from James", this does not mean that they had been sent by that Apostle. It is, rather, a reference to their coming from Jerusalem, where, after the persecution organized by Herod Agrippa and the forced flight of St Peter (cf. Acts 12-17), St James the Less remained as bishop. But what is probable is that these Christians, who had not given up the Mosaic Law and Jewish observances, made use of that Apostle's name: as "the brother of the Lord", he enjoyed universal veneration and respect.
************
Gospel
From: Luke 11:1-4
The Our Father
--------------
[1] He (Jesus) was praying in a certain place, and when He ceased, one of His disciples said to Him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught His disciples." [2] And He said to them, "When you pray, say: `Our Father, hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. [3] Give us each day our daily bread; [4] and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive every one who is indebted to us; and lead us not into temptation.'"
******************************
Commentary:
1-4. St. Luke gives us a shorter form of the Lord's Prayer, or Our Father, than St. Matthew (6:9-13). In Matthew there are seven petitions, in Luke only four. Moreover, St. Matthew's version is given in the context of the Sermon on the Mount and specifically as part of Jesus' teaching on how to pray; St. Luke's is set in one of those occasions just after our Lord has been at prayer--two different contexts. There is nothing surprising about our Lord teaching the same thing on different occasions, not always using exactly the same words, not always at the same length, but always stressing the same basic points. Naturally, the Church uses the longer form of the Lord's Prayer, that of St. Matthew.
"When the disciples asked the Lord Jesus, `Teach us to pray', He replied by saying the words of the `Our Father', thereby giving a concrete model which is also a universal model. In fact, everything that can and must be said to the Father is contained in those seven requests which we all know by heart. There is such simplicity in them that even a child can learn them, but at the same time such depth that a whole life can be spent meditating on their meaning. Isn't that so? Does not each of those petitions deal with something essential to our life, directing it totally towards God the Father? Doesn't this prayer speak to us about `our daily bread', `forgiveness of our sins, since we forgive others' and about protecting us from `temptation' and `delivering us from evil?'" ([Pope] John Paul II, "General Audience", 14 March 1979).
The first thing our Lord teaches us to ask for is the glorification of God and the coming of His Kingdom. That is what is really important--the Kingdom of God and His justice (cf. Matthew 6:33). Our Lord also wants us to pray confident that our Father will look after our material needs, for "your Heavenly Father knows that you need them all" (Matthew 6:32). However, the Our Father makes us aspire especially to possess the goods of the Holy Spirit, and invites us to seek forgiveness (and to forgive others) and to avoid the danger of sinning. Finally the Our Father emphasizes the importance of vocal prayer. "`Domine, doce nos orare. Lord teach us to pray!' And our Lord replied: `When you pray say: "Pater noster, qui es in coelis"...Our Father, who art in Heaven...'. What importance we must attach to vocal prayer!" ([St] J. Escriva, "The Way", 84).
1. Jesus often went away to pray (cf. Luke 6:12; 22:39ff). This practice of the Master causes His disciples to want to learn how to pray. Jesus teaches them to do what He Himself does. Thus, when our Lord prays, He begins with the Word "Father!": "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit" (Luke 23:46); see also Matthew 11:25; 26:42, 53; Luke 23:34; John 11:41; etc.). His prayer on the Cross, "My God, My God,..." (Matthew 27:46), is not really an exception to this rule, because there He is quoting Psalm 22, the desperate prayer of the persecuted just man.
Therefore, we can say that the first characteristic prayer should have is the simplicity of a son speaking to his Father. "You write: `To pray is to talk with God. But about what?' About what? About Him, about yourself: joys, sorrows, successes, failures, noble ambitions, daily worries, weaknesses! And acts of thanksgiving and petition: and love and reparation. In a word: to get to know Him and to get to know yourself: `to get acquainted!'" ([St] J. Escriva, "The Way", 91).
2. "Hallowed be Thy name": in this first petition of the Our Father "we pray that God may be known, loved, honored and served by everyone and by ourselves in particular." This means that we want "unbelievers to come to a knowledge of the true God, heretics to recognize their errors, schismatics to return to the unity of the Church, sinners to be converted and the righteous to persevere in doing good." By this first petition, our Lord is teaching us that `we must desire God's glory more than our own interest and advantage." This hallowing of God's name is attained "by prayer and good example and by directing all our thoughts, affections and actions towards Him" ("St. Pius X Catechism", 290-293).
"Thy Kingdom come": "By the Kingdom of God we understand a triple spiritual kingdom--the Kingdom of God in us, which is grace; the Kingdom of God on earth, which is the Catholic Church; and the Kingdom of God in Heaven, which is eternal bliss [...]. As regards grace, we pray that God reign in us with His sanctifying grace, by which He is pleased to dwell in us as a king in his throne-room, and that He keeps us united to Him by the virtues of faith, hope and charity, by which He reigns in our intellect, in our heart and in our will [...]. As regards the Church, we pray that it extend and spread all over the world for the salvation of men [...]. As regards Heaven, we pray that one day we be admitted to that eternal bliss for which we have been created, where we will be totally happy" ("ibid.", 294-297).
3. The Tradition of the Church usually interprets the "bread" as not only material bread, since "man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3). Here Jesus wants us to ask God for "what we need each day for soul and body [...]. For our soul we ask God to sustain our spiritual life, that is, we beg Him to give us His grace, of which we are continually in need [...]. The life of our soul is sustained mainly by the divine word and by the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar [...]. For our bodies we pray for what is needed to maintain us" ("St. Pius X Catechism", 302-305).
Christian doctrine stresses two ideas in this petition of the Our Father: the first is trust in Divine Providence, which frees us from excessive desire to accumulate possessions to insure us against the future (cf. Luke 12:16-21); the other idea is that we should take a brotherly interest in other people's needs, thereby moderating our selfish tendencies.
4. "So rigorously does God exact from us forgetfulness of injuries and mutual affection and love, that He rejects and despises the gifts and sacrifices of those who are not reconciled to one another" ("St. Pius V Catechism", IV, 14, 16).
"This sisters, is something which we should consider carefully; it is such a serious and important matter that God should pardon us our sins, which have merited eternal fire, that we must pardon all trifling things which have been done to us. As I have so few, Lord, even of these trifling things, to offer Thee, Thy pardoning of me must be a free gift: there is abundant scope here for Thy mercy. Blessed be Thou, who endurest one that is so poor" (St. Teresa of Avila, "Way of Perfection", Chapter 36).
"And lead us not into temptation": it is not a sin to "feel" temptation but to "consent" to temptation. It is also a sin to put oneself voluntarily into a situation which can easily lead one to sin. God allows us to be tempted, in order to test our fidelity, to exercise us in virtue and to increase our merits with the help of grace. In this petition we ask the Lord to give us His grace not to be overcome when put to the test, or to free us from temptation if we cannot cope with it.
*************************
Source: "The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries". Biblical text taken from the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries made by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre, Spain. Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland.
Reprinted with permission from Four Courts Press and Scepter Publishers, the U.S. publisher.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Wed, Oct 6, 27th Week in Ordinary Time
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
A Letter to the Post Dispatch
This was graciously forwarded to me to post. I am grateful for the opportunity to share this letter.
Dear Editor,We shall see if the Post Dispatch allows this letter to be printed. After all, it isn't from a "Professor of Religious Studies" who claims to know what Church history is and what the Church teaches, but from a Catholic layman, who notes with clarity, the errors and obfuscations in Flinn's article.
Professor Flinn claims that Archbishop Burke has added to the confusion many have regarding the Catholic Church¹s teaching on abortion. This claim is surprising. His Grace has been quite clear: Abortion is profoundly evil, and we have a duty to do what we as Christians and responsible citizens can do to stop it. If anyone has added to the confusion over this matter, it is not his Grace but Professor Flinn.
It is false to claim, as Flinn does claim, that ³Catholic teaching on abortion has never been unanimous.² His support for this is the debate over when the soul enters the fetus, but this is a red herring. Augustine and all the schoolmen of the Middles Ages who asserted that ensoulment took place weeks after conception never denied the very grave evil of abortion even in the very first stages of pregnancy. It should also be noted that this theory of delayed ensoulment was based, as Flinn notes, on Aristotelian science which modern embryology and genetics have long since rendered
obsolete. This theory, it should also be noted, had no basis in the Bible or the Catholic liturgical tradition which celebrates the conception of Christ on the Feast of the Annunciation. Catholics have never celebrated the day of Christ¹s ³ensoulment².
Flinn tries to cite the changes in ecclesiastical penalties attached to abortion as evidence against a constant teaching against abortion, but this, too, is a distraction. Ecclesiastical penalties are part of the Church¹s positive law and as such can be changed, but changes in the positive law do not change moral teaching. If the Church decided to attach an ecclesiastical penalty to, say, shoplifting, that would not mean that the Church thought shoplifting was fine and dandy before she imposed the penalty. It is simply deceit to suggest, as Flinn does, that the Church did not condemn all abortion until Sixtus V attached the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication to abortions in every stage of pregnancy.
Finally, Flinn argues that a Catholic may be obliged to vote for a pro-choice candidate who promises to follow employment policies that will radically reduce the slaughter of the unborn. One wonders what Flinn means by a radical reduction. During the '90s when we had a greatly expanding economy and record lows of umemployment, there were more than a million abortions each and every year. But, more importantly, while, of course, economic justice is important to the Catholic tradition, it can only be a handmaid to the sacredness of human life. Catholics do not obey Bertolt Brecht¹s notorious dictum, ³First comes the feed, then comes morality.² Human life is a given and must be defended in good times and in bad times, during both booms and busts.
Joe Griesemer
Apostolic Letter on the Holy Eucharist to be released Friday
An apostolic letter by Pope John Paul II, welcoming the Year of the Eucharist, will be released on Friday, October 8.Article here.
Cardinal Francis Arinze, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, will introduce the apostolic letter at a press conference in Rome. He will be accompanied at that conference by Archbishop Domenico Sorrentino, the secretary of the same Congregation; Msgr. Piero Marini, the director of pontifical liturgies; and Msgr. Mauro Parmeggiani of the vicariate of Rome.
Oct 5, Tuesday, 27th Week in Ordinary Time
From: Luke 10:38-42
Martha and Mary Welcome Our Lord
--------------------------------
[38] Now as they went on their way, He (Jesus) entered a village; and a woman named Martha received Him into her house. [39] And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to His teaching. [40] But Martha was distracted with much serving; and she went to Him and said, "Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me." [41] But the Lord answered her, "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things; [42] one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good position, which shall not be taken away from her."
********************************
Commentary:
38-42. Our Lord was heading for Jerusalem (Luke 9:51) and His journey took Him through Bethany, the village where Lazarus, Martha and Mary lived--a family for whom He had a special affection, as we see in other passages of the Gospel (cf. John 11:1-14; 12:1-9).
St. Augustine comments on this scene as follows: "Martha, who was arranging and preparing the Lord's meal, was busy doing many things, whereas Mary preferred to find her meal in what the Lord was saying. In a way she deserted her sister, who was very busy, and sat herself down at Jesus' feet and just listened to His words. She was faithfully obeying what the Psalm said: `Be still and know that I am God' (Psalm 46:10). Martha was getting annoyed, Mary was feasting; the former coping with many things, the latter concentrating on one. Both occupations were good" ("Sermon", 103).
Martha has come to be, as it were, the symbol of the active life, and Mary that of the contemplative life. However, for most Christians, called as they are to sanctify themselves in the middle of the world, action and contemplation cannot be regarded as two opposite ways of practising the Christian faith: an active life forgetful of union withGod is useless and barren; but an apparent life of prayer which shows no concern for apostolate and the sanctification of ordinary things also fails to please God. The key lies in being able to combine these two lives, without either harming the other. Close union between action and contemplation can be achieved in very different ways, depending on the specific vocation each person is given by God.
Far from being an obstacle, work should be a means and an occasion for a close relationship with our Lord, which is the most important thing in our life.
Following this teaching of the Lord, the ordinary Christian should strive to attain an integrated life--an intense life of piety and external activity, orientated towards God, practised out of love for Him and with an upright intention, which expresses itself in apostolate, in everyday work, in doing the duties of one's state in life. "You must understand now more clearly that God is calling you to serve Him IN AND FROM the ordinary, material and secular activities of human life. He waits for us every day, in the laboratory, in the operating room, in the army barracks, in the university chair, in the factory, in the workshop, in the fields, in the home and in all the immense panorama of work. Understand this well: there is something holy, something divine, hidden in the most ordinary situations, and it is up to each of you to discover it [...]. There is no other way. Either we learn to find our Lord in ordinary, everyday life, or else we shall never find Him. That is why I can tell you that our age needs to give back to matter and to the most trivial occurrences and situations their noble and original meaning. It needs to restore them to the service of the Kingdom of God, to spiritualize them, turning them into a means and an occasion for a continuous meeting with Jesus Christ" ([St] J. Escriva, "Conversations", 114).
***********************************
Source: "The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries". Biblical text taken from the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries made by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre, Spain. Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland.
Reprinted with permission from Four Courts Press and Scepter Publishers, the U.S. publisher.
Examples of Catholics who don't know their faith
A friend of mine who is a deacon related a story to me the other night. He has a prayer group of about twelve people. A discussion ensued during one of the meetings one night during which he suggested that the group review what the Church says about the subject in the Catechism. Only three of the twelve knew what the Catechism is.
His next objective was to work the Catechism into one of his Sunday homilies, which, I understand, he did quite successfully. Several people after Mass were moved in such a way as to go to the parish office and purchase a Catechism. I suggested that a table be manned in the vestibule of the Church where we could offer Catechism for sale. That may yet be a possibility. It would require, however, more than just one homily in order to direct those who are yearning for answers and the Truth. The priests of the parish must be more supportive of promoting the Catechism as a means to truly learn what the Church teaches. This would be a necessary prerequisite.
And this brings me to the focus of this post. It is an embarrassment when one who professes to be Catholic and attempts to prove his Catholicity by stating all of the organizations he belongs to and all of the activities he does as proof of his faith. These are merely externals which may demonstrate a desire of Faith but do not, by themselves, prove that a man possesses the Faith.
Faith, as the Catechism tells us, is:
And this brings me to the point of the post. A Letter to the Editor today reveals:
Next we see another letter from one who professes to be Catholic. These people talk of experiences which make them "Catholic". Being Catholic is more than 'experiences' - like true love, it is an act of the will - a conscious effort that the believer makes to know and do God's will. What we are witnessing seems to be the result of decades of failed doctrinal and spiritual formation which apparently was replaced by the "feel good" fuzzies of experiential modernism which leads to the rejection of the authority of Church and to a denial of fundamental doctrines required for true Faith.
The Catechism further states about faith:
Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: "So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."
Source for the various letters.
His next objective was to work the Catechism into one of his Sunday homilies, which, I understand, he did quite successfully. Several people after Mass were moved in such a way as to go to the parish office and purchase a Catechism. I suggested that a table be manned in the vestibule of the Church where we could offer Catechism for sale. That may yet be a possibility. It would require, however, more than just one homily in order to direct those who are yearning for answers and the Truth. The priests of the parish must be more supportive of promoting the Catechism as a means to truly learn what the Church teaches. This would be a necessary prerequisite.
And this brings me to the focus of this post. It is an embarrassment when one who professes to be Catholic and attempts to prove his Catholicity by stating all of the organizations he belongs to and all of the activities he does as proof of his faith. These are merely externals which may demonstrate a desire of Faith but do not, by themselves, prove that a man possesses the Faith.
Faith, as the Catechism tells us, is:
the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that He has said and revealed to us, and [all] that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because He is truth itself.A necessary element of faith is that we must believe in all that Holy Mother Church proposes for our belief. If one denies some truth which the Church proposes for our belief, one does not really possess the fullness of that virtue. One sins, objectively, by refusing to assent to that which must be believed.
And this brings me to the point of the post. A Letter to the Editor today reveals:
What it means to be CatholicThe teaching of the Church as expressed so eloquently in Archbishop Burke's Pastoral Letter will not be heard by those whose ears will not listen nor seen by those whose eyes are closed. Some have hardened their hearts and closed their minds to God, to His Church and to those whom He has appointed to lead us on our journey to the heavenly kingdom.
I am 40 years old and have been Catholic all of my life. I attended Catholic schools. I belong to the Secular Order of the Servants of Mary. I belong to the Knights of Columbus. I teach Rite of Christian Initiation and Baptism classes at my parish. My children have attended Catholic school. I coach and referee CYC sports.
The experiences I've had and the relationships I've built are an integral part of who I am. Archbishop Raymond Burke has stated that war and the death penalty "are not intrinsically evil," but abortion and same-sex marriage are. That appears to me a very human judgment from someone people look to for spiritual leadership.
I do not support abortion and I am not gay, but I do know that God creates all life. Is it up to humans to judge and grade the innocence of that life? I voted for George W. Bush in the last presidential election. I am not happy about how he has handled our relationship with the rest of the world and would not consider his actions "pro-life." I will vote for Sen. John Kerry, hoping that he'll do a much better job.
Does the act of voting make it a sin, or should I repent now for my intention? I believe that Bush and Burke are good men doing their best to lead their people, but I must disagree with their methods. They throw around words like "evil" to devalue the humanness of those who are different from them. They then use fear and blind patriotism to justify the destruction of humans both physically and emotionally and then discredit those who disagree with them. I want this to end.
The stand that my church's leadership is taking makes me question what it means to be Catholic. Am I Catholic because I was born into the faith and attend services in a Catholic church? Am I Catholic because I toe the party line?
God's presence does not end or begin at the doors to the church. It does not end or begin in the womb or on the battlefield or in the bedroom or in prison.
How we live our lives illustrates our respect for life. It does not boil down to where we stand on a couple of issues. My decision to vote for Kerry is based on my faith. I am who I am, and if my beliefs make me "not Catholic," then so be it.
Bob Kozlowski
South County
Next we see another letter from one who professes to be Catholic. These people talk of experiences which make them "Catholic". Being Catholic is more than 'experiences' - like true love, it is an act of the will - a conscious effort that the believer makes to know and do God's will. What we are witnessing seems to be the result of decades of failed doctrinal and spiritual formation which apparently was replaced by the "feel good" fuzzies of experiential modernism which leads to the rejection of the authority of Church and to a denial of fundamental doctrines required for true Faith.
The Catechism further states about faith:
Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: "So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."
Burke's prioritiesThose who wish to reject the teaching of the Church should recall this:
After reading Archbishop Burke's letter, I must think otherwise when it states he is not endorsing a particular candidate. My inferential reading skills are quite good after 12 years of Catholic school education. This education and my faithful Mass attendance embolden me to vote for Sen. John Kerry.
The archbishop's plea for President George W. Bush using this relatively new prioritization of Catholic-values rhetoric does nothing to influence me. Shaped by 35 years of Catholic experiences, I will not let Burke guilt me into a confessional for my Catholic beliefs.
In the spirit of Christ's love, I am for the poor. I am for health care for all. I am for economic justice for blue-collar workers here and for workers abroad who are paid a pittance by big U.S. businesses. I am pro-public schools and believe it is our government's responsibility to give each of Christ's little ones, rich and poor, a quality education. I am for energizing the government's efforts to protect Social Security benefits.
I am pro-life, and that means I am against capital punishment, too. I am antiwar, and I will not apologize for believing Bush deceived us about Iraq, subsequently killing thousands of innocent people.
I respect Burke's prioritization for himself, but I will not let him nullify the Catholic person I have become with the help of his own Church's schools, teachings, clergy and lay faithful.
Tracy Fisher
St. Louis
Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",[49] the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms. (Catechism #87)
Source for the various letters.
A Twelve Step Program for Bishops to Deal with Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians
Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi Texas, has submitted to LifeSiteNews.com his twelve step program for bishops to deal effectively and charitably with the problem of pro-abortion Catholic politicians.Kudos to Bishop Gracida! This looks to be an excellent guide to for bishops (perhaps some Canon lawyers could comment? Ed Peters?
Bishop Gracida describes his Twelve-Step Program as "clear, coherent with the Faith, and in accordance with the requirements of canonical equity." He notes that if church penalties "are now to be dusted off and brought out of the cupboard within which they have lain dormant for almost half-a-century, it is because the balm of mercy and discretion of measure have failed to heal the growing infection of error and scandal inside the Church and the genocide increasing daily in the world around us." He concludes, "The time for half-measures and fear of reprisal, loss of position, temporal advantage, or career opportunity is over - the time for action is now."
In his first step, he states, in part:
Any public and obstinate support, by word or by vote, of either abortion, or absent that, “only” the civil “right-to-choose abortion” qualifies as heresy.This statement can be confirmed in the the Doctrinal Commentary of the Professio Fidei of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The Twelve Step Program for Bishops
Monday, October 04, 2004
Eucharist as an Answer for Mankind
The Catholic Church is about to begin a year of reflection and deeper awareness of the Eucharist, "mystery of the faith."
The Year of the Eucharist, convoked by John Paul II, will begin next Sunday with the International Eucharistic Congress, in Guadalajara, Mexico. The Year will close in October 2005 with a Synod of Bishops.
For a perspective on these initiatives, ZENIT interviewed Cardinal Josef Tomko, retired prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and president of the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses.
Is there a link here?
I accidently discovered a coincidence that I had not seen before as I was reviewing my post regarding Frank Flinn's article, "Balance on abortion has basis in history".
While doing some research, I came across another article which echoed much of what was in Mr. Flinn's article. The source of this other article is none other than the infamous anti-Catholic, pro-abortion group, "Catholics for a Free Choice".
The similarities were striking (FF=Frank Flinn, CFFC=Catholics for a Free Choice):
While doing some research, I came across another article which echoed much of what was in Mr. Flinn's article. The source of this other article is none other than the infamous anti-Catholic, pro-abortion group, "Catholics for a Free Choice".
The similarities were striking (FF=Frank Flinn, CFFC=Catholics for a Free Choice):
FF: Catholic teaching on abortion has never been unanimous.There are more similarities between the two documents. Does it suggest similar beliefs and attitudes toward the Church?
CFFC: There has been no unanimous opinion [by the Church] on abortion at any time.
*******
FF: There are early second-century documents,like the Didache...against abortion.
CFFC: One of the earliest church documents, the Didache , condemns abortion...
*******
FF: ...none of the papal or Vatican teachings issue from the explicit infallible authority of the church.
CFFC: ...no pope has proclaimed the prohibition of abortion an "infallible" teaching.
*******
FF: St. Thomas Aquinas...subscribed to Aristotle's teaching...that the rational or specifically human faculty of the soul is infused not immediately at conception.
CFFC: St. Thomas Aquinas agreed [with Aristotle and St. Augustine], saying abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was "ensouled..."
Catholic Answers Voter's Guide Video...
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers,
A friend of our apostolate has made an online video out of our "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics."
The last few weeks we have been working on the scripting, professional voice-overs, and matching the visuals to the voice.
And now it is done. We have uploaded the video to our web site at:
http://www.catholic.com/mm/video_vg1.asp
We are sending this link to you and to thousands more via e-mail.
The short video--about eight minutes long--is available in several file formats and will be viewable by those with either high-speed or dial-up connections.
Also available is another short video by popular Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid. He covers the biblical basis behind the pro-life position in this 9-minute video:
http://www.catholic.com/mm/madrid_vg1.asp
Please forward the URL links for these pages to your friends and family members, and ask them to review it and share with others. The more people who vote in accord with basic moral principles, the better off our country will be.
And please remember to vote according to Catholic principles on Election Day.
Pax Christi,
Karl Keating
Catholics react pro and con to letter by Burke
Catholic parishioners leaving church Sunday morning gave mixed reviews on Archbishop Raymond Burke's letter defining his tough stance against voting for political candidates who support abortion and same-sex marriage.Of course, this was to be expected. Can we guess who may have been disappointed or upset with Archbishop Burke's letter?
Burke's earlier declarations that it is a sin to vote for candidates who support abortion rights had already upset several area Democratic officeholders. Those officeholders say that by taking his stance, Burke is backing solely Republican candidates, who generally support his views.It upset area politicians because no one was supposed to call upon them to account for their support of abortion and other evils.
And the implication that the Arcbishop is backing Republicans because of his views is a lie. First, the Archbishop is giving the teaching of the Church, not his personal views. Second, if it seems as if the Archbishop is giving support to the Republican party, it may have everything to do with the Democratic party's abandonment of morality.
On North Grand Boulevard stands St. Alphonsus "Rock" Catholic Church. Six parishioners there on Sunday who were willing to talk about Burke's letter were split on whether to follow his wishes.It is the Archbishop's duty to teach - even obstinate people such as this whose pride blinds thems and keeps them in darkness. Some people have been in the darkness so long, that even the dimmest ray of light causes them severe pain. Thay have made themselves slaves to darkness.
Barbara Harris, who has attended the Catholic church since she was 8, said it was none of Burke's business how she votes.
"He's out of line," she said. "He doesn't have the right to tell people who to vote for. That's each person's personal right and freedom."
Lifelong Catholic Kevin McKinney says he is torn over Burke's letter. He said that in some instances - such as pregnancies of rape victims and young teenagers - abortions should be acceptable.The priest of the parish needs to have a talk with people like this who fail to grasp the consequences of what they are saying - Why should it be permissible to execute the innocent children who have been conceived in an act of violence? Although we must show compassion and help those who are victimized by rape or incest, we must not forsake the innocent child. The unborn child who is conceived by this act of violence is no less of a child merely because he or she came into existence by a deplorable act. It is inexcusable to assume that unborn children are deserving of the death penalty for crimes of their fathers.
"But the Catholic church doesn't believe in it," said McKinney, adding that Burke's remarks would have no effect on how he would vote.
Off-duty St. Louis police Lt. Luther Black was securing the parking lot at St. Alphonsus. A lifelong Catholic, Black said Burke's letter violated federal law and showed Burke was too controlling.The officer who professes to be Catholic has no understanding what it means to be Catholic. What a shameful spectacle this is!
"Burke has come in like a storm trooper," Black said. "The Catholic Church should not be involved in politics because they are getting everything tax-free. I think it's up to the individual. His vote is his privilege in a free society."
I doubt that very many of those who are so opposed to the truth have read the Pastoral Letter. It is far more likely that many of them are picking up little morsels here and there, many of probably have very little to do with what Archbishop Burke stated. The truth is also a casuality of this spiritual battle.
Article.
Population shift forces parishes to weigh future
The Post-Dispatch provides an update on a meeting Wednesday night to hear Monsignor Dennis E. Doerhoff and others present ideas and invite comments on the future of the parishes in the South City Deanery. The South City Deanery has 35 churches and 18 schools.
Some statistics of which I was unaware were these:
Article here.
Some statistics of which I was unaware were these:
Studies show that the number of Catholics in the northeast part of the county dropped to 54,000 from 107,000 in 1970. The Catholic population on the South Side dropped in that time to 44,800 from 96,800.
Article here.
Oct 4, Memorial: St. Francis of Assisi, Religious
From: Galatians 1:6-12
A Warning
---------
[6] I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel--[7] not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
[10] Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.
God's Call
----------
[11] For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. [12] For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
***************************************
Commentary:
6-9. The Galatians had suddenly begun to go off course, for no sooner had St Paul preached to them during his second visit, than enemies of his appeared on the scene seeking to undermine his authority and had won over the Galatians, especially on the matter of circumcision.
In view of this, the Apostle clearly and forcefully spells out to the Galatians that there is only one Gospel, only one way to attain salvation. "These people", St Jerome explains, "wanted to change the Gospel, to twist it; but that is something they cannot succeed in doing, for this Gospel is such that it cannot be true if it is
tampered with" ("Comm. in Gal", 1, 7).
The content of Revelation--the deposit of faith--cannot be interfered with. The Apostles, as their very title implies, were sent to pass on, in all its integrity, what had been entrusted to them (cf. 1 Cor 11:23). That is why St Paul tells his assistants in the government of the Church, Titus and Timothy, to guard very carefully the truths he has taught them (cf. 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14; Tit 1:9; 2:1; etc.).
St Paul is extremely insistent on the need to protect the deposit of faith, and he reacts very forcefully against those who seek to adulterate it, as we can see in this present text. Any attempt to replace the true Gospel of Jesus Christ with a different teaching does indeed warrant the severe judgment which the Apostle here delivers in God's name. In the same way, "the Church which received the office of safeguarding the deposit of faith along with the apostolic duty of teaching, likewise possesses the right and duty of proscribing [...] opinions that are known to be opposed to the doctrine of the faith" (Vatican I, "Dei Filius", chap. 4).
There is, then, no "new Christianity" waiting to be discovered. "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Vatican II, "Dei Verbum", 5).
10. One of the accusations directed against St Paul was that, in order to make it easier for people to become Christians, he tried to win them over by not requiring Gentiles to undergo circumcision. In fact the Apostle's only aim was to serve Christ; for him, as St John Chrysostom put it, "to love Christ was life, the world, heaven, present well-being, the kingdom, the promise, immeasurable good; outside of this he did not concern himself with classifying things as sorrowful or joyful, nor did he regard anything that one might have in this world as disagreeable or pleasant" ("Second Hom. in Praise of St Paul").
St Paul can assert that he did not mind if there were people who did not understand him or even rejected his teaching. He had plenty of experience of opposition to the demands of the Gospel; and this never led him to play down the reality of the Cross in order to make more acceptable the truth he was proclaiming. In addition to lack of response from Gentiles, his faithfulness to Christ had also earned him enmity and persecution from Jews (cf. Acts 13:50).
We can learn a great deal from Paul to help us not to be cowed by "what people may think". Although Christian living does sometimes clash with the environment around us, we should not desist from trying to be faithful to the demands of the Gospel. "Therefore, when in our own life or in that of others we notice something that is not going well, something that requires the spiritual and human help which, as children of God, we can and ought to provide, then a clear sign of prudence is to apply the appropriate remedy by going to the root of the trouble, resolutely, lovingly and sincerely. There is no room here for inhibitions, for it is a great mistake to think that problems can be solved by inaction or procrastination" ([St] J. Escriva, "Friends of God",157).
St Teresa, for her part, writes: "We are trying to attain union with God. We want to follow the counsels of Christ, on whom were showered insults and false witness. Are we, then, really so anxious to keep intact our own reputation and credit? We cannot do so and yet attain to union, for the two ways diverge" ("Life", chap. 31). If we are truly to serve God we must be ready to face indifference and misunderstanding whenever it may arise. "You must indeed have purified your intention well when you said: From this moment on I renounce all human gratitude and reward" ([St] J. Escriva, "The Way", 789).
11-12. "What shall I do, Lord?" (Acts 22:10), Paul asked at the moment of his conversion. Jesus replied, 'Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do" (ibid.). The former persecutor, now under the influence of grace, will receive instruction and Baptism through the ordinary course of divine Providence--from a man, Ananias. Thereby Jesus led him to humility, obedience and abandonment. The Gospel which St Paul preached was identical with that preached by the other Apostles, and already had the character of "tradition" in the nascent Church (cf. 1 Cor 15:3; Gal 2:2). This is compatible with Paul's claim--made in this passage--that his Gospel does not come from any man but through a revelation from Jesus Christ. Firstly, because on seeing the risen Christ he was given supernatural light to understand that Jesus was not only the Messiah but also the Son of God; and also because this first revelation was followed by many others to which he refers in his epistles (cf. 1 Cor 11:23; 13:3-8 and especially 2 Cor 12:1-4).
***********************************************
Source: "The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries". Biblical text taken from the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries made by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre, Spain. Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland.
Reprinted with permission from Four Courts Press and Scepter Publishers, the U.S. publisher.
A Warning
---------
[6] I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel--[7] not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
[10] Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.
God's Call
----------
[11] For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. [12] For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
***************************************
Commentary:
6-9. The Galatians had suddenly begun to go off course, for no sooner had St Paul preached to them during his second visit, than enemies of his appeared on the scene seeking to undermine his authority and had won over the Galatians, especially on the matter of circumcision.
In view of this, the Apostle clearly and forcefully spells out to the Galatians that there is only one Gospel, only one way to attain salvation. "These people", St Jerome explains, "wanted to change the Gospel, to twist it; but that is something they cannot succeed in doing, for this Gospel is such that it cannot be true if it is
tampered with" ("Comm. in Gal", 1, 7).
The content of Revelation--the deposit of faith--cannot be interfered with. The Apostles, as their very title implies, were sent to pass on, in all its integrity, what had been entrusted to them (cf. 1 Cor 11:23). That is why St Paul tells his assistants in the government of the Church, Titus and Timothy, to guard very carefully the truths he has taught them (cf. 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14; Tit 1:9; 2:1; etc.).
St Paul is extremely insistent on the need to protect the deposit of faith, and he reacts very forcefully against those who seek to adulterate it, as we can see in this present text. Any attempt to replace the true Gospel of Jesus Christ with a different teaching does indeed warrant the severe judgment which the Apostle here delivers in God's name. In the same way, "the Church which received the office of safeguarding the deposit of faith along with the apostolic duty of teaching, likewise possesses the right and duty of proscribing [...] opinions that are known to be opposed to the doctrine of the faith" (Vatican I, "Dei Filius", chap. 4).
There is, then, no "new Christianity" waiting to be discovered. "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Vatican II, "Dei Verbum", 5).
10. One of the accusations directed against St Paul was that, in order to make it easier for people to become Christians, he tried to win them over by not requiring Gentiles to undergo circumcision. In fact the Apostle's only aim was to serve Christ; for him, as St John Chrysostom put it, "to love Christ was life, the world, heaven, present well-being, the kingdom, the promise, immeasurable good; outside of this he did not concern himself with classifying things as sorrowful or joyful, nor did he regard anything that one might have in this world as disagreeable or pleasant" ("Second Hom. in Praise of St Paul").
St Paul can assert that he did not mind if there were people who did not understand him or even rejected his teaching. He had plenty of experience of opposition to the demands of the Gospel; and this never led him to play down the reality of the Cross in order to make more acceptable the truth he was proclaiming. In addition to lack of response from Gentiles, his faithfulness to Christ had also earned him enmity and persecution from Jews (cf. Acts 13:50).
We can learn a great deal from Paul to help us not to be cowed by "what people may think". Although Christian living does sometimes clash with the environment around us, we should not desist from trying to be faithful to the demands of the Gospel. "Therefore, when in our own life or in that of others we notice something that is not going well, something that requires the spiritual and human help which, as children of God, we can and ought to provide, then a clear sign of prudence is to apply the appropriate remedy by going to the root of the trouble, resolutely, lovingly and sincerely. There is no room here for inhibitions, for it is a great mistake to think that problems can be solved by inaction or procrastination" ([St] J. Escriva, "Friends of God",157).
St Teresa, for her part, writes: "We are trying to attain union with God. We want to follow the counsels of Christ, on whom were showered insults and false witness. Are we, then, really so anxious to keep intact our own reputation and credit? We cannot do so and yet attain to union, for the two ways diverge" ("Life", chap. 31). If we are truly to serve God we must be ready to face indifference and misunderstanding whenever it may arise. "You must indeed have purified your intention well when you said: From this moment on I renounce all human gratitude and reward" ([St] J. Escriva, "The Way", 789).
11-12. "What shall I do, Lord?" (Acts 22:10), Paul asked at the moment of his conversion. Jesus replied, 'Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do" (ibid.). The former persecutor, now under the influence of grace, will receive instruction and Baptism through the ordinary course of divine Providence--from a man, Ananias. Thereby Jesus led him to humility, obedience and abandonment. The Gospel which St Paul preached was identical with that preached by the other Apostles, and already had the character of "tradition" in the nascent Church (cf. 1 Cor 15:3; Gal 2:2). This is compatible with Paul's claim--made in this passage--that his Gospel does not come from any man but through a revelation from Jesus Christ. Firstly, because on seeing the risen Christ he was given supernatural light to understand that Jesus was not only the Messiah but also the Son of God; and also because this first revelation was followed by many others to which he refers in his epistles (cf. 1 Cor 11:23; 13:3-8 and especially 2 Cor 12:1-4).
***********************************************
Source: "The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries". Biblical text taken from the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries made by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre, Spain. Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland.
Reprinted with permission from Four Courts Press and Scepter Publishers, the U.S. publisher.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Holy Father Makes a Rosary Appeal
The Pope made his appeal today in St. Peter's Square at the end of the Mass in which he proclaimed five new blessed.Source.
On this first Sunday of October, month dedicated in a special way to the Virgin of the Rosary, I invite you to recite this beautiful prayer, imitating also in this the new blessed," the Holy Father said.
Theologians discuss criteria for voters when candidates back abortion
A Catholic would be cooperating in evil by voting for a candidate for public office simply because of the candidate's support for legal abortion or euthanasia, said moral theologians contacted by Catholic News Service.Some theolgians insist in making simple matters more complicated than they are. In discussing "proportionate reasons":
But -- with one major exception -- most of the theologians also concluded that a Catholic might still find morally acceptable reasons to vote for such a candidate in spite of the candidate's support for abortion or euthanasia.
Dominican Father Kevin O'Rourke, Christian ethics professor at the Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics and Health Policy at the medical school of Loyola University in Chicago, said when the footnote speaks of a "proportionate reason" needed to vote for a candidate who supports permissive abortion or euthanasia laws, it refers to what moral theology calls "an application of the principle of double effect."In our current presidential debate, this is an exercise in hypotheticals. It is clear that there are no "proportionate reasons" that would allow a Catholic, who possesses a fully and rightly formed conscience, to cast a vote for or otherwise support John Kerry. While George Bush may think it is permissible to allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest, Kerry advocates the primacy of the so called "right to choose" - an unlimited and unrestricted choice to murder innocent unborn children. A Catholic is obligated to choose the candidate who would limit the evil - in this case, that would be George Bush.
"When you foresee that your good action will also have an evil effect which you don't intend," he explained, "you justify that evil effect by saying there's a proportionate reason -- or, what I like to say, there's an adequate reason -- for allowing the evil."
A Catholic who has a fully and rightly formed conscience would agree with Germain Grisez:
But moral theologian Germain Grisez of Mount St. Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Md., argued in effect that there would be almost no proportionate reason to vote for a candidate who opposes banning abortion over one who supports a ban, in view of the scope and horror of abortion.In this country alone, about 1.5 million children are summarily murdered annually. Globally, the number seems to be in excess of 60+ million per year. Nothing in the history of mankind can be viewed as worse than this atrocity, this plague which will doom our country and all others which embrace it. Those who suggest otherwise should pray to God for enlightenment.
..objectively, anyone who's supporting abortion in this country is a very unjust person," he added. "To justify voting for a person like that, one has to be in a situation where the only alternative is someone who's just as bad as that and worse. ... It goes straight to the character of the person and it's a very fundamental, horrible kind of wickedness -- someone who's willing to tear apart little babies and rip them to pieces and flush them down and do it on a grand scale, day after day, millions and millions of them, that's sickeningly wicked."
Article here.
Catholic News Service continues its support of questionable organizations
By refusing to comment or question the statements of Pax Christi USA, CNS, in effect, demonstrates an endorsement of the flawed philosophies of that group.
The statements of this group are in direct opposition to the teachings of the Church.
I noticed the statement of Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Zavala of Los Angeles, bishop president of Pax Christi USA, last Friday and decided not to say anything about. But now that Catholic News Service has decided to promote it, it cannot be left unchallenged. Unfortunately, the theme "Life does not end at birth" is inadequate for it does not address the fundamental issue that some are denied the right to life or, more appropriately in today's society, the opportunity to be born.
First, Catholic Culture recently re-evaluated CNS and Pax Christi for fidelity, and as a result, CNS was given a "Caution" rating:
And Pax Christi was given a rating of "Danger!":
Catholic News Service is in need of extraordinary oversight by bishops of courage and fortitude. It should be cleansed of those who continue to use their positions to degrade or corrupt the teachings of the Church.
CNS Article here.
The statements of this group are in direct opposition to the teachings of the Church.
I noticed the statement of Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Zavala of Los Angeles, bishop president of Pax Christi USA, last Friday and decided not to say anything about. But now that Catholic News Service has decided to promote it, it cannot be left unchallenged. Unfortunately, the theme "Life does not end at birth" is inadequate for it does not address the fundamental issue that some are denied the right to life or, more appropriately in today's society, the opportunity to be born.
To work for the common good Catholics must base their political votes "on the full range of issues," Pax Christi USA said Oct. 1 in a statement titled "Life Does Not End at Birth." Its statement, also signed by more than 200 Catholic organizations, was published Oct. 1 as a full-page paid advertisement in daily newspapers in Erie and Allentown, Pa.; Columbus, Ohio; and Morgantown, W.Va.I suppose we will have to see who these 200 "Catholic" organizations are. Certainly they must be stalwart defenders of the faith!
First, Catholic Culture recently re-evaluated CNS and Pax Christi for fidelity, and as a result, CNS was given a "Caution" rating:
Catholic News Service was created in 1920 by the bishops of the United States. CNS is editorially independent and a financially self-sustaining division of the U.S. Catholic Conference. CNS specializes in reporting the news which affects Catholics in their everyday lives. This site is filled with news and articles, but needs to be used with caution as some of the articles contain some very questionable material. A better source for national and world news affecting the Church would be Catholic World News or Zenit.
And Pax Christi was given a rating of "Danger!":
According to their mission statement Pax Christi USA "rejects war, preparations for war, and every form of violence and domination. It advocates primacy of conscience, economic and social justice, and respect for creation.... Pax Christi USA works toward a more peaceful, just, and sustainable world." Unfortunately, their version of violence and domination is often at odds with the Church and her teachings. They seem to care more about finding common ground with abortionists and the gay rights lobby than about working for true peace.Archbishop Burke, echoing the Holy Father, in presenting the teaching of the Church, tells us:
Some Catholics, too, have suggested that a candidate's position on other issues involving human rights are as important as his or her position on the right to life. Our Holy Father Pope John Paul II has reminded us that, in order to defend all human rights, we must first defend the right to life.
Catholic News Service is in need of extraordinary oversight by bishops of courage and fortitude. It should be cleansed of those who continue to use their positions to degrade or corrupt the teachings of the Church.
CNS Article here.
The Post Dispatch continues to sow weeds among the wheat
In today's issue of the Post-Disgrace, we have Frank K. Flinn, an adjunct professor of religious studies at Washington University in St. Louis, doing what he can to sow confusion among the faithful by appealing to the flawed scientific understanding of ensoulment as held by people such as St. Thomas Aquinas and using that as an argument to justify abortion.
Frank Flinn teaches, among other subjects, Christianity in the Modern World at Washington University. (Faculty Page here) This, I suspect, is what makes him emminently qualified to teach the faithful about Catholic moral theology, both in his mind and the mind of the Post - in direct opposition to the man appointed to be our spiritual father in the Faith.
Evidently, the Post thinks that he is more qualified to lead the faithful down the path of truth than Archbishop Burke. While Flinn does speak accurately about some of the historical data, he is incorrect regarding the moral absolutes to which we must conform our lives and his attempt to suggest that Archbishop Burke is flirting with the heresy of Donatism is disgraceful.
He suggests that there has been a "balanced view" of abortion throughout Church history. "Balanced view" is a term which seems to suggest that abortion was permitted by the Church at one time, but I'm certain this is not the case. It is not surpising that many who seek to rationalize an acceptance of the evil of abortion could make such a leap. The first attempt to confuse readers is this:
The professor is trying to confuse the issue with selected factual evidence condemning abortion with private opinions held by some of the early Church theologians regarding "ensoulment".
For the record, it is a fact that criminal abortion ceased wherever Christianity became established. This was due to the belief that directly willed abortion was sinful and to be condemned. While it may be true that very learned men accepted varying hypostheses of when "life" actually began - when ensoulment occurred, the Church and science state with certainty that at the very moment of conception, or fecundation, the embryo begins to live a distinct individual life.
Some people, such as Mr. Flinn, point out that St. Thomas Aquinas thought the soul did not come to the fetus ("ensoulment") until sometime after conception, but the fact remains that he considered abortion gravely sinful even before this time. He taught that it was a "grave sin against the natural law" to kill the fetus at any stage, and a graver sin of homicide to do so after ensoulment.
The teaching against abortion is and always has been independent of theories about ensoulment and the beginning of personhood, precisely because abortion challenges God's dominion over the entire process of human development, and also because even when in doubt, the willingness to kill what is probably human is the willingness to kill what is human (See Evangelium Vitae,#60).
The exact moment when the fetus becomes animated or ensouled has no practical significance as far as the morality of abortion is concerned, because every direct abortion is an act of murder by intent.
If a person does not know for certain that his action is not killing what might be a human being, he must accept the responsibility for murder if he continues by doing so. Anyone who is willing to kill what may be a human being is, by his very intention, willing to kill what is a human person. Regardless of when a fetus is animated or ensouled, to destroy it is to usurp a right that belongs only to God - not to man.
In addition, and contrary to the assertions of the professor, there are any number of biblical proof texts condemning abortion implicitly by condemning the precursor of abortion - contraception. This is not a theological leap but a natural consequence of rational thought.
The professor further seems to minimize the teaching authority of the Church:
As I stated before, the professor did happen to get some things right:
The professor, then finishes his 'discourse' by claiming that "Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington and most American bishops oppose Archbishop Burke's position. It seems even the Vatican's Cardinal Ratzinger has sided with Cardinal McCarrick."
Here he confuses Archbishop Burke's readiness to follow Canon Law with the Church's teaching on abortion. This, it seems, is designed to cause the reader to become further opposed to the truth which the Archbishop gives us. Because Cardinal McCarrick and others are reluctant to follow Church law is really an irrelevant point.
Mr. Flinn finally appeals to St. Alphonsus Liguori as if St. Alphonsus would choose to side side with Satan and all those who are disposed to the promotion of abortion and advancing the lies of the Evil One.
I'm certain that the Post will continue to look for others who are eager to vent their poisonous diatribes against the Church and Archbishop Burke and, in so doing, do harm to the readers who may be be taken in by the falsehoods couched in seemingly true historical and theological language.
It is our duty to pray for those souls who are confused and to enlighten those who will listen with the Gospel, regardless of the suffering that must be endured.
Pray also for Archbishop Burke, who is the subject of scorn and ridicule by those who are hell-bent on preserving the "right" to murder the innocent. He needs our prayers because of the difficult task God has given him.
The Post Article is here
Frank Flinn teaches, among other subjects, Christianity in the Modern World at Washington University. (Faculty Page here) This, I suspect, is what makes him emminently qualified to teach the faithful about Catholic moral theology, both in his mind and the mind of the Post - in direct opposition to the man appointed to be our spiritual father in the Faith.
Evidently, the Post thinks that he is more qualified to lead the faithful down the path of truth than Archbishop Burke. While Flinn does speak accurately about some of the historical data, he is incorrect regarding the moral absolutes to which we must conform our lives and his attempt to suggest that Archbishop Burke is flirting with the heresy of Donatism is disgraceful.
He suggests that there has been a "balanced view" of abortion throughout Church history. "Balanced view" is a term which seems to suggest that abortion was permitted by the Church at one time, but I'm certain this is not the case. It is not surpising that many who seek to rationalize an acceptance of the evil of abortion could make such a leap. The first attempt to confuse readers is this:
Catholic teaching on abortion has never been unanimous. The New Testament says nothing about abortion per se. There are early second century documents, like the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas, and a few teachers, like Tertullian of Carthage, who spoke strongly against abortion.The professor is wrong in his assertation. From the Catholic Encyclopedia, we read:
The Fathers of the Church unanimously maintained the same doctrine [that abortion is the murder of human beings]. In the fourth century the Council of Eliberis decreed that Holy Communion should be refused all the rest of her life, even on her deathbed, to an adulteress who had procured the abortion of her child. The Sixth Ecumenical Council determined for the whole Church that anyone who procured abortion should bear all the punishments inflicted on murderers. In all these teachings and enactments no distinction is made between the earlier and the later stages of gestation. For, though the opinion of Aristotle, or similar speculations, regarding the time when the rational soul is infused into the embryo, were practically accepted for many centuries still it was always held by the Church that he who destroyed what was to be a man was guilty of destroying a human life.
But other great Catholic teachers were not so adamant. St. Augustine, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas and the medieval jurist Gratian all subscribed to Aristotle's teaching about the human soul.
The professor is trying to confuse the issue with selected factual evidence condemning abortion with private opinions held by some of the early Church theologians regarding "ensoulment".
For the record, it is a fact that criminal abortion ceased wherever Christianity became established. This was due to the belief that directly willed abortion was sinful and to be condemned. While it may be true that very learned men accepted varying hypostheses of when "life" actually began - when ensoulment occurred, the Church and science state with certainty that at the very moment of conception, or fecundation, the embryo begins to live a distinct individual life.
Some people, such as Mr. Flinn, point out that St. Thomas Aquinas thought the soul did not come to the fetus ("ensoulment") until sometime after conception, but the fact remains that he considered abortion gravely sinful even before this time. He taught that it was a "grave sin against the natural law" to kill the fetus at any stage, and a graver sin of homicide to do so after ensoulment.
The teaching against abortion is and always has been independent of theories about ensoulment and the beginning of personhood, precisely because abortion challenges God's dominion over the entire process of human development, and also because even when in doubt, the willingness to kill what is probably human is the willingness to kill what is human (See Evangelium Vitae,#60).
The exact moment when the fetus becomes animated or ensouled has no practical significance as far as the morality of abortion is concerned, because every direct abortion is an act of murder by intent.
If a person does not know for certain that his action is not killing what might be a human being, he must accept the responsibility for murder if he continues by doing so. Anyone who is willing to kill what may be a human being is, by his very intention, willing to kill what is a human person. Regardless of when a fetus is animated or ensouled, to destroy it is to usurp a right that belongs only to God - not to man.
In addition, and contrary to the assertions of the professor, there are any number of biblical proof texts condemning abortion implicitly by condemning the precursor of abortion - contraception. This is not a theological leap but a natural consequence of rational thought.
The professor further seems to minimize the teaching authority of the Church:
It is of vital importance for Catholics and others to keep in mind three things in this debate. First, none of the papal or Vatican teachings issue from the explicit infallible authority of the church. There is obvious disagreement in the tradition despite what some church leaders want people to believe.These statements are incorrect. The Church has consistently, throughout her history, condemned directly willed abortions and continues to do so. To state otherwise, is a violation of the truth and a denial of the authority of the Church to teach in matters of faith and morals. There is no evidence anywhere that the Church permitted abortion. The the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is a divinely revealed truth of God. (See the Doctrinal Commentary of the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei, #11 by the Congragation for the Doctrine of the Faith)
...the Church also teaches infallibly whenever her bishops, united with the Pope, proclaim that something is to be accepted by all the faithful. Thus abortion was condemned as murder by the Catholic hierarchy, under the Pope, already in the first century of the Christian era--and ever since. It is therefore infallibly true that abortion is a crime of willful homicide. (Fr. John Hardon, "Contraception: Fatal to the faith.")
As I stated before, the professor did happen to get some things right:
Second, the Catholic Church condemns direct therapeutic abortion but does allow for indirect abortions that aim not directly at the fetus but at the removal of a diseased or endangering condition such as a cancerous uterus or an ektopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube.However, Mr. Flinn then proceeds to denigrate the hierarchy by stating something which is absolutely false and borders on slander:
Average Catholics are not aware of these exceptions, and their priests and bishops are often happy to keep them in their state of ignorance.He then continues with a blatant mischarecterization of the Church's position. While there may have been (and may still be) some bishops and priests who embraced a separation of one's faith from one's state in life - this is contrary to the teachings of Christ:
...the Church has always allowed Catholic politicians the autonomy to seek compromises, such as laws that restrict only some abortions, or laws that address the conditions that give rise to abortion.This is the position of the "Catholics for Kerry" group and other dissident groups and it is completely without foundation and contrary to what the Church teaches. What reputable source would indicate that such statistics are true and verifiable? If this were indeed the case, certainly we would have the data available to demonstrate that during the periods of low unemployment during the past 3+ decades, abortion was significantly reduced. This claim, I believe, is a tactic used to distract people from the true evil of abortion.
It can be statistically shown that an increase in employment decreases the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions in the general population.
In this case, a Catholic politician may support a political platform that supports abortion in theory, yet also seeks to expand employment because the latter actually reduces the number of abortions.
The professor, then finishes his 'discourse' by claiming that "Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington and most American bishops oppose Archbishop Burke's position. It seems even the Vatican's Cardinal Ratzinger has sided with Cardinal McCarrick."
Here he confuses Archbishop Burke's readiness to follow Canon Law with the Church's teaching on abortion. This, it seems, is designed to cause the reader to become further opposed to the truth which the Archbishop gives us. Because Cardinal McCarrick and others are reluctant to follow Church law is really an irrelevant point.
Mr. Flinn finally appeals to St. Alphonsus Liguori as if St. Alphonsus would choose to side side with Satan and all those who are disposed to the promotion of abortion and advancing the lies of the Evil One.
I'm certain that the Post will continue to look for others who are eager to vent their poisonous diatribes against the Church and Archbishop Burke and, in so doing, do harm to the readers who may be be taken in by the falsehoods couched in seemingly true historical and theological language.
It is our duty to pray for those souls who are confused and to enlighten those who will listen with the Gospel, regardless of the suffering that must be endured.
Pray also for Archbishop Burke, who is the subject of scorn and ridicule by those who are hell-bent on preserving the "right" to murder the innocent. He needs our prayers because of the difficult task God has given him.
The Post Article is here
Not on the radar: No one at Vatican asks about Bush, Kerry
Cindy Wooden, the author of this article by Catholic News service, writes that:
All of us (including bishops and priests)should reflect on the questions posed Friday by Archbishop Burke when he asked:
CNS article here.
Cardinal Ratzinger's statement "has been misrepresented" by people on both sides -- those who think such politicians always should be publicly condemned and those who think bishops have no right to point out the sinfulness of supporting abortion...It's certainly encouraging that many bishops are at peace with what they are doing or not doing. Despite the fact that some ignor explicit directives of the Church is not a reason to be concerned. Nor should one be concerned about the scandal that is given by those who are, objectively, in manifest, grave sin.
"But I think the bishops feel they are at peace with what they are doing," Bishop Mulvee said. [Bishop Robert E. Mulvee is the bishop of Providence, R.I.]
All of us (including bishops and priests)should reflect on the questions posed Friday by Archbishop Burke when he asked:
How will I answer our Lord when He asks me about my brothers and sisters who have grown weak under the burden of advanced years, grave illness or special needs, whose so-called "mercy killing" has been made legal in some places and is proposed to be made legal everywhere in our nation?
How will I answer our Lord when He asks me about what I, as bishop, have done to teach the inviolability of human life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death?
CNS article here.
From the Post Dispatch: When does a vote become a sin ?
Tim Townsend of the Post Disgrace has written an article in which he seems to assume the role of a Catholic moral theologian, not overtly, but in a manner indicative of those who, for many decades, have attempted to undermine the teachings of the Church by causing doubt, confusion and obfuscation.
But Mr. Townsend is not finished yet. By some stroke of luck, it seems, Archbishop Burke wrote something which conformed to Cardinal Ratzinger's thoughts:
It is also a veiled attack suggesting that Cardinal Ratzinger's June "private memo" was nothing more than personal opinion despite the fact that what was stated concerned principles of basic Catholic moral doctrine.
Be that as it may, Mr. Townsend, our new self appointed moral theologian, continues:
And again, the attack on the Archbishop by the use of the words >"his priority reasons" is disgraceful. It is also a distortion of truth and an injustice to the readers of the Post, Catholics in the Archdiocese and the Archbishop.
Archbishop Burke has given us the teaching of the Church, not "his priority reasons".
Many of us are grateful that we have a shepherd who is not afraid to give us the truth and guide us to a better understanding of that truth. Thankfully also, we do not have to rely on the Post-Dispatch for the truth. And Mr. Townsend should keep his day job - a moral theologian he's not.
The article is here.
The belief among some Catholics that a candidate's position on the death penalty and war are as important as his or her position on abortion or same-sex marriage "is not true," writes Burke.The belief of these "Catholics" is demonstrative of their failure to learn what the Church teaches or of their denial of that teaching.
Burke's words seem to be at odds, however, with a 2002 Vatican document that addresses the issue of voting. "The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church's social doctrine does not exhaust one's responsibility towards the common good. . . ," reads the Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life.One wonders from whom Mr. Townsend received this excerpt...Unfortunately, the quote is being taken out of context, and this is a disservice to the reader. The previous sentence of the paragraph from which the above quote was taken states:
"In this context,it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals."We can plainly see that Cardinal Ratzinger, in obedience to the teaching of the Church and the Holy Father, states that one cannot isolate a particular element to the detriment of the whole - especially when one chooses to ignore that element which is fundamental and of primary importance - that element regarding the dignity and sanctity of life, the issue of opposing all laws that attack human life, particularly the life of the innocent.
But Mr. Townsend is not finished yet. By some stroke of luck, it seems, Archbishop Burke wrote something which conformed to Cardinal Ratzinger's thoughts:
Oddly, Burke's position does agree with part of Ratzinger's personal opinion, laid out in a memo to Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington in June.This is nothing more than an attack to cast doubts on the validity and authority of the Pastoral Letter and on the Archbishop.
It is also a veiled attack suggesting that Cardinal Ratzinger's June "private memo" was nothing more than personal opinion despite the fact that what was stated concerned principles of basic Catholic moral doctrine.
Be that as it may, Mr. Townsend, our new self appointed moral theologian, continues:
The fact remains, however, according to Burke's letter, that as long as the many specific conditions are met, and the voter has weighed the proportionate reasons, a Catholic can vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights.Contrary to what Mr. Townsend says, Archbishop Burke did not use the term "proportionate reason" anywhere in his Pastoral Letter. This may have been a deliberate act by Archbishop Burke to avoid having those, such as Mr. Townsend, from distorting the clear principles that he enumerated in his Letter. Further, the Archbishop is quite clear that other issues do not rise to the level of those matters which are intrinsically evil. Therefore, they cannot be used in an appeal to "proportionate reasons" to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, except in a very limited case - which does not exist in our current politcal situation.
Voters' proportionate reasons often turn out to be social issues important to traditional Catholic moral teaching — issues such as capital punishment, war, the environment and poverty. In his letter, Burke says these proportionate reasons are not as important as his priority reasons.
And again, the attack on the Archbishop by the use of the words >"his priority reasons" is disgraceful. It is also a distortion of truth and an injustice to the readers of the Post, Catholics in the Archdiocese and the Archbishop.
Archbishop Burke has given us the teaching of the Church, not "his priority reasons".
St. Louis Catholics should not be surprised by their new archbishop's focus on life issues.Perhaps, some are surprised that Archbishop Burke demonstrates a fidelity to the teachings of Church and to the Holy Father and that he wishes to impart the fullness of the Faith to the faithful? Many of us, however, are thankful and we give thanks to God daily that he is our Archbishop, teacher, and shepherd.
Many of us are grateful that we have a shepherd who is not afraid to give us the truth and guide us to a better understanding of that truth. Thankfully also, we do not have to rely on the Post-Dispatch for the truth. And Mr. Townsend should keep his day job - a moral theologian he's not.
The article is here.
Oct 3, 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time
From: 2 Timothy 1:6-8, 13-14
Response to Grace
-----------------
[6] Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; [7] God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.
St Paul, Herald of the Gospel
-----------------------------
[8] Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but take your share of suffering for the gospel in the power of God. [13] Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
********************************************
Commentary:
6. "The gift of G od" is the priestly character which Timothy received on the day of his ordination. St Paul is using very graphic and precise language: by the sacrament of Order a divine gift is conferred on the priest; it is like an ember which needs to be revived from time to time in order to make it glow and give forth the warmth it contains. St Thomas Aquinas comments that "the grace of God is like a fire which does not flow when it is covered by ashes; the same thing happens when grace is covered over in a person by sluggishness or natural fear" ("Commentary on 2 Tim, ad loc.").
The gifts which God confers on the priest "are not transitory or temporary in him, but stable and permanent, attached as they are to an indelible character, impressed on his soul, by which he is made a priest forever (cf. Ps 109:4), in the likeness of Him in whose priesthood he has been made to share" (Pius XI, "Ad Catholici Sacerdotii", 17).
"The laying on of my hands": see the note on 1 Tim 4:14.
7. The gift of God, received in the sacrament of Order by the laying on of hands, includes sanctifying grace and sacramental grace, and the actual graces needed for performing ministerial functions in a worthy manner. The Council of Trent uses this text (vv. 6-7) when it solemnly defines that Priestly Order is a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ (cf. "De Sacram. Ordinis", chap. 3).
The minister, then, must be courageous in performing his office: he should preach the truth unambiguously even if it clashes with the surroundings; he should do so with love, and be open to everyone despite their faults; with sobriety and moderation, always seeing the good of souls, not his own advantage. Since the days of the Fathers the Church has urged priests to develop these virtues: "Priests should be compassionate", St Polycarp warns; "they should show mercy to all; they should try to reclaim those who go astray, visit the sick, and care for the poor, the orphan and the widow. They should be concerned always to do what is honorable in the sight of God and men. They should avoid any show of anger, any partiality or trace of greed. They should not be over-ready to believe ill of anyone, not too severe in their censure, being well aware that we all owe the debt of sin" ("Letter to the Philippians", chap. 6).
13-14. In guarding what has been entrusted to him (cf. notes on 1 Tim 6:20 and 2 Tim 1:12), Timothy, like all the pastors of the Church, receives the supernatural help of the Holy Spirit. "Guiding the Churchin the way of all truth (cf. Jn 16:13) and unifying her in communion and in the works of the ministry, (the Spirit) bestows upon her varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her; and he adorns her with his fruits (cf. Eph 4:11-12; 1 Cor 12:4; Gal 5:22)" (Vatican II, "Lume n Gentium", 4).
The Holy Spirit has been with the Church since the day of Pentecost, ever-active in the sanctification of all believers. His action includes guaranteeing the faithful transmission of the entire body of teaching revealed by God, ensuring that it be unchanged in any way.
The First Vatican Council teaches that the Holy Spirit "was not promised to the successors of St. Peter so that they by their own revelation might make known some new teaching; he was promised so that by means of his help they might reverently guard and faithfully expound the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is, the deposit of faith" ("Pastor Aeternus", Chap. 4).
***********************************************
Source: "The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries". Biblical text taken from the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries made by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre, Spain. Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland.
Reprinted with permission from Four Courts Press and Scepter Publishers, the U.S. publisher.
Response to Grace
-----------------
[6] Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; [7] God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.
St Paul, Herald of the Gospel
-----------------------------
[8] Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but take your share of suffering for the gospel in the power of God. [13] Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
********************************************
Commentary:
6. "The gift of G od" is the priestly character which Timothy received on the day of his ordination. St Paul is using very graphic and precise language: by the sacrament of Order a divine gift is conferred on the priest; it is like an ember which needs to be revived from time to time in order to make it glow and give forth the warmth it contains. St Thomas Aquinas comments that "the grace of God is like a fire which does not flow when it is covered by ashes; the same thing happens when grace is covered over in a person by sluggishness or natural fear" ("Commentary on 2 Tim, ad loc.").
The gifts which God confers on the priest "are not transitory or temporary in him, but stable and permanent, attached as they are to an indelible character, impressed on his soul, by which he is made a priest forever (cf. Ps 109:4), in the likeness of Him in whose priesthood he has been made to share" (Pius XI, "Ad Catholici Sacerdotii", 17).
"The laying on of my hands": see the note on 1 Tim 4:14.
7. The gift of God, received in the sacrament of Order by the laying on of hands, includes sanctifying grace and sacramental grace, and the actual graces needed for performing ministerial functions in a worthy manner. The Council of Trent uses this text (vv. 6-7) when it solemnly defines that Priestly Order is a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ (cf. "De Sacram. Ordinis", chap. 3).
The minister, then, must be courageous in performing his office: he should preach the truth unambiguously even if it clashes with the surroundings; he should do so with love, and be open to everyone despite their faults; with sobriety and moderation, always seeing the good of souls, not his own advantage. Since the days of the Fathers the Church has urged priests to develop these virtues: "Priests should be compassionate", St Polycarp warns; "they should show mercy to all; they should try to reclaim those who go astray, visit the sick, and care for the poor, the orphan and the widow. They should be concerned always to do what is honorable in the sight of God and men. They should avoid any show of anger, any partiality or trace of greed. They should not be over-ready to believe ill of anyone, not too severe in their censure, being well aware that we all owe the debt of sin" ("Letter to the Philippians", chap. 6).
13-14. In guarding what has been entrusted to him (cf. notes on 1 Tim 6:20 and 2 Tim 1:12), Timothy, like all the pastors of the Church, receives the supernatural help of the Holy Spirit. "Guiding the Churchin the way of all truth (cf. Jn 16:13) and unifying her in communion and in the works of the ministry, (the Spirit) bestows upon her varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her; and he adorns her with his fruits (cf. Eph 4:11-12; 1 Cor 12:4; Gal 5:22)" (Vatican II, "Lume n Gentium", 4).
The Holy Spirit has been with the Church since the day of Pentecost, ever-active in the sanctification of all believers. His action includes guaranteeing the faithful transmission of the entire body of teaching revealed by God, ensuring that it be unchanged in any way.
The First Vatican Council teaches that the Holy Spirit "was not promised to the successors of St. Peter so that they by their own revelation might make known some new teaching; he was promised so that by means of his help they might reverently guard and faithfully expound the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is, the deposit of faith" ("Pastor Aeternus", Chap. 4).
***********************************************
Source: "The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries". Biblical text taken from the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries made by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre, Spain. Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland.
Reprinted with permission from Four Courts Press and Scepter Publishers, the U.S. publisher.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Extra Edition on KMOV TV (Ch 4) @ 6:30pm
Here are some of the subjects that will be featured at 6:30 this evening on "Extra Edition," a weekly half-hour news show produced by the Post-Dispatch and KMOV (Channel 4):
The Rev. Edward J. Richard, spokesman for St. Louis' Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke, discusses the archbishop's latest communication on voting and the abortion issue.
This would be a show worth watching. Father Richard will give us the Archbishop's perspective on yesterday's pastoral letter.
The Rev. Edward J. Richard, spokesman for St. Louis' Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke, discusses the archbishop's latest communication on voting and the abortion issue.
This would be a show worth watching. Father Richard will give us the Archbishop's perspective on yesterday's pastoral letter.
Oct 2, Memorial: The Guardian Angels
From: Matthew 18:1-5, 10
The "Little Ones" and the Kingdom. The Lost Sheep
--------------------------------------------------
[1] At that time, the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?" [2] And calling to Him a child, He put him in the midst of them, [3] and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. [4] Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.
[5] "Whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me.
[10] "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in Heaven their angels always behold the face of My Father who is in Heaven.
***********************************************************************
Commentary:
1-35. The teachings of Jesus recorded in chapter 18 of St. Matthew are often called the "discourse on the Church" or "ecclesiastical discourse" because they are a series of instructions on the way in which His Church is to be administered.
The first passage (Matthew 18:1-5), addressed to leaders, that is, the future hierarchy of the Church, warns them against natural tendencies to pride and ambition: even though they have positions of government, they must act with humility. In verses 6-10 Jesus emphasizes the fatherly care which pastors of the Church should have for the "little ones"--a term which covers everyone in need of special care for whatever reason (because they are recent converts, or are not well grounded in Church teaching, or are not yet adults, etc.)... God takes special care of the weak and will punish those who harm them.
Our Lord shows similar concern for those who are experiencing spiritual difficulties. Every effort, even an heroic effort, must be made to seek out the "lost sheep" (verses 12-14). If the Church in general and each Christian in particular should be concerned to spread the Gospel, all the more reason for them to try and see that those who already embraced the faith do not go astray...
Thus, the whole of Chapter 18, the "discourse of the Church", is a survey of the future history of the Church during its earthly stage, and a series of practical rules for conduct for Christians--a kind of complement to the Sermon on the Mount, (Chapters 5-7), which is a "magna carta" for the new Kingdom established by Christ.
1-6. Clearly the disciples still suffer from human ambition: they want to occupy key positions when Jesus comes to establish the Kingdom on earth (cf. Acts 1:6). To correct their pride, our Lord shows them a child and tells them that if they want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they must decide to be like children: children are incapable of hating anyone and are totally innocent of vice, particularly of pride, the worst vice of all. They are simple and full of trust.
Humility is one of the main pillars of the Christian life. "If you ask me", St. Augustine says, "what is the essential thing in the religion and discipline of Jesus Christ, I shall reply: first humility, second humility and third humility" ("Letter 118").
3-4. Applying these words to our Lord's virtues, Fray Luis de Granada makes the point that humility is superior to virginity: "If you cannot imitate the virginity of the humble, then imitate the humility of the virgin. Virginity is praiseworthy, but humility is more necessary. The former is recommended to us, the latter is an obligation for us; to the former we are invited, to the latter we are obliged [...]. And so we see that the former is celebrated as voluntary sacrifice, the latter required as an obligatory sacrifice. Lastly, you can be saved without virginity, but not without humility" ("Summa De La Vida Cristiana", Book 3, Part 2, Chapter 10).
5. Receiving a child in Jesus' name is the same as receiving Jesus Himself. Because children reflect the innocence, purity, simplicity and tenderness of our Lord, "In children and in the sick a soul in love sees Him" ([St] J. Escriva, "The Way", 419).
10. Jesus warns that giving scandal to little children is a very serious matter, for they have angels who guard them, who will plead a case before God against those who led them to commit sin.
In this context He speaks of children having guardian angels. However, everyone, adult or child, has a guardian angel. "By God's providence angels have been entrusted with the office of guarding the human race and of accompanying every human being so as to preserve him from any serious dangers [...]. Our Heavenly Father has placed over each of us an angel under whose protection and vigilance we are" ("St. Pius V Catechism", IV, 9, 4).
This means that we should have a trusting relationship with our guardian angel. "Have confidence in your guardian Angel. Treat him as a lifelong friend--that is what he is--and he will render you a thousand services in the ordinary affairs of each day" ([St] J. Escriva, "The Way", 562).
***********************************************************************
Source: "The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries". Biblical text taken from the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries made by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre, Spain. Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland.
Reprinted with permission from Four Courts Press and Scepter Publishers, the U.S. publisher.
The "Little Ones" and the Kingdom. The Lost Sheep
--------------------------------------------------
[1] At that time, the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?" [2] And calling to Him a child, He put him in the midst of them, [3] and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. [4] Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.
[5] "Whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me.
[10] "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in Heaven their angels always behold the face of My Father who is in Heaven.
***********************************************************************
Commentary:
1-35. The teachings of Jesus recorded in chapter 18 of St. Matthew are often called the "discourse on the Church" or "ecclesiastical discourse" because they are a series of instructions on the way in which His Church is to be administered.
The first passage (Matthew 18:1-5), addressed to leaders, that is, the future hierarchy of the Church, warns them against natural tendencies to pride and ambition: even though they have positions of government, they must act with humility. In verses 6-10 Jesus emphasizes the fatherly care which pastors of the Church should have for the "little ones"--a term which covers everyone in need of special care for whatever reason (because they are recent converts, or are not well grounded in Church teaching, or are not yet adults, etc.)... God takes special care of the weak and will punish those who harm them.
Our Lord shows similar concern for those who are experiencing spiritual difficulties. Every effort, even an heroic effort, must be made to seek out the "lost sheep" (verses 12-14). If the Church in general and each Christian in particular should be concerned to spread the Gospel, all the more reason for them to try and see that those who already embraced the faith do not go astray...
Thus, the whole of Chapter 18, the "discourse of the Church", is a survey of the future history of the Church during its earthly stage, and a series of practical rules for conduct for Christians--a kind of complement to the Sermon on the Mount, (Chapters 5-7), which is a "magna carta" for the new Kingdom established by Christ.
1-6. Clearly the disciples still suffer from human ambition: they want to occupy key positions when Jesus comes to establish the Kingdom on earth (cf. Acts 1:6). To correct their pride, our Lord shows them a child and tells them that if they want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they must decide to be like children: children are incapable of hating anyone and are totally innocent of vice, particularly of pride, the worst vice of all. They are simple and full of trust.
Humility is one of the main pillars of the Christian life. "If you ask me", St. Augustine says, "what is the essential thing in the religion and discipline of Jesus Christ, I shall reply: first humility, second humility and third humility" ("Letter 118").
3-4. Applying these words to our Lord's virtues, Fray Luis de Granada makes the point that humility is superior to virginity: "If you cannot imitate the virginity of the humble, then imitate the humility of the virgin. Virginity is praiseworthy, but humility is more necessary. The former is recommended to us, the latter is an obligation for us; to the former we are invited, to the latter we are obliged [...]. And so we see that the former is celebrated as voluntary sacrifice, the latter required as an obligatory sacrifice. Lastly, you can be saved without virginity, but not without humility" ("Summa De La Vida Cristiana", Book 3, Part 2, Chapter 10).
5. Receiving a child in Jesus' name is the same as receiving Jesus Himself. Because children reflect the innocence, purity, simplicity and tenderness of our Lord, "In children and in the sick a soul in love sees Him" ([St] J. Escriva, "The Way", 419).
10. Jesus warns that giving scandal to little children is a very serious matter, for they have angels who guard them, who will plead a case before God against those who led them to commit sin.
In this context He speaks of children having guardian angels. However, everyone, adult or child, has a guardian angel. "By God's providence angels have been entrusted with the office of guarding the human race and of accompanying every human being so as to preserve him from any serious dangers [...]. Our Heavenly Father has placed over each of us an angel under whose protection and vigilance we are" ("St. Pius V Catechism", IV, 9, 4).
This means that we should have a trusting relationship with our guardian angel. "Have confidence in your guardian Angel. Treat him as a lifelong friend--that is what he is--and he will render you a thousand services in the ordinary affairs of each day" ([St] J. Escriva, "The Way", 562).
***********************************************************************
Source: "The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries". Biblical text taken from the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries made by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre, Spain. Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland.
Reprinted with permission from Four Courts Press and Scepter Publishers, the U.S. publisher.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Another example of utter idiocy
Roosevelt Quote in Courthouse to Be Covered
RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) - A Theodore Roosevelt quote displayed on the wall of a courthouse will be covered up after critics complained the comment about Christianity violated the separation of church and state.Article here.
Roosevelt's remark that "the true Christian is the true citizen" was part of a longer address the president gave at a YMCA convention more than a century ago.
The Anti-Defamation League sent a letter to the court in July asking that the quote be covered because it could be interpreted as a direct "endorsement of Christian faith."
Reuters: Jews Upset as Pope to Beatify Mel Gibson's 'Muse'
Never one to shrink from criticism, Pope John Paul is again putting controversial figures on the road to sainthood, including Austria's last emperor and a mystic nun who inspired Mel Gibson's film on Christ's passion.I suppose we will see a resurgence of all the violence that occurred after people saw "The Passion"...? How is it possible that some people can be so...preposterous?
Jewish groups condemned the film, saying it would spur new forms of visceral anti-Semitism. They now fear that moving [Anne Catherine]Emmerick closer to the glories of the altars, as sainthood is known, will only make matters worse.
Article here.
Post Dispatch weighs in on Abp. Burke's Pastoral Letter
Earlier this summer, Burke told news outlets it was a grave sin for Catholics to vote for a politician who supports abortion rights. Last month, he seemed to soften that stance by saying that only if a Catholic were to vote for a politican who supports abortion rights because of that politician's position on the issue, would the voter be committing be a grave sin.Unfortunately, the Post determined and opined that Archbishop Burke was softening his stance. In fact, he was not. The failure of the Post to understand the theological principles and concepts in previous conversations with the Archbishop are clarified in today's Letter.
In the 8,600-word letter, Burke further explained the statements he made last month, but in the following paragraph, he seemed to backtrack, writing, "...there is no element of the common good, no morally good practice, that a candidate may promote and to which a voter may be dedicated, which could justify voting for a candidate who also endorses and supports the deliberate killing of the innocent, abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia, human cloning or the recognition of a same-sex relationship as legal marriage. These elements are so fundamental to the common good that they cannot be subordinated to any other cause, no matter how good." [my emphasis]As much as one may wish to view this as "backtracking", it is not. This is precisely what Archbishop Burke has consistently stated. But the Post, which appears to be dissatisfied with the clear, concise and unambiguous teaching of the Church as presented by the Archbishop, is, nonetheless, quick to "qualify" or temper the truth contained in the Pastoral Letter:
Using complicated Catholic moral teaching, Burke explained the way in which a Catholic voter must go about choosing a candidate for public office by comparing the candidate's positions to Catholic tradition.While there are complicated principles of Catholic moral teaching reflected in the Letter, the Archbishop simplifies it - he brings it to a level for understanding by the ordinary layman who might not have a firm grasp of these principles.
The Archbishop should be praised and thanked for this Letter which is aimed at teaching the faithful of the archdiocese and others who would read it. Furthering the common good by responsible citizenship is something which one would think the Post Dispatch would embrace.
Perhaps, I am reading the Post's articles with jaundiced eyes and see things which are not really there. Experience has taught me, however, to be discerning when reading secular sources like this.
Read it yourself here.
Summary Points of the Pastoral Letter
The Pastoral Letter of Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke
ON OUR CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMMON GOOD
1. The Archbishop is impelled to speak to Catholics and all people of good will in the metropolitan community on Our Civic Responsibility for the Common Good on account of his responsibility as a Bishop to teach clearly the moral law.
2. Scripture teaches definitively that we are our “brother’s keeper,” good Samaritans charged to exercise our civic responsibility to promote the common good. Above all, we must promote and protect the inviolable dignity of all human life.
We are called to be “Christians Without Borders,” without boundaries to our love of neighbor.
3. Our civic responsibility to promote the common good is informed by our life in Christ, which unites us in a bond of charity.
4. As citizens of Heaven and earth we are bound by the moral law to act with respect for the rights of others and to promote the common good.
5. The right to act in accord with conscience presupposes that it is informed with the truth God has inscribed in our hearts and revealed in Sacred Scripture. Conscience is the voice of God within us, assisting us to choose good and to avoid evil, in accord with God’s law.
6. We are morally bound in conscience to choose government leaders who will serve the common good. The first priority of the common good is the protection of human life, the basis of all other social conditions.
There can never be justification for directly and deliberately taking innocent human life: abortion, destruction of human embryos, euthanasia, human cloning.
Legal recognition of same-sex relationships undermines the truth about marriage and sanctions gravely immoral acts.
For the sake of the common good we must safeguard the good of human life and the good of marriage and family life.
The death penalty and war are different from procured abortion and same-sex “marriage”, since these latter acts are intrinsically evil and therefore can never be justified. Although war and capital punishment can rarely be justified, they are not intrinsically evil.
7. To insure the common good Catholics have a responsibility to vote for a worthy candidate, because the welfare of the community depends upon the persons elected and appointed to office.
8. It is never right to vote for a candidate in order to promote immoral practices; this is “formal cooperation” in evil.
In some circumstances it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices. This is called “material cooperation” and is permissible under certain conditions and when it is impossible to avoid all cooperation with evil, as may well be true in selecting a candidate for public office.
There is no element of the common good that could justify voting for a candidate who also endorses, without restriction or limitation, the deliberate killing of the innocent, abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia, human cloning, or same-sex marriage.
9. If a candidate supports abortion in a limited number of cases, but is opposed otherwise, Catholics may vote for this person. This is not a question of choosing a lesser evil but of limiting all the evil one is able to limit at the time.
10. As Catholics we cannot remain silent. We have a serious obligation to bring the moral law to bear upon our life in society, so that the good of all will be served.
The Pastoral Letter and these summary points make it clear that those who have attempted to justify various peace and justice issues as having equal weight or have even attempted to justify them to the exclusion of the primary issues of abortion and other intrinsic evils, are, in fact, in serious error.
The Archbishop's unambiguous enunciation of our obligations as Catholics is clear.
Archbishop Burke: "On Our Civic Responsibility for the Common Good"
Archbishop Burke's Pastoral Letter to the faithful of the Archdiocese of St. Louis has been completed. It is a teaching document which is much welcomed in these days of confusion and, at times, even deliberate misinterpretation of Church teachings.
The Pastoral Letter is here.
The Pastoral Letter is here.
Archbishop Burke addresses voting in letter
Catholics need to vote but should do so in accordance with the moral teachings of the Church, Archbishop Raymond Burke stated in a pastoral letter published this week.Article.
Archbishop Burke said the pastoral letter affirmed and further clarified what he said earlier this summer about the sinfulness of a Catholic voting deliberately for a politician advocating abortion, as well as euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning and same-sex marriage.
"These elements are so fundamental to the common good that they cannot be subordinated to any other cause, no matter how good," the archbishop wrote.
...the Archbishop stated, "... there is no element of the common good, no morally good practice, that a candidate may promote and to which a voter may be dedicated, which could justify voting for a candidate who also endorses and supports the deliberate killing of the innocent, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, human cloning or the recognition of a same-sex relationship as legal marriage."
Mandatum Secrecy Series — Final
Those who are contemplating a Catholic college or university to which to send your children or attend oneself should give preference, it seems to me, to those that are open to fulfilling both canonical requirements and the affirmation of the mandate as expressed in Ex Corde Ecclesiae.
It seems foolish to spend one's life trying to impart the faith to one's children only to have it systematically destroyed by professors or teachers who are more concerned with their "truth" rather than the truth as held by the Church.
It seems foolish to spend one's life trying to impart the faith to one's children only to have it systematically destroyed by professors or teachers who are more concerned with their "truth" rather than the truth as held by the Church.
[S]ince 1983, canon law has required that a theologian teaching in any university receive a mandatum from the local bishop. The requirement was highlighted in a footnote in Ex Corde Ecclesiae.National Catholic Register article on the progress (or lack of progress) of implementing the mandatum is here.
Canon 812 reads: “It is necessary that those who teach theological disciplines in any institute of higher studies have a mandatum from the competent ecclesiastical authority.”
Catholic bishop tackles communion issue
In a rare interview with a small group of print reporters, Bishop Peter Jugis said yesterday that he stands by the two-page statement [stating that Catholic politicians who support abortion should be denied communion] issued in August, titled "Worthy to Receive the Lamb."Article here.
"The motivation was not political," Jugis said. "The motivation was the sacramental discipline of the church."
Davenport Diocese contemplates bankruptcy over sex abuse suits
The Catholic Diocese of Davenport might file for bankruptcy because it does not have adequate financial resources to compensate victims of child sexual abuse by priests, Bishop William Franklin said Wednesday.More consequences resulting from superiors failing to act in accord with God's law and objective truth, for failing to adequately screen sexual degenerates from the priesthood - and this is nothing compared to the spiritual and emotional harm done to victims and to the Church. How very sad. Pray for our bishops and priests. Offer reparations for those who are unable or unwilling to do so themselves.
“But you must know that Chapter 11 bankruptcy may be the only way to fairly and honorably compensate all victims — those who have already come forward and those who have not yet done so,” he said from the pulpit.
Article.
A common misunderstanding — and how to minimize it
It’s a question people have asked me since my earliest days as a priest. In its latest form, it came to me this way. “I am a convert. When my parents come for a visit they always attend Mass with me. Why can’t they and other non-Catholics receive holy Communion? It seems rude to me to exclude them. We wouldn’t invite them to Thanksgiving at our home and then say that they couldn’t sit down and eat. Why is it different with holy Communion?”Bishop Doran answers the question here.
It’s a good question, one that comes from the heart of a good and caring Catholic. It deserves a good, thoughtful and caring answer. Let me try to provide that.
Oct 1, Memorial: St. Therese of the Child Jesus, Virgin & Doctor of the Church
From: Luke 10:13-16
Jesus Condemns Cities For Their Unbelief
----------------------------------------
(Jesus said,) [13] "Woe to you, Chorazin! woe to you, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. [14] But it shall be more tolerable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. [15] And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to Heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades.
[16] "He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me."
************************************************
Commentary:
16. On the evening of the day of His resurrection, our Lord entrusts His Apostles with the mission received from the Father, endowing them with powers similar to His own (John 20:21). Some days later He will confer on Peter the primacy He had already promised him (John 21:15-17). The Pope is the successor of Peter, and the bishops the successor of the Apostles (cf. "Lumen Gentium", 20). Therefore, "Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth [...]. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak "ex cathedra" (Vatican II, "Lumen Gentium", 25).
**************************************************
Source: "The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries". Biblical text taken from the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries made by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre, Spain. Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland.
Reprinted with permission from Four Courts Press and Scepter Publishers, the U.S. publisher
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Kerry Democrats target Missouri religious voters
Rev. David Keyes is the Kerry-Edwards election campaign's new (and first) religious outreach coordinator for Missouri, and on Monday afternoon he sat at a table at the campaign's St. Louis storefront headquarters in a Shrewsbury strip mall with six religious leaders, lay and ordained.Missouri women, especially, it seems are being targeted...
But in his zeal to include speakers of varying calibrations of faiths, denominations, genders, races and ages, Keyes had overlooked one of the most visible: Protestant women.
"Give me a minute," said Rabbi Jeffrey Stiffman, recently retired from Congregation Shaare Emeth, as he whipped out his cell phone and began dialing. The Rev. Bill Hutchison, a retired Catholic priest, borrowed a cell phone and did the same. In no time, the group had two Protestant women lined up to speak.
He [Keyes] then told the audience that Kerry is a religious man. "I know that he is a man of deep faith. He is a devout Catholic who is reverent about attending Mass. That's a good word for John, and you should take that word back with you when you talk about him: reverent," he said.He has a reverence for life? It's amazing that anyone could buy this nonsense - one look at his voting record on abortion related issues completely refutes statements such as the one above.
"He has a reverence for God, he has a reverence for the Church, he has a reverence for the country, and for the traditions that made this country great. He has a reverence for human life." The audience erupted in applause.
Article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)