The Bishop of Scranton resigned??
#11
(09-02-2009, 08:59 AM)Rosarium Wrote: There are other problems here not really related to the Church, but the bishop's responsibility nonetheless. I know very little, but I would think the problems come from these administrative areas, rather than the spiritual ones.

I only saw him once, when I stayed after mass to wait for the transference of the Blessed Sacrament to the parish I attend (a church was closed) and it was the first time since I have been unable to attend the TLM that I heard Latin sung in church.

Could it be related to the closing of many of the local parishes?
Reply
#12
(09-02-2009, 12:23 PM)franklinf Wrote: Could it be related to the closing of many of the local parishes?

It could, but there is also the Catholic school issue.
Reply
#13
the whole SSJ scandal (was that one his watch?) couldn't have helped either.
Reply
#14
(09-02-2009, 12:47 PM)mom Wrote: the whole SSJ scandal (was that one his watch?) couldn't have helped either.

What was that?
Reply
#15
Hey Rosarium, can you move to LA and get Mahoney to resign?
Reply
#16
(09-02-2009, 01:29 PM)Iuvenalis Wrote: Hey Rosarium, can you move to LA and get Mahoney to resign?

It is not for me to alter God's plans.
Reply
#17
(09-02-2009, 12:12 PM)glgas Wrote: You are right that sins are not equal, but to put the mortal human life as the only non negotiable value is certainly not Christian thing. We Christians firmly belive that the highest value is God, and the mortal human life is preceded by the value of the families, nations, the whole world and the Church.

I agree it is not the only non negotiable value, but it is certainly one of the them, to the exclusion of political positions on issues implied to be "equal" in the voting guides.


(09-02-2009, 12:12 PM)glgas Wrote: The teaching of the USCCB not opposed by the Holy See is certainly not dishonest.


What I believe is dishonest is, not the teaching itself, but the presentation of certain of the teachings as the moral/Magisterial equivalent of Church teachings regarding activities that are intrinsically evil.  It is objectively misleading, and I believe intentionally so, since this has been raised to the bishops' conference before, and they still insist.  Apparently, as you point out, some of the bishops themselves raised this concern.


(09-02-2009, 12:12 PM)glgas Wrote: From the past 40 years democrats were in power only for 12 years, when Bush left the office 7 out of 9 supreme court judges were appointed by republicans. Neither the majorities in the Congress were mostly democrats. What could someone with sound mid expect related to the abortion issue from the republicans if the did nothing or next to nothing in the past 40 years? If nothing, they why is it political issue? In your moral theology the lip service is honored not the works?

You must ask the question: what the pro lifers gained, and what the nation lost by electing the republicans for their pro life lip service in 2000? How many aborted lives were saved at the cost of $5 trillion spent mostly on unjust war killing innocent human beings? How can you support a politician who is against to give yearly $2 billion for universal vaccinations and thus save at leats 10% of the 24 million children worldwide who die due to the lack of vaccination?

What positive events happened toward your issues, and how does it balances the damage of yearly at least $160 billion additional national gift to the usurers. Why the lip service and empty promises is your issue, and why not the reality, to diminish the number of abortions?

Here's where you really lose me.  I didn't raise this in political, Republican vs Democrat, terms.  What I am saying applies to pro abortion politicians of whatever party and whatever religion -- and both parties have them.  It really isn't an issue of party, though it's clear that one party tends to be much more prolife than the other -- it's in the Rep platform; securing the right to abort is in the Dem platform.

Here's where your argument breaks down.  When you talk about vaccinations, the war, etc., as though liberals are the "catholic-approved" politicians.......When we're dealing with an intrinsically evil issue -- abortion, eg -- we know where you stand vis a vis Church teaching: if you favor abortion, you're out.  If you don't, you're in.  But when you talk about prudential issues, a politician is not in opposition to Church teaching unless he is clearly beyond that prudential range.  I can say I want to help kids get vaccinations, without endorsing a massive federal program to try to provide it, and STILL BE consistent with Church teaching.  The pro aborts have no such equivalence on their issue.  So you cannot accuse people who oppose massive welfare programs, who supported the war on terror, etc., of being the moral equivalent of people who fund and support abortion; they are NOT the same in the eyes of the Church. 

(As to your implication of the overall equivalence of the political parties, it's not really relevant to my point, but I have posted many times on this issue. 

First, your facts are not completely accurate.  While Dems have had the White House for a small part of the last 40 years, Republicans held both Houses of Congress only 12 years since 1954, and that's where the laws get passed.  Also, having a majority in the Senate (which the Reps had about 18 out of the last 40 years) is not tantamount to having control to do your will since Senate rules involving cloture require 60 votes in favor of cutting off debate before a party can run the show without fear of a delaying filibuster.  Republicans NEVER had 60 votes in the Senate, so always had Democrats preventing them from running things without filibuster.  Third, while Republican achievements in these areas are less than you and I would hope, Republican have nominated federal judges that are more prolfe than Democrat nominees. The easiest way to prove this, is to look at the Supreme Court, the court which, under our system, has the most latitude to change the law re abortion.   

FACT:  In every abortion case since the Supreme Court decision in Roe, every vote to limit the constitutional right to an abortion has come from a Republican nominee, with the exception of John Kennedy nominee Byron White, who voted with the Republican appointees. 

FACT:  Republican nominees Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Rhenquist, and Kennedy (often), all voted to restrict the right.  White was the only Democrat nominee to ever do so. 

FACT:  When the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial birth abortion, it was Republican nominees who did so.  ALL FIVE VOTES in favor of protecting the unborn came from Republican nominees.

FACT:  While the Court does not have sufficient votes to uphold laws to outlaw abortion, the four justices who would vote so, are Repubican appointees.  No Democrat nominee would so vote. 

FACT:  Depending on the abortion or abortion-related issue before the Court (partial birth, parental notice, use of facilities, protester rights), the prolife view has a majority.  All five votes of this majority are Republican appointees. 

Morover, Democrats oppose Republican judicial nominees BECAUSE of their anti abortion judicial philosophy.  This fact is front and center in every supreme court fight and in every confirmation fight over prominent lower court nominees.  The lower court decisions restricting abortion come from Republican appointees and not Democrat nominees.  Pro abortion groups argue and smear Republican judicial nominees.

Your argument seems to be that because the Republicans couldn't/didn't confirm ENOUGH justices to strike down abortion, they are the same as the Democrats who have failed to nominate ANY AT ALL.  This is unjust.  And it ignores that pro life nominees rarely get much support from Democrat senators.

As a party, the Republicans are pretty consistent on judges and abortion funding(they oppose it) and the abortion foreign policy (Mexico City eg), and it's unfair to treat those actions as either irrelevant or nonexistant.  So I don't think one can credibly argue that Republicans have done little or nothing, or haven't at least tried to do much, and fairness requires we acknowledge the good things they've done in this regard.  And more to point, it's clear that most Democrats fought the Reps on these issues [i]every step of the way
.[/i])

(09-02-2009, 12:12 PM)glgas Wrote: The abortion is sin, grave sin, a menace for the society. I honor highly any pro lifer who helps mother to keep their children by advice and by helping to resolve their problems.


We agree here; I really honor genuine pro life Democrats who are essentially ignored in their own party. 

Didn't mean to run on so long on the judge point, but I had the stuff from before, and thought it was worth posting, since I do think it is an unfair charge that should be addressed.

Reply
#18
(09-02-2009, 12:47 PM)mom Wrote: the whole SSJ scandal (was that one his watch?) couldn't have helped either.

Was that the sex scandal involving the 'traditional' boys academy?  I think that was before him (he's only been there since 2003).
Reply
#19
(09-02-2009, 05:51 PM)MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote:
(09-02-2009, 12:47 PM)mom Wrote: the whole SSJ scandal (was that one his watch?) couldn't have helped either.

Was that the sex scandal involving the 'traditional' boys academy?  I think that was before him (he's only been there since 2003).

Oh, that was the Society of St. John, who was there by the permission of the FSSP. It wasn't really the Bishop's problem (whoever it was, Timlin, probably).
Reply
#20
(09-02-2009, 12:35 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(09-02-2009, 12:23 PM)franklinf Wrote: Could it be related to the closing of many of the local parishes?

It could, but there is also the Catholic school issue.

Whats that?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)