FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: What the Hell's wrong with the USCCB?: USCCB supports Kagan
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Well, it is always nice to pray for someone, but what prompted this?  Which statement is in error:
1.  The radical left has infiltrated the Church.
2.  There is a battle within the Church.
3.  The battle is between progressives and serious Catholics.
4.  Many bishops are blind to this.
5.  It is comical that a Mormon can see this, but many bishops are in the dark.

Let us know which one of these statements is wrong.  I guess you could substitute "sad" for "comical".
(05-20-2010, 12:05 AM)Fractus Wrote: [ -> ]Well, this is a good thing!

U.S. Bishops Withdraw from Pro-Abortion, Homosexualist Civil Rights Coalition

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has pulled out of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition that lobbies against pro-life and pro-family legislation and boasts top pro-abortion and homosexualist groups among its members.


http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10051910.html

The USCCB shouldn't have been part of this in the first place (the USCCB should be dismantled, anyhow).  It's too little and too late for any accolades, hand clapping and pats on the back from me for the USCCB.
(05-20-2010, 12:05 AM)Fractus Wrote: [ -> ]Well, this is a good thing!

U.S. Bishops Withdraw from Pro-Abortion, Homosexualist Civil Rights Coalition

It is a good thing, but don't assume it means much, because there are thousands of such connections.  Also, another attribute of these community organizing groups is that they change names and split and reorganize under other names more often than protestant denominations.  The money that was going to this one will go somewhere else, and it'll find its way to similar organizations eventually, because no one can keep track of them all (assuming they want to).

As Iuvenalis said, we don't need national councils.  Somehow we got by without one until 1966.  Its original purpose was simply to act as an organizing body for the bishops, helping them to communicate and work together.  It was never supposed to become a spokesman for the Church, or to become a clearinghouse for Catholic charity.  Things really went off the rail when the bishops' council was combined with a parallel council designed to organize the laity in the mid-60s, and the laity simply took over and started issuing statements in the bishops' name.  It might be fine if it went back to its original purpose, but then you run into the same argument as with the Novus Ordo and everything else that happened since VII: is it be better to fix it or to discard it as a well-intentioned flop and start over?  When an organization has grown so large and gotten so far from its intended purpose, it may be impossible to reform it usefully.
(05-20-2010, 08:46 AM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, it is always nice to pray for someone, but what prompted this?  Which statement is in error:
1.  The radical left has infiltrated the Church.
2.  There is a battle within the Church.
3.  The battle is between progressives and serious Catholics.
4.  Many bishops are blind to this.
5.  It is comical that a Mormon can see this, but many bishops are in the dark.

Let us know which one of these statements is wrong.  I guess you could substitute "sad" for "comical".

Yes, I'm trying to figure out what made Magnificat want to say "I'm going to pray for you, probably more then once."  Obviously there is nothing wrong with prayer and that was very charitable on her part, but why in response to Petertherock's Glenn Beck comments?????

I love Glenn Beck's politics and obviously agree with him on many issues, but what exactly made him convert from Catholicism to Mormonism?? Just because his wife was mormon or does it lie deeper then that! I  just don't understand it.
Maybe things like the USCCB entered into Glen Beck's decision to change church affiliation!  gg
(05-20-2010, 08:40 AM)Magnificat Wrote: [ -> ]I'm going to pray for you, probably more than once.   :pray2:

:angry:

This kind of post is really deeply disordered -- to take something Christian like prayer for another, the epitome of Christlike charity, and turn it into an insult, a backhanded attack, is so  depraved.

I absolutely hate this kind of post, to bring the holy institution of prayer, our time with God into it....

I'd just as soon you'd have called him names without defiling a Christian practice for your passive-aggressive barb.
(05-20-2010, 11:59 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-20-2010, 08:40 AM)Magnificat Wrote: [ -> ]I'm going to pray for you, probably more than once.   :pray2:

:angry:

This kind of post is really deeply disordered -- to take something Christian like prayer for another, the epitome of Christlike charity, and turn it into an insult, a backhanded attack, is so  depraved.

I absolutely hate this kind of post, to bring the holy institution of prayer, our time with God into it....

I'd just as soon you'd have called him names without defiling a Christian practice for your passive-aggressive barb.

So you think it's wrong to pray for someone whose beliefs about his own Church are filtered through a media celebrity?    That's tragic.  Yes, there is a crisis in the Church but there's something fundamentally wrong with letting Glenn Beck be your apologist.    Dawkins doesn't like the Church either.  Will it be him next?  Is Glenn Beck interested in saving The Church?  Is Glenn Beck interested in preserving Tradition? Does he love The Church?  Where's he coming from with his critique?  What is his agenda?  Is it political, financial, or religious?  Or is he just interested in orchestrating frustration and discontent where ever he finds it?  It's one thing to critique modernism, to question the direction that a post-Vatican II Church has taken, but we must at all times remember to do it within our own framework and with great care and reverence.  If this makes me a bad person in your estimation, then so be it.  I'm here about The Church, that's my primary and fundamental concern. 
You really need to watch Beck. No, his job isn't saving the Church, Catholic or Mormon, he is trying to save the country. He does realize that the Churches play an important role in keeping this country strong. His agenda is that once the radical left destroys the freedom of religion in this country and freedom of political speech (which the Catholic Church is participating in the elimination of our free speech and freedom of religion) then we lose the country and we no longer have the Churches because they become part of the government.

I'm not trying to get into evaluating Glenn Beck at all, however there is a fallacy of logic at play here. Just because a person (any person, I'm not focusing on Beck) has an agenda, has been proven wrong before, is an idiot, etc. does not mean that every statement that they make is false.

As an example, let's say I think Al Gore is completely wrong on global warming and that he is pushing the climate change agenda whenever he can. If I'm mowing the lawn outside sweating my butt off in 95 degree heat and he walks by and says "Gee, it sure is hot today." I certainly could not object. I might think he is being snarky or attempting to use this example to prove something else, but on it's face his statement is factual and cannot be dismissed based upon his stance on climate.

That having been said, a Catholic should probably not look to base his faith on the words of a Mormon. I would submit that Petertherock was probably not looking to Glenn Beck for spiritual guidance, but instead merely quoting something that he said. Something that I'm guessing many people on this forum would agree with.
(05-20-2010, 01:33 AM)SoCalLocal Wrote: [ -> ]Aside from settling on things like Holy Days of Obligation, I don't recall seeing anything much in church documents that is supposed to be done by national conferences. They have no authority over individual Bishops.     


Case in point: January 1 is no longer a HDO in the L.A. Archdiocese, per Cardinal Mahony.  It hasn't been one for several years... and I believe most, if not all, of California's other dioceses are in lockstep with the Cardinal on this now.



LosAngelesArchdioceseWebsite Wrote:In the dioceses of the California province (including the Archdiocese of Los Angeles), the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God (January 1) is not celebrated as a holy day of obligation.

Source:  http://www.archdiocese.la/prayer/worship...gical.html


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5